What a Move to a Single-Back System Means for the Green Bay Packers

In today's Daily Breakfast Links, I pointed you towards a piece by Tom Silverstein at the Journal-Sentinel about the slow move of the Packers to what he calls a one-back system.

But are the Packers truly moving that way? And just what does it mean?

Well, first of all, when Silverstein talks about a single- or one-back system, he's not talking about using one lead back to carry the majority of the load a la Adrian Peterson or Maurice Jones-Drew.

In other words, he's not saying that Cedric Benson is going to be the bell-cow back he was in Cincinnati. Now, in the past, there have been times when the Packers have given one back the majority of the carries—Ryan Grant carried the ball 312 times in 2008 and 282 yards in 2009.

So Benson could get that many carries.

The single- or one-back setup is about formation, not carries. When a coach talks about a one-back system, he's talking about a single player in the backfield. In other words, just a running back, no fullback to act as a lead blocker.

Traditionally, the Packers have had backs who utilize a lead blocker—guys like Grant and James Starks. As Silverstein points out, they have John Kuhn as a fullback, and he's one of the best in the game.

However, the Packers in recent years have preferred to spread the defense out by lining up as many receivers and tight ends as they can, as wide as they can. When you do that, having a non-receiving player on the field adds very little.

If you do run the ball, it's because you are looking to catch the defense off their game for a snap—so even with, say, Benson in the backfield, you aren't looking for a lead blocker.

So it's far more beneficial to go with an extra tight end or wide receiver than it is to have an extra blocker in the backfield.

Also, the Packers are going more no-huddle. Again, having a fullback on the field is nice—can you ever have too much blocking?—but not needed. It hurts your flexibility for play-calling.

With an extra receiver, tight end or even pure running back, you have more you can do. Even with two running backs in the huddle, one could kick out wide as a receiver.

So the fullback is, again, not a vital part of the offense.

This has certainly been going on the last year or so across the league and in many cases, teams are using more versatile backs than what used to pass for a lead runner. Guys like Darren Sproles have more work than guys like Michael Turner, though even Turner had more catches last year than he'd had in a long time.

For the Packers, it's hard to say if the move away from a back like Starks to one like Green was something they consciously did for this reason or if the move was in many ways a byproduct of the tools they have.

Starks has been unable to maintain health to begin with while Green, putting last year aside, had no real health issues in college. That Green could do a ton of different things made sense anyway—after all, we know Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy love versatility.

I'm sure they were looking for a solid back who could fit into multiple roles in the offense when they went into the 2011 draft, even if it wasn't a high priority.

The farther the offense can spread the defense out the better. While this may mean fans get to shout "KUUUUUHHHHHHNNNN" less frequently, it has the feel of the next evolution of this offense and one which was well underway long before Benson came on the scene.

For several years we've heard some people talk about the end of the fullback—not many teams really have one, or they don't use the one they have. 

What you see with the Packers is very much just that. Kuhn won't be cut, and we'll see him often in short yardage situations where a jumbo or other big "shove the ball down their throat" package is warranted.

However, it certainly looks like the Packers could be one of those teams we point to, who once used their fullback more frequently and now we rarely see him much at all.

Check out the B/R NFC North Facebook page—like us and keep up with everything NFC North on Bleacher Report! Follow me on Twitter at@andrew_garda.