So I watched the entire Packer Bear game from 1985

when watching those 'old' games from the 80s.............you can count on one hand how many times those offenses get out of 2-back formations.


.....and people wonder why the 46 isn't as potent as it was in the heydays....what formations did the 85 Dolphins present to Chicago? Teams (NYG, NE) only went to one-back gun sparringly and late in the offensive series (after blowing several series with nonproduction).


I enjoy the NFL today, well, sort of. I don't watch much of it, but I do enjoy the game when it is played (I don't watch because I can't stomach so many advertisments)

Not only bigger but faster- much faster.

The Atlantic had a great article where the writer sat down with Andy Reid of the Eagles and broke down film of the 1958 Championship game between the Baltimore Colts and New York Giants, where Johnny Unitas led a great comeback victory.

www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810/nfl-eagles

I've been meaning to write about this article on my site, but it's a good read. It's also a good introduction for non-coaches into what it means to break down film, but for those on here the intro might be a bit tedious with things you already know.

(One comment though: I'd love to get a second opinion. I think the NFL view is important, but I'd love to hear what, say Urban Meyer or somebody had to say on this game. Probably wouldn't speak so derogatorily about the "single wing" etc.)

Here's a bit of an excerpt:

"Not everything has changed as much. Reid recognized one Colts offensive formation as “the one we run the most—two receivers, two backs, and a tight end.” And he even noticed some of his own plays in the mix. “Look, this is a rattler route,” he said, watching Raymond Berry twist his way into the backfield, turning the Giants cornerback completely around and gaining a step. “This is the one we ran in the Super Bowl that got picked by stinkin’ Rodney Harrison.” (Harrison’s interception in the closing minutes of Super Bowl XXXIX clinched the New England Patriots’ 24–21 win over the Eagles.)

After the Colts’ opening boondoggle, the Giants settled into a 4–3 defense, which remains the pro standard. What we were watching on film was the original 4–3, contrived by New York defensive coach Tom Landry, years before he helped create a dynasty as head coach of the Dallas Cowboys. It features four players on the line of scrimmage backed by three linebackers; four pass defenders back up this formation: two cornerbacks split wide on either side, and two deep defenders, or safeties. The 4–3 was designed to counter the growing sophistication of passing offenses. Before the 1950s, football had primarily been a ground game, but after the invention of the wide receiver in 1949, defenses struggled to cover pass catchers without becoming too vulnerable to the run.

But while the 4–3 has survived to the present day, the simplicity of the old game often amazed Reid to the point of disbelief. The offensive formations were so basic that many of them are no longer even used in the pro game. The Giants frequently lined up in the T-formation—the quarterback behind the center, and the three running backs lined up horizontally about three yards behind him—and both teams employed the antiquated “single wing,” where one halfback and the fullback line up beside each other, behind the quarterback, while the other halfback splits wide, sometimes all the way out to the flanker position.

The game as it was played in 1958 “is still an entertaining sport to watch, but it’s just not near as complicated,” Reid said. “If I’m calling the plays” on offense, he went on, “I get paid to get into a rhythm with the guy calling the defense” on the other side. When a coach achieves the right “rhythm,” he can sense what his opponent is thinking—and for Reid, grasping the “rhythm” of the classic game was fairly easy. “I can see what the offense is doing,” he said. “You can almost call it offensively and defensively.”

For instance, he was struck, early in the game, by how close behind the line of scrimmage the Giants safeties, Emlen Tunnell and Jimmy Patton, were setting up. Safeties ordinarily play five to 10 yards back. Tunnell and Patton were just three or four yards back. “First time I saw those safeties that tight,” said Reid, “I’d take the tight end up the seam,” referring to the hash marks that line the field to the right and left of the center.

As if hearing Reid’s advice, that’s what Unitas did two plays later. First, he felt out the defense: facing second down and long, the quarterback handed the ball to Dupre, who plunged into the left side of the Giants’ defense, where he was hit by Tunnell.

“‘Okay,’ the Colts are saying, ‘this guy, number 45 [Tunnell], is getting tight, and he was very aggressive on the last play, so we’ll sell a hard fake,’” Reid speculated. The Colts would set up as if they were going with another running play, he predicted, with the tight end, Jim Mutscheller, “coming up and out like he is going to crack” Tunnell with a block, but instead going past him up the field. “Then they should try and get over the top to Mutscheller.”

On third down, Mutscheller moved just as Reid had suggested, faking a block on Tunnell and racing up the hash marks. Unitas faked the handoff and dropped back, looking downfield toward his tight end.

“But this guy [Tunnell] sniffs it out!” Reid said, impressed, watching as the safety turned and matched the tight end stride for stride. Unitas, harried suddenly by the Giants’ blitzing right cornerback, instead hurried a throw to Moore—“his safety valve,” said Reid—that was almost intercepted. "

I watched some of the Bears game. Lost the remote battle with the wife. The Bears used a lot of shifts with a little motion. They shifted like you think of the earlier Gibbs Redskins. It was every down. The run game did look very Wing T like but I believe Walsh explained that is where the 49ers run game developed from. The other thing was them sprinting to the line as a group. It was 90 MPH to the line. The extra stuff of course would not go on today. It makes you wonder what McMannon would have been like if he was protected like today.

Now the Reid article was interesting. Him being surprised by the 3 pt stance of the WRs. There is footage of the U (Miami) back in Kosar's time lining up like that. So around the 80s college teams were still doing it. I thought some pro teams were still doing it in the late 60s to 70s.

I was completely confused by their comments on the unbalaced line. I guess you have to see it but I can not understand why you could not do it. The only thing I can think of is if there was not a 7 man on the line rule at that time which I can not see.

Description of the single wing did not seem right either. Add that to how the "wildcat" is being used by a number of teams now.

I was just suprised by some of the descriptions and comments.

Was this the game when Charles Martin slammed McMahon about 30 seconds after he threw the ball?

That was the next season...McMahon was never the same after that.

I think that is what got me the most of how much history just seemed wrong. The cover 4 thing got me too. Cover 4 is suppose to prevent the deep ball so you go flats against. Reid talked about going over the top with a post. I might be missing something there.

I have been reading the "Fly T" by Hamp Pool and some of the stuff he references is interesting. I always heard the store that zone defense came about because of speed of one of Dallas's rec from the early 60s. Until then they it was man to man. In the Pool book he refers to zone and even more interesting he refers to match up zones. It sounds like banjo coverage in some parts of the description and in others it sounds just like a basketball match up zone.

I know ever once in a while I will see a clip from 50s or so and you will see jailbreak screens and other "modern" things. I wish you could see more of the old film. I would love to see the Bears from the 40s or Sliggin Sam Baugh and his SW Redskins. The early to mid fifty Rams. If you have never looked at the numbers they put up in a 12 game season it is crazy.

Yeah, I point out the Atlantic piece more as entertainment than true history. I don't know if it was Reid who was off or got lost in translation. I'm thinking a little of both, but I tend to give the journalist enough credit that he would have been at least transcribing it verbatim. But who knows.

But this was one of the reasons I wanted to write about this article: It's a good idea for an article, but at the same time the execution is weird. And it also reminds me of macro-micro schemes in football: the NFL is all micro. They have a variety of sets but everything is of the same flavor, but then within that are countless variations for players, matchups, etc. On the other hand with college and HS you see a lot more macro stuff -- unbalanced lines, different sets, even, dare I say, the single-wing -- stuff that really gets at the geometry of the game.

I think no one here was that surprised that the wildcat is so popular. I give Mike Ditka credit, when the Dolphins first used it everyone said that it would be countered shortly, and Ditka just said: it gives you an extra blocker, and from there you have lots of other options.

Anyway, just random thoughts there I need to flesh out. I think a lot of folks on here enjoy the college game more for the "macro" reasons. I do enjoy the NFL for the little quirks and techniques, but it's funny how different the games can be. And if it was Reid here who seemed so clueless about things, well, then that's a good example about how different the games are.

I always figured that this was one of the things that made Bill Walsh so unique, was that he had been successful coaching in both College and the Pros, and even designing his offense and techniques with backgrounds in both.

Cover 4 (the way I learned it) is a double robber coverage with the safeties. It essentially puts the corners man-to-man with the receiver on each side. So, instead of running curl flat (cover 3 beater), you run #1 on a post and hook up #2. By rule, safety has to jump #2.