Flankers vs. Split Ends

mmarra82 · 12-30-2003, 03:07 PM

Any thoughts to the real difference between a flanker and split end?

Is one considered a possession receiver while the other is the deep threat? I seem to find myself constantly debating as to who should play flanker and who should play split end.

How does the game determine who is a flanker and who is a split end?

Leonidas · 12-30-2003, 03:30 PM

The game seems to consider flankers to be the number 1 receiver. In reality I think pros regularly change from play to play as to who plays what, so it really doesn't matter in the long term. The flanker is the guy in motion who you might want to give a better chance to free himself from conventional coverage while the SE is pretty much stuck at his position from the beginning of the set so the D can more easily match up a particular DB on him.

If you want to go back to the evolution of the position, the only true "ends" are the SE and the TE. The flanker is actually an extra halfback. Your typical option formations in college won't have a flanker, only a SE and a TE. Back when players went both ways, before Paul Brown invented the pro-set formation, teams had two, or even three HB's, with one of them winding up as what we now know as the QB. The 4-Horsemen from ND were an example of a tricky backfield set in 1920's football. One guy was FB while the other three were HBs and they ran all sorts of tricky sets and motions to confuse the D. A guy who was HB one play, might turn around the next and take the snap like a QB, then he might take another play as a receiver. They even did shifts at the line of scrimmage, changing who lined up behind center two or three times before settling on one guy to run the play.

Eventually Paul Brown did away with all this when he invented the conventional pro set and had only one HB, one FB, and converted the other two HBs to flanker and QB. Other teams had been running sets with a set QB before this (Sammy Baugh comes to mind), but I think Brown was the first pro coach to make that other HB exclusively into a receiver.

Passacaglia · 12-30-2003, 03:37 PM

Changing the subject a little, but have any of you noticed that sometimes flankers line up *so* far back? Sometimes it seems like they're as far back as the running backs. How much space do they need to get around a guy, anyway?

QuikSand · 12-30-2003, 03:50 PM

In modern terms, the simples thing to understand is this: only two players on the line of scrimmage are eligible receivers - the players farthest to the outside on each side.

If you have tight end lined up on your right side, and then put a wide receiver on the line of scrimmage farther out, that means the TE is no longer an eligible receiver - he's just a tall, skinny offensive tackle. That's not what you want.

So, instead, you line up a receiver on that side who technically is not on the line of scrimmage - he starts the play a yard or two back. That way, the TE remains eligible, and the receiver is as well. This receiver, lined up a bit behind the LOS, is the flanker. The guy on the other side of the field, lined up right on the LOS, is the split end.

In more complicated formations, the same rules apply - only one guys one the line per side is eligible. Everyon else has to start the play a yard or two behind the LOS, technically part of the "backfield." Here, the roles of flanker and split end tend to break down, and we often use terms like w,x,y, and z, or else "slot" receivers to descrive the extra flanker-type receiver(s) on the weak side of a formation.

QuikSand · 12-30-2003, 03:54 PM

As for what kind of player is better suited to what role -- in theory, there is a general tendency to line the split end up farther away from the line than the flanker - which creates a supposition that flankers are the agile, possesion-style, underneath type of receivers - running crossing routes and slants. The same presumption is that split ends are the outside "burner" types who run deep posts and curl patterns closer to the sidelines.

Best real life example I can think of is from the 90s Cowboys teams: Michael Irvin is the flanker, Alvin Harper is the split end.

Now, you probably should just junk that information completely, because the roles simply aren't that concrete for almost any real team.

Passacaglia · 12-30-2003, 04:00 PM

I always thought it was the opposite: the flanker is the deep threat, because he can line up behind the line of scrimmage, giving him room to run around the guy covering him, while the split end has to line up right on the line, getting a bump from the CB as soon as he moves. I suppose it could work the other way, though -- once the SE gets off the line and past his guy, he's gone.

General Mike · 12-30-2003, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Passacaglia
I always thought it was the opposite: the flanker is the deep threat, because he can line up behind the line of scrimmage, giving him room to run around the guy covering him, while the split end has to line up right on the line, getting a bump from the CB as soon as he moves. I suppose it could work the other way, though -- once the SE gets off the line and past his guy, he's gone.

I was under that impression too. I don't think anything is set in stone anymore tho.

rkmsuf · 12-30-2003, 04:11 PM

Going in motion is to get a free release...that can mean a lot of things. It's more a testament to the skill of the receiver. If you have a great one who can defeat the jam at the line you can line him up wide and go long...

pskov · 12-30-2003, 04:30 PM

The Flanker is much harder to wrap up at the LOS so it is easier for him to get away cleanly on short, timing routes like slants and curls etc. Being able to motion helps this also.

hukarez · 12-30-2003, 05:17 PM

Who are some modern day Flankers and Split Ends? This was something I never really paid attention to - especially when they line up at scrimmage...

EDIT: Er, in addition to the aforementioned post about the 90s Cowboys.

Surtt · 12-30-2003, 05:50 PM

I think another classic example is (was)

Cris Carter at flanker and Randy Moss at split end.

Dutch · 12-30-2003, 06:32 PM

Successful flankers that fit into the mold include Michael Irvin, Herman Moore, Cris Carter, Keyshawn Johnson, and Terrell Ownes.

Successful split ends that fit into the mold include Alvin Harper, Keenan McCardell, Bert Emmanuel, and Peerless Price.

Joe Jurevicius, a 2nd rate Flanker, is a great example of a really good "slot" receiver to have on your team.

Oh, and I don't know what you call Randy Moss, he plays great at SE but fits the mold of a flanker at the same time. Also, I have no idea how to classify a guy like Jerry Rice. Sometimes these guys have so much talent that it's not fair to call them one or the other, they can do either extremely well.

Poli · 12-30-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Passacaglia
Changing the subject a little, but have any of you noticed that sometimes flankers line up *so* far back? Sometimes it seems like they're as far back as the running backs. How much space do they need to get around a guy, anyway?

From reviewing film in my past, 90% of the time you see a receiver that deep is because they don't want to be offside and want to make sure the line judge knows they are "off the line". The line judge situation is more prevalent in high school football. High school kids usually want to make very sure that they're either on or off the line.

Of the other 10%, most is due to some type of trick play, such as reverses or screens. If the receiver starts deep behind the line, it's less time he has to work back that way for a handoff or lateral.

Of course, there is the rare occassion the receiver lines up that deep with no clue.

Poli · 12-30-2003, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dutch
Also, I have no idea how to classify a guy like Jerry Rice. Sometimes these guys have so much talent that it's not fair to call them one or the other, they can do either extremely well.

I've always heard that Rice made an excellent flanker, and needed to be off the line and able to move in motion to combat bump and run or jamming on the line.

Raiders Army · 12-30-2003, 08:44 PM

Damn the West Coast Offense...just bring back the Wishbone!

yabanci · 12-30-2003, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pskov
The Flanker is much harder to wrap up at the LOS so it is easier for him to get away cleanly on short, timing routes like slants and curls etc. Being able to motion helps this also.

This is true, and also teams like a WR who can block to play SE, so you have some help on weakside runs. If you put both your TE and blocking WR on the same side, the other team will key the strong side run and if you run weakside you have no help. This is why a lot of times you see the bigger receiver play SE.

Buccaneer · 12-30-2003, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Raiders Army
Damn the West Coast Offense...just bring back the Wishbone!

You said the "W" word, so I guess I have to put you on my Ignore list.

12-30-2003, 03:30 PM	#2
Leonidas College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: East Anglia	The game seems to consider flankers to be the number 1 receiver. In reality I think pros regularly change from play to play as to who plays what, so it really doesn't matter in the long term. The flanker is the guy in motion who you might want to give a better chance to free himself from conventional coverage while the SE is pretty much stuck at his position from the beginning of the set so the D can more easily match up a particular DB on him. If you want to go back to the evolution of the position, the only true "ends" are the SE and the TE. The flanker is actually an extra halfback. Your typical option formations in college won't have a flanker, only a SE and a TE. Back when players went both ways, before Paul Brown invented the pro-set formation, teams had two, or even three HB's, with one of them winding up as what we now know as the QB. The 4-Horsemen from ND were an example of a tricky backfield set in 1920's football. One guy was FB while the other three were HBs and they ran all sorts of tricky sets and motions to confuse the D. A guy who was HB one play, might turn around the next and take the snap like a QB, then he might take another play as a receiver. They even did shifts at the line of scrimmage, changing who lined up behind center two or three times before settling on one guy to run the play. Eventually Paul Brown did away with all this when he invented the conventional pro set and had only one HB, one FB, and converted the other two HBs to flanker and QB. Other teams had been running sets with a set QB before this (Sammy Baugh comes to mind), but I think Brown was the first pro coach to make that other HB exclusively into a receiver. __________________ Molon labe

12-30-2003, 03:37 PM	#3
Passacaglia Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Big Ten Country	Changing the subject a little, but have any of you noticed that sometimes flankers line up so far back? Sometimes it seems like they're as far back as the running backs. How much space do they need to get around a guy, anyway? __________________ Pride and Prejudice -- an FOF9 Lions dynasty, starting 1966

12-30-2003, 04:00 PM	#6
Passacaglia Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Big Ten Country	I always thought it was the opposite: the flanker is the deep threat, because he can line up behind the line of scrimmage, giving him room to run around the guy covering him, while the split end has to line up right on the line, getting a bump from the CB as soon as he moves. I suppose it could work the other way, though -- once the SE gets off the line and past his guy, he's gone. __________________ Pride and Prejudice -- an FOF9 Lions dynasty, starting 1966

12-30-2003, 04:11 PM	#8
rkmsuf Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2001	Going in motion is to get a free release...that can mean a lot of things. It's more a testament to the skill of the receiver. If you have a great one who can defeat the jam at the line you can line him up wide and go long... __________________ "Don't you have homes?" -- Judge Smales

12-30-2003, 05:17 PM	#10
hukarez College Starter Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Chula Vista, CA	Who are some modern day Flankers and Split Ends? This was something I never really paid attention to - especially when they line up at scrimmage... EDIT: Er, in addition to the aforementioned post about the 90s Cowboys. Last edited by hukarez : 12-30-2003 at 05:19 PM.

12-30-2003, 03:50 PM	#4
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	In modern terms, the simples thing to understand is this: only two players on the line of scrimmage are eligible receivers - the players farthest to the outside on each side. If you have tight end lined up on your right side, and then put a wide receiver on the line of scrimmage farther out, that means the TE is no longer an eligible receiver - he's just a tall, skinny offensive tackle. That's not what you want. So, instead, you line up a receiver on that side who technically is not on the line of scrimmage - he starts the play a yard or two back. That way, the TE remains eligible, and the receiver is as well. This receiver, lined up a bit behind the LOS, is the flanker. The guy on the other side of the field, lined up right on the LOS, is the split end. In more complicated formations, the same rules apply - only one guys one the line per side is eligible. Everyon else has to start the play a yard or two behind the LOS, technically part of the "backfield." Here, the roles of flanker and split end tend to break down, and we often use terms like w,x,y, and z, or else "slot" receivers to descrive the extra flanker-type receiver(s) on the weak side of a formation.

12-30-2003, 03:54 PM	#5
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	As for what kind of player is better suited to what role -- in theory, there is a general tendency to line the split end up farther away from the line than the flanker - which creates a supposition that flankers are the agile, possesion-style, underneath type of receivers - running crossing routes and slants. The same presumption is that split ends are the outside "burner" types who run deep posts and curl patterns closer to the sidelines. Best real life example I can think of is from the 90s Cowboys teams: Michael Irvin is the flanker, Alvin Harper is the split end. Now, you probably should just junk that information completely, because the roles simply aren't that concrete for almost any real team.

12-30-2003, 04:30 PM	#9
pskov Mascot Join Date: Nov 2003	The Flanker is much harder to wrap up at the LOS so it is easier for him to get away cleanly on short, timing routes like slants and curls etc. Being able to motion helps this also.

12-30-2003, 05:50 PM	#11
Surtt College Benchwarmer Join Date: Nov 2003	I think another classic example is (was) Cris Carter at flanker and Randy Moss at split end. __________________ “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” United States Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

12-30-2003, 06:32 PM	#12
Dutch "Dutch" Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Tampa, FL	Successful flankers that fit into the mold include Michael Irvin, Herman Moore, Cris Carter, Keyshawn Johnson, and Terrell Ownes. Successful split ends that fit into the mold include Alvin Harper, Keenan McCardell, Bert Emmanuel, and Peerless Price. Joe Jurevicius, a 2nd rate Flanker, is a great example of a really good "slot" receiver to have on your team. Oh, and I don't know what you call Randy Moss, he plays great at SE but fits the mold of a flanker at the same time. Also, I have no idea how to classify a guy like Jerry Rice. Sometimes these guys have so much talent that it's not fair to call them one or the other, they can do either extremely well. Last edited by Dutch : 12-30-2003 at 06:34 PM.

12-30-2003, 08:44 PM	#15
Raiders Army Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Black Hole	Damn the West Coast Offense...just bring back the Wishbone!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)