THE "I" FORMATION

Serious Discussion of Football Terminology and Tactics.
This Room is named after the late Annis Stukus.

Moderator: Team Captains

Post Reply
User avatar
Dan_Payne_fan!!
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 4:57 pm
Location: Port Moody

yeah i love using I formation in Madden games
the fullback makes a hole for the RB to go through and can lead to a huge play
2012 Season Ticket Holder
Canuck_4_Life
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Parts Unknown

One of my favourite plays in Madden 07 is the HB toss out of the "I"

I believe one of the more effective plays is the FB dive out of the same formation. The front 7 doesn't have a lot of time to break out of their first move before the FB hits the POI (point of impact), theoretically leading to big gains.
User avatar
lion24
Legend
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:12 am
Location: edmonton

Dan_Payne_fan!! wrote:yeah i love using I formation in Madden games
the fullback makes a hole for the RB to go through and can lead to a huge play
If everything went as well for the Lions as in Madden games they would be beating teams 98-0!!! :lol: :lol: Unfortunately it is not quite that easy :wink: .
Thank you for everything you did for OUR Lions Mr.Ackles, we will never forget you...RIP
Blitz
Team Captain
Posts: 9094
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:44 am

If everything went as well for the Lions as in Madden games they would be beating teams 98-0!!! Unfortunately it is not quite that easy .
_________________
I've never played Madden football or any video games but it sounds interesting!

Certainly more teams are focuing on running the football this season. Hamilton is really utilizing Lumsden in it's West Coast attack, the pass happy Austin in Saskatchewan is moving towards a more balanced attack now that he has Cates, the Bombers realize the importance of "Blink' and what he can do, and our Leos have changed to focus more on running the football.

We used the "I" formation more in the game on Friday night against Edmonton than we have in the past two seasons (in fact we didn't use it at all last season)

However, the Chap and George Cortez, two disciples of the spread formation, are underutilizing the running attack in their offences. Edmonton is last in the league in rushing and Cortez has taken Reynolds, the biggest weapon in the Calgary attack and basically turned him into a pass blocker!
"When I went to Catholic high school in Philadelphia, we just had one coach for football and basketball. He took all of us who turned out and had us run through a forest. The ones who ran into the trees were on the football team". (George Raveling)
User avatar
B.C.FAN
Team Captain
Posts: 12580
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:28 pm

Blitz wrote:However, the Chap and George Cortez, two disciples of the spread formation, are underutilizing the running attack in their offences. Edmonton is last in the league in rushing and Cortez has taken Reynolds, the biggest weapon in the Calgary attack and basically turned him into a pass blocker!
Edmonton isn't putting up a lot of rushing yards but the Eskies are still giving their running backs 15 to 20 touches a game. Ray has always been a master at dumping the ball off to his back at the last second before being sacked, and he is still doing that this year with a new offence. Edmonton is also using a lot of screens and swing passes, which were also a big part of the Maciocia offence.

For example, on Saturday against Hamilton, McLendon had 6 carries for only 8 yards but caught 9 passes out of the backfield for 71 yards, so he was a valuable part of the offence.

On the season, Edmonton's running backs (McLendon, Ebell and Bertrand) have averaged 51 yards rushing and 61 yards receiving, or a total of 112 yards from scrimmage per game. B.C.'s running backs (primarily Smith but also Smart and Green) have averaged 85 yards rushing but less than 4 yards receiving per game, or a total of just under 89 yards from scrimmage per game. The rushing stats don't show it, but Edmonton is getting more production from its running backs than B.C.!

The Lions used Antonio Warren as a receiver when he was here. Smith has a different skill set but the Lions continued to throw to him last year. In 2005 Warren had 718 yards receiving. In 2006, Warren and Smith combined for 589 yards receiving. This year Smith has just 21 yards receiving through 7 games, Green has 4 yards and Smart has yet to catch a pass.

Smart and Green clearly have yet to be fully worked into the offence. I see signs of hope, though, with the increased use of the "I" formation against Winnipeg and the fake toss to Smart on the opening play of the game. Maybe next week they'll let him touch the ball.
Blitz
Team Captain
Posts: 9094
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:44 am

B.C. Fan wrote:
Edmonton isn't putting up a lot of rushing yards but the Eskies are still giving their running backs 15 to 20 touches a game.
The Lions used Antonio Warren as a receiver when he was here. Smith has a different skill set but the Lions continued to throw to him last year
It's great to see you posting here B.C. Fan....you have an excellent mind when it comes to analyzing football strategy!

However, while you note that Edmonton is rushing the football 15-20 times per game, the fact is that Edmonton is last in the league in times rushing the football by a significant margin compared to other teams in the league.... and they are last in rushing yards and average yards rushing per game.

That doesn't surprise me! The Chap is a disciple of the spread offence and he prefers to use his tailback to either block or be involved in the passing attack.

In 2003 and 2004, when we had Burratto as offensive coordinator, we had the best offence in the league and we weren't in the spread offence exclusively. In fact we came second in the league in rushing in 2004, as well as having the best offence. However, some of those rushing yards could be attributed to Printers in 2004.

In 2005, when the Chap took over as offensive coordinator, we moved into the spread offence more exclusively (he still used the "I" formation at times in 2005 before completely abandoning it in 2006) we dropped from second in rushing yards to fifth, while only being seventh in rushing attempts. The same held true in 2006. Even with Smith moving into the backfield, to replace Antonio Warren, Chapdelaine still didn't rush the football a lot, as again we were seventh in the league in rushing attempts.

The pattern is almost the same in Calgary. Last season Burratto had the best offence in the league during the regular season and Calgary led the league in rushing. Cortez has taken over as offensive coordinator in Calgary this season and already Calgary has dropped to fifth in the league in rushing attempts.

That is typical of the spread formation and the tendancies of it's disciples like Cortez and Chapdelaine. They prefer to go single back set or empty backfield and focus on the pass. The tailback either blocks for the passing attack or slips out of the backfield to provide a safety valve for the quarterback.
The Lions used Antonio Warren as a receiver when he was here. Smith has a different skill set but the Lions continued to throw to him last year.
In actual fact Warren was used more as a rusher in 2004, under Burratto, in Warren's first season with our Leos. In 2004. Warren replaced Kelvin Anderson, who rushed for over 1,000 yards for our Leos in 2003. Warren rushed for 1136 yards in 2004, while catching 34 passes for 278 yards. In that season our Leos had the best passing attack in the league, while finishing second in rushing. In 2005, under Chapdelaine, Warren's rushed for 983 yards and caught 68 passes for 718 yards. Our passing attack was second in the league but our rushing attack dropped to fifth, while dropping to seventh in rushing attempts.

In 2006 we were seventh in rushing attempts again while finishing fifth in the league in rushing. Statistics can be used in a variety of ways. However, there is no question that the trend of the spread offence is to rush the football less and to pass the football a lot.
Smart and Green clearly have yet to be fully worked into the offence. I see signs of hope, though, with the increased use of the "I" formation against Winnipeg and the fake toss to Smart on the opening play of the game. Maybe next week they'll let him touch the ball.
The spread offence revolutionized offensive football in the CFL and was very successful in it's day. Like all offences, eventually defenses adapt and it becomes necessary to make offensive changes. In my view, the days of the spread offence and disciples of the spread like Chapdelaine and Cortez have to move away from it....something they are still not doing! You won't likely see a 1,000 yard rusher in the spread or see it in the top 50% of the league in rushing attempts. It's just not the way they think...they see the run as being set up by the pass and used mainly for short yardage and to keep the defense honest.

The "I" formation is only one way of adapting. It does take advantage of smaller defensive ends, tweener linebackers, and defenses that are overplaying the pass by providing a stronger running formation...and it's an excellent play action formation. However, offences may also need to go to offset backfields and split backfields as well. Motion also needs to return to CFL offences.

However, alone none of these are a great solution because defenses are so multi-formational and they can bring in specialized personell on every down to either overplay the run or the pass. The key is to be able to go multi-formational on offence without bringing in different players, forcing defenses to adjust without substitution. To do that an offence needs fullbacks that can play tight end, receivers that can play tight end, and backs that can go in motion and line up wide and be excellent pass receivers.

Like you..I agree that Smart and Green have yet to be fully worked into the offence. Last game they worked Green as both a tight end and fullback, shifting him just before the snap. However, we need to run Green more and pass to him more, and we need to utilize Smart more as a receiver. All we need to do is get him the football. in space, on passing plays and let him run.

It will be interesting, B.C. Fan, to see how we line up against Calgary and how we game plan this time!
"When I went to Catholic high school in Philadelphia, we just had one coach for football and basketball. He took all of us who turned out and had us run through a forest. The ones who ran into the trees were on the football team". (George Raveling)
User avatar
Toppy Vann
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9789
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm

Blitz wrote:B.C. Fan wrote:
Edmonton isn't putting up a lot of rushing yards but the Eskies are still giving their running backs 15 to 20 touches a game.
The Lions used Antonio Warren as a receiver when he was here. Smith has a different skill set but the Lions continued to throw to him last year
It's great to see you posting here B.C. Fan....you have an excellent mind when it comes to analyzing football strategy!

However, while you note that Edmonton is rushing the football 15-20 times per game, the fact is that Edmonton is last in the league in times rushing the football by a significant margin compared to other teams in the league.... and they are last in rushing yards and average yards rushing per game.

That doesn't surprise me! The Chap is a disciple of the spread offence and he prefers to use his tailback to either block or be involved in the passing attack.

In 2003 and 2004, when we had Burratto as offensive coordinator, we had the best offence in the league and we weren't in the spread offence exclusively. In fact we came second in the league in rushing in 2004, as well as having the best offence. However, some of those rushing yards could be attributed to Printers in 2004.

In 2005, when the Chap took over as offensive coordinator, we moved into the spread offence more exclusively (he still used the "I" formation at times in 2005 before completely abandoning it in 2006) we dropped from second in rushing yards to fifth, while only being seventh in rushing attempts. The same held true in 2006. Even with Smith moving into the backfield, to replace Antonio Warren, Chapdelaine still didn't rush the football a lot, as again we were seventh in the league in rushing attempts.

The pattern is almost the same in Calgary. Last season Burratto had the best offence in the league during the regular season and Calgary led the league in rushing. Cortez has taken over as offensive coordinator in Calgary this season and already Calgary has dropped to fifth in the league in rushing attempts.

That is typical of the spread formation and the tendancies of it's disciples like Cortez and Chapdelaine. They prefer to go single back set or empty backfield and focus on the pass. The tailback either blocks for the passing attack or slips out of the backfield to provide a safety valve for the quarterback.
The Lions used Antonio Warren as a receiver when he was here. Smith has a different skill set but the Lions continued to throw to him last year.
In actual fact Warren was used more as a rusher in 2004, under Burratto, in Warren's first season with our Leos. In 2004. Warren replaced Kelvin Anderson, who rushed for over 1,000 yards for our Leos in 2003. Warren rushed for 1136 yards in 2004, while catching 34 passes for 278 yards. In that season our Leos had the best passing attack in the league, while finishing second in rushing. In 2005, under Chapdelaine, Warren's rushed for 983 yards and caught 68 passes for 718 yards. Our passing attack was second in the league but our rushing attack dropped to fifth, while dropping to seventh in rushing attempts.

In 2006 we were seventh in rushing attempts again while finishing fifth in the league in rushing. Statistics can be used in a variety of ways. However, there is no question that the trend of the spread offence is to rush the football less and to pass the football a lot.
Smart and Green clearly have yet to be fully worked into the offence. I see signs of hope, though, with the increased use of the "I" formation against Winnipeg and the fake toss to Smart on the opening play of the game. Maybe next week they'll let him touch the ball.
The spread offence revolutionized offensive football in the CFL and was very successful in it's day. Like all offences, eventually defenses adapt and it becomes necessary to make offensive changes. In my view, the days of the spread offence and disciples of the spread like Chapdelaine and Cortez have to move away from it....something they are still not doing! You won't likely see a 1,000 yard rusher in the spread or see it in the top 50% of the league in rushing attempts. It's just not the way they think...they see the run as being set up by the pass and used mainly for short yardage and to keep the defense honest.

The "I" formation is only one way of adapting. It does take advantage of smaller defensive ends, tweener linebackers, and defenses that are overplaying the pass by providing a stronger running formation...and it's an excellent play action formation. However, offences may also need to go to offset backfields and split backfields as well. Motion also needs to return to CFL offences.

However, alone none of these are a great solution because defenses are so multi-formational and they can bring in specialized personell on every down to either overplay the run or the pass. The key is to be able to go multi-formational on offence without bringing in different players, forcing defenses to adjust without substitution. To do that an offence needs fullbacks that can play tight end, receivers that can play tight end, and backs that can go in motion and line up wide and be excellent pass receivers.

Like you..I agree that Smart and Green have yet to be fully worked into the offence. Last game they worked Green as both a tight end and fullback, shifting him just before the snap. However, we need to run Green more and pass to him more, and we need to utilize Smart more as a receiver. All we need to do is get him the football. in space, on passing plays and let him run.

It will be interesting, B.C. Fan, to see how we line up against Calgary and how we game plan this time!

You are right, there needs to be a return of motion and split backfields than just the Lions current version of the I formation. Fans might not have seen yet their full running attack (I don't know that) but it does take time to get new running plays into a pro offence which has been pass oriented than run like BC's attack has been. With some variations like double tight ends and some runs is that they could run to set up a fake handoff and then throw from that. For two games now I have wondered if that is where they were wanting to go with a Joe Smith inside hand off and the way the FB Green was lined up near or in the slot (not quite sure) but I did think it could have been a natural to run that a couple of times or once and then throw off it. I like how the Bombers use Roberts.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
Blitz
Team Captain
Posts: 9094
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:44 am

However, we have the personell to return to the "I" formation and really make it a succcessful formation for us. There are also some distinct advantages in using the "I" Formation.
The "I" formation is not a running formation but a balanced formation, with two running backs and four receivers vs one running back/five receivers or no running back and six receivers. As a more balanced formation it's easier to both run and pass. This formation also sets up play action better than any other formation and I'm a huge play action fan for another simple reason. It's tough on a defense to read run or pass from the "I" formation and much easier to read from the spread. If an offence can run successfully it can really help the passing game because not only does play action work but linebackers and defensive backs start to look inside to stop the run and that gives receivers an advantage. Defensive ends can't just pin their ears back and speed rush.
The "I" Formation allows us to better utilize Lyle Green and Ian Smart while still using Joe Smith as our main running weapon and providing him with more variety in his running plays. It would also allow us to protect our quarterbacks better and be able to have more time, when we need it, to hit some of our speed receivers on deeper patterns.

Hopefully we'll see more of the "I" formation used by our Leos in the future. It's time for less spread formations and better utilization of our talent against today's CFL defenses!!!!
Happy they are starting to listen to us a little more!! :roll: :wink:

Last night's game against Montreal showed the "I" formation at it's finest and we used Green and Smart along with Smith to completely blow out and wear down Montreal's defense. Of course it also set up play action brilliantly.

We added a new running play, a delay play to Smith, and we brought back the tailback counter toss, with Smith going one way at fullback and Smart breaking outside on the pitch toss. Jarious executed it to perfection and Smart's cutback was a thing of beauty.

The inside zone run was also almost executed to perfection with Smith starting deep, flowing to one side and then cutting back inside. Our ofensive line zone blocked very well and our tackles cut block the backside to seal any backside pursuit and Joe Smith ran the ball both powerfully and beautifully!! The stretch play kept Montreal's defensive ends off balance. We also used Smart to run the football inside as well as outside and he was effective on a short yardage play.

Of course, we should never be satisfied. We need to introduce two new plays. The first is either a quick dive play or preferable a quick trap play for the fullback...which is either Green or Smith when they line up at fullback in the "I" formation. That will prevent the defense keying on the fullback.

Secondly we need to add a fullback screen to the tailback screen we introduced two games ago! The fullback screen to Green would be very effective as he sets up outside to block, with either Smith or Smart flowing on the play to the other side. Defenses won't be expecting Green to get the football.

Finally, we will eventually need to slip the fullback out of the backfield and send him deep on a pass route. Often he won't be accounted for by the defense.

However, we've finally gotten rid of the spread as our only offensive formation and really integrated the "I" formation into our offence. It's a treat to see our quarterback line up behind center instead of just being in the shotgun, like every other brainwashed spread offence team!!

Last night was the final goodbye to 'Chap Ball" and the establishment of a new offensive identity.

We're not just a fancy throwing offence any more. We're a powerful offence that can run the ball up your ass, we can run inside or outside, we can play action brilliantly, and we can set up the pass, with more time to throw, because defensive lines are exhausted from the pounding and off balance from a more balanced offence. We can also go deep, something that everyone was saying couldn't be done anymore against zone defenses but play action can change that.

I watched Montreal's offence last night, another version of the spread offence. Our defense shut down the run, played the underneath stuff tight, and jumped predictable routes. It's a good thing that other offensive coordinators are slow learners...it only helps us!!

It's great to see offence being played the way it was last night. Pro football offenceswas starting to look like touch football offences in runners with the overreliance on the spread and it was getting boring too!

Watching an offence execute a diversified running attack, which is more complex to do than the passing game, so skillfully and powerfully was a treat and was watching play action work so brilliantly. It was something to get excited about!!
"When I went to Catholic high school in Philadelphia, we just had one coach for football and basketball. He took all of us who turned out and had us run through a forest. The ones who ran into the trees were on the football team". (George Raveling)
Blitz
Team Captain
Posts: 9094
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:44 am

Vancouver Province quote on Leos/Als football game below:

"What enabled the Lions to dominate Friday wasn't just Smith, his line blocking, a 92-yard touchdown by Ryan Phillips after his league-leading seventh interception, or a return to form by his defensive mates, who had six sacks and looked menacing again.

It was also the increasing use of two-back running sets with Ian Smart, who also scored two touchdowns Friday, that will not only give the Lions formation options in next week's rematch in Montreal but the rest of the way. "We complement each other," said Smart. "I'm more like a speed back. He's more of a power back."

************************************************************

And it was about time they went to the "I" formation more!!! :rockin: :rockin: :rockin:
"When I went to Catholic high school in Philadelphia, we just had one coach for football and basketball. He took all of us who turned out and had us run through a forest. The ones who ran into the trees were on the football team". (George Raveling)
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

Points well made, Blitz.

In regards to Madden football ... :lol:

I have to say it is fun to create new formations and new plays in the game.

That is where I find it most interesting.

The animation is quite good.

Not necessarily with Madden, but with an animated play creation program, I expect as time goes on, the quality will be such that pro coaches will eventually be able to "war game" their schemes.

I suppose there might be such a program already for football.

I used a basketball play animation program to design offences for high school basketball. It sure beats all that scribbling on napkins and paper. And it helps the athlete visualize the possibilities of a play.
Blitz
Team Captain
Posts: 9094
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:44 am

Not necessarily with Madden, but with an animated play creation program, I expect as time goes on, the quality will be such that pro coaches will eventually be able to "war game" their schemes.

I suppose there might be such a program already for football.

I used a basketball play animation program to design offences for high school basketball. It sure beats all that scribbling on napkins and paper. And it helps the athlete visualize the possibilities of a play
Some cutting edge pro coaches are using computer programs to design plays and players are using laptops instead of play books. However, there are still a lot of old school coaches around who still like the old spiral playbooks, redrawing plays manually, and who think a whiteboard is using 'new technology' :wink:

Like you, I've used basketball play animation programs. People are visual learners and it allows players to really understand more quickly and also to retain information since we keep pictures inside our heads better than diagrams. I wrote a post on a thread on this topic on Lionbackers this week. I'll try to find it!!
"When I went to Catholic high school in Philadelphia, we just had one coach for football and basketball. He took all of us who turned out and had us run through a forest. The ones who ran into the trees were on the football team". (George Raveling)
Post Reply