Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Any one else here want to see more 1 back sets?

Posted on 9/1/14 at 5:44 pm
Posted by poncho villa
DALLAS
Member since Jul 2010
17694 posts
Posted on 9/1/14 at 5:44 pm
I'm no coach but I feel like lsu would be more successful running the ball with 1 back in the back field instead of fullback running back two tight ends and 1 receiver. We really don't have any threat to pass and wisonsin never really allowed much of a gain out of this I formation set. I think it would better serve our offense of we went 1 back 2 wide and 2 tight ends (using 1 of them as a fback if necessary)
Posted by DBU
Member since Mar 2014
19059 posts
Posted on 9/1/14 at 5:47 pm to
God forbid we move away from the 3-yards and a could of dust, "big boy" football
Posted by monsterballads
Make LSU Great Again
Member since Jun 2013
29266 posts
Posted on 9/1/14 at 5:49 pm to
Diarse
Dural
Quinn

3 WR base sets all game. Run and throw out of them. Have an identity
Posted by Geaux Tahel
Member since Feb 2006
6631 posts
Posted on 9/1/14 at 5:50 pm to
quote:

3 WR base sets all game. Run and throw out of them. Have an identity


Right, cause LSU has NO identity.
Posted by PortCityTiger82
Shreveport, LA
Member since Nov 2010
6564 posts
Posted on 9/1/14 at 5:51 pm to
This errday all day
Posted by Fishhead
Elmendorf, TX
Member since Jan 2008
12171 posts
Posted on 9/1/14 at 5:56 pm to
It's hard to say what's what.

We were suddenly able to run out of that formation, but Wiscy was playing friggin nickel at the time. Were they doing that because we threatened with 3 WR set? Or because they had no choice down 2 DL? I dunno.

I DO know however that Kenny Hilliard had GAPING holes through which to run out of the single back 3 WR set.
Posted by Arab21
Member since Jun 2014
397 posts
Posted on 9/1/14 at 6:45 pm to
single back is better in my opinion over the course of a whole game. keeps the field spread. i hate when we run 2 tightend and fullback on 2nd and 10. almost dead giveaway of what we are doing. in some games it doesn't matter, we can pound through them. but there's games when we aren't dominating, like against wisky, when a single back set gives us more flexibilty.
Posted by misey94
Hernando, MS
Member since Jan 2007
23327 posts
Posted on 9/1/14 at 6:57 pm to
If Smith can do better catching the ball than he did Sat, I Formation with him at TE and 2 WRs could be a tough set for defenses to cover. If memory serves, we used this set a lot in 07, but were multiple with it. They threw quite a bit out of it that season.

There's just a lot of balance there. Hilliard and Magee have good hands. Hopefully LF does, as well. Smith is supposed to. And for the run, Diarse has the potential to be a great edge blocker with his physicality. There's a lot you can do with this set.
Posted by PortCityTiger82
Shreveport, LA
Member since Nov 2010
6564 posts
Posted on 9/1/14 at 7:07 pm to
It was a combination of going 3 wide and them missing 2 lineman but it's a numbers game. Less people to block up front when you spread them out. I think we would've had success running the ball even if they had those lineman back. I felt bad for the oline in the first half. The way the plays were being dialed up they were having to block the whole Wisconsin defense. Spreading them out really took the pressure off of our big guys.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81617 posts
Posted on 9/1/14 at 7:22 pm to
quote:

We really don't have any threat to pass and wisonsin never really allowed much of a gain out of this I formation
One of the long passes to Dural was out of the I and Dural was the only receiver.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram