Jump to content

Why don't teams use this TSB formation anymore?


Recommended Posts

A lot of the formations that are used in TSB are still used in real life as well (although the under center formations are slowly going away).

 

However, I have never seen this particular one, where the QB is under center and the backs are split behind him, used in a real life game before (started watching in 2009). So could anyone explain why it went away while the others stayed?

 

125idq.jpg

Edited by PockyCandy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wonder this.  I think about it all the time.  This set was used in the 90s by winning teams (dallas cowboys, favre packers, etc IIRC).  But in the 00's, I think Roger Goodell secretly outlawed it.  Watching those 70s/80s highlights you see it all the freaking time.

 

this was a key set for lots of offenses.  especially west coast - 49ers.  also, in highschool football where you sometimes have a couple of relatively fast/agressive RBs, this formation is insane if the offense gets to crossing and blasting and misdirection.

 

I think it's not used because these OCs are stupid these days.  guys like jason garrett that runs shotgun 60 times a game, letting romo throw 50 times a game, all for a pretty/flashing/high-stat losing effort.

Edited by buck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attribute it to the death of the fullback being used as a runner and the fullback being used scarcely even as a blocker.  Teams are defaulting more to using an extra tight end for blocking and therefore using variations of the broken I or the TE as an H-back rather than rostering a FB.

 

To Buck's point, teams are using single and no back sets more than ever. I don't know that it's a team's decision for gaudy numbers rather than teams seeing more opportunity in taking advantage of the continuously more insane rules preventing DBs to play actual pass defense. I guess I think it's moreso the NFLs conscious decision to make the rules help generate ridiculous passing stats rather than to OC's being stupid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lamefest said:

I attribute it to the death of the fullback being used as a runner and the fullback being used scarcely even as a blocker.  Teams are defaulting more to using an extra tight end for blocking and therefore using variations of the broken I or the TE as an H-back rather than rostering a FB.

 

To Buck's point, teams are using single and no back sets more than ever. I don't know that it's a team's decision for gaudy numbers rather than teams seeing more opportunity in taking advantage of the continuously more insane rules preventing DBs to play actual pass defense. I guess I think it's moreso the NFLs conscious decision to make the rules help generate ridiculous passing stats rather than to OC's being stupid. 

 

that is a sensible and politically correct response.  but I don't give all these shitty losing teams more credit than they deserve.  it's funny that 2/3 of nfl teams can't get a QB to run an offense (no back, shotgun, read, whatever retarded modern offense garbage they've come up with) worth a darn, as if they can't get enough running backs and a decent system to run a simple pro set.  I don't buy it, dude.  need to go back to the basics, sometimes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, buck said:

I don't buy it, dude.  need to go back to the basics, sometimes.  

I generally agree with you. Teams are a little caught up in generating big stats to generate marketing dollars. It's still a copy cat league and things are cyclical (when the rules stay the same). As the teams start stocking their defenses with coverage LBs and more CBs than Safeties, the smart teams will start implementing more power offenses again....that is unless the NFL creates even more WR friendly rules to prevent this....which they will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I never really thought of pro set as a "power" formation, although it can be if running blasts and sweeps.  isn't the pro set the main set of West Coast?

I just think there's so much misdirection possible from the pro set formation - a good base to build a ton of plays that all initially "look the same" but have many tricky variants.

 

I really don't understand what pass happy has to do with it.  did joe montana do all his damage from a spread?  no, they had 1 RB, 1 FB, 2 WR, and a TE.

 

just because someone has a job as an OC in the NFL doesn't mean they know what they're doing and that there's not much better ways to move the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found this another message board that offers some ideas...

 

"One of the big reasons that Walsh loved the traditional pro set formation - it brought the RBs closer to the edge of the formation to give them a "head start" into their flat routes as well as the Texas routes (HB circle). (The other reason was pass protection and blitz pickup). The spit backfield gave the RBs an advantage, via formation, over the slower, run stopping LBs of the 80's. The reason why teams have pretty much phased out the pro set formation is because of evolution - adaptation.

 

About two decades ago when the LB position started to catch up to the RB position in terms of athleticism, it made less and less sense to split the backfield (pro set) for this advantage. Nowadays, where LBs are just as fast if not faster than RBs, it began to make more sense to line up the RB in the slot or remove the FB entirely and put in a slot WR. As far as route combinations, the slot WR is just as effective as the pro set with dual RBs. The slot WR may tip off "pass play" to the defense, but that's okay now as we all know it's a passing league anyway and teams started to deploy the 11 personnel (1rb/1te/3wr) as their base package. 

 

The reason why pro set is not a strong run formation is because with a HB and FB in the pro set, it tipped off the direction in which the run play would go, assuming the offense wants the FB to be lead blocking.

 

Teams are using more of the offset I formation now because even though there is a strong side to that formation, it's easier to run counter plays when the FB is slightly offset and the HB is directly behind the QB. 

 

So the two biggest reasons why I don't think we see pro set is because the formation advantage it once had is now gone due to LBs being just as athletic as RBs. The other reason is it tips off which direction a run play could go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bruddog said:

Found this another message board that offers some ideas...

 

"One of the big reasons that Walsh loved the traditional pro set formation - it brought the RBs closer to the edge of the formation to give them a "head start" into their flat routes as well as the Texas routes (HB circle). (The other reason was pass protection and blitz pickup). The spit backfield gave the RBs an advantage, via formation, over the slower, run stopping LBs of the 80's. The reason why teams have pretty much phased out the pro set formation is because of evolution - adaptation.

 

About two decades ago when the LB position started to catch up to the RB position in terms of athleticism, it made less and less sense to split the backfield (pro set) for this advantage. Nowadays, where LBs are just as fast if not faster than RBs, it began to make more sense to line up the RB in the slot or remove the FB entirely and put in a slot WR. As far as route combinations, the slot WR is just as effective as the pro set with dual RBs. The slot WR may tip off "pass play" to the defense, but that's okay now as we all know it's a passing league anyway and teams started to deploy the 11 personnel (1rb/1te/3wr) as their base package. 

 

The reason why pro set is not a strong run formation is because with a HB and FB in the pro set, it tipped off the direction in which the run play would go, assuming the offense wants the FB to be lead blocking.

 

Teams are using more of the offset I formation now because even though there is a strong side to that formation, it's easier to run counter plays when the FB is slightly offset and the HB is directly behind the QB. 

 

So the two biggest reasons why I don't think we see pro set is because the formation advantage it once had is now gone due to LBs being just as athletic as RBs. The other reason is it tips off which direction a run play could go.

 

Good stuff. That's the kind of answer I was looking for (although @buck and @Lamefest had some good reasons too). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all the guy says is that the "LBs are faster" so therefore people don't use pro set?  what is the logic there?  and that the formation is a "tipoff"?  I wonder what took every team so many decades to figure out the pro set "tipoff"?  LOL.

 

I must be missing something.  wait, I know I am.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

It's ironic now that the "Pro" formation is rarely used in the pros.

The evolution into a passing league with such few true FBs are the top reasons for its lack of use. I still think it could be used more especially when a team has 2 strong RBs. Why not get them on the field at the same time more often.

I have seen it occasionally in a shotgun version (with a back on both sides of the QB in shotgun).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruddog probably hit most of it, but I'd say the biggest factors are speed on defense and motion on offense.  That formation takes extra time to get the lead blocker (if you have one) anywhere, and defense edge rushing and 3/4s with an emphasis on setting the edge have made that formation -EV to run.    Plus you can get the movement/shifting and other advantages it gives you from motioning an RB, WR, or TE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/27/2016 at 2:19 PM, vikingmoe02 said:

It's ironic now that the "Pro" formation is rarely used in the pros.

The evolution into a passing league with such few true FBs are the top reasons for its lack of use. I still think it could be used more especially when a team has 2 strong RBs. Why not get them on the field at the same time more often.

I have seen it occasionally in a shotgun version (with a back on both sides of the QB in shotgun).

You might be on to something now that the current trend has been RB by committee, meaning you theoretically have more than one RB that is some form of offensive threat and defenses are being built to defend spread out, passing offenses.  It might serve a team well, especially if they can't get a strong QB, to line up the fat guys and bring the game back between the tackles.  It'll be interesting to see if there is a pendulum swing back to that or if this style of play in the NFL is truly going to go the way of the dinosaur. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...