Wishbone and 46 (can it still work in modern day NFL)

[major]

I’ve always been fascinated by watching film of the “wishbone” offense and the “46” defense. I know there are variations of this that work in the modern NFL, but could teams get away with making one or both of these their main strengths? I hear the arguments that defenses are too fast for the wishbone to work and teams would kill you with the pass if you tried the “46” most of the game. What say you? 

[Draconator]

3 minutes ago, major said:

 What say you? 

I think it's time you go to bed for the night. 

[major]

5 minutes ago, Draconator said:

I think it's time you go to bed for the night. 

You’re not wrong 😂

[Peace Frog]

I don't mind as long as it's the French one.

 

[EmotionallyUnstable]

My guess is your referring to the triple option play/scheme more so than the wishbone formation. If so, it is antiquated for today’s NFL. The EPA on run plays is just far too low to rely on FB dive to march the field, as well as limiting the size of the field of play. There is just too much potential benefit in throwing the ball, and too much risk in relying solely on the run. 
 

The closest thing I can draw a parallel to in modern ball is the RPO, which adds the passing element to the game and stretches the field while still bringing an element of leverage to the point of attack. 

[Kirby Jackson]

Teams don’t really have “main strengths” anymore. There is too much data and development. There are some exceptions like Navy Football but, for the most part, teams need to be diverse in 2025. The level of data, scouting and prep, compared to the 1970’s (or whatever), is probably a 1000% increase (or more). You can’t be predictable, or one-dimensional, and win. I think that the Eagles have an elite rushing game. I think that the Bengals defense was abysmal. If the Eagles ran, at a rate similar to Navy, against the Bengals, the Bengals stop them pretty easily. 

[K-9]

57 minutes ago, EmotionallyUnstable said:

My guess is your referring to the triple option play/scheme more so than the wishbone formation. If so, it is antiquated for today’s NFL. The EPA on run plays is just far too low to rely on FB dive to march the field, as well as limiting the size of the field of play. There is just too much potential benefit in throwing the ball, and too much risk in relying solely on the run. 
 

The closest thing I can draw a parallel to in modern ball is the RPO, which adds the passing element to the game and stretches the field while still bringing an element of leverage to the point of attack. 

I’d add the zone-read as a modern parallel, too, as both the wishbone and zone-read require the QB to read the edge setter on defense.

[Dunkirk Donski]

Buddy Ryan?  Is that you ol' chap?  

[NoHuddleKelly12]

Speaking from firsthand experience (caveat: I was a benchwarmer on a DIII small school team that also never really won) playing in the triple option system in the mid-90’s, the goal was to take advantage of certain defensive players’ keys which would allow the QB to pitch the ball (or keep it) in the right hands for the least amount of “junk” (what our coaches termed the pile of defenders and linemen in a scrum) around the ball carrier. If the end “crashed” the line and rushed the passer, you would pitch it, if he stayed “home” you would keep it, and so on. Additional keys allowed the QB to essentially always have 3 options on a play of what to do, hence the triple option of course. There were pass play elements built in, but always very little time to develop given lack of a true pocket (see below). The goal was always to present the same opening formation to the D so they wouldn’t know what you were trying to do—this included having the OL (playing from a 4 point stance!) block like a run play on every play, regardless of run or pass. Problems included there was never a true “pocket” for the QB to work from, and if the D had decent speed at the LB spots, they could easily react/stretch out our pitch plays for minimal gains even if the keys were read right by the QB. Also, you’re asking the QB to read keys that can look confusing in the heat of the moment and be easily disguised/faked by a smart DE…all in all, the state of today’s defenses I think would render the triple option as a base concept, unworkable. But as a wrinkle to take advantage of an uber aggressive DL, sure, just like a timely screen play, could pay off now and then, imho. Our coaches made us watch film from Marshall as being what we needed to emulate, lol.

Edited 9 hours ago by NoHuddleKelly12

[BuffaloBillyG]

With the right players I could see a package of wishbone plays being effective inside the 5 or in short yardage. A team like Baltimore would be perfect to run it. A power back in Henry, a huge FB that can catch well and plunge into the line in Ricard, a speedy guy in Mitchell and even a QB that can fake and run with the ball.

 

That's a lot to defend in a small space and a defense would have to read a lot of options from the snap. 

 

Of course, the drawback is that most player on the NFL level have defended a wishbone type offense since middle school and are experienced against it. And NFL defenses are stacked with speed and can cover a lot of things at once.

[nuklz2594]

Just implement the kgun with josh. 

[thenorthremembers]

This is not how football works at any level anymore.   You can run a play out of the wishbone, you can have elements of your defense that is 4-6, but very few defenses run straight base defenses anymore.  Specific to the wishbone, you cant eliminate the pass threat and be successful, not even in high school football. 

[billsfan89]

Defenses are much more geared to stop the pass nowadays but they are also a lot more flexible. Billy B in New England ran a 3-4 defense but it was always adjusted week to week depending on the offense. Some weeks they would go 2 DT's and 5 LB's other weeks they would do a flexible 4-3 hybrid defense and then other weeks they would do a pure 3-4. I think most DC's run flexible schemes and esp in the redzone/goal-line they incorporate a lot of 4-6 concepts. Could it work as a full time defense? Probably not given how it can be game planned around via spread offense. The reason it worked for the Bears so well was that in addition to their insane Hall of Fame levels of talent in the front 7 teams didn't run spread offenses that much. 

 

Wishbone? I think it could work as a package teams do. I think one scout said full backs are used so rarely that it confuses defenses sometimes and now OC's are using them a bit more. So maybe a few Wishbone flexible formations would throw a wrench into the defense now and again.