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
Flexbone Association 
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.
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.