Condensed Formations

[3rdand12]

On 2/7/2024 at 12:14 AM, Old Coot said:

Wall Street Journal had an interesting article on the use of condensed formations which it attributed to Mike Shanahan when he coached the Broncos. His son Kyle Shanahan uses them extensively with the 49ers. I have noticed that the Bills occasionally used condensed formations last year.

 

A condensed formation is the opposite of a spread formation. Instead of spreading the O across the field, the WRs are in close to the line and even the OL line splits may be reduced.

 

The condensed formations are said to have two advantages:

 

1. The open up the middle for passing. How so? The D needs to be concerned about all the open space toward the sidelines which the WRs and RBs have to operate and that opens up the middle to in breaking routes.

2. A spread formation likely signls pass but the condensed formation could be run or pass. I noticed that the Bills last year seemed to have more success running up the middle from a condensed formation.

 

What are your thoughts?

Horizontal boogie

Chan used something like that for Fitz. 

I dont like how it was used as Bills receivers ran into each other and really did not clear out any space

 

maybe thats on OC last year though. Concept is good for quick releases

On 2/7/2024 at 1:54 PM, stuvian said:

Kadarius Toney asks that you slow down and start again from the beginning 

OMG lol 

On 2/7/2024 at 3:25 PM, st pete gogolak said:

I lean towards evaporated instead of condensed.  Depends on the recipe.

sugar / no sugar

[3rdand12]

9 hours ago, NoSaint said:

there’s also the reality that both a spread and condensed can be correct approaches for the same personnel, in the same era, etc…. 
 

Sometimes it’s just two different ways that are both good if you have solid players and good play calling 

On any Sunday

Depends on the defenses and how you attack them, And then how they decide to defend of course
Just another tool in the toolbox , as I see it.

[MiracleAtRich1393]

On 2/7/2024 at 9:12 AM, colin said:

it's all quite cyclical, and defenses always catch up, so you really have to be able to do a few things to be a killer O.

 

this is why i think we are going to draft (hopefully later) a real bruising power back.  we are going to face nickle d's who want to crowd and body up on the wrs (frankly, that's the way you play to stop the bills), and having to tackle a big powerful ball carrier a bunch of times hits differently late in the 4th quarter.

Day 3 Pacheco type please

[NastyNateSoldiers]

On 2/7/2024 at 5:08 PM, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Maybe I am crazy but I remember Romo talking about how the Bills were using them in the Chiefs game. 

 

In theory, I think it makes the most sense for our current personnel, even if we go out and draft a stud WR to be our #2. In my mind, the three most dynamic weapons Josh had last year were Shakir, Kincaid and Cook. If two out of your three are RB and TE, condensed formation lets defenses pick their poison and then you can motion Kincaid or Cook to get an advantage. 

We were also much better running out of these formations I believe Cook averaged a whopping 1.5 yds more per run then when we ran out of shotgun. 

 

Josh is also a killer when it comes to play action. He's probably the best in the league at it. The problem is once Brady took over we ran a lot less play action I wonder why. 

 

I hope that Brady keeps using these west coast offense concepts next season use more play action like the Rams and 49ers do. 

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

7 hours ago, NastyNateSoldiers said:

We were also much better running out of these formations I believe Cook averaged a whopping 1.5 yds more per run then when we ran out of shotgun. 

 

Josh is also a killer when it comes to play action. He's probably the best in the league at it. The problem is once Brady took over we ran a lot less play action I wonder why. 

 

I hope that Brady keeps using these west coast offense concepts next season use more play action like the Rams and 49ers do. 

That does bother me. With the run game so successful and Kincaid available to attack seam routes I really thought we'd see more of it. I can't even say it was a Dorsey thing, Dorsey did plenty of play action 

[Shaw66]

I enjoy the Xs and Os and find it interesting, but like all the other data that produces a list of which teams are best and worst in the data category, I'm skeptical.   Absolutely, the offensive coordinator of every team must understand the benefits of condensed formations and know when to use them, and I do think that Shanahan tends to be ahead of the rest of league in developing offensive wrinkles (Shanahan, McVay, LaFLeur, and Reid are the guys who seem to lead the way regularly).  But like every other data category, it's something that the offensive coordinator has to consider and determine the extent to which that approach is something for their team. 

 

Actually understanding the true significance of the tight formations is very difficult, if not impossible.  You can take ANY data, turnovers, sacks given up by your left tackle, number of times you threw to running back, completions over the deep middle, anything, and it always will form an array from 1 to 32, with one team on the top and one team on the bottom.  People tend to look at those arrays, and when they find a successful team at the top, they tend to think (quite naturally) that whatever this category is must be important to success.   It just ain't necessarily so. 

 

Notice, for example, that the Bills and the Ravens are near the bottom of this list of tight formations.   Why might that be so?   I don't know, but one possible explanation leaps out at me:   If I have a QB who is great at getting running yards out of passing formations, so great that his running is a clear positive addition to the offense, I want the defense spread, not tightly packed.  Brock Purdy was 23rd in rushing yards among QBs.   If you have a QB who's too slow to get you chunk yardage by running the ball (Purdy), and if all you want him to do is distribute the ball quickly, you have less interest in spreading the offense.  

 

Now, I will say that I don't think Dorsey was very creative as the Bills offensive coordinator, and it's quite possible that he didn't understand all the benefit you get out of tight formations, or he was slow to implement it.  I don't know.  There's also been some discussion about what's made the Chiefs so effective is the fact that to counter the best modern defenses, the Chiefs have been putting 4 receivers on on side of center and 1 on the other, and it's THAT approach that has been the big change.  That works for the Chiefs whether their formation is wide or tight (and the Chiefs have been doing more tight formations).  

 

Finally, when you have three All-Pro skill position players, each of whom could legitimately demand a double team on every play, the left guard could line up facing backward on every play and the offense would still be pretty good.  

 

[3rdand12]

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I enjoy the Xs and Os and find it interesting, but like all the other data that produces a list of which teams are best and worst in the data category, I'm skeptical.   Absolutely, the offensive coordinator of every team must understand the benefits of condensed formations and know when to use them, and I do think that Shanahan tends to be ahead of the rest of league in developing offensive wrinkles (Shanahan, McVay, LaFLeur, and Reid are the guys who seem to lead the way regularly).  But like every other data category, it's something that the offensive coordinator has to consider and determine the extent to which that approach is something for their team. 

 

Actually understanding the true significance of the tight formations is very difficult, if not impossible.  You can take ANY data, turnovers, sacks given up by your left tackle, number of times you threw to running back, completions over the deep middle, anything, and it always will form an array from 1 to 32, with one team on the top and one team on the bottom.  People tend to look at those arrays, and when they find a successful team at the top, they tend to think (quite naturally) that whatever this category is must be important to success.   It just ain't necessarily so. 

 

Notice, for example, that the Bills and the Ravens are near the bottom of this list of tight formations.   Why might that be so?   I don't know, but one possible explanation leaps out at me:   If I have a QB who is great at getting running yards out of passing formations, so great that his running is a clear positive addition to the offense, I want the defense spread, not tightly packed.  Brock Purdy was 23rd in rushing yards among QBs.   If you have a QB who's too slow to get you chunk yardage by running the ball (Purdy), and if all you want him to do is distribute the ball quickly, you have less interest in spreading the offense.  

 

Now, I will say that I don't think Dorsey was very creative as the Bills offensive coordinator, and it's quite possible that he didn't understand all the benefit you get out of tight formations, or he was slow to implement it.  I don't know.  There's also been some discussion about what's made the Chiefs so effective is the fact that to counter the best modern defenses, the Chiefs have been putting 4 receivers on on side of center and 1 on the other, and it's THAT approach that has been the big change.  That works for the Chiefs whether their formation is wide or tight (and the Chiefs have been doing more tight formations).  

 

Finally, when you have three All-Pro skill position players, each of whom could legitimately demand a double team on every play, the left guard could line up facing backward on every play and the offense would still be pretty good.  

 

 

see bolded text

Fair post Shaw

Edited February 10 by 3rdand12

[djp14150]

On 2/7/2024 at 12:14 AM, Old Coot said:

Wall Street Journal had an interesting article on the use of condensed formations which it attributed to Mike Shanahan when he coached the Broncos. His son Kyle Shanahan uses them extensively with the 49ers. I have noticed that the Bills occasionally used condensed formations last year.

 

A condensed formation is the opposite of a spread formation. Instead of spreading the O across the field, the WRs are in close to the line and even the OL line splits may be reduced.

 

The condensed formations are said to have two advantages:

 

1. The open up the middle for passing. How so? The D needs to be concerned about all the open space toward the sidelines which the WRs and RBs have to operate and that opens up the middle to in breaking routes.

2. A spread formation likely signls pass but the condensed formation could be run or pass. I noticed that the Bills last year seemed to have more success running up the middle from a condensed formation.

 

What are your thoughts?

reasons for them….

 

1. Bunch to create short pass WR screens and runs. These rely on speed and blovking ability.

2. Bunch to get a WR off a jam play or to pick a DB in play design

3. spread creates more 1 on 1 isolation plays if you get mismatches in height or speed or quickness you could exploit it, the D might be man to man low with 2 deep safeties and 5 pass rushers and 6 blocking. A team with very good man on man cover corners can defend this well and safeties concentrate on the top WR or weaker DB 

4 a tight bunch formation can open up sweep running plays by a RB or QB if you have good blocking WRs and a QB/RB who can get to the outside where the bunch receivers are blocking for you.

[ganesh]

On 2/7/2024 at 7:51 PM, boyst said:

the condensed formations we ran seemed related to our tendencies and history trying to force 20 personnel. i think we stuck to known formations instead of trying to rewrite the playbook. we used the same formations with new wrinkles.

 

going forward i think brady needs to see what he has on paper. not concern running every play or every first down. get creative and look at putting the passing schemes that suit his players and create the mismatches that his qb can thrive on.

I agree...NFL offenses have evolved...You cannot stay with a few plays and try to get by it.  That is what got Dorsey fired.  Daboll was very successful in being creative with his plays.  Unfortunately, he did not see eye to eye with McDermott.