I wondered this because it seem like the most natural progression. Something like this:Probably due to the basic reason that it was easier to find a good tight end than four good receivers back then. Once it became the opposite, guys like Mike Price went to 10 personnel sets.
It is.I wondered this because it seem like the most natural progression. Something like this:
I think this is Mike Price's offense:
1.Does anyone know anymore teams that still run a one back undercenter spread offense?
2. As far as the run game what do you feel is more important the spacing of the defenders or the elimination of mismatches (lbs on fb/Tes) by removing them out of the box.
I have my thoughts on the answer but want to know what you guys think.
Yeah... that's what I hate about the game. You get a 6'7 260 lb TE matched up on a 5'9 166 lb CB and it doesn't matter for the most part. I've been recruiting big athletic blocking TE's in my dynasties with little to no advantage in the running game. For the most part I've watch everyone instantly shed their block... It's frustrating as hell!It is.
1. I don't think so. Mazzone is the closest I can think of to someone running one back nowadays (which is why Erickson hired him at ASU), but I haven't seen him use under center in probably about a decade. Maybe Jonathan Smith/Petersen at UDub? I'd have to look at it closer, I'm not sure what concepts they run, but as far as a team that oscillates between gun and under center and likes to use 10 and 11 personnel, that'd be the place I'd look first. But if you look at the One Back Clinic and stuff like that now, it's largely Air Raid and Run and Shoot guys with the occasional tenuous connection to the old offense with guys like Mazzone.
2. In the game? The spacing of defenders. Mismatches that matter in real life (like getting a TE on a DB in the run game) don't matter so much.
I've noticed with running the Tom Moore scheme I'm running in OD's that I'm able to see the blitzes as well. I've been intrigued by watching users trying to throw every blitz imaginable at me. It's made it easy for me to come back in each game that I was down in.. and just snowballed the domination against the user I blew out.I forgot to mention...
Erickson liked spreading the defense out the way he did with the original one back offense because It was harder for the defense to disguise blitzes. By spreading them the way he did... It made it easier to read their intentions. As defenses evolved and started putting better and faster athletes on the field... It allowed defense to run more exotic blitzes and disrupt the offense. Kinda like Miami when Jimmy Johnson put smaller faster athletes in his base 4-3 the speed on defense destroyed teams with the old school big slow bull type linemen.
People talk about using the run to setup the pass and vice versa but to me this is actually showing you how it done. I like how everything he did from formations to passing concepts all led to one goal of running the ball. I am currently thinking of ways this apply in the video game world and how much I can use it.Erickson really did not rely much on layered concepts, such as Shallow, Drive, Mesh, etc, preferring instead to rely on vertical stem packages in both his quick and drop back games. The reason for this is very simple: Erickson never wanted to stop running the ball; he simply wanted to create defensive structures that would enable him to run the ball effectively inside. This is why Erickson from the very beginning emphasized stretching the defense from sideline to sideline, not only with formations, but concepts as well. Formations and splits that would effectively center the defense by inviting it to align players closely to the LOS were jettisoned in favor of five very basic environments that by alignment would engender some type of a Nickel response.