Help me understand the deep back formation on short yardage?

It seems more an more common to see the following situation, and I can't seem to understand the logic of it....

A team is faced with 3rd and 1 yard (or less) or even 4th and 1 (or less). In College games and NFL games the last few weeks I'm seeing more and more "I" formations or deep single back formations in these situations.

When your RB is set 4 to 6 yards behind the line of scrimmage, this is setting things up for some 2 or 3 yard losses, which we have all seen recently. Also, in tonight's game, Seattle did this a couple of times and it worked out, but they just narrowly missed taken a 3 yard loss each time.

On one occasion I recall Seattle having 1st and 10 at the 1 yard line, and instead of pounding it in from close range, they have the back set really deep and take a big loss (IIRC).

These situations used to be QB sneaks when looking for a 1/2 yard or less, or the coaches also used a tight formation with a handoff to a fullback and a big puch from the O-line on those of one yard. At times, play action with rollouts also work well.

Anyway, can someone explain to me why the I formation and the deep single set formation is being used so commonly of late in very short yardage situations, and why they are handing off the ball 4 or 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage???

[Jack of Arcades]

You're giving the RB time to get a running start and time for holes to open up that way he can just keep forward momentum and hit the first hole he sees.

[Jeremy517]

There were problems with the first-and-goal from the 1 play call, but the formation wasn't one of them.

[HajiShirazu]

I'm pretty sure that in that "Inside the game" football book they talk about how in the early days of the sport, they did what you are suggesting for similar reasons, but setting the back deep in the I was shown to be so much more effective that teams quickly switched.

[cbloom]

I understand the deep back, but it does seem like the rate of QB sneaks has gone way way down recently. 5-10 years ago any time it was inches to go you'd see a QB sneak, now you hardly ever see it. Did something change? Is it fear of injuries to the QB or are defenses playing it better?

[ QUOTE ]
You're giving the RB time to get a running start and time for holes to open up that way he can just keep forward momentum and hit the first hole he sees .

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Jack. I know the pros and cons of the I formation (single or double). I doubt these plays are set up for the RB to "hit the first hole he sees." It's probably a set play like an off tackle run with the option of going wide if the hole is plugged. Or, it could be a fullback teaming with a pulling gaurd (same concept - one hole). Either way, the middle is too cluttered to cut back to, so it's run to the set hole or cut wide. If the RB has to cut east-west in short yardage before cutting upfield this is very low % play because of the type of defensive formation it will face.....anyway , back to my point..

......I'm just not seeing handing off 4 to 5 yards back of the line of scrimmage as +EV in these circumstances. After all, nobody is looking for a homerun on the plays I have described. (though the longest runs can come from these plays).

Perhaps it's being used more often when the coaches feel their O-line is not matching up well against the D to get the surge/push/block required for a 2 foot or 1 yard gain??? Perhaps the coach is not comfortable with tighter fullback formation options (dive left/dive right)?? I'm not sure??

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure that in that "Inside the game" football book they talk about how in the early days of the sport, they did what you are suggesting for similar reasons, but setting the back deep in the I was shown to be so much more effective that teams quickly switched.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thx. I'll try and read up on this.

[Needle77]

I can't help you understand because JoA already told you what is the reasoning. What I can do is tell you my opinion. That is, in short yardage situation go to a 3 or 4 wide reciever set. Spread the defense out then hand the ball off. If they play you on the outside weak, have a check to a pass. I don't see how putting 9 defenders into the box as helpful.

Spread out the defense and then hand it off. That's my theory.

[el adam]

[ QUOTE ]
That is, in short yardage situation go to a 3 or 4 wide reciever set. Spread the defense out then hand the ball off. If they play you on the outside weak, have a check to a pass. I don't see how putting 9 defenders into the box as helpful.

Spread out the defense and then hand it off. That's my theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I've been saying for roughly forever now. I agree 100%

[ QUOTE ]
I can't help you understand because JoA already told you what is the reasoning. What I can do is tell you my opinion. That is, in short yardage situation go to a 3 or 4 wide reciever set. Spread the defense out then hand the ball off. If they play you on the outside weak, have a check to a pass. I don't see how putting 9 defenders into the box as helpful.

Spread out the defense and then hand it off. That's my theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had no beef with Jack's response. He's always bang on. I just thought he responded more to what the I formation allows in general, as opposed to why the I is favoured in these circumstances with increasing regularity.

BTW, I agree with your response.