What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Should More Teams Use 2 RB Sets? (1 Viewer)

Should More Teams Use 2 RB Sets?

  • Total voters
    11
T

the lone star

Footballguy
Should More Teams Use 2 RB Sets?

I ask because I like what I've seen from these sets, and with RBs becoming more versatile, it might not be a bad idea, especially since most teams have a pass-catching specialist now, in addition to power backs, speed backs, finesse backs, etc..

I say yes, but of course that means taking a WR or a TE off the field. But even so, you can audible and put 1 or both RBs on the LOS as a WR. I've seen good things when that happens with the likes of the Pats and Saints. Seahawks did it once with Lynch that I remember it turned into a huge gain. My Cowboys rarely ever move a RB from the backfield to the LOS as a WR, but when they have, I've liked the results.

Just food for thought.

 
Interesting thought given where we are in the age of "air it out".  In the 90s and before, it was not that strange to see two RBs in the backfield.  However, let's play Devil's Advocate and assume you have two viable RBs that are in the game together a majority of the time (think Coleman and Freeman).  Now I have Julio on one side and Sanu on the other with Hooper in too.  Now I also have a burner in Hardy and a promising rookie in Ridley on the bench.  Sanu and Hooper are going to be covered in one-on-one by a CB and LB, respectively...and likely stay within 15 yards of the LOS.  I am going to bracket Julio with a CB and Safety.  If I am in Nickel, I can now push a fast safety-type up with my MLB and now I have two eyes on the RBs.  But most importantly, I just have one guy (Julio) who likely will stretch my D.  Sure, you can send both long, but I still have an extra guy who will be low, and the risk of the WRs doing damage (even with a Julio-type) are severely minimized with that second RB.  In my opinion, this limitation on the offense is really why teams moved away from having a RB.  I get that the pass catching RB, or two guys in the backfield that can legitimately do damage with the ball in their hands, but the second you move Coleman to the slot, then really, isn't he just a slot receiver?  When I think of two RB sets, I think of two RBs in the backfield.  I just don't think the audible would have the effect you are looking for, especially if I am already in Nickel.    

 
Sweet Love said:
Interesting thought given where we are in the age of "air it out".  In the 90s and before, it was not that strange to see two RBs in the backfield.  However, let's play Devil's Advocate and assume you have two viable RBs that are in the game together a majority of the time (think Coleman and Freeman).  Now I have Julio on one side and Sanu on the other with Hooper in too.  Now I also have a burner in Hardy and a promising rookie in Ridley on the bench.  Sanu and Hooper are going to be covered in one-on-one by a CB and LB, respectively...and likely stay within 15 yards of the LOS.  I am going to bracket Julio with a CB and Safety.  If I am in Nickel, I can now push a fast safety-type up with my MLB and now I have two eyes on the RBs.  But most importantly, I just have one guy (Julio) who likely will stretch my D.  Sure, you can send both long, but I still have an extra guy who will be low, and the risk of the WRs doing damage (even with a Julio-type) are severely minimized with that second RB.  In my opinion, this limitation on the offense is really why teams moved away from having a RB.  I get that the pass catching RB, or two guys in the backfield that can legitimately do damage with the ball in their hands, but the second you move Coleman to the slot, then really, isn't he just a slot receiver?  When I think of two RB sets, I think of two RBs in the backfield.  I just don't think the audible would have the effect you are looking for, especially if I am already in Nickel.    
Click to expand...
That's fair. Coleman can go long though. 

Staying with two in the backfield is interesting though. Would probably need a FB/RB type to pull that off though. Or at least just make sure one of them can block the pass and/or run.

 
the lone star said:
I do like how McCaffrey, Duke Johnson, and Tevin Coleman are used too.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.  I also think it depends on your personnel.  If you are CLE and decide to go with two RBs (say Hyde/Chubb and Duke), well unless you bump Landry out, you have lost the option to jam Duke in the slot.  I guess you go then go 4 wide, but I am not really sure what you have gained.

 
My answer is kind of cheating but I would say yes if the RB2 is a guy like Tyreek Hill or Cohen....

KC for example Hunt/Hill in the backfield, Watkins outside, Kelce in line or slot....would allow a guy like Conley to get on the filed....somebody is going to have a good matchup...if its really just where they are lined up at the snap, it doesn;t really matter if they are technically a RB...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the era where most defenses aim to protect speedy running backs and air attacks, I'd be very curious how a very physical run-first offense would work. We saw what the wildcat did for a year or two before defenses adapted, but re-installing a fullback and going extremely physical at today's lighter linebackers would be a really interesting nuance.

 
Stinkin Ref said:
My answer is kind of cheating but I would say yes if the RB2 is a guy like Tyreek Hill or Cohen....
Click to expand...
I don't think that answer is cheating at all.

Teams seem to PLAN to use guys like that all the time by drafting Tavon Austin/Curtis Samuel/Jaylen Samuel types that are kind of hybrid players but the problem is it takes some degree of creativity to actually implement those players. And a willingness to stick with them if you don't get the desired results right away. When the bullets start flying in the regular season it just feels like most OC's get very, very conservative. But when you look at a team like NE they are constantly finding ways to get their RB's isolated in a mismatch in the receiving game. You would think more teams would try to emulate that. The more RB's you have on the field the better chance you have of finding that mismatch. Of course it's also a trick to find a RB that can both block, and catch passes..... oh yeah, and actually run the ball effectively when called upon. RB's are cheap though and Rex Burkhead does a solid job in all those areas and counts ~$2.3mil this year. And ~$3.2mil next, after having just signed an extension in the latest FA market. It just goes to show other teams can't figure out how to maximize these guys if there is that little FA interest in them. Seems crazy to me.

 
Sweet Love said:
Totally agree.  I also think it depends on your personnel.  If you are CLE and decide to go with two RBs (say Hyde/Chubb and Duke), well unless you bump Landry out, you have lost the option to jam Duke in the slot.  I guess you go then go 4 wide, but I am not really sure what you have gained.
Click to expand...
Duke can play on the outside too though. He's run some good routes there, especially crossers.

 
Jayded said:
In the era where most defenses aim to protect speedy running backs and air attacks, I'd be very curious how a very physical run-first offense would work. We saw what the wildcat did for a year or two before defenses adapted, but re-installing a fullback and going extremely physical at today's lighter linebackers would be a really interesting nuance.
Click to expand...
Not too many people out there that can do that in today's NFL. A lot of players are thinking about concussions and other injuries, so physicality is dying. For instance, as a Cowboys fan, I loved Marion Barber III. He was good at that, but he didn't last too long because of the style.

 
the lone star said:
Should More Teams Use 2 RB Sets?

I ask because I like what I've seen from these sets, and with RBs becoming more versatile, it might not be a bad idea, especially since most teams have a pass-catching specialist now, in addition to power backs, speed backs, finesse backs, etc..

I say yes, but of course that means taking a WR or a TE off the field. But even so, you can audible and put 1 or both RBs on the LOS as a WR. I've seen good things when that happens with the likes of the Pats and Saints. Seahawks did it once with Lynch that I remember it turned into a huge gain. My Cowboys rarely ever move a RB from the backfield to the LOS as a WR, but when they have, I've liked the results.

Just food for thought.
Click to expand...
A lot of teams use 2 tight ends now-a-days creating mismatches when one of the tight ends can play as a decent WR also. Well, why not use the same philosophy when one of your running backs can catch and/or block pretty well? It's an interesting idea especially when a team has a guy the Steelers got Jaylen Samuels. 

A couple of disadvantages that comes to mind: a running back behind the line will average less ADOT as a receiver because he has to run 5 yards to get to the line of scrimmage; and since only one of them can run the ball on a given play, it takes away some of the versatility. In 12 personnel, both tight ends have options to either block or catch a pass.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BoltBacker said:
I don't think that answer is cheating at all.

Teams seem to PLAN to use guys like that all the time by drafting Tavon Austin/Curtis Samuel/Jaylen Samuel types that are kind of hybrid players but the problem is it takes some degree of creativity to actually implement those players. And a willingness to stick with them if you don't get the desired results right away. When the bullets start flying in the regular season it just feels like most OC's get very, very conservative. But when you look at a team like NE they are constantly finding ways to get their RB's isolated in a mismatch in the receiving game. You would think more teams would try to emulate that. The more RB's you have on the field the better chance you have of finding that mismatch. Of course it's also a trick to find a RB that can both block, and catch passes..... oh yeah, and actually run the ball effectively when called upon. RB's are cheap though and Rex Burkhead does a solid job in all those areas and counts ~$2.3mil this year. And ~$3.2mil next, after having just signed an extension in the latest FA market. It just goes to show other teams can't figure out how to maximize these guys if there is that little FA interest in them. Seems crazy to me.
Click to expand...
New England always tries to find the mismatch with their personnel groupings, and they are about the best at it. But they don't often have James White and Mike Gillislee on the field at the same time. I think that's telling.

 
cloppbeast said:
New England always tries to find the mismatch with their personnel groupings, and they are about the best at it. But they don't often have James White and Mike Gillislee on the field at the same time. I think that's telling.
Click to expand...
I thought they did have White and Burkhead on the field at the same time often though. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

Is there a place to find out what the snap % was with different combinations? Seems like there would be but I'm not sure if it exists it may be behind a pay wall.

 
Jayded said:
In the era where most defenses aim to protect speedy running backs and air attacks, I'd be very curious how a very physical run-first offense would work. We saw what the wildcat did for a year or two before defenses adapted, but re-installing a fullback and going extremely physical at today's lighter linebackers would be a really interesting nuance.
Click to expand...
I think this could have success if the full back had versatility, if he could run the ball, catch, and play as a tight end also. 

 
I was just going off memory and didn't notice 2 running backs very often.

New England snap count percentages

It doesn't have the packages or anything, just year end totals; but you'll notice no running back played on more than 35% of the snaps. In fact, summing up all of them equals 105%, which roughly means they had 2 on the field 5% of the time + however often they didn't put any out there.

Also they used a FB 30% of the time.

 
Jayded said:
In the era where most defenses aim to protect speedy running backs and air attacks, I'd be very curious how a very physical run-first offense would work. We saw what the wildcat did for a year or two before defenses adapted, but re-installing a fullback and going extremely physical at today's lighter linebackers would be a really interesting nuance.
Click to expand...
Didn't Jacksonville go this route last season?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Scoresman
Non-Playoff teams - What went wrong?
Replies
25
Views
632
Desert_Power
Desert_Power
LawFitz
RB Chris Brooks, MIA
2
Replies
73
Views
4K
SoBeDad
S
BobbyLayne
Running Backs Don't Matter 101
4 5 6
Replies
284
Views
10K
humpback
H

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top