Rank the new Running Backs

[carlfense]

By stating that I ran the offense for 4 years didn't mean that I was Montana or Vick. Just saying if you have SPEED it wasn't a good offense to run. For speed you want to SPREAD teams out and get your playmakers in space. The double wing everyone is bunched together. Don't say yeah I would post something, but you wouldn't get it like you are more educated at football than I am. Get serious

The whole POINT of the flexbone is getting your playmakers in space. I think you are confusing the flexbone with the wishbone . . . which was a very constrained, power running, 3 yards and a cloud of dust type offense.

Your argument about the last 5 national champions is one of the most ridiculous excuses for logic that I've seen in a long, long, time.

2005 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the spread offense. We'd better not try it.

1969 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the wishbone. We'd better not try it.

See the problem with your logic? I'll explain further if you'd like. (Also, I'd be willing to guess that a large percentage of HB posters, myself included, had 4 years of high school football experience.)

 

[BIG ERN]

By stating that I ran the offense for 4 years didn't mean that I was Montana or Vick. Just saying if you have SPEED it wasn't a good offense to run. For speed you want to SPREAD teams out and get your playmakers in space. The double wing everyone is bunched together. Don't say yeah I would post something, but you wouldn't get it like you are more educated at football than I am. Get serious

The whole POINT of the flexbone is getting your playmakers in space. I think you are confusing the flexbone with the wishbone . . . which was a very constrained, power running, 3 yards and a cloud of dust type offense.

Your argument about the last 5 national champions is one of the most ridiculous excuses for logic that I've seen in a long, long, time.

2005 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the spread offense. We'd better not try it.

1969 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the wishbone. We'd better not try it.

See the problem with your logic? I'll explain further if you'd like. (Also, I'd be willing to guess that a large percentage of HB posters, myself included, had 4 years of high school football experience.)

Flexbone is getting your playmakers in space? Worst logic I've ever heard. If you want to have success with the flexbone you HAVE to have a good offensive line. It's about playing sound football and being patient to bust open a big play. The spread is about getting the ball out quick and letting backs and receivers make a guy miss and they're gone because its a lot of one-on-one coverage from being spread out. Florida, Oregon, & Nebraska aren't recruiting John Clay type backs but Jeff Demps, LaMichael James, Aaron Green. Also smaller receivers who are fast are going to thrive in the spread more so than Pro Style and other offenses because of speed alone.

 

[carlfense]

By stating that I ran the offense for 4 years didn't mean that I was Montana or Vick. Just saying if you have SPEED it wasn't a good offense to run. For speed you want to SPREAD teams out and get your playmakers in space. The double wing everyone is bunched together. Don't say yeah I would post something, but you wouldn't get it like you are more educated at football than I am. Get serious

The whole POINT of the flexbone is getting your playmakers in space. I think you are confusing the flexbone with the wishbone . . . which was a very constrained, power running, 3 yards and a cloud of dust type offense.

Your argument about the last 5 national champions is one of the most ridiculous excuses for logic that I've seen in a long, long, time.

2005 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the spread offense. We'd better not try it.

1969 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the wishbone. We'd better not try it.

See the problem with your logic? I'll explain further if you'd like. (Also, I'd be willing to guess that a large percentage of HB posters, myself included, had 4 years of high school football experience.)

Flexbone is getting your playmakers in space? Worst logic I've ever heard. If you want to have success with the flexbone you HAVE to have a good offensive line. It's about playing sound football and being patient to bust open a big play. The spread is about getting the ball out quick and letting backs and receivers make a guy miss and they're gone because its a lot of one-on-one coverage from being spread out. Florida, Oregon, & Nebraska aren't recruiting John Clay type backs but Jeff Demps, LaMichael James, Aaron Green. Also smaller receivers who are fast are going to thrive in the spread more so than Pro Style and other offenses because of speed alone.

Anything to back up your claim that my argument is poor logic? I just gave you two reasons why your own argument is flawed. Perhaps you'd be able to do likewise? Or, perhaps not.

Let's start simply. The flexbone formation gives the defense the threat of 4 vertical routes on every play (the same as . . . GASP . . . the 4 wide spread). Look at the diagram posted earlier. 2 WR (eligible receivers) and 2 SB (eligible receivers). The defense is forced to choose between bringing 1 or more safeties up into run support where they are absolutely necessary to stop the option . . . but doing so leaves the middle or one side of the field unprotected for one of the 4 verticals. This, on top of the threat of being outflanked to either side of the field is a real conundrum for a defense. You can't be everywhere at once. Either one or more of the four verticals will be open or you won't have enough bodies in run coverage. Keep in mind that this is only the base formation. The same basic concepts can be used with both WR to the same side, with TEs, etc.

Plus, add on the fact that most teams in the country face 6+ spread offenses per season . . . while playing at MOST 1 triple option team. Do you think teams are better at defending an offense they see every week or at defending an offense they MIGHT see once per year? Rhetorical question. You don't actually need to answer.

You said "worst offense ever if you have speed." Please. Defend that. When you make an allegation it helps to include facts to support it. You've done nothing so far but say that the last 5 national champions ran a version of the spread or pro style and informed us that you ran some extraordinarily simplified version of the triple option in high school. Those don't support your claim. Perhaps you'd like to cite the superiority of Missouri's spread offense? The offense that disappears every time it faces a defense with a pulse? They get those receivers out in space don't they . . . oh wait? They can't break a real coverage scheme? Interesting.

 

[BIG ERN]

By stating that I ran the offense for 4 years didn't mean that I was Montana or Vick. Just saying if you have SPEED it wasn't a good offense to run. For speed you want to SPREAD teams out and get your playmakers in space. The double wing everyone is bunched together. Don't say yeah I would post something, but you wouldn't get it like you are more educated at football than I am. Get serious

The whole POINT of the flexbone is getting your playmakers in space. I think you are confusing the flexbone with the wishbone . . . which was a very constrained, power running, 3 yards and a cloud of dust type offense.

Your argument about the last 5 national champions is one of the most ridiculous excuses for logic that I've seen in a long, long, time.

2005 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the spread offense. We'd better not try it.

1969 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the wishbone. We'd better not try it.

See the problem with your logic? I'll explain further if you'd like. (Also, I'd be willing to guess that a large percentage of HB posters, myself included, had 4 years of high school football experience.)

Flexbone is getting your playmakers in space? Worst logic I've ever heard. If you want to have success with the flexbone you HAVE to have a good offensive line. It's about playing sound football and being patient to bust open a big play. The spread is about getting the ball out quick and letting backs and receivers make a guy miss and they're gone because its a lot of one-on-one coverage from being spread out. Florida, Oregon, & Nebraska aren't recruiting John Clay type backs but Jeff Demps, LaMichael James, Aaron Green. Also smaller receivers who are fast are going to thrive in the spread more so than Pro Style and other offenses because of speed alone.

Anything to back up your claim that my argument is poor logic? I just gave you two reasons why your own argument is flawed. Perhaps you'd be able to do likewise? Or, perhaps not.

Let's start simply. The flexbone formation gives the defense the threat of 4 vertical routes on every play (the same as . . . GASP . . . the 4 wide spread). Look at the diagram posted earlier. 2 WR (eligible receivers) and 2 SB (eligible receivers). The defense is forced to choose between bringing 1 or more safeties up into run support where they are absolutely necessary to stop the option . . . but doing so leaves the middle or one side of the field unprotected for one of the 4 verticals. This, on top of the threat of being outflanked to either side of the field is a real conundrum for a defense. You can't be everywhere at once. Either one or more of the four verticals will be open or you won't have enough bodies in run coverage. Keep in mind that this is only the base formation. The same basic concepts can be used with both WR to the same side, with TEs, etc.

Plus, add on the fact that most teams in the country face 6+ spread offenses per season . . . while playing at MOST 1 triple option team. Do you think teams are better at defending an offense they see every week or at defending an offense they MIGHT see once per year? Rhetorical question. You don't actually need to answer.

You said "worst offense ever if you have speed." Please. Defend that. When you make an allegation it helps to include facts to support it. You've done nothing so far but say that the last 5 national champions ran a version of the spread or pro style and informed us that you ran some extraordinarily simplified version of the triple option in high school. Those don't support your claim. Perhaps you'd like to cite the superiority of Missouri's spread offense? The offense that disappears every time it faces a defense with a pulse? They get those receivers out in space don't they . . . oh wait? They can't break a real coverage scheme? Interesting.

Who would be a better fit for the flexbone? LaMichael James or John Clay? Now for the spread? Flexbone you have RB's blocking LB's and and the FB kicking out the DE's if they aren't getting the ball. RB's go in motion (horizontally) which alone is stupid IMO. It's just a big cluster F***. No coach would ever run this if they were recruiting just speed, and you obviously can't tell when someone is exaggerating a statement. Never said this offense couldn't work, just stating if you were recruiting Green, Abdullah, and Heard this is one of the worst O's to run. I still think the Pro Style offense is the best, but again it's just an opinion. If the flexbone was so good then why don't more teams run it? Exactly. Get out of the olden days bro.

 

[carlfense]

By stating that I ran the offense for 4 years didn't mean that I was Montana or Vick. Just saying if you have SPEED it wasn't a good offense to run. For speed you want to SPREAD teams out and get your playmakers in space. The double wing everyone is bunched together. Don't say yeah I would post something, but you wouldn't get it like you are more educated at football than I am. Get serious

The whole POINT of the flexbone is getting your playmakers in space. I think you are confusing the flexbone with the wishbone . . . which was a very constrained, power running, 3 yards and a cloud of dust type offense.

Your argument about the last 5 national champions is one of the most ridiculous excuses for logic that I've seen in a long, long, time.

2005 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the spread offense. We'd better not try it.

1969 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the wishbone. We'd better not try it.

See the problem with your logic? I'll explain further if you'd like. (Also, I'd be willing to guess that a large percentage of HB posters, myself included, had 4 years of high school football experience.)

Flexbone is getting your playmakers in space? Worst logic I've ever heard. If you want to have success with the flexbone you HAVE to have a good offensive line. It's about playing sound football and being patient to bust open a big play. The spread is about getting the ball out quick and letting backs and receivers make a guy miss and they're gone because its a lot of one-on-one coverage from being spread out. Florida, Oregon, & Nebraska aren't recruiting John Clay type backs but Jeff Demps, LaMichael James, Aaron Green. Also smaller receivers who are fast are going to thrive in the spread more so than Pro Style and other offenses because of speed alone.

Anything to back up your claim that my argument is poor logic? I just gave you two reasons why your own argument is flawed. Perhaps you'd be able to do likewise? Or, perhaps not.

Let's start simply. The flexbone formation gives the defense the threat of 4 vertical routes on every play (the same as . . . GASP . . . the 4 wide spread). Look at the diagram posted earlier. 2 WR (eligible receivers) and 2 SB (eligible receivers). The defense is forced to choose between bringing 1 or more safeties up into run support where they are absolutely necessary to stop the option . . . but doing so leaves the middle or one side of the field unprotected for one of the 4 verticals. This, on top of the threat of being outflanked to either side of the field is a real conundrum for a defense. You can't be everywhere at once. Either one or more of the four verticals will be open or you won't have enough bodies in run coverage. Keep in mind that this is only the base formation. The same basic concepts can be used with both WR to the same side, with TEs, etc.

Plus, add on the fact that most teams in the country face 6+ spread offenses per season . . . while playing at MOST 1 triple option team. Do you think teams are better at defending an offense they see every week or at defending an offense they MIGHT see once per year? Rhetorical question. You don't actually need to answer.

You said "worst offense ever if you have speed." Please. Defend that. When you make an allegation it helps to include facts to support it. You've done nothing so far but say that the last 5 national champions ran a version of the spread or pro style and informed us that you ran some extraordinarily simplified version of the triple option in high school. Those don't support your claim. Perhaps you'd like to cite the superiority of Missouri's spread offense? The offense that disappears every time it faces a defense with a pulse? They get those receivers out in space don't they . . . oh wait? They can't break a real coverage scheme? Interesting.

Who would be a better fit for the flexbone? LaMichael James or John Clay? Now for the spread? Flexbone you have RB's blocking LB's and and the FB kicking out the DE's if they aren't getting the ball. RB's go in motion (horizontally) which alone is stupid IMO. It's just a big cluster F***. No coach would ever run this if they were recruiting just speed, and you obviously can't tell when someone is exaggerating a statement. Never said this offense couldn't work, just stating if you were recruiting Green, Abdullah, and Heard this is one of the worst O's to run. I still think the Pro Style offense is the best, but again it's just an opinion. If the flexbone was so good then why don't more teams run it? Exactly. Get out of the olden days bro.

Who would be better between LaMichael James and John Clay? Easy. If you are talking full back, John Clay. If you are talking slot back, LaMichael James.

Why don't more coaches run it? Because there are only two at the moment who know HOW to run it. (Paul Johnson and Ken Niumatololo.) It's the same reason why no one is running Tom Osborne's offense at the moment. It's not because it doesn't work . . . it's because Tom Osborne isn't coaching any more and no one else can run it successfully.

Get out of the "olden days?" The flexbone is a lot newer than your pro style offense "bro."

Glad to see that you admit that your "worst offense ever if you have speed" comment was utter BS. Sometimes people surprise me.

 

[BIG ERN]

By stating that I ran the offense for 4 years didn't mean that I was Montana or Vick. Just saying if you have SPEED it wasn't a good offense to run. For speed you want to SPREAD teams out and get your playmakers in space. The double wing everyone is bunched together. Don't say yeah I would post something, but you wouldn't get it like you are more educated at football than I am. Get serious

The whole POINT of the flexbone is getting your playmakers in space. I think you are confusing the flexbone with the wishbone . . . which was a very constrained, power running, 3 yards and a cloud of dust type offense.

Your argument about the last 5 national champions is one of the most ridiculous excuses for logic that I've seen in a long, long, time.

2005 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the spread offense. We'd better not try it.

1969 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the wishbone. We'd better not try it.

See the problem with your logic? I'll explain further if you'd like. (Also, I'd be willing to guess that a large percentage of HB posters, myself included, had 4 years of high school football experience.)

Flexbone is getting your playmakers in space? Worst logic I've ever heard. If you want to have success with the flexbone you HAVE to have a good offensive line. It's about playing sound football and being patient to bust open a big play. The spread is about getting the ball out quick and letting backs and receivers make a guy miss and they're gone because its a lot of one-on-one coverage from being spread out. Florida, Oregon, & Nebraska aren't recruiting John Clay type backs but Jeff Demps, LaMichael James, Aaron Green. Also smaller receivers who are fast are going to thrive in the spread more so than Pro Style and other offenses because of speed alone.

Anything to back up your claim that my argument is poor logic? I just gave you two reasons why your own argument is flawed. Perhaps you'd be able to do likewise? Or, perhaps not.

Let's start simply. The flexbone formation gives the defense the threat of 4 vertical routes on every play (the same as . . . GASP . . . the 4 wide spread). Look at the diagram posted earlier. 2 WR (eligible receivers) and 2 SB (eligible receivers). The defense is forced to choose between bringing 1 or more safeties up into run support where they are absolutely necessary to stop the option . . . but doing so leaves the middle or one side of the field unprotected for one of the 4 verticals. This, on top of the threat of being outflanked to either side of the field is a real conundrum for a defense. You can't be everywhere at once. Either one or more of the four verticals will be open or you won't have enough bodies in run coverage. Keep in mind that this is only the base formation. The same basic concepts can be used with both WR to the same side, with TEs, etc.

Plus, add on the fact that most teams in the country face 6+ spread offenses per season . . . while playing at MOST 1 triple option team. Do you think teams are better at defending an offense they see every week or at defending an offense they MIGHT see once per year? Rhetorical question. You don't actually need to answer.

You said "worst offense ever if you have speed." Please. Defend that. When you make an allegation it helps to include facts to support it. You've done nothing so far but say that the last 5 national champions ran a version of the spread or pro style and informed us that you ran some extraordinarily simplified version of the triple option in high school. Those don't support your claim. Perhaps you'd like to cite the superiority of Missouri's spread offense? The offense that disappears every time it faces a defense with a pulse? They get those receivers out in space don't they . . . oh wait? They can't break a real coverage scheme? Interesting.

Who would be a better fit for the flexbone? LaMichael James or John Clay? Now for the spread? Flexbone you have RB's blocking LB's and and the FB kicking out the DE's if they aren't getting the ball. RB's go in motion (horizontally) which alone is stupid IMO. It's just a big cluster F***. No coach would ever run this if they were recruiting just speed, and you obviously can't tell when someone is exaggerating a statement. Never said this offense couldn't work, just stating if you were recruiting Green, Abdullah, and Heard this is one of the worst O's to run. I still think the Pro Style offense is the best, but again it's just an opinion. If the flexbone was so good then why don't more teams run it? Exactly. Get out of the olden days bro.

Who would be better between LaMichael James and John Clay? Easy. If you are talking full back, John Clay. If you are talking slot back, LaMichael James.

Why don't more coaches run it? Because there are only two at the moment who know HOW to run it. (Paul Johnson and Ken Niumatololo.) It's the same reason why no one is running Tom Osborne's offense at the moment. It's not because it doesn't work . . . it's because Tom Osborne isn't coaching any more and no one else can run it successfully.

Get out of the "olden days?" The flexbone is a lot newer than your pro style offense "bro."

Glad to see that you admit that your "worst offense ever if you have speed" comment was utter BS. Sometimes people surprise me.

Only 2 coaches in Div. 1 football know this offense? Or there are only 2 coaches dumb enough to run this offense? How is this a speed offense? Please explain. Because everyone is side by side and they can run verticals? Terrible explanation in earlier post.

 

[carlfense]

By stating that I ran the offense for 4 years didn't mean that I was Montana or Vick. Just saying if you have SPEED it wasn't a good offense to run. For speed you want to SPREAD teams out and get your playmakers in space. The double wing everyone is bunched together. Don't say yeah I would post something, but you wouldn't get it like you are more educated at football than I am. Get serious

The whole POINT of the flexbone is getting your playmakers in space. I think you are confusing the flexbone with the wishbone . . . which was a very constrained, power running, 3 yards and a cloud of dust type offense.

Your argument about the last 5 national champions is one of the most ridiculous excuses for logic that I've seen in a long, long, time.

2005 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the spread offense. We'd better not try it.

1969 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the wishbone. We'd better not try it.

See the problem with your logic? I'll explain further if you'd like. (Also, I'd be willing to guess that a large percentage of HB posters, myself included, had 4 years of high school football experience.)

Flexbone is getting your playmakers in space? Worst logic I've ever heard. If you want to have success with the flexbone you HAVE to have a good offensive line. It's about playing sound football and being patient to bust open a big play. The spread is about getting the ball out quick and letting backs and receivers make a guy miss and they're gone because its a lot of one-on-one coverage from being spread out. Florida, Oregon, & Nebraska aren't recruiting John Clay type backs but Jeff Demps, LaMichael James, Aaron Green. Also smaller receivers who are fast are going to thrive in the spread more so than Pro Style and other offenses because of speed alone.

Anything to back up your claim that my argument is poor logic? I just gave you two reasons why your own argument is flawed. Perhaps you'd be able to do likewise? Or, perhaps not.

Let's start simply. The flexbone formation gives the defense the threat of 4 vertical routes on every play (the same as . . . GASP . . . the 4 wide spread). Look at the diagram posted earlier. 2 WR (eligible receivers) and 2 SB (eligible receivers). The defense is forced to choose between bringing 1 or more safeties up into run support where they are absolutely necessary to stop the option . . . but doing so leaves the middle or one side of the field unprotected for one of the 4 verticals. This, on top of the threat of being outflanked to either side of the field is a real conundrum for a defense. You can't be everywhere at once. Either one or more of the four verticals will be open or you won't have enough bodies in run coverage. Keep in mind that this is only the base formation. The same basic concepts can be used with both WR to the same side, with TEs, etc.

Plus, add on the fact that most teams in the country face 6+ spread offenses per season . . . while playing at MOST 1 triple option team. Do you think teams are better at defending an offense they see every week or at defending an offense they MIGHT see once per year? Rhetorical question. You don't actually need to answer.

You said "worst offense ever if you have speed." Please. Defend that. When you make an allegation it helps to include facts to support it. You've done nothing so far but say that the last 5 national champions ran a version of the spread or pro style and informed us that you ran some extraordinarily simplified version of the triple option in high school. Those don't support your claim. Perhaps you'd like to cite the superiority of Missouri's spread offense? The offense that disappears every time it faces a defense with a pulse? They get those receivers out in space don't they . . . oh wait? They can't break a real coverage scheme? Interesting.

Who would be a better fit for the flexbone? LaMichael James or John Clay? Now for the spread? Flexbone you have RB's blocking LB's and and the FB kicking out the DE's if they aren't getting the ball. RB's go in motion (horizontally) which alone is stupid IMO. It's just a big cluster F***. No coach would ever run this if they were recruiting just speed, and you obviously can't tell when someone is exaggerating a statement. Never said this offense couldn't work, just stating if you were recruiting Green, Abdullah, and Heard this is one of the worst O's to run. I still think the Pro Style offense is the best, but again it's just an opinion. If the flexbone was so good then why don't more teams run it? Exactly. Get out of the olden days bro.

Who would be better between LaMichael James and John Clay? Easy. If you are talking full back, John Clay. If you are talking slot back, LaMichael James.

Why don't more coaches run it? Because there are only two at the moment who know HOW to run it. (Paul Johnson and Ken Niumatololo.) It's the same reason why no one is running Tom Osborne's offense at the moment. It's not because it doesn't work . . . it's because Tom Osborne isn't coaching any more and no one else can run it successfully.

Get out of the "olden days?" The flexbone is a lot newer than your pro style offense "bro."

Glad to see that you admit that your "worst offense ever if you have speed" comment was utter BS. Sometimes people surprise me.

Only 2 coaches in Div. 1 football know this offense? Or there are only 2 coaches dumb enough to run this offense? How is this a speed offense? Please explain. Because everyone is side by side and they can run verticals? Terrible explanation in earlier post.

You might want to check the records of those two "dumb" coaches.

You are the one who said it wasn't a speed offense. That means the burden is on you to back up your assertion. Perhaps they didn't explain that in high school