Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Bill Parcell's Coaching Tree (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter umcampb3
- Start date
BelichicksRevenge
Footballguy
Why is it Bill Parcell's two back system? Its not like he is famous for this or he was the first to develop it. He won super bowls with one back systems.
Sweet Love
IBL Representative
I think this is an interesting thread, but what constitutes a two-back system? Is it the second RB getting at least 500 rushing yards or 5+ TDs? I just threw those numbers out there, but I think it needs to be established prior to determining whether Parcells runs this type of offense. My guess is he does not as the Jets did not have a second RB that had heavy carries and honestly, I cannot remember much of what he ran in NE prior to Martin coming on board. My guess is that when he did this, he had weakers RBs, or two good RBs (Dallas).
I'd suggest that Dallas runs a two back system as the team utilizes both JJ and MB effectively. Sean Peyton also employs two backs effectively in New Orelans with Bush and McAllister. When I think of Parcell's and his super bowl teams I think of Otis Anderson and Megget. I'm not suggesting that Parcell's always runs a two back system but history seems to show that he tends to or perhaps perfers to, or perhaps more blunt, he has his greatest success having to complimentary backs.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Parcells is most famous for running one running back into the ground, not for having a two back system. He gave Troy f'n Hambrick 275 carries. 
On the '90 Giants, Dave Meggett have 22 carries.
On the '90 Giants, Dave Meggett have 22 carries.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
This is a side issue, but I would classify a two-back system based on touches, not production. Touches by two specific backs in relation to the team's total touches by RBs versus other teams that have a horse and share the load of other touches between an assortment of role players.I think it is interesting folks call the Pats a two back system when, if Morris had stayed healthy, they'd actually be a three back system. And, arguably, they are when you factor in Heath Evans' GL work.
Last edited by a moderator:
BelichicksRevenge
Footballguy
On Parcell's first super bowl team, Joe Morris was the work horse. on his second one, Otis Anderson was the work horse. Meggett was a third down back and special team returner. Parcells had more success when he ran the one back system, winning two super bowls and making it to another (Curtis Martin-New England). I don't think Peyton purposely developed a 2 back syatem because of Parcells. He just couldn't pass on Reggie Bush and McCallister was still there. As for Coughlin, I don't think he developed his because he learned it under Parcells. Parcells never had a 2 back system while Coughlin was with him.I do think that more teams will be going to two back systems but I just don't think you can credit Parcells with starting this trend. I think the schedule is so long nowadays and its tough for one guy to carry the load and be fresh at playoff time. Two back systems have been around a long time though. I can remember Chuck Muncie and Tony Galbraith as a great two back systen with New Orleans in the 70's. Byner and mack with the Browns in the 1980's. There have been many throughout the years.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maroney=Speed
Footballguy
yep, Carolina and Cleveland. Romeo Crennel as well.umcampb3 said:
pollardsvision
Footballguy
i doubt there'd be much evidence that a 2-back system is more prevalent under parcells and his descendants than under other coaches.
(i think another example would be romeo crennel, who's in parcells' family tree and certainly doesn't use a 2-back system)
i think the 2-back system, in general, is just a natural evolution occuring in the nfl as teams get wiser.
football is a violent game that chews up and spits out RBs. a 2-back system is becoming a necessity to keep them healthy.
also, as fewer and fewer teams utilize a fullback as both a lead blocker and secondary ball carrier, so those extra carries are going to a second halfback.
and of course, the role of a 3rd down back who can catch and block is ever increasing.
it's also possible that salary cap concerns are playing a role. the career path of a RB who becomes a stud, bell-cow guy is a strange one. by the time they've established themselves, they want the big contract, but in the process of establishing themselves, their mileage makes giving them a big contract a big risk. it's no surprise that smart teams wanted no part of giving alexander and edge the big contracts they wanted 2 years ago. if a guy is always splitting carries, he's prevented from racking up the gaudy stats that an agent would use to fleece a stupid team. ultimately, it's cheaper and much less of a risk to have 2 serviceable, fresh guys to split carries.
95% of the time, a 2-back system just makes sense.
(i think another example would be romeo crennel, who's in parcells' family tree and certainly doesn't use a 2-back system)
i think the 2-back system, in general, is just a natural evolution occuring in the nfl as teams get wiser.
football is a violent game that chews up and spits out RBs. a 2-back system is becoming a necessity to keep them healthy.
also, as fewer and fewer teams utilize a fullback as both a lead blocker and secondary ball carrier, so those extra carries are going to a second halfback.
and of course, the role of a 3rd down back who can catch and block is ever increasing.
it's also possible that salary cap concerns are playing a role. the career path of a RB who becomes a stud, bell-cow guy is a strange one. by the time they've established themselves, they want the big contract, but in the process of establishing themselves, their mileage makes giving them a big contract a big risk. it's no surprise that smart teams wanted no part of giving alexander and edge the big contracts they wanted 2 years ago. if a guy is always splitting carries, he's prevented from racking up the gaudy stats that an agent would use to fleece a stupid team. ultimately, it's cheaper and much less of a risk to have 2 serviceable, fresh guys to split carries.
95% of the time, a 2-back system just makes sense.
switz
Footballguy
I'm wondering exactly how "offenses" have anything to do with Bill's coaching tree?Head Coaches (off the top of my head) that learned from Parcells:CoughlinPaytonFoxBelichickI don't see many similarities in their offenses, and Parcells usually handed that duty off to others anyway...umcampb3 said:
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
Natural evolution? The Dolphins had 2 1000-yard rushers in 1972. The Browns ran for 2000+ yards in 1955 with no back topping 824 and they also had 2 1000-yard rushers in 1985. I could list examples all day, but you see my point - sharing the load among 2 or more backs is an old-as-dirt concept.
Parcells has had some exceptional fullbacks. Over the years, the RBs getting pounded has gotten much of the exposure but really the FBs were the key "pounders".
Carthon was excellent, so was Gash. Gash is one of my all time faves. Richie Anderson was so useful he played WR a little bit.
Carthon was excellent, so was Gash. Gash is one of my all time faves. Richie Anderson was so useful he played WR a little bit.
I think you do Bill Parcells, and the members of his coaching tree, a disservice by suggesting they rely on 2 backs. Parcells always did what it took to win games, specifically on offense - some of his most successful seasons coaching were with high-flying, pass pass pass-type offenses (the year he went to the SB with NE comes to mind).
Looking at his coaching tree, the first notable branch is Belichick (I'd argue he was the key to it all along, but nevermind). Belichick does whatever works; passing or running, whatever the opponent is susceptible to considered with whatever the offense is proficient at - that's what he does.
Especially since Parcells had Curtis Martin for a large part of his coaching career (a workhorse back who never split carries significantly with anyone), I'm surprised this thread exists.
(NO counts because of Payton, fair enough. But they have a 2 back offense only because they drafted Reggie Bush - they had to pick him because of the hype, but in reality the guy can't produce as an every down back in the NFL, and so Deuce had a prominent role in the offense. Dallas is Dallas - they keep praying JJ is going to set the world on fire, but in reality Barber is the rock that wins them games. I think he's won the job by now anyway. As for Carolina; when you have two backs that suck, you might as well use them both and hope for something... anything... to come out of it).
Looking at his coaching tree, the first notable branch is Belichick (I'd argue he was the key to it all along, but nevermind). Belichick does whatever works; passing or running, whatever the opponent is susceptible to considered with whatever the offense is proficient at - that's what he does.
Especially since Parcells had Curtis Martin for a large part of his coaching career (a workhorse back who never split carries significantly with anyone), I'm surprised this thread exists.
(NO counts because of Payton, fair enough. But they have a 2 back offense only because they drafted Reggie Bush - they had to pick him because of the hype, but in reality the guy can't produce as an every down back in the NFL, and so Deuce had a prominent role in the offense. Dallas is Dallas - they keep praying JJ is going to set the world on fire, but in reality Barber is the rock that wins them games. I think he's won the job by now anyway. As for Carolina; when you have two backs that suck, you might as well use them both and hope for something... anything... to come out of it).
Last edited by a moderator:
RomeoSparano
Similar threads
