Findings Show One-back Sets in Packers' Favor

FEATURE

Findings Show One-back Sets in Packers' Favor

Analysis by Football Outsiders shows that Green Bay's rushing attack was much more potent with a single rusher in the backfield.

By dnicholson

Jul 10, 2017

7 comments

Green Bay Packers head coach Mike McCarthy and his staff conducted this offseason a rigorous, two-week self-evaluation that looked at every play from the team’s 19 games. What did they find? That’s for them to know and us to speculate on, but one possible takeaway is that when Dom Capers and his defensive staff set their critical gaze to McCarthy’s offense, they deduced the following:

Green Bay’s rushing attack was consistently more potent when using a one-back backfield.

This finding comes to us from Rivers McCown of Football Outsiders, who broke down 2016 run offenses based on the number of running backs in the backfield. McCown found that Green Bay, which used a one-back set on 55 percent of its runs, was a full yard better (4.8 yards per carry) than when they employed two-or-more backs (3.7 YPC).

What’s more, only New England and Buffalo used more two-back sets than the Packers. Had the Packers leaned more on one-back sets, it’s possible they’d have finished higher in yards per game (where they ranked 20th) and yards per carry (ranked T7th). If McCarthy and Co.’s self-scout was as thorough as purported, might we expect the Packers to draw the same conclusion?

It’s not as though the Packers were bad out of two-back sets, and they have a solid blocking fullback in Aaron Ripkowski who is worth using. But given a pair of factors, the Packers might want to get that 55/45 split closer to 60/40 or even higher in terms of one-back to two-back sets.

First, as has been reported by Pro Football Focus, Ty Montgomery was the NFL’s most elusive back in 2016—and it wasn’t really close. According to Bryson Vesnaver, Montgomery forced 24 missed tackles on 106 touches and led the league with 5.14 yards after contact per carry. While those numbers would be understandably difficult to replicate across a full season’s workload, they’re nevertheless promising for the former receiver who converted midseason to running back.

Simply put, Montgomery was great at creating extra yards outside the help of his blockers. Now with an entire offseason devoted to the position’s finer points, he could be in for a big season in 2017. Montgomery was smooth last season running out of shotgun formations, and the wager here is a majority of his one-back rushes came lined up there. (This creates the added benefit of Montgomery as a receiving threat out of the backfield or motioned out wide in hurry-up, empty sets.)

Second, the signings of Martellus Bennett and Lance Kendricks signal a potential shift to more two-tight end sets. While it’s possible Bennett or Kendricks (or Richard Rodgers) are shifted into the backfield occasionally in a fullback or H-Back look, their threat as pass catchers could free up more space for Montgomery to do his thing running the ball. Additionally, Bennett represents a significant blocking upgrade over Rodgers and Jared Cook.

Any way you slice it, just a few additions have given the Packers a number of exciting new possibilities.

And don’t forget about the new faces: Jamal Williams’ one-cut, slashing style is good for going alone and Aaron Jones’ scat-back abilities could be ideal when paired with one-back spread formations.

The Packers’ offense in recent years has been kind of the last vestige of the fullback position. They could continue the trend, but if modifying their approach produces better results for the rushing attack, then it’s time to follow the extra yards—and not the lead blocker.

NFL Categories:

Green Bay Packers

Comments (7)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

OFF

Handsback

July 10, 2017 at 04:41 pm

I understand the one-back set, but having Rip in the backfield will put pressure on the defense as to who will get the ball. There's also the issue of passing to either back. Just thinking Rip and Monty in the backfield, two TEs and one WR. Rodgers goes into the shotgun....where do you stack your SS? I can see issues across the board with that lineup.
So Green Bay may be a little different because they have a FB that can knock the crap out of a SS or LB and free Monty, take the ball and run over a few dozen defenders, or swing out to catch the ball. Once you add in the TEs, hard to defend one or two back sets. I bet MM already understands this.

1 replies + - | show all | hide all

mattgsx

July 10, 2017 at 06:17 pm

My main beef with stats like this is they're not contextualized. Doesn't take into account down and distance, field position, ball carrier, or defensive front.

2 replies + - | show all | hide all

Thegreatreynoldo

July 11, 2017 at 09:32 am

Agreed, MG. 26 teams averaged less using 2 RB sets than with a 1 RB set with one tie. The first issue is I don't think 26 teams even have a traditional FB, so we are not comparing 2RBs sets to a HB and FB situation. Having RR as an H-Back doesn't look much like having William Henderson in his prime as a lead blocker. Also, there is a correlation between using 2 RBs rarely and having a lousy 2 RB average. It seems likely that such teams only use 2 RBs when it inside the 5 and on 3rd and ones. A successful play modifier (over 4 yds on 1st and 10, 60% of needed yardage on 2nd down, 100% on 3rd downs) would have been more informative. I'm fully on board with Matt G and his criticism about the lack of context.

FO could be right to suggest GB should use 2 RBs less frequently, but i see lots of scope for that being awful advice. 4.7 yds per carry with 2 RBs sounds pretty potent. That said, it is going to take some good arguments to persuade me that it is better to have Rip and Monty together rather than 3 WR, 1 TE and Monty out there.

TKWorldWide

July 11, 2017 at 07:15 am

True.
And I'd also say that with the way the coaches self scout, they know approximately 8.5 more tons about the various formations and their successes/failures.