Hawg Tuff

OFFENSIVE THEORY (2 WR/2 TE/1 RB)

The easiest approach – and the logical one – is to think of the set-up as you would the “I”. But, now you have the “I” fullback up near the L.O.S. on either side, and he is called the “H” back (serves as a TE off the ball).

1. DOUBLE

O---------------O-O-C-O-O-O
-------------H-------Q-----------------------O

----------------------R

2. TRIPLE

O---------------O-O-C-O-O-O
----------------------Q----------H-----------O

----------------------R

Much of your motion comes from moving your “H” from one side to the other. The movement creates problems for the defense in that they must determine how to support the corner of the defense and at the same time account for coverage on each receiver.

By being close to the L.O.S., the “H” back has a higher percentage block than your ordinary “I” fullback would have. At the same time, the “H” position allows a quicker release if he is to be a receiver. Of course, he is not the running threat that your “I” fullback would present, but most “I” teams do not run the fullback as a feature anyway. In addition, with the use of motion, you have the versatility (of having strength to either side on the snap) that you have in the “I”. The position close to the L.O.S. makes him a more effective blocker and receiver as a “H” back (and forces the defense to protect an extra gap). And with the created defensive problems (with movement) as an “H”, it more than compensates for the reduced element of surprise. We use our “Counter-Gap” play to keep the defense honest and not over-compensate for the position of the “H” back. A very effective play.

NOTE: By flexing "H" out 5 yards or more - we are in our 3 WR/1 TE/1 RB personnel. The Indy Colts do effectively this with Dallas Clark.


PS: We wanted a formation that would challenge the defense along a broad front and present problems to their pass defense. The only way that the pass defense could be challenged by mere alignment would be to put four eligible receivers up on the line of scrimmage. With the possibility of getting four receivers out into a pattern quickly, the secondary would have to align itself in a sound pass defense. Thus, we came to the conclusion that we would have only one back in the backfield. We decided on a two tight end and two wide receiver alignment with the other people because it presented an eight-gap front to defend vs. the run.

These formations are certainly not unique. They has been used by many other teams. However, in the past a one-back formation was mostly thought of as a passing set, and it was used primarily in those situations. We wanted to use that threat of the pass to create a better opportunity to run, and on the other hand we wanted to have a good chance to pass by virtue of the formation in a run situation. The two tight end front gave us a chance to spread the defense out. If the defense was to honor our passing threat by using four of it’s defenders in the secondary, then there only remained seven defenders (in the "box") to play against an eight-gap front. One defender would have to play a two-gap responsibility. The only way they can defend the extra gap is to close the middle of the field (putting 8 defenders in the "box") – the formation affects the force of the defense (the Will Lber will be over a Tight End which makes the Lber force soft). THIS FORMATION GIVES THE OFFENSE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THROW THE FOOTBALL.


billmountjoy@yahoo.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false