Falcons Look at 2 RB Set

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:44 pm

The Sentinel report yesterday that said BG was going to use a two-back set more this season. Apparently, it has been in the offense, but not used much. Its a way to get Lane and Pope in the game, and Coach says you still have the ability to split one of them out or even go empty with both in the game.

Its called "Ponies." The team has been working on blocking assignments since the extra back will put a defender closer to the line. In an understatement, Coach says "We're not just a team that's going to line up and run an I-back at you 50 times. Quite honestly, I don't know if we could holdup doing that."

Spreading guys out opens the running lanes, he said. We also want to use the TE more.

Finally, a dude named Martell Mallett, a redshirt FR walk on from Pine Bluff AK is behind Macon and Cole on the depth chart, though Cole has not practiced.

This is interesting. I think we could do some good things with it. Most notably, I think there is a strong possibility that this is driven by Omar not being essentially a 2 RB like Josh was, and the fact that we don't have as much depth at receiver, so the pure 4 WR sets aren't as attractive. Anyway, I found in interesting.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:28 pm

I think we've seen other clues before that Brandon isn't really happy with our third-and-short, goalline sets.

And, frankly, the ability to pound the ball up the gut and grind out clock with a big lead would add a new dimension to this offense.

I hope that's all Brandon is thinking... and not seeing a need to change our offense so radically that we are running two back sets on first down and ten from the 20 in the first half.

If that's what he's thinking... our offense could be in more trouble than we realize next year.

I'm just not convinced receiver is a big problem. We have a lot of untested guys, but at least two starters back. This receiver thing will work itself out.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:27 pm

I think this is simply an attempt to stay ahead of the defenses. Inevitably, defenses catch up to you if you run the same things all the time. Eventually, teams are going to figure out how to stop our 4 and 5 WR sets if we don't show them something else.

I'm equally unconcerned about our talent at WR. We have a great 1-2 punch in Sharon and Sanders. Jones, Lett, Alexander, Partiridge and the rest are going to be given a chance to get comfortabel without being asked to carry the load. We'll be fine there...

Salsa · Post by **Salsa** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 4:03 pm

And don't forget that one of our most valuable and reliable receivers is P. J. Pope.

With a two back set in the plans, I see our offense as even more difficult to predict and defend than last year.

I'm also wondering with Turner as a backup QB we won't see Omar running the ball more than he did last year.

Finally, an even further dimension will be the greater use of our TE as an offensive weapon, a point mentioned by Coach in the Sentinal article.

If our offensive line can do the job, we're gonna be giving opposing defensive co-ordinators headaches.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 6:31 pm

I agree with Flipper. I think this is just a new wrinkle to throw at the defense to keep them confused. With the talend we have in Pope and Lane, I would figure out a way to get them both on the field as well. I am guessing that a lot of these formations could lead to Pope going in motion and lining up at WR. In the past we did that and it pretty much meant we were passing. This formation would still allow us to run the ball. I like this idea.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:10 pm

Salsa wrote:I'm also wondering with Turner as a backup QB we won't see Omar running the ball more than he did last year.

I wonder the same thing.

I'm not sure O4 would take hits quite as well, but he is a big guy -- and I think he's faster than J5 (opposing views are welcome, here).

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:13 pm

He's faster than Josh, but he isn't a better runner. Think back to the WMU game where we won in OT basically on Josh's back. Could Omar do the same thing?

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:38 pm

orangeandbrown wrote:He's faster than Josh, but he isn't a better runner.

No argument here.

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 3:53 pm

I remember them using the 2 back set in a series in the game vs Oklahoma last season. Not sure if we did it at all after that. I always thought they should find more ways to gets BJ and PJ in the game at the same time. I feel like Lane is one of our most underrated players. He is not as good as Pope but it would not be much of slip from Pope to Lane.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 9:54 pm

Anything that can be added to our offensive schemes to confuse and demoralize opposing D's is a good thing. Lane it too good a back to be sitting on the sidelines....the problem is Pope is better! Pope has been an outstanding rec out of the backfield. I like the sound of both on the field at the same time.

As far as Omar? He is faster than Josh but J5 was a freakin' brute of a runner. I think Omar can take the hits but maybe not the magnitude of Josh. I like Omarvelous throwing the ball and letting Pope, Lane, Macon and the rest of the RB's running the ball. J5 came into the program as a RB his Freshman year. Omar is 100% QB.

I simply cannot wait to see the guys tagging it up this Saturday. It's been a long time coming.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:43 am

I'm not sure about their differences in taking hits, but in my opinion it is the instincts that differ for the two. Omar is every bit the athlete J5 was, and possibly is faster. However, on the designed runs between the tackles J5 had the instincts of a RB, and I don't think Omar has that. Josh would see a crease develop, hit it, make a shifty move, and fall forward for 4-5 yards, much like you'd see a RB do. I don't see Omar hitting that hole like a RB would, and those designed runs are a MUCH smaller component of our offense now. If he gets in the open field Omar can do some damage (see: Marshall game), but between the tackles he's not nearly as instinctive as Josh was.

That said I think Omar is already a better pure passer.

Either way, I'm hoping for a nice day this saturday because I wanna go out & tailgate!

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:11 am

hammb wrote:Either way, I'm hoping for a nice day this saturday because I wanna go out & tailgate!

http://www.weather.com/activities/other ... 2&dayNum=5

How does sunny and 63 sound? Wind out of the East at 6mph. 8)

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:19 am

Warthog wrote:
hammb wrote:Either way, I'm hoping for a nice day this saturday because I wanna go out & tailgate!
http://www.weather.com/activities/other ... 2&dayNum=5

How does sunny and 63 sound? Wind out of the East at 6mph. 8)

Sounds pretty good to me!

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:03 pm

Warthog wrote:
hammb wrote:Either way, I'm hoping for a nice day this saturday because I wanna go out & tailgate!
http://www.weather.com/activities/other ... 2&dayNum=5

How does sunny and 63 sound? Wind out of the East at 6mph. 8)

Sounds better than the 80 degrees and sun in Florida! Almost...

I'll take 63 and sunny anyday!

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:56 pm

There's no way anyone will be at the Doyt! Thats just too cold to see falcon football! :shrug:

Falcons Look at 2 RB Set

Falcons Look at 2 RB Set

What 63 this Sat?