Favorite True Fullback of all time

[JeffGollin]

The same is true for defense. The better teams are not tending to run a pure 4-3 OR 3-4. Versatility is becoming more and more a key factor, especially in the NFC West.
Totally agree. I believe that if Marmie could somehow put 11 guys all on the field - each of whom could run a 4.6, weigh 310, stuff, pursue and cover - he'd be mixing & matching differently on every down - like a wildman with every conceivable combination of different guys blitzing, weird fronts, nickels, dimes, quarter and half-dollar packages, dropping off into coverage, spying - you name it.

I played in a multiple-position single wing offense - sometimes I'd be at tailback, sometimes wingback and sometimes blocking back. (The only position I wouldn't play was "3-back or FB" because our coach, instead of putting a blocker there, put his passer there. (If the following diagram works, this is what it looked like:

ETCGGTE
........2....1
......3
...4

It utilized on "unbalanced" line - with the left guard moving to the right of center.

In addition to standard plays, you could (a) run wingback reverses (both wide or inside the LT), (b) a spinner series with the #3(full)back/QB) back taking the direct snap and spinning to hand off either to the #4 (tail)back or #1 (wing)back or keeping the ball and passing or (c) the legendary buck lateral series where the #3 back would head into the line, but hand off to the #2 (blocking)back/QB who could either pitch it to the #4 back sweeping wide to the strong side, hand it off to the #1 back on a reverse, keep the ball and waggle to the weak side or shuttle along the line of scrimmage like a split-T QB. The QB also had the option to pass on all of these plays.

There was also one play I think I invented, but never got to run - The #3 back would plunge into the line (to force the MLB to move up), but at the last second, he'd rear up and hit the TE on a slant-in over the vacated MLB position.

There was also a running formation we used called the "short punt" formation - it looked like the single wing except that the wingback was put in motion to line up on the weak side of center as a blocking back. Most teams lined the tailback up pretty deep (because they used it to mix short-yardage and quick kicks on 4th down). But we kept the tailback at single-wing depth.

Regarding the double-wing - Heck, why not? The way you could best do this would be to bring in a fast guy at blocking back and then put him in motion to line up outside of the weakside end so that he, in effect, becomes a flanker. That way you can utilize both formations (in addition to the short punt) on every down.

(Note - Section 11: Your double-wing splits both ends and puts each wingback in the slot. You can also keep the ends in close and split out each wingback outside his end).

The only PC Game that allowed me to design single wing plays was (I think it) Front Page.

 

[maddogkf]

Originally posted by JeffGollin
In the original straight "T" formation 2 halfbacks lined up evenly with the fullback, one on each side....Then came the Slotted-T and the beginning of the modern day 3rd "wide receiver"
The next trend was the Pro Set - which came in three basic flavors: (1) traditional 2 backs split wide behind and on either side of the QB (commonly called the "red" formation) (2) the "near" formation with the 2-backs split less wide and the HB lined up behind the QB and the FB lined up next to him to the strong side and the "far" formation, with the FB lined up behind the QB and the HB lined up next to the FB on his weak side.

The Cards currently operate out of multiple sets consisting of (a) the straight "I" with QB, FB and TB lined up in a straight line, (b) the offset (or broken) "I" (with the FB positioned slightly to the left or right of where he'd be in the straight I, (c) the "red" split-back formation (used a lot by west coast teams and employed mainly as passing formation - particularly on teams that don't like to use the shotgun a lot), (d) various one-back (Ace) sets - some better suited for running/some for passing and (e) the so-called "empty backfield with no deep RB's and multiple receivers.

And then there are all the variables - "Heavy" (2 big back/2 TE) formations, 3, 4, 5 receivers, "bunching" 3 receivers together on one side and then having them take off in all kinds of strange "pick" patterns, the use of the H-Back in place of the fullback, and (my favorite) the Ace formation with the receiver in motion to make the the enemy respect the possibilty of a reverse play wide.

Note - I still wish we'd see a return of the single wing. (The Vikes used it against us in the playoffs with Palmer taking the direct snap deep - and it worked).

I play Madden...I know these formations!

 

[Tangodnzr]

Originally posted by JeffGollin
The same is true for defense. The better teams are not tending to run a pure 4-3 OR 3-4. Versatility is becoming more and more a key factor, especially in the NFC West.
Totally agree. I believe that if Marmie could somehow put 11 guys all on the field - each of whom could run a 4.6, weigh 310, stuff, pursue and cover - he'd be mixing & matching differently on every down - like a wildman with every conceivable combination of different guys blitzing, weird fronts, nickels, dimes, quarter and half-dollar packages, dropping off into coverage, spying - you name it.

The player who first comes to mind here is Randy White, the Cowboy great. You could have put him anywhere you wanted and he still would have been devastating. He WAS the linchpin of the Cowboys defense for years.....one of the all time great players.