Proset Formation

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Saw that...get Miller out there!

I've said it a couple of times on here, but I would love to use spider with 12 personnel. Whether it's by motion or shifts I want to see one of our TEs in that FB position on spider to see how the defense would react. It just seems like an easy way to get McDonald or carrier touches. I think if vd was at that position the defense would be alerted for him and it might not work like it usually does. However, the attention on vd could open up the corner route.

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Saw that...get Miller out there!

I've said it a couple of times on here, but I would love to use spider with 12 personnel. Whether it's by motion or shifts I want to see one of our TEs in that FB position on spider to see how the defense would react. It just seems like an easy way to get McDonald or carrier touches. I think if vd was at that position the defense would be alerted for him and it might not work like it usually does. However, the attention on vd could open up the corner route.

I like it...Roman's needs to do something, his plays calls aren't fooling anyone. I feel like throwing McDonald or Carrier in that position would equal easy yards and would be great in the red zone.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

I like it...Roman's needs to do something, his plays calls aren't fooling anyone. I feel like throwing McDonald or Carrier in that position would equal easy yards and would be great in the red zone.

Agreed...it would also be a great first down play. IMO spider y banana should be what flanker drive was to our dynasty team. That is a go to money play, that is ran 5+ times a game or until the defense proves it can stop it.

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
It has value in being a formation we don't usually use. Teams don't prepare for it. If Gore and Hyde are in the backfield, it may influence the second level to hover more to determine who will get the ball. Right now, they seem to have effective tells on our runs so we get blown up a lot -- doesn't matter who's back there Gore Hyde Lattimore Jim Brown.

Totally agree with this. I have always loved the pro form (far/near for that matter also), but it's just really tough to consistently run out of these horizontal split formations. However, we do run a far share of far/near in our goaline package.

Specifically concerning the pro set or "red" in the classic walsh offense, it would be hard for our OL to pull to the degree that is needed to perform the old Lombardi sweep. That was really our big run play from that formation. I agree tho that the formation lends itself nicely to a hb passing attack since they are already split out closer to the flats, but my fear would be without a proper run game attached to the formation we would basically be telling the defense what was coming. Now in the harbaugh era we have ran "red" formation a couple of times and it seems like our play of choice from it is the old Playaction slide plays.

I do think you could establish a nice little package of draws and screens from the traditional horizontal formation, but we have how our OL performs in the screen game so it would be hard to be consistently effective doing this. Also, I think you could package that formation with pure speed back there like Ellington and Hyde and run some of our old "Texas", "bingo cross", "hb spread" or "hb arrow" type plays and try to get them isolated on LBers.

Now as a fan, I always loved the aesthetics of the traditional horizontal forms. It just looked awesome watching us carve up teams under center using these forms. They were basically a staple of our offense as recently as 2002 with mooch. But even then, we where running out of I, strong and weak forms. I still watch quite a few old niners games and I still love the sight of Jerry catching a pass on the old "22 Z in" play out of the "red" formation.

The bolded was the big reason that Walsh loved the traditional pro set formation - it brought the RBs closer to the edge of the formation to give them a "head start" into their flat routes as well as the Texas routes (HB circle). (The other reason was pass protection and blitz pickup). The spit backfield gave the RBs an advantage, via formation, over the slower, run stopping LBs of the 80's. The reason why teams have pretty much phased out the pro set formation is because of evolution - adaptation.

About two decades ago when the LB position started to catch up to the RB position in terms of athleticism, it made less and less sense to split the backfield (pro set) for this advantage. Nowadays, where LBs are just as fast if not faster than RBs, it began to make more sense to line up the RB in the slot or remove the FB entirely and put in a slot WR. As far as route combinations, the slot WR is just as effective as the pro set with dual RBs. The slot WR may tip off "pass play" to the defense, but that's okay now as we all know it's a passing league anyway and teams started to deploy the 11 personnel (1rb/1te/3wr) as their base package.

The reason why pro set is not a strong run formation is because with a HB and FB in the pro set, it tipped off the direction in which the run play would go, assuming the offense wants the FB to be lead blocking. Do we really want Gore or Hyde to be lead blocking? If Gore and Ellington were in the backfield, are defenses going to respect Ellington as a lead blocker? Teams are using more of the offset I formation now because even though there is a strong side to that formation, it's easier to run counter plays when the FB is slightly offset and the HB is directly behind the QB.

So the two biggest reasons why I don't think we see pro set is because the formation advantage it once had is now gone due to LBs being just as athletic as RBs. The other reason is it tips off which direction a run play could go.

Originally posted by thl408:

The bolded was the big reason that Walsh loved the traditional pro set formation - it brought the RBs closer to the edge of the formation to give them a "head start" into their flat routes as well as the Texas routes (HB circle). (The other reason was pass protection and blitz pickup). The spit backfield gave the RBs an advantage, via formation, over the slower, run stopping LBs of the 80's. The reason why teams have pretty much phased out the pro set formation is because of evolution - adaptation.

About two decades ago when the LB position started to catch up to the RB position in terms of athleticism, it made less and less sense to split the backfield (pro set) for this advantage. Nowadays, where LBs are just as fast if not faster than RBs, it began to make more sense to line up the RB in the slot or remove the FB entirely and put in a slot WR. As far as route combinations, the slot WR is just as effective as the pro set with dual RBs. The slot WR may tip off "pass play" to the defense, but that's okay now as we all know it's a passing league anyway and teams started to deploy the 11 personnel (1rb/1te/3wr) as their base package.

The reason why pro set is not a strong run formation is because with a HB and FB in the pro set, it tipped off the direction in which the run play would go, assuming the offense wants the FB to be lead blocking. Do we really want Gore or Hyde to be lead blocking? If Gore and Ellington were in the backfield, are defenses going to respect Ellington as a lead blocker? Teams are using more of the offset I formation now because even though there is a strong side to that formation, it's easier to run counter plays when the FB is slightly offset and the HB is directly behind the QB.

So the two biggest reasons why I don't think we see pro set is because the formation advantage it once had is now gone due to LBs being just as athletic as RBs. The other reason is it tips off which direction a run play could go.

Very good points. Pretty much any concept side stuff you want to do out of pro can be done out of strong without losing the disguise of the run game.

Split lends itself nicely to some double screens, but we lack the athletic OL to pull this off. However , for the hell of it I would love to see kap line up in "red" and dart one of the out routes on "Omaha"

I mentioned above, I've been on a '92-'94 kick lately and even then the pro form was the intial formation but by the snap it had usually been motioned or shifted to more of a 3 wide look with either Ricky or one of the FB motioning to a wideout look.

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

It's Spider 2 Y Banana.

Originally posted by Niners816:
I've been on a '92-'94 kick lately. Now, those where the shanahan years and our running game was pretty spectacular in those years.

1992 - 2315 yards 4.8 ave
1993 - 2133 yards 4.6 ave
1994 - 1897 yards 3.9 ave

However, you can notice that there was a bit of erosion though as the yards per carry lost about a yard. In those games, about 2-3 times you would see us run something out of a weak or strong formation. I had always wondered if shanahan recognized this and that's why when he took over Denver his offense pretty much shelved the horizontal forms and was primarily an I, strong, weak team with a zone blocking scheme. I imagine that was his tweak to the WCO to make it his own.

That may be impressive to younger 49er fans, but I suggest you take a look at the 1949 49ers who used the T-formation (full backfield of 2 rbs and a FB). That season under Buck Shaw (the original Silver Fox and with Frankie Albert at QB) the 49ers rushed the ball 603 times for 3,663 yards, an average of 6.07 per carry with 35 TDs on the ground. All this in only 14 games!

For you guys who thought Steve Young was our first running QB, think again. Frankie averaged 5.06 yds per carry and scored 8 TDs. He also completed 29 TDs against 10 INTs and had a passer rating of 102.9. Plus, his punting average was 48.2 yds per kick. Andy Lee led the NFL last season with 48.1 People should learn more about the great Frankie Albert.

Originally posted by kezarvet49:

That may be impressive to younger 49er fans, but I suggest you take a look at the 1949 49ers who used the T-formation (full backfield of 2 rbs and a FB). That season under Buck Shaw (the original Silver Fox and with Frankie Albert at QB) the 49ers rushed the ball 603 times for 3,663 yards, an average of 6.07 per carry with 35 TDs on the ground. All this in only 14 games!

For you guys who thought Steve Young was our first running QB, think again. Frankie averaged 5.06 yds per carry and scored 8 TDs. He also completed 29 TDs against 10 INTs and had a passer rating of 102.9. Plus, his punting average was 48.2 yds per kick. Andy Lee led the NFL last season with 48.1 People should learn more about the great Frankie Albert.

Those numbers are impressive, but the numbers I referenced where done in the nfl not the AAFC. Very few of the early NFL niner rush offense put up numbers that much better than those I listed. Also none of the early niner offenses had passing games that completed pass at a 68-70% clib and a qb rating in the 105-112 range.

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by thl408:

The bolded was the big reason that Walsh loved the traditional pro set formation - it brought the RBs closer to the edge of the formation to give them a "head start" into their flat routes as well as the Texas routes (HB circle). (The other reason was pass protection and blitz pickup). The spit backfield gave the RBs an advantage, via formation, over the slower, run stopping LBs of the 80's. The reason why teams have pretty much phased out the pro set formation is because of evolution - adaptation.

About two decades ago when the LB position started to catch up to the RB position in terms of athleticism, it made less and less sense to split the backfield (pro set) for this advantage. Nowadays, where LBs are just as fast if not faster than RBs, it began to make more sense to line up the RB in the slot or remove the FB entirely and put in a slot WR. As far as route combinations, the slot WR is just as effective as the pro set with dual RBs. The slot WR may tip off "pass play" to the defense, but that's okay now as we all know it's a passing league anyway and teams started to deploy the 11 personnel (1rb/1te/3wr) as their base package.

The reason why pro set is not a strong run formation is because with a HB and FB in the pro set, it tipped off the direction in which the run play would go, assuming the offense wants the FB to be lead blocking. Do we really want Gore or Hyde to be lead blocking? If Gore and Ellington were in the backfield, are defenses going to respect Ellington as a lead blocker? Teams are using more of the offset I formation now because even though there is a strong side to that formation, it's easier to run counter plays when the FB is slightly offset and the HB is directly behind the QB.

So the two biggest reasons why I don't think we see pro set is because the formation advantage it once had is now gone due to LBs being just as athletic as RBs. The other reason is it tips off which direction a run play could go.

Very good points. Pretty much any concept side stuff you want to do out of pro can be done out of strong without losing the disguise of the run game.

Split lends itself nicely to some double screens, but we lack the athletic OL to pull this off. However , for the hell of it I would love to see kap line up in "red" and dart one of the out routes on "Omaha"

I mentioned above, I've been on a '92-'94 kick lately and even then the pro form was the intial formation but by the snap it had usually been motioned or shifted to more of a 3 wide look with either Ricky or one of the FB motioning to a wideout look.

Very nice! lots of knowledgable people here. There are some awesome football nerds on this board. Thats why this is the place to be if you are a 49er fan.

Bravo gentlemen, I love this kind of thread!

Originally posted by m_brockalexander:

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

It's Spider 2 Y Banana.

So sorry Gruden

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by m_brockalexander:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Spider Y 2 banana....done!

It's Spider 2 Y Banana.

So sorry Gruden

"Show me frankenberry , 3 Q count chockula"

I'm sorry, caliendo's gruden impression is awesome.

Im glad thos thread has legs. It shows we are searching for answers.

Who said anything about using lrpset as a base e formation? Change of pace. Run fakes and feints for downfield pass plays. Can still trap out of it. Naked pitch. Just keep the seconf level from flooding the gaps.

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

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.