About the Post

Author Information

Founder and Owner of the Flexbone Association. Since 2007 we have provided the tools necessary for teams to succeed running the Flexbone Association System. Over the last ten years over 200 teams have been instructed by the Flexbone Association. I've consulted with teams and or run camps everywhere from Belfair, WA to Key West, FL. The Flexbone Association strives daily to help coaches succeed with this time tested offense, I have been a football coach for 16 seasons, currently at Harrison High School in Kennesaw, GA I played at St. Mary's Springs High School in Fond du Lac, WI under legendary head coach Bob Hyland. I've been fortunate to be part of five state championship teams (1997,1998,2002,2011,2012). In 2011-2012 St. Mary's Springs led the state of Wisconsin in scoring and set consecutive school records for points scored, Psalm 27

Why Flexbone Is Better Than Split Back Veer


I couldn’t find the old article written probably two years ago, but since I’ve been asked today by an interested camp client, I decided to once again make clear why the Flexbone Offense is a much better offensive system than the Split Back Veer. These are not in an order of most to least important. I am simply recording them as I develop the idea.

Split Back Veer Con’s

  • Aligning with two backs in the backfield along with a tight end reduces the amount of vertical passing threats you have. In this situation you are begging the defense to put 8-9 defenders in the box.
  • How many times do you have two equally good running backs, who are both skilled enough to run with power between the tackles, yet at the same time catch a pitch and run with speed and agility outside the tackles?
  • You can be more tendency heavy if you don’t have two equal running backs because one is more likely your dive back, and the other is more likely your pitchback.
  • You need a tight end, and in some cases two tight ends
  • Midline is difficult to run
  • You have to teach the dive and pitch phases of the offense to all the running backs you have, which doubles the time needed to run Split Back Veer
  • It’s difficult to get more than three receiving threats into a route.
  • The tighter splits compress the defense
  • Running tripe option (inside veer) to the nub side allows the defense to squeeze and scrape the offensive tackle, which leads to the offensive getting outnumbered when running triple option

Flexbone Pro’s

  • You can manipulate the defense more with purpose out of more formations with the Flexbone
  • You can feature one back in the Flexbone
  • You can align in a balanced formation which forces the defense to balance or be at a disadvantage to one side of the formation
  • Three foot splits widen the interior running lanes
  • Four vertical receiving threats forces the defense to account for them
  • Modern passing concepts are easier to incorporate.
  • You can assure yourself you will have four blockers to each side when running triple option
  • Better counter opportunities with backfield action, which adds deception
  • Rocket Toss is a better perimeter play that Split Back Veer Quick Pitch
  • The most restrictive play (Midline) and the most expansive play (Rocket Toss) can be run with the same action. These two plays and this action is unavailable to Split Back Veer teams
  • The dive path of the B-Back from a more central location to run outside veer makes the quarterback’s footwork easier to execute
  • A-Backs are easier to find than Tight Ends
  • The defenses is forced to become more spread from sideline to sideline because you aren’t putting two running backs in the backfield
  • It’s easier to get to the edge with the Flexbone
  • Split Back Veer coaches love Outside Veer. Ask them how many times they get to the pitch phase on Outside Veer. 
  • Makes it difficult for the defense to run the under front
  • Better A-Gap threat (Midline)
  • You have the Flexbone Association

Photo: Navy Athletics

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Comments on “Why Flexbone Is Better Than Split Back Veer”

  1. Scott Jazdzewski November 21, 2013 at 9:09 AM #

    I dont advocate snapping the ball in the air at all. I’m posting an article on Monday detailing why coaches shouldnt run the pistol either. The same split back concerns from under center apply here compounded with the issues of an accurate shotgun snap on every play.

  2. Charles November 21, 2013 at 8:43 AM #

    Coach, what are your thoughts on the Split Back Veer from the gun. Wofford College another Flexbone team, has a gun option package with two running backs, where they run Trap, Trap Option, Belly Option, and Midline Option. I’ve seen this in action last year, but in this package they don’t have the threat of four vertical threats and they struggled. As a future coach, I like this package, but the con’s turn me away from running this.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Pistol Disadvantage | Flexbone Association - November 25, 2013

    […] it much more difficult to run the load scheme. You concede this advantage to the defense. Akin to Split Back Veer teams, having complications on the nub side against squeeze and scrape defensive stunts, Pistol Flexbone teams find themselves in the same […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: