McCarthy 20 Personnel

ScipioCowboy · May 7, 2020

I’ve been watching some Packers games from the McCarthy era. He frequently runs a formation that looks like 20 personnel. It’s an I-formation, often offset with Rodgers in the pistol, and it has a slot receiver. It’s not always 20 Personnel, though. McCarthy would put receivers and tight ends in the backfield. (He also ran a lot of full house backfield at one point in time, but that’s a different thread.)

The Cowboys personnel is ideally suited for this formation, in my opinion.

Thoughts?

texbumthelife · May 7, 2020

ScipioCowboy said:
The Cowboys personnel is ideally suited for this formation, in my opinion.

Thoughts?

I dont think it's necessary to say "in my opinion" after stating your opinion.

:grin:

Flamma · May 7, 2020

Ideally suited? What makes that better than 11 personnel? What advantage does the extra back give us that the TE doesn't? Do we have a Moose Johnson? If not, what good is he back there?

fivetwos · May 7, 2020

Look for Charlie T to make the team.

texbumthelife · May 7, 2020

Flamma said:
Ideally suited? What makes that better than 11 personnel? What advantage does the extra back give us that the TE doesn't? Do we have a Moose Johnson? If not, what good is he back there?

Ideally, it throws off the defensive back seven and in some situations, will give away man vs. zone based on how they line up. It can confuse a defense shifting between base, nickle, and dime. It's schematic. I guess we could always go back to good ol' "just line up and beat the guy across from you" from the Garrett days though.

Corso · May 7, 2020

texbumthelife said:
I dont think it's necessary to say "in my opinion" after stating your opinion.

On this board? Hell yeah, you have to qualify.

Corso · May 7, 2020

Flamma said:
Ideally suited? What makes that better than 11 personnel? What advantage does the extra back give us that the TE doesn't? Do we have a Moose Johnson? If not, what good is he back there?

They have the Belldozer! I don't know, I'm just riffing here.

cern · May 7, 2020

If it creates mismatches and we move the chains, I'm all for it.

cern · May 7, 2020

texbumthelife said:
I dont think it's necessary to say "in my opinion" after stating your opinion.

Was he stating a fact, or giving his opinion. I have no opinion.

Flamma · May 7, 2020

texbumthelife said:
Ideally, it throws off the defensive back seven and in some situations, will give away man vs. zone based on how they line up. It can confuse a defense shifting between base, nickle, and dime. It's schematic. I guess we could always go back to good ol' "just line up and beat the guy across from you" from the Garrett days though.

It's one extra guy in the backfield instead of a TE. Couldn't you just send a guy in motion to get an idea of whether or not they're in M2M? Even if 20 personnel accomplishes some of the other things you mentioned, it's still one less guy to worry about for the defense. A TE will draw a LB or Safety in coverage. The 2nd back is pretty much useless.

Techsass · May 7, 2020

Flamma said:
It's one extra guy in the backfield instead of a TE. Couldn't you just send a guy in motion to get an idea of whether or not they're in M2M? Even if 20 personnel accomplishes some of the other things you mentioned, it's still one less guy to worry about for the defense. A TE will draw a LB or Safety in coverage. The 2nd back is pretty much useless.

Unless you have Pollard catching a lot of passes from out of the backfield.

Cebrin · May 7, 2020

texbumthelife said:
I dont think it's necessary to say "in my opinion" after stating your opinion.

Flamma · May 7, 2020

Techsass said:
Unless you have Pollard catching a lot of passes from out of the backfield.

Sure. It's not a bad formation. I do like it. I just wish we had a power FB to make running from that formation an option.

cowboyschmps3 · May 7, 2020

fivetwos said:
Look for Charlie T to make the team.

Charles Tapper!

CCBoy · May 7, 2020

Flamma said:
It's one extra guy in the backfield instead of a TE. Couldn't you just send a guy in motion to get an idea of whether or not they're in M2M? Even if 20 personnel accomplishes some of the other things you mentioned, it's still one less guy to worry about for the defense. A TE will draw a LB or Safety in coverage. The 2nd back is pretty much useless.

Unless he too can block or is a really good receiving target. Two good receivers would expand receivers and where they are located.

If a run, then after some passes, the linebackers will tend to be flat footed or back peddeling. Some delays and cross traps would become effective. Also misdirection runs.

ScipioCowboy · May 7, 2020

Corso said:
On this board? Hell yeah, you have to qualify.

Couch your language carefully around here.

ScipioCowboy · May 7, 2020

Flamma said:
Ideally suited? What makes that better than 11 personnel? What advantage does the extra back give us that the TE doesn't? Do we have a Moose Johnson? If not, what good is he back there?

Having John Kuhn would make it better.

Pantone282C · May 7, 2020

Corso said:
On this board? Hell yeah, you have to qualify.

IMO, you stated a fact. :facepalm:

J-man · May 7, 2020

I was thinking about this. I'd run it with Cooper, Gallup out wide and Lamb in the slot. Pollard and Zeke in the backfield. Stop us if you can. If they spread to cover the wide outs you feed Zeke. If they cheat the box, you burn em deep. If they play straight up, Lamb underneath or Pollard on screen or wheel kills em.

Flamma · May 7, 2020

ScipioCowboy said:
Having John Kuhn would make it better.

Who's that? Like John Wick?

McCarthy 20 Personnel

More than meets the eye.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Offseason mode... sleepy time

Offseason mode... sleepy time

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

More than meets the eye.

More than meets the eye.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member