»
Topic: Can we develop a 2 back situation maybe?
Replies: 8   Last Post: Sep 19, 2017 7:58 AM by: vlastimil_hort
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 8   Pages: 1  

Can we develop a 2 back situation maybe?


Posted: Sep 19, 2017 2:00 AM
 

I know Clemson plays nothing like these stupid Big 12 no defense teams like Baylor and Oklahoma State that put up 60 point games and call them close. BUT! Oklahoma used to use this two back system with Perine and Mixon that we could definitely I think utilize better than they did. Fuller and Choice are clearly better short yardage backs and do great (well better than Feaster) in terms of blocking and Feaster tends to be a faster higher average carry rate back (like Mixon) also fun fact both Mixon and Feaster were recruited as all purpose backs MEANING WE COULD USE FEASTER MORE IN THE PASS GAME! this could open up more spots in our run pass option game and would shred defenses down in fourth quarters pounding yardage with slashers like Feaster and Hammers like Fuller and Choice. Just a speculation I know it's wild and we have a lot of receiver talent we could be cutting out with that but, in big games it could be a huge game changer.


Re: Can we develop a 2 back situation maybe?

[1]
Posted: Sep 19, 2017 2:50 AM
 

I could understand people second guessing the play calls if we were getting smoked by less talented teams. I do not really understand it when the team is hitting on all cylinders. Sounds lake a solution in search of a problem...we're 3-0 and 2 of those were to ranked teams!


Re: Can we develop a 2 back situation maybe?

[1]
Posted: Sep 19, 2017 6:00 AM
 

Pretty sure the coaches have a handle on the RB situation. We have two VERY good backs and two GOOD backs. Fresh legs at the position will not be a problem this year, and every one of them are hungry for carries.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

Re: Can we develop a 2 back situation maybe?


Posted: Sep 19, 2017 7:37 AM
 

And we dominated each team (in different ways)


Re: Can we develop a 2 back situation maybe?


Posted: Sep 19, 2017 6:19 AM
 

If it ain"t broke don't fix it.


That's why our QB needs to be a dual threat...***


Posted: Sep 19, 2017 7:48 AM
 



2017 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

2 talented RB's on the field together could be exciting but

[1]
Posted: Sep 19, 2017 7:51 AM
 

I doubt you were looking for this much detail, but here are my thoughts on it.


That scheme simply does not fit our offense. Beyond developing a specific sub package that could utilize two backs (non H-back or FB), I don't think it would do much for our offense.


Our current offensive system, whether it be 2011 Morris or one of the SCElliott iterations, use many of the more standard spread concepts that typically utilized 3 WR's, a TE that can play on the line, line up out wide, and serve as H-Back, and also a single HB that is also able to line up wide and go in motion.


One of the primary purposes of running this offense is that it creates more space and mismatches. For example, looking back to last year, our offense had the ability to be so dynamic not only bc of our talented playmakers, but also bc of Leggett and Gallman's versatility and ability to line up in multiple places.


Switching to a two back system would require removing another skill player, most likely either the TE or slot WR. I certainly wouldn't take Renfrow off the field for anyone on the planet (possibly Jerry Rice in his prime, but still not certain). We currently lack a star TE at this point, but Richard has played well most of the time and could be quite a weapon before the end of the year. Taking him off the field for a 2nd RB will eliminate the ability of our offense to create many of the mismatches that this offense is designed to exploit.


Unless one of our 4 RB's could function as a better WR than Ray Ray, Amari Rodgers, Renfrow, etc., I honestly think it would do more harm than good for our offense unless it was only used for a small handful of plays. However, using it for a few play before switching back to our standard 11 personnel could easily disrupt rhythm, limit HUNH opportunities, and allow the defense to substitute.

2017 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

I am just going with Dabo wants.


Posted: Sep 19, 2017 7:54 AM
 

I trust him.

2017 white level member

I would LOVE to see Clemson develop a small wishbone package


Posted: Sep 19, 2017 7:58 AM
 

Nothing huge. Just every once in awhile in would be awesome to see Bryant and two backs go into that formation for some short yardage stuff. I know it's not realistic. Presumably the linemen would have to learn a whole different blocking concept. And let's face it: Ford tried it at NC State one year and I seem to recall they fumbled at least once on an exchange. So it maybe doesn't have a great history.


Replies: 8   Pages: 1  
Clemson Gear
Clemson Bowl game tickets and travel

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Sugar Bowl
FOR SALE: Lower level - Section 147, 33 rows up, 4 together in the middle of the Clemson section. $500 per ti...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
1027 people have read this post