why not play 4 spread recievers with one rb...

[see dan drive]

can someone explain why we don't play most of the game on offense with 4 recievers and one rb?

shouldn't we be able to run the ball real well out of that set? (well, with maroney as the tailback at least. you'd certainly want more speed as you spread the field)

the field would be spread out so much, i don't see how maroney couldn't be successful....he'd be running against 6 (or so) men in the box...

we should spend 80 percent of our offensive plays in this formation (the receivers can be tight ends sometims, sure) and split the plays evenly between running and passing

 

[Willie55]

First off you'd lose one of your best blockers in Daniel Graham.

You'd lose Ben Watson's catching ability (when he doesn't fumble).

And you'd have 5 lineman blocking against the 6 men in the box on running plays.

 

[D-cleater]

I don't get to watch all the games but that is formation you sometimes see on third down with Faulk or Maroney as the RB. The RB either stays in to block and/or goes out for the short outlet pass. Tough to run from that formation though unless your line is really pushing around the D line.

 

[njpatsfan]

 

[unoriginal]

shouldn't we be able to run the ball real well out of that set? (well, with maroney as the tailback at least. you'd certainly want more speed as you spread the field)

Maroney likes to run behind a fullback.

We've even been running Dillon with a fullback more often as the season has gone along.

The only time we've seen Pass run is with a fullback.

Faulk rarely runs the ball.

And the only time Evans has run the ball has been, you've guessed it, as a fullback.

When the Pats go four wide with one back the "running" play is a tailback bubble route out into the flat, or (usually) Faulk's infamous five yard middle-of-field option route.

 

[DarrylS]

All of those 2 minute drill formations work for a while, but overall if you were to do this all the time the d would adjust and you would leave Brady too vulnerable and prone to getting the crap knocked out of him.

 

[gomezcat]

can someone explain why we don't play most of the game on offense with 4 recievers and one rb?

shouldn't we be able to run the ball real well out of that set? (well, with maroney as the tailback at least. you'd certainly want more speed as you spread the field)

the field would be spread out so much, i don't see how maroney couldn't be successful....he'd be running against 6 (or so) men in the box...

we should spend 80 percent of our offensive plays in this formation (the receivers can be tight ends sometims, sure) and split the plays evenly between running and passing

I agree with everyone else. Houston Oilers, as they were, ran the system under Jerry Glanville. It has SOME success but does leave you especially vulnerable to the blitz and has no advantage for running the ball.