Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
All the draft complaining...let's look over the past 10 seasons...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 878673"><p>Those football 101 positional groupings are a template that has become largely obsolete. Looking at the huddle, the player numbers and their positional designations don't tell you where the guys are going to line up, what their assignments are likely to be, or what play is likely to be called.</p><p></p><p>For example, 12 personnel 1 (RB, 2 TEs, 2 WRs) can range from a power run formation, either both TEs in line or a TE-as-H-back in the backfield, to a RB motioning with the RB, TEs and WRs in slot or out wide in a 5-wide empty backfield that says you're throwing the ball. That's if Rodgers is your QB. If your QB is Lamar Jackson, depending on down and distance, you'd have to think about defending a QB run against that spread defense. </p><p></p><p>This latter point is one example that goes to the larger issue. A defensive coordinator is not saying, "when somebody, anybody, rolls out 12 personnel we're going to do <strong><em>this</em></strong>. That will vary from game to game based on opponent tendencies in what they run out of different personnel groupings, and what the opposing personnel is actually capable of doing. When a slow footed TE enters the huddle known to funtion as a blocker you are not going to game plan to defend that in the same way as the slot TE who is a weak blocker and a high target receiving threat who is subbed out, to take just one example. When you get down to specific plays, defending tendencies and working matchups, personnel groupings are largely worthless.</p><p></p><p>This isn't your father's or grandfather's 1960's NFL, where a halfback and a fullback, both running threats and justifiably both called "running backs", are in the backfield on nearly every play, the TE is in-line on nearly every play, and the x and y receivers are exactly that on nearly every play. I used the term "nearly" there to account for possible exceptions I don't recall, but "rarely otherwise" might be the better description.</p><p></p><p>X, Y, Z designations are also obsolete even though you see people still using them. Split end, TE, Flanker? Really? Where's the slot receiver? When you see Adams in the huddle, what is he? He could be X, Y or slot. When you saw Graham in the huddle, what was he? He could have been x, y, z or slot? </p><p></p><p>I had a similar discussion with a regular poster a while back regarding this bizarre "dime linebacker" terminology. If it's 2nd. and 5, for example, one of the many tweener run-pass downs, and you put a Greene (or Campbell, et. al.) off the ball in the tackle box, he's an ILB in a nickel defense. It just so happens you want particular characterics in you ILB in nickel leaning toward defending the pass. If it's 3rd. and 15, Greene is set 15 yards off the line in a 3-across safety prevent, then he's a safety.</p><p></p><p>These antiquated designations, which also includes calling a FB who runs the ball 3 times per season a "running back", ranges somewhere between minimal usefulness and analytical laziness pre-snap. "Greene's on the field. He's their dime linebacker," or "Graham's on the field, he's their TE", tells you nothing about what position they are actually playing, what play is being called, whether it's a nickel or dime defense once the ball is snapped.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 878673"] Those football 101 positional groupings are a template that has become largely obsolete. Looking at the huddle, the player numbers and their positional designations don't tell you where the guys are going to line up, what their assignments are likely to be, or what play is likely to be called. For example, 12 personnel 1 (RB, 2 TEs, 2 WRs) can range from a power run formation, either both TEs in line or a TE-as-H-back in the backfield, to a RB motioning with the RB, TEs and WRs in slot or out wide in a 5-wide empty backfield that says you're throwing the ball. That's if Rodgers is your QB. If your QB is Lamar Jackson, depending on down and distance, you'd have to think about defending a QB run against that spread defense. This latter point is one example that goes to the larger issue. A defensive coordinator is not saying, "when somebody, anybody, rolls out 12 personnel we're going to do [B][I]this[/I][/B]. That will vary from game to game based on opponent tendencies in what they run out of different personnel groupings, and what the opposing personnel is actually capable of doing. When a slow footed TE enters the huddle known to funtion as a blocker you are not going to game plan to defend that in the same way as the slot TE who is a weak blocker and a high target receiving threat who is subbed out, to take just one example. When you get down to specific plays, defending tendencies and working matchups, personnel groupings are largely worthless. This isn't your father's or grandfather's 1960's NFL, where a halfback and a fullback, both running threats and justifiably both called "running backs", are in the backfield on nearly every play, the TE is in-line on nearly every play, and the x and y receivers are exactly that on nearly every play. I used the term "nearly" there to account for possible exceptions I don't recall, but "rarely otherwise" might be the better description. X, Y, Z designations are also obsolete even though you see people still using them. Split end, TE, Flanker? Really? Where's the slot receiver? When you see Adams in the huddle, what is he? He could be X, Y or slot. When you saw Graham in the huddle, what was he? He could have been x, y, z or slot? I had a similar discussion with a regular poster a while back regarding this bizarre "dime linebacker" terminology. If it's 2nd. and 5, for example, one of the many tweener run-pass downs, and you put a Greene (or Campbell, et. al.) off the ball in the tackle box, he's an ILB in a nickel defense. It just so happens you want particular characterics in you ILB in nickel leaning toward defending the pass. If it's 3rd. and 15, Greene is set 15 yards off the line in a 3-across safety prevent, then he's a safety. These antiquated designations, which also includes calling a FB who runs the ball 3 times per season a "running back", ranges somewhere between minimal usefulness and analytical laziness pre-snap. "Greene's on the field. He's their dime linebacker," or "Graham's on the field, he's their TE", tells you nothing about what position they are actually playing, what play is being called, whether it's a nickel or dime defense once the ball is snapped. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
monte smith
mradtke66
Latest posts
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: milani
Today at 5:13 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 12:42 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 11:14 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 10:32 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Off Season News
Latest: milani
Yesterday at 2:18 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
All the draft complaining...let's look over the past 10 seasons...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
