Could the Griz run a two back set?

[GlacierGrizX]

Could the Griz run a two back set, when Big Cliff comes in during option times or when Vidlak gets within goal line situations? I think Ostmo and Gilman could be tough as a two-back set. I would like to see Gilman in a "Power-I" formation too; where he get a lead blocker and gains 1 to 3 steps, of speed before initial contact. That could be dangerous, especially off tackle?

 

[AZGrizFan]

THey DID run it a couple times, where Gillman and X were both in the backfield at the same time.

 

[Ringneck]

Could the Griz run a two back set, when Big Cliff comes in during option times or when Vidlak gets within goal line situations? I think Ostmo and Gilman could be tough as a two-back set. I would like to see Gilman in a "Power-I" formation too; where he get a lead blocker and gains 1 to 3 steps, of speed before initial contact. That could be dangerous, especially off tackle?

I love the idea, but I'm a fan of old school, smash mouth, football, and your mention of the I formation gets me a little hot and bothered. I know we don't have a true fullback to lead block, but can you imagine Kellen Detrick in there as a FB? He played FB/TE in high school.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Could the Griz run a two back set, when Big Cliff comes in during option times or when Vidlak gets within goal line situations? I think Ostmo and Gilman could be tough as a two-back set. I would like to see Gilman in a "Power-I" formation too; where he get a lead blocker and gains 1 to 3 steps, of speed before initial contact. That could be dangerous, especially off tackle?

I love the idea, but I'm a fan of old school, smash mouth, football, and your mention of the I formation gets me a little hot and bothered. I know we don't have a true fullback to lead block, but can you imagine Kellen Detrick in there as a FB? He played FB/TE in high school.

We HAD a true fullback until Janacaro got hurt.

 

[Grizfan-24]

The question is what the two back scheme is meant to accomplish. I'll use a pitching reference, if you a fastball/slider guy and you have a 65 grade fastball and a 60 grade slider (both above average), why would use a 40 grade (below average) change-up?

Wrinkles for most offensive schemes are best when they are used sparingly. The more you allow teams to load up in the box for Cliff, I'm not sure that he is going to be as effective. Two back systems where Cliff is under center, isn't necessarily an awful idea, but how deep and wide is it to get the most out of Eli, Xavier, and Joey as well as Cliff. If really it is the Cliff and Eli show and Xavier or Janacaro (if he were healthy) are decoys, what is the benefit of running out a formation that actually makes it more difficult for the offense to execute.

The more that teams are allowed to key on Cliff as a run-only guy, the more it requires a lot more preparation and depth of knowledge for offensive personnel to be successful every time they run on the 20 or 30 personnel. A good example of it was the power formation Bobby used with Eastwood on the goal line, and similarly the formation that stitt used to get the ball in to the endzone against NDSU.

Variance is important, wrinkles are a great thing to have in your scheme, but if it is really your 3rd best schematic option you have in your playbook, you are better not using too much because you'll get exposed eventually.

 

[AZGrizFan]

The question is what the two back scheme is meant to accomplish. I'll use a pitching reference, if you a fastball/slider guy and you have a 65 grade fastball and a 60 grade slider (both above average), why would use a 40 grade (below average) change-up?

Wrinkles for most offensive schemes are best when they are used sparingly. The more you allow teams to load up in the box for Cliff, I'm not sure that he is going to be as effective. Two back systems where Cliff is under center, isn't necessarily an awful idea, but how deep and wide is it to get the most out of Eli, Xavier, and Joey as well as Cliff. If really it is the Cliff and Eli show and Xavier or Janacaro (if he were healthy) are decoys, what is the benefit of running out a formation that actually makes it more difficult for the offense to execute.

The more that teams are allowed to key on Cliff as a run-only guy, the more it requires a lot more preparation and depth of knowledge for offensive personnel to be successful every time they run on the 20 or 30 personnel. A good example of it was the power formation Bobby used with Eastwood on the goal line, and similarly the formation that stitt used to get the ball in to the endzone against NDSU.

Variance is important, wrinkles are a great thing to have in your scheme, but if it is really your 3rd best schematic option you have in your playbook, you are better not using too much because you'll get exposed eventually.

Why does it work so effectively for the 'Scats and Mellot? Is it because it's ALL they do?

 

[Grizfan-24]

When I watched film of the MSU game after the fact last year there were probably a dozen variances to QB power, option, and speed plays that they could run out of 1 back, 2 back, 1 TE/2TE, heavy, overload and power looks in additional open spread. That is breadth and depth that most teams don't have to their QB run options. MSU didn't have that nuance the year before in our matchup and the UM did a really great job containing Mellott.

Not that Montana couldn't get there, but the staff seems to be pretty insistent that McDowell is more than a glorified RB even though in the Butler game he was just a runner. I do believe that was by design in the second half. If Montana is legitimately better as an offense with McDowell being that power run guy, then you have to know that Pease and Bobby will change the offense in that direction. Yet, I think that is a significant deviation from what the staff and players have been working on for the past six months and where the best version of the offense is.

Can they deepen what they expect Cliff to do? Absolutely, and I would expect them to work on the change up to make McDowell vastly more effective by asking him to execute a lot of what they'd expect Vidlak to do. I think there is a scenario as McDowell becomes better at the passing aspects, that he might eventually get the lions share of snaps because of what he brings as a runner. But if he can't or isn't efficient enough, we'll continue to see him deployed as a really great off speed pitch.

 

[bgbigdog]

https://youtu.be/AcF95LvdzfE?si=Zet1nad2daQZ2ld6

https://youtu.be/VGJUc73t5aY?si=qb6iPJIvvCO7haDI

https://youtu.be/dPSlAR3WNRY?si=Vwh8m1jiGPV1rbzR

The last Griz team I recall actively employing two backs had the great Lex Hilliard running the ball. Neither the 95 or 01 teams used it much, if at all. Yo ran predominantly from a one-back set, as did Chase and Dan, and on and on. Multiple TEs were not uncommon. The common denominator for all those efforts is a dominant (dominate for some of our bozeman posters) offensive line. But you knew that right? Along with leveraging the right scheme and good backs, it is the predominant reason bozeman is able to continue doing what they do.

I do recall a play or two last Saturday when they had both 10 & 13 in the same backfield. As GF24 points out, it's a wrinkle, and wrinkles are best served in the most spare of ways.

 

[Copper Griz]

The question is what the two back scheme is meant to accomplish. I'll use a pitching reference, if you a fastball/slider guy and you have a 65 grade fastball and a 60 grade slider (both above average), why would use a 40 grade (below average) change-up?

Wrinkles for most offensive schemes are best when they are used sparingly. The more you allow teams to load up in the box for Cliff, I'm not sure that he is going to be as effective. Two back systems where Cliff is under center, isn't necessarily an awful idea, but how deep and wide is it to get the most out of Eli, Xavier, and Joey as well as Cliff. If really it is the Cliff and Eli show and Xavier or Janacaro (if he were healthy) are decoys, what is the benefit of running out a formation that actually makes it more difficult for the offense to execute.

The more that teams are allowed to key on Cliff as a run-only guy, the more it requires a lot more preparation and depth of knowledge for offensive personnel to be successful every time they run on the 20 or 30 personnel. A good example of it was the power formation Bobby used with Eastwood on the goal line, and similarly the formation that stitt used to get the ball in to the endzone against NDSU.

Variance is important, wrinkles are a great thing to have in your scheme, but if it is really your 3rd best schematic option you have in your playbook, you are better not using too much because you'll get exposed eventually.

Why does it work so effectively for the 'Scats and Mellot? Is it because it's ALL they do?

Good point. I also find it interesting that SDSU shut them down for the most part last year. It worked until it didn’t. They are too one dimensional with all their run variations and packages. They have not been able to effectively throw the ball in big games.

 

[Grizfan-24]

I was writing about this elsewhere, and maybe someday I'll finish a writing project, but over the years as a defensive guy I have come to believe doing that offenses one thing really well is vastly harder to defend than a lot of things good. When you pair that will superior skill, that is when teams make the jump from great to elite. In my estimation that was and is the difference between MSU in what they do and everyone else last year.

I think MSU isn't nearly as good if they run an offense that is more balanced and puts the ball into other players hands. That is a smart job of coaching by Vigen. As I have heard from guys far smarter than I when it comes to football who watched the MSU-UM game last year, Mellott had one of the best single game performances they've seen given the situation and system. If you can get players to execute your one dimensional scheme at a high level every time out, they can be down right impossible stop even if you know where they are going.

MSU's variances offensively are a lot more nuanced given leverage. Against the UM they hit on just every adjustment, formation and scheme tweak and honestly it may not have mattered, but their QB speed/power/read scheme is a bit more diverse than it appears. That is what caught Montana last November, and that is a testament to how a well oiled but limited scheme can make anyone look silly if done right.

MSU admittedly didn't play well in Brookings, and some of the issues were mistakes forced by SDSU and a number of others were ones that MSU hadn't made much all year. When they did, because of Mellott's abilities, they might have gotten away with it. They didn't at SDSU because of obvious reasons (talent, scheme, coaching of the SDSU staff) and it led to more negative outcomes than they had in a long while.

I do wonder how much of what MSU did last year, will have the same effect this year with a bit better scouting and preparation. Rumor is that Mellott is spinning the ball a bit better this year than last to help combat what is going to be a better tooled opposition in Missoula and elsewhere.

 

[Missoula223]

20 personnel (not 21 pictures) isn’t something difficult to get to. Anymore it is typically used when you have film of other teams running it against a team. For example, if I’m an OC and I break down 5 games with no 2 back sets I don’t know a look I would get so I might shy away from it. However if I see a teams rolling to 1 high or fitting off 1 of the two backs over those games, I might think I have a bead on how I can attack it. I also think there is something to be said about getting your best 11 on the field. And I think our backs could fit into our best 11. So to answer your question, yes we could, but it’s not something you’d really major in as an OC. It limited your passing game to (typically) a maximum of 3 vertical threats.

I’ve commented on it a few times, but the cats having dual threat throwers limit you to 2 high defenses. They know that, so they’re able to keep teams in 2 high more often than they would like to force teams to account for both QBs in the run game.

 

[Grizfan-24]

20 personnel (not 21 pictures) isn’t something difficult to get to. Anymore it is typically used when you have film of other teams running it against a team. For example, if I’m an OC and I break down 5 games with no 2 back sets I don’t know a look I would get so I might shy away from it. However if I see a teams rolling to 1 high or fitting off 1 of the two backs over those games, I might think I have a bead on how I can attack it. I also think there is something to be said about getting your best 11 on the field. And I think our backs could fit into our best 11. So to answer your question, yes we could, but it’s not something you’d really major in as an OC. It limited your passing game to (typically) a maximum of 3 vertical threats.

I’ve commented on it a few times, but the cats having dual threat throwers limit you to 2 high defenses. They know that, so they’re able to keep teams in 2 high more often than they would like to force teams to account for both QBs in the run game.

To be honest it surprised me that teams would take such a conservative angle to defend the presence of two QB's on the field, let alone one who is mobile like Mellott or Chambers. I understand why ultimately that teams chose to run out 2 high, but it really constricts your options especially if you commit to a 4-2 box or a 3-3 in how to defend off tackle runs. Truly, regardless of the risk I think teams are going to need to be willing to get more aggressive with their coverage and alignment. Obviously there is tremendous risk, but even the UM with a defense that should on paper handle both the running and throwing elements better than most caught in no mans land.

Both Fouch and Hauck struggled in getting to spots to force a bounce or turn into pursuit, mostly because of depth and the ability of MSU to manipulate alignment. Would think teams might have a bit more informed way to attack that scheme this year. Obviously one game out of the gate and it is clear that is still not the case.

I'll be curious to see if SDSU can replicate their performance last year that made both Chambers and Mellott look a lot more pedestrian.