Jump to content

Does Carrying 5 Backs And A Fullback Indicate A Run Heavy Offense?


tobyd77
 Share

Recommended Posts

What's up #Falconsfam? Here is another video. Talking about what maybe the meaning behind carrying 5 backs and a fullback. Does it mean more running the football under OC Dirk Koetter? Pound 4 Pound ATL speaks on it. In this video. And would love your take as well. Thanks!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think so, it just means that when they need to run it on 3rd and short, in the red zone or, for  4 minute drive to close out  games, they can do that.

As good as the falcons offense has been last few years, once you get them in predictable down and distance, they haven't done as well.They got stuffed on a lot of short yardage runs, got Ryan sacked on 3rd and longs. 

Think that all changes this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this video last night. I'd expect solid balanced attack. It was already stated that the key is to reestablish the run game. Don't know about heavy rush but it'll be a crucial part of the game plan. Dirk's a 4 verts guy so look to attack deep a lot. As long as the game is manageable and the Falcons have a lead, I'd expect to run the ball more during those games instead of going away from the run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 backs doesn't necessarily mean a commitment to the run game.

It means backs 4 & 5 if active on gameday are going to be special teamers.

OR there is legitimate concern about the durability of some of the starters.

If you go back and look at the history of the game where teams were run heavy it was basically being done by 2 or 3 guys.... the ones I remember anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, falconidae said:

Don't think so, it just means that when they need to run it on 3rd and short, in the red zone or, for  4 minute drive to close out  games, they can do that.

As good as the falcons offense has been last few years, once you get them in predictable down and distance, they haven't done as well.They got stuffed on a lot of short yardage runs, got Ryan sacked on 3rd and longs. 

Think that all changes this year.

This..this...a thousand times this.

And it has my heart all atwitter looking forward to hear ole Wes say:

"Lindstrom and Mcgary just obliterated the right side of the saints defensive line for an easy walk in touch down!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, schwarzenegger321 said:

I think it means we will keep that extra back until Hageman's suspension is over.  Then we will have one less back.  Use the first two games to lock down a solid #2 and #3 behind freeman.

What does Hageman have to do with anything? He doesn't deserve a spot over anyone on the current roster, especially not a running back that actually contributed and earned a spot during preseason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not run heavy.

It means Freeman injury insurance and more balanced of an attack.

Think 2016 offense in terms of balance but of course it’ll be Koetter’s playcalling and Mularkey helping formulate the run game. Knapp can breathe something from the QB room to the run game/pass game plans for each week as well.

Edited by Ergo Proxy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, falconidae said:

Don't think so, it just means that when they need to run it on 3rd and short, in the red zone or, for  4 minute drive to close out  games, they can do that.

As good as the falcons offense has been last few years, once you get them in predictable down and distance, they haven't done as well.They got stuffed on a lot of short yardage runs, got Ryan sacked on 3rd and longs. 

Think that all changes this year.

Hope you're right. That has been the Falcons offensive Achilles Heel for a long time and really hurt them over and over and over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ya_boi_j said:

What does Hageman have to do with anything? He doesn't deserve a spot over anyone on the current roster, especially not a running back that actually contributed and earned a spot during preseason

There is no reason to keep 5 RB's, unless you think health is an issue or have another reason.  We've been told everyone is healthy.  The only reason I can think of to keep five is to see who you want to keep over the long term and then drop one.  The Hageman situation is the only catalyst I can think of for doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, schwarzenegger321 said:

There is no reason to keep 5 RB's, unless you think health is an issue or have another reason.  We've been told everyone is healthy.  The only reason I can think of to keep five is to see who you want to keep over the long term and then drop one.  The Hageman situation is the only catalyst I can think of for doing that.

Nope. Hage's is gone. They are keeping all five. It was really Hill forcing their hand. He showed up in a big way this summer. Hard to keep him off the roster and no way were they exposing Ollison to getting poached. Plus, once the WRs didn't show they could kick Barner off the roster, you keep him as a returner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would not be surprised if we move on from either Barner or Hill.  Honestly I think Barner's spot may not be safe.  I think we are looking to have a returner who does more than return.  Hardy, Sanu and Ito can all do this but I think we will be working to make OZ our returner.  If you've seen his UVA tape, he has the skillset to make guys miss...just need to work on ball security.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no doubt that we're going to run the ball more I'm much more curious as to when and how, are we going with four or five active backs on game day. Because Barner will be active every game day if he's a punt returner/kick returner and I do believe they got some packages for him, from what I saw during training camp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, schwarzenegger321 said:

There is no reason to keep 5 RB's, unless you think health is an issue or have another reason.  We've been told everyone is healthy.  The only reason I can think of to keep five is to see who you want to keep over the long term and then drop one.  The Hageman situation is the only catalyst I can think of for doing that.

Barner is a return specialist so technically he doesn't even count. Ollison or Hill will most likely be inactive on gamedays. Being healthy today doesn't equate to a guarantee that no injuries occur Sunday. Hageman shouldn't even be mentioned unless there is an injury to a defensive lineman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically the fact that nobody looked even remotely competent at returner meant we had to hold on to Barner. He is on the roster because he can return kicks and nobody else proved they could.

If Barner wasn’t a returner he wouldn’t be on this roster because both Hill and Ollison showed more potential and value as true RBs. 

I look at his spot the same as when Hester was here. We had to keep 6 receivers  at least back then because he was occupying a spot at WR even though he really was just our starter at Returner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s because they know Freeman will miss games every time he gets a concussion, which is quite likely to happen at least once this season, if not more.

I don’t think they want to have look towards the Jeremy Langford’s or Terrence McGee’s again for late season RB depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...