Proset Formation

I found an article that provides a dead link (darn) to the article I was actually looking for. Still, I was able to find the quote I wanted to find:

Roman:
"Bill (Walsh) used flat backs, even backs in the backfield, whether they were split backs or what he would call brown or blue, and most teams as the 80s brought on more I-backs in college football, more backs in college ran the ball from the I. Bill never really wavered from flat backs. He always had what he looked for in a back, the Ricky Waters, Roger Craigs, etc. It's different, plays are read out differently by the running backs in these types of backfield sets, as opposed to from the I when the back is at seven yards deep. Also, what it allows you to do is involve more two-back, pre-releases by the backs into the routes. So, what people do nowadays is instead of having two backs in the backfield with one of them running the corner route, now they just split a receiver out and have him run the corner route, but it's the same principles."

Originally posted by thl408:

Some comments from Roman regarding split back formation. I came across this while trying to find the interview where Roman specifically addressed why he went away from the pro set formation. It had to do with the point raised earlier about how an offense would rather just put the RB or WR in the slot and be done with it (with regards to lining up a player closer to the edge of the formation). From 2012

Q: Rams LB James Laurinaitis was talking about some of your run concepts, formations, it's unique. You just don't see it with any other team. He specifically talked about the split back. What are some of your influences? Did you watch the Bill Walsh installation tapes? Did that influence you?
Roman: The person that really taught me all that was George Seifert. I worked for George in Carolina and he had a tremendous impact on me as a football coach. I was privy to all that stuff back then, and got to watch all the films and what not and learned about it...

Q: Why is the split back formation never used any more?
Roman: You know, you'd have to ask them. You'd have to ask them. I don't know. I don't want to get into a big thing here, but that used to be the norm a long time ago and then it kind of evolved in the 80's to I-Backs. You try to marry everything you do together so, I think everybody's more of an I-Back field.

In the specific article I am trying to find, Roman does know. I'll keep digging, but it's not as if I don't remember what he said, I just want to provide proof that he said it.


Here are Fangio's thoughts on the modern day WCO with a mention to the split backfield:

"The West Coast offense that everybody claims they run, nobody really runs the West Coast offense that Bill Walsh used to run," Fangio said. "… All these self-proclaimed West Coast offenses really are not running Bill Walsh's offense. They use his nomenclature and words in defining and naming formations and stuff. But they're really not running the offense that he used to run, 100 percent of the time. Everyone has taken their own version of it and put their own little mark on it. To me, I don't see anybody running the West Coast offense."

Fangio said Mike Holmgren first tweaked Walsh's offense as the Niners offensive coordinator from 1989-91, primarily by using an I-formation instead of a split-back set.

Holmgren then continued making changes as the Packers head coach and, Fangio said, the offense further evolved as coaches from the Holmgren coaching tree became head coaches.

I'm not one to argue with fangio, but I have about 10 games on my CPU from 89-91 and while we use some I form it is far from being our base formation. We where still very much a pro form team. What Saks said is correct tho, he did spread us out more with 3 wide set. I watched the 1990 title game again and it alluded that with sherrard in the line up the niners averaged 311 pass yards a game in '90. I really think holmgren went primarily I form with GB.

Originally posted by thl408:

I found an article that provides a dead link (darn) to the article I was actually looking for. Still, I was able to find the quote I wanted to find:

Roman:
"Bill (Walsh) used flat backs, even backs in the backfield, whether they were split backs or what he would call brown or blue, and most teams as the 80s brought on more I-backs in college football, more backs in college ran the ball from the I. Bill never really wavered from flat backs. He always had what he looked for in a back, the Ricky Waters, Roger Craigs, etc. It's different, plays are read out differently by the running backs in these types of backfield sets, as opposed to from the I when the back is at seven yards deep. Also, what it allows you to do is involve more two-back, pre-releases by the backs into the routes. So, what people do nowadays is instead of having two backs in the backfield with one of them running the corner route, now they just split a receiver out and have him run the corner route, but it's the same principles."

This makes a ton of sense and really does explain the shift from those forms.

Like I've mentioned before...

I think that getting back to basic, our strenght, controlled passing game, and a simple game plan will do nothing but help our team and help Kaep.

He's repeatedly shown that he cant carry the team every games.. he needs some great game planning by the coaching staff.

Both backs must be used on passing downs.. it will also help when they are lined up behind the backfield instead of going "Five Wide" because the two backs can always stay first to block, then go out on swing passes..

I don't care how good your WRs are, even if you have Jerry Rice, Michael Irvin, John Taylor and Randy Moss, if they are often lining up on a spread formation, the defense will get to the QB more often than some if the secondary can just hold their grounds a second or two more.. with 7 rushers vs 5 OL, the QB will get feel the heat and get hit..

Im all for the PRO SET & POWER I formation..

I think its good to full the trigger on the formation for misdirections and option plays( Gore/Hyde up the gut with Ellington as an option for the toss or Kaep can keep for a playaction) just a formation to use a few times during the game to keep defenses on their toes and off balance. I think it would work well for getting Lloyd and Johnson open over the top or better 1 on 1 situations.

Originally posted by SaksV:

Great thread!

I too noticed Shanny when from the Traditional WCO to a zone blocking run scheme with various I sets...although, Jim Fassel (former Bill Walsh disciple at Stanford) was sort of toying with that same stuff as OC in Denver the year before Mike was hired. Makes me wonder if Shanny installed it all himself, or kept bits and pieces that Fassel put in place (and how much).

Gary Kubiak (former 49er QB) went over with him as well, and could have had a say in some of the foundation as well....
When Kubiak went to Houston, you could see he basically took Shanny's playbook with him and added some more Ace/Singleback sets.

Interestingly, Mike Heimerginger (RIP) who was a college roommate of Shanahan's, utilized the exact same formations during his time as Titans OC except he went to a power/man run blocking scheme.

Mike Holmgren added the spread look with a lot of flexing of the TE like we use now (Mark Chmura was good at this as well as Sterling Sharpe in the slot). It really hurt teams in the late 90s because most defenses were still running a traditional FS/SS scheme, with the SS being more like an extra LB. Putting the TE in the slot or out wide forced teams to defend in awkward positions whenever they played the Packers. It was a subtle but deadly wrinkle.

Mooch took it with him to SF and it added some more productivity towards the end of Brent Jones' career.

I could go on....I love the WCO

Personally I thought Shanny went with the One cut and Go run offense because of Elway's arm to add verticality to the WCO and make it have that vertical dimension similar to the Coryell offense.

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by thl408:

Some comments from Roman regarding split back formation. I came across this while trying to find the interview where Roman specifically addressed why he went away from the pro set formation. It had to do with the point raised earlier about how an offense would rather just put the RB or WR in the slot and be done with it (with regards to lining up a player closer to the edge of the formation). From 2012

Q: Rams LB James Laurinaitis was talking about some of your run concepts, formations, it's unique. You just don't see it with any other team. He specifically talked about the split back. What are some of your influences? Did you watch the Bill Walsh installation tapes? Did that influence you?
Roman: The person that really taught me all that was George Seifert. I worked for George in Carolina and he had a tremendous impact on me as a football coach. I was privy to all that stuff back then, and got to watch all the films and what not and learned about it...

Q: Why is the split back formation never used any more?
Roman: You know, you'd have to ask them. You'd have to ask them. I don't know. I don't want to get into a big thing here, but that used to be the norm a long time ago and then it kind of evolved in the 80's to I-Backs. You try to marry everything you do together so, I think everybody's more of an I-Back field.

In the specific article I am trying to find, Roman does know. I'll keep digging, but it's not as if I don't remember what he said, I just want to provide proof that he said it.


Here are Fangio's thoughts on the modern day WCO with a mention to the split backfield:

"The West Coast offense that everybody claims they run, nobody really runs the West Coast offense that Bill Walsh used to run," Fangio said. "… All these self-proclaimed West Coast offenses really are not running Bill Walsh's offense. They use his nomenclature and words in defining and naming formations and stuff. But they're really not running the offense that he used to run, 100 percent of the time. Everyone has taken their own version of it and put their own little mark on it. To me, I don't see anybody running the West Coast offense."

Fangio said Mike Holmgren first tweaked Walsh's offense as the Niners offensive coordinator from 1989-91, primarily by using an I-formation instead of a split-back set.

Holmgren then continued making changes as the Packers head coach and, Fangio said, the offense further evolved as coaches from the Holmgren coaching tree became head coaches.

I'm not one to argue with fangio, but I have about 10 games on my CPU from 89-91 and while we use some I form it is far from being our base formation. We where still very much a pro form team. What Saks said is correct tho, he did spread us out more with 3 wide set. I watched the 1990 title game again and it alluded that with sherrard in the line up the niners averaged 311 pass yards a game in '90. I really think holmgren went primarily I form with GB.

I've read some of Walsh's masters thesis "Flank Formation:stress defense" Masters Thesis Link

On page 75 starts the run concepts. Bottom line, he states that flanking run maneuvers need speed. Specifically the blockers have to be faster than the ones being blocked or the flanking runs (i.e. sweeps don't work very well). Since linebackers have been getting faster and faster as the NFL has implemented more and more rules that freed up the passing offenses (as so well stated by THL408), I think what is going on is that the split back, sweep type offense doesn't work anymore because of the current speed of the Linebackers. That's why the more direct blocking and zone blocking - which I'm reading as the Weak I and the Strong I, and the power I formations - are now prevalent and the pro-set formations have been less utilized. He mentions in the thesis that in combination with the direct blocking (power run formations) the deceptive blocking should be used to utilize a defender's speed to get him in the wrong position, or create favorable blocking angles. All in all, the pro-set does not lend itself very well to the power blocking concepts now utilized by what looks like a good portion of the WCO coaches being mentioned.

This has turned into quite a thread.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Spider Y 2 banana....done!

we've ran this play a couple times lol

Originally posted by Giedi:

I've read some of Walsh's masters thesis "Flank Formation:stress defense" Masters Thesis Link

On page 75 starts the run concepts. Bottom line, he states that flanking run maneuvers need speed. Specifically the blockers have to be faster than the ones being blocked or the flanking runs (i.e. sweeps don't work very well). Since linebackers have been getting faster and faster as the NFL has implemented more and more rules that freed up the passing offenses (as so well stated by THL408), I think what is going on is that the split back, sweep type offense doesn't work anymore because of the current speed of the Linebackers. That's why the more direct blocking and zone blocking - which I'm reading as the Weak I and the Strong I, and the power I formations - are now prevalent and the pro-set formations have been less utilized. He mentions in the thesis that in combination with the direct blocking (power run formations) the deceptive blocking should be used to utilize a defender's speed to get him in the wrong position, or create favorable blocking angles. All in all, the pro-set does not lend itself very well to the power blocking concepts now utilized by what looks like a good portion of the WCO coaches being mentioned.

I think that is Harbs idea of his offense. I believe he wants the power run game with the WCO passing game. As THL has illustrated numerous times we run all the WCO concepts in our passing game. That is the nice thing about the I, strong and weak form is they lend themselves nicely to running all the traditional WCO passing concepts and not lossing the disguise they provide in the power run game.

Now I still think there is a place for the pro form in a modern WCO. As I mentioned above, it lends itself nicely to the hb passing attack and a double screen game. Also think the split could be utilized as a formation shift based on coverage. For example, let's say we come out in an I form and kap reads a cover 2 look. Why not shift that formation to a split and audible to a Texas concept(cover2 beater) and get those backs to the flank and set up the Texas concept with the back and TE and on the other side get that back in either a better blocking position or even make him a hot receiver to exploit and blitz pressure.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Personally I thought Shanny went with the One cut and Go run offense because of Elway's arm to add verticality to the WCO and make it have that vertical dimension similar to the Coryell offense.

That sounds right, I had theorized that maybe it also had something to do with what he saw with us in his years here. We did start to see a loss of effectiveness in the run game from '92-'94. For what ever the reason, it was very wise and Denver became a plug and play run game with every back seemed to become a 1000 yard back.

Outside of bill walsh, mike holmgren and mike shanahan have been my favorite offensive minds. How fortunate for us was it to at least one of them from 1979 to 1994.

Originally posted by Giedi:
I've read some of Walsh's masters thesis "Flank Formation:stress defense" Masters Thesis Link

On page 75 starts the run concepts. Bottom line, he states that flanking run maneuvers need speed. Specifically the blockers have to be faster than the ones being blocked or the flanking runs (i.e. sweeps don't work very well). Since linebackers have been getting faster and faster as the NFL has implemented more and more rules that freed up the passing offenses (as so well stated by THL408), I think what is going on is that the split back, sweep type offense doesn't work anymore because of the current speed of the Linebackers. That's why the more direct blocking and zone blocking - which I'm reading as the Weak I and the Strong I, and the power I formations - are now prevalent and the pro-set formations have been less utilized. He mentions in the thesis that in combination with the direct blocking (power run formations) the deceptive blocking should be used to utilize a defender's speed to get him in the wrong position, or create favorable blocking angles. All in all, the pro-set does not lend itself very well to the power blocking concepts now utilized by what looks like a good portion of the WCO coaches being mentioned.

Edit: Agree that this is a great thread and thanks to all who have enlightened me! Learning a lot here!

Good point Giedi and someone else mentioned the difference in lines in an earlier post. With the current line I don't see Walsh's offense working...not quick enough...but incredible power--when healthy.

I recall Walsh saying he would like to be able to have one formation--not that it was totally possible, with all plays out of the single set, to keep the D guessing...no tip offs. Wonder what he thought about his protege's going to variations? Particuarly the I.

Of course, his playbook had just about everything under the sun in it but it was when and how plays were used that mattered.

Originally posted by Niners816:
That sounds right, I had theorized that maybe it also had something to do with what he saw with us in his years here. We did start to see a loss of effectiveness in the run game from '92-'94. For what ever the reason, it was very wise and Denver became a plug and play run game with every back seemed to become a 1000 yard back.

Outside of bill walsh, mike holmgren and mike shanahan have been my favorite offensive minds. How fortunate for us was it to at least one of them from 1979 to 1994.

Agree with this and I was very disappointed they couldn't, didn't continue with the niners. Either would have been a good replacement for Seifert when he left. Mariucci gave me some hope but I don't think his personality was strong enough...seems like a great guy though. Holmgren had the strongest personality and command presence of the Walsh proteges.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Agree with this and I was very disappointed they couldn't, didn't continue with the niners. Either would have been a good replacement for Seifert when he left. Mariucci gave me some hope but I don't think his personality was strong enough...seems like a great guy though. Holmgren had the strongest personality and command presence of the Walsh proteges.

I agree with this. It's still kinda shocking to me that it looks like holmgren will never have a position above coordinator with us. Even when he was winning a title in GB I always felt like he was gonna come home.