@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

Kind of. Except strong refers to personnel in most cases more often than it does side of field.

Just because they line up more personnel more often to the field side doesn't necessarily make that the strong side. It's just a happy coincidence. You can have a weak far side.

Well aware, I'm not saying the strength of the formation makes that the wide side of the field.

it's usually why I stick to field and boundary terms.

@tiamat63 said:

So we're basically in agreement then.

Ok, that was easy. See? This is how boards should work.

Kind of. Except strong refers to personnel in most cases more often than it does side of field.

Just because they line up more personnel more often to the field side doesn't necessarily make that the strong side. It's just a happy coincidence. You can have a weak far side.

Ok, that was easy. See? This is how boards should work.

@tiamat63 said:

Dependent on scheme and personnel. Specific examples I can recall offhand were more geared toward speed-based teams loading the personnel to the boundary in order get their guy in space field-side. In that case, the offense would be looking for a 1v1 matchup issue with a Sam playing field side and Will playing boundary...both of which are essentially wins for the offense. However, segmenting off your S/W and F/N or F/B (whatever you want to call it) you'd get your rangier Will backer to play the field as opposed to the the boundary in this situation and your Sam on boundary side. Similarly, boundary side power runs can often happen with the strength of the personnel to the short side in attempts to get the Will over 2TE/heavy/jumbo looks.

I wouldn't call it a staple of any offensive philosophy by any means, however it is present from time to time. Defenses obviously specifically gameplan for unique scenarios such as what I just described, but having a differentiator between S/W and F/N is easier for players to remember than having a Sam say "okay, on formation A to this side of the field, I shift to W, unless formation A is on this side of the field then I'm S, but formation B to this side I'm S, etc."

As you're alluding to, more often than not, a team's field side and strong side are the same. However, in cases that they aren't, having a second differentiator allows defenses to make quicker (and easier to remember) adjustments on the fly. In order to prevent that confusion, almost all teams I played for having different monikers for strength of personnel and field side.

@wargograw said:

Who the fuck ever said they did? They help one understand the history of the game.

And honestly, who give a shit that much about understanding the techniques and schemes with which the game is played....beyond "Where is so and so going to line up" This is a Fan Forum, not a players or coaches forum. Hello!

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

Aside from attempting to get a specific receiver in 1on1 and making the coverage that much easier for a QB to read, or on say interior hole calls on running downs - how often do you think an offense breaks down, percentage wise, having the strength of its personnel to the boundary?

@tiamat63 said:

I'm gonna have to slightly disagree here, just based on what I've seen - "strong" has more often been used in conjunction to whatever side features a TE/RB/most receivers (dependent on formation). Near/Far, Tall/Short, Open/Closed has more often been used in conjunction with field position. At least, as far as any defense I've ever been a part of.

I suppose the terminology can and will be different, but I know that most of the defenses I played with tried to segment out Strong/Weak and Near/Far as much as possible just to give more options for the formation and playcall. For instance, you could have a Sam and a Will backer that are always strong and weak side, unless the Will is also particularly good in space, to which he would then shift to a Frank (or my personal favorite, "Fat") when the defense shows a strong formation alignment to the "Far" side of the field.

It just allows for better defensive segmentation, IMO. Granted, this was often on a case by case basis.

@wargograw said:

Actually. YES, it does. Knowing the history of the game is more important to most fans. NO ONE cares about stupid little minutiae about techniques to play the game......or about how the same exact thing can have 40 different ways of saying it. No one gives a shit if a play is called a Z 40 X bubble Omaha Q-tip or a Gobble down gut buster Jackson Hole A gap Mongoloid.

or if a guy is an SDE or a WDE.

We care about winning, and getting players with talent.

Get us a QB that can play like Aaron Rodgers, then get back to us.

Get back to us when you learn something that people care about.

@mld-woody said:

Yea, I know nothing about football....say the guys that are too gutless to do the trivia (without cheating)

@wargograw said:

You are right. I don't need a fucking excuse for anything I do.

@tiamat63 said:

Sometimes there's still a RB in the backfield to determine which is which...

@wargograw said:

There being a lot of different terms does not excuse not knowing what S/WDE means.

Par for the course with Gipper

@the-gipper said:

Strong side of the offensive formation is generally to the field - so in this case you'll either go with that or your coaches will determine what they feel is the best matchup in pass rush.

Garrett would play open/weak end and some bscker if called for.

@tour2ma said:

Sure, but then you have the "closed end/open end" terminology. Then the Sam/Will/Mike. then you basic Left End, Right End, Left Outside LB, Right Outside LB....and who knows how many other terms.

I mean, the Stronside Backer/End plays on the side that the TE is on. But a TE can switch sides on every play. Or go in motion. Is he at one instance the Strongside End and in the next instance the weakside end?

If a guy always plays the left or the right, again he could be SDE or WDE on different plays.

And what about where no TE is used? Five reciever sets.

Very old, simple terms for traditionally balanced lines with the TE determining which side is "strong" by adding his body to it "tight" to one OT or the other.

@wargograw said:

I know that like every team has a different terminolgy for these players. I was asking about the terminology in the above diagram, which is different from what was stated here.

In fact, I have seen, just in this thread, the same positions being called 3 different things.

@tiamat63 said:

And what if Garrett were the pick? Where would he fit in? That open(weak) end DE?

Again, everything I hear about him is that he is really a true DE, not an OLB.

Also, question: In this classic 4-3 setup, there is one MLB. Our talent at the LB spot has us with 3 good MLBs: Kirksey, Davis, Collins. I know Collins has been playing outside, but most of what I hear is that his optimal position is inside.

What do we do with 3 MLBs in a prototypical 4-3?

@tiamat63 said:

Sure, I understand that there could be a lot of variation in the alignment.. But I was just wondering who we would have manning the posts in the basic, classic structure.

@the-gipper said:

@mld-woody said:

Allen would be a DT and Shelton at NT I think.

In the terminology in the photo would DT be the "under tackle"

Nassib SDE and Ogbah WDE? Would Garrett be a SDE?

I don't see these terms used.... I see Open End, and Closed End (meaning on the side of the TE)

Which is which?

The formation above is similar to what Michigan plays. Sometimes we can the WDE a Buck LB, but it's the same thing.

You really don't know who the SDE and WDE are?

@gumby73 said:

Great stuff Tia. Can we expect anything different from Williams on covering a TE? Still Collins or can we send him at QB?

Up to coach and what he's Called for that personnel group, formation, etc etc.

You'll probably get a good mix of both,id suspect.