Advantages of a 4 WR set

[OmerV]

Personnel groupings are (or at least should be) strategic based on your personnel and their personnel.

Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that there will be LBs on the field despite the OPs claims to the contrary, nor does it change the fact there are some offensive schemes that do not make sense as the primary offense regardless of personnel. The OP is using flawed logic.

Essentially what he is doing is looking at colleges that run this kind of offense and seeing that there are occasional large running lanes because the defense gets spread out, but what he chooses to ignore is that those are very pass heavy offenses and the opposing defenses have to focus far and away most of their efforts on stopping the pass. If a team tried to have a run heavy offense out of those same sets, defenses would adjust to that.

 

[Verdict]

Here’s some interesting info I found. I’m not for or against running from the 10 personnel because I haven’t studied it enough from the nfl side



When college football teams line up in four- and five-wide sets, it is more often than not to throw the ball. In fact, the end result of those packages was a pass or sack more than two-thirds of the time in Football Study Hall's 2012 charting data.

Still, that leaves plenty of action on the ground. Runs take up a not-insignificant section of the pie chart below. Even guys like Mike Leach feel the need to hand the ball off every so often.



Running out of an empty or nearly-empty backfield comes with the benefit of a scattered defense looking to cover the outside. But that also comes without a lead blocker. How does that balance play out in the end?

It turns out that extra space is allowing for extra yardage on the ground. It's logical that quarterback runs would gain more, as the QB can survey the reaction of the defense and run to daylight, but running backs are having similar success without an extra blocker in the way.

As the table shows, QBs are gaining almost a yard-and-a-half extra when they hold on to the ball in four and five-wide sets. Overall, runs gain close to a yard more in the wideout-heavy sets.

It's not some new revelation that spread-type offenses with more wideouts tend to gain more yardage. They've been at the top of the NCAA offensive rankings for years. However, that has been primarily on the back of the pass. The teams that run out of the spread (like Oregon) use plenty of tight ends and multiple-back sets.

The chart below (sorry about the small print) shows that YPC trends upward until a fifth wide receiver is added.



Does this mean teams should consider leaning more towards more wideouts and less running backs when they want to pick up yardage on the ground? Well, it isn't quite that simple.

Of course, part of the success that stems from running out of these passing personnel groupings is just that -- it tends to catch the defense by surprise, and the average down and distance in the table above could be telling.

Runs out of four and five-wide sets are coming with more yards needed for a first down, and likely more often coming in typical passing downs. Defenses aren't just leaning towards the pass because of the formation, they are doing so because a pass makes more sense in the average situation.

Still, it is a positive sign for pass-heavy spread attacks that running without tight ends and fullbacks isn't hindering their ability to pick up yardage on the ground, at least in a typical situation.

https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2...4/college-football-spread-running-average-ypc

You are correct. It's an interesting concept. I'm not sure what the NFL result of that would be. I think your observation that down and distance may also be artificially inflating running statistics. It's hard to quantify that.

It's a lot like people saying Alfred Morris was great last year because statistically he had a good yards per rush. It's easier to get 4 yards when it's 3rd down and you need 15 on third down. Defenses will give you the 4 yards they just don't want you to get 15.

Statistics are merely information, as you have suggested. The interpretation of those facts is where the rubber meets the road. Alfred Morris is still out of a job, because the eyeball test tells a different story than stats do.

 

[Verdict]

Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that there will be LBs on the field despite the OPs claims to the contrary, nor does it change the fact there are some offensive schemes that do not make sense as the primary offense regardless of personnel. The OP is using flawed logic.

Essentially what he is doing is looking at colleges that run this kind of offense and seeing that there are occasional large running lanes because the defense gets spread out, but what he chooses to ignore is that those are very pass heavy offenses and the opposing defenses have to focus far and away most of their efforts on stopping the pass. If a team tried to have a run heavy offense out of those same sets, defenses would adjust to that.

That's probably true that there will be LBs on the field no matter what. All I'm saying is sometimes the result is different than what you think it will be for various reasons. I'm not backing the OPs theory. I'm just saying we can't be certain he is wrong.

 

[CPanther95]

The strongest evidence that it won't work is simply due to the fact that teams haven't done it on a regular basis. If it would work for the 2018 Cowboys, it would work for any team in the past with a good RB and a half-decent OL. Even if nobody had deliberately tried to use it in the past, they would have stumbled on its effectiveness by accident by now.

 

[LocimusPrime]

The strongest evidence that it won't work is simply due to the fact that teams haven't done it on a regular basis. If it would work for the 2018 Cowboys, it would work for any team in the past with a good RB and a half-decent OL. Even if nobody had deliberately tried to use it in the past, they would have stumbled on its effectiveness by accident by now.

Excellent point

 

[OmerV]

That's probably true that there will be LBs on the field no matter what. All I'm saying is sometimes the result is different than what you think it will be for various reasons. I'm not backing the OPs theory. I'm just saying we can't be certain he is wrong.

I understand you aren't necessarily supporting his theory, but let's not act as if there isn't evidence he is wrong.

LBs will be on the field. This isn't a guess. Nickel and dime packages do not remove all LBs. At least 1 and often 2 LBs will be on the field, and that would be especially true if teams understood the Cowboys intended to run heavily from the 4 WR formation set. He is acting as if opposing defenses will spread out just they same for a team that runs 50% of the time as they do for a team that only runs 25% of the time, and that's plain illogical.

There is also the fact that NFL teams and coaches have not been living in a hole in the ground, ignorant of the fact that these kinds of offenses exist at the college level, yet NFL rejects them as gimmicks that will not work as a base offense in the NFL. The OP isn't somehow smarter than the entirety of the NFL over the years. Even those NFL offenses that spread the field more frequently than the Cowboys don't do it to support a run heavy scheme, they do it to support a pass heavy scheme.

He's also talking about jet sweeps as a big element in the offense, but there is a reason teams don't use those kinds of wide sweeping plays as a consistent element in the offense - if the defense reads them there is too much potential for big losses, and if a team runs them frequently, they will become easier to read.

The bottom line is he is only considering those limited points that he picks and chooses and ignoring the entirety of the situation.

 

[Verdict]

I've always liked the general premise of thinning out the defense by putting more WRs on the field. The easiest block is taking the defender out of the playing by making him line up wide.

And I definitely agree with forcing DBs to spend all day tackling Zeke instead of LBs. That would be one hell of a long day for the DBs.

Things in favor of it specifically for us:

• Just lost our top two TEs, and we're left with guys with no experience and little demonstrated talent.
• Our WRs are weak at the top, but fairly deep, I think.
• With Thompson and Austin, we've actually got some speed to stretch the field (though we should have done that more with Butler).
• Beasley should be on the field as a guy who has demonstrated that he requires 1.5+ coverage.
• Our oline is our strength, and forcing defenders out of the box, and making a dline play head to head against them, plays to our strength.

I was thinking 3WR and a FB. That's probably putting our best players on the field. But 4WR could be better. Or 3WR and one TE.

But definitely, Beasley should be part of our base. He should basically be a starter. *At least* 3WR between the 20s.

We'll see how good Olawale is. Likely better than any of our TEs. I wish they'd look at Bo as a FB too. Having two real running threats has gone out of style. With all the focus on pass defense, the NFL may not be prepared for two big backs to deal with. With a QB who can run too.

Everything I like a pendulum in the NFL. It swings too far in one direction and then the other. NFL defenses are built to stop the pass, but the over commitment to that makes a team vulnerable to the run.

RBs used to be at the top of the first round. Then they were devalued. Now you are seeing them going high again (Zeke, Barkley) because teams are vulnerable to the run and talented RBs are torching them.

 

[Verdict]

I understand you aren't necessarily supporting his theory, but let's not act as if there isn't evidence he is wrong.

LBs will be on the field. This isn't a guess. Nickel and dime packages do not remove all LBs. At least 1 and often 2 LBs will be on the field, and that would be especially true if teams understood the Cowboys intended to run heavily from the 4 WR formation set. He is acting as if opposing defenses will spread out just they same for a team that runs 50% of the time as they do for a team that only runs 25% of the time, and that's plain illogical.

There is also the fact that NFL teams and coaches have not been living in a hole in the ground, ignorant of the fact that these kinds of offenses exist at the college level, yet NFL rejects them as gimmicks that will not work as a base offense in the NFL. The OP isn't somehow smarter than the entirety of the NFL over the years. Even those NFL offenses that spread the field more frequently than the Cowboys don't do it to support a run heavy scheme, they do it to support a pass heavy scheme.

He's also talking about jet sweeps as a big element in the offense, but there is a reason teams don't use those kinds of wide sweeping plays as a consistent element in the offense - if the defense reads them there is too much potential for big losses, and if a team runs them frequently, they will become easier to read.

The bottom line is he is only considering those limited points that he picks and chooses and ignoring the entirety of the situation.

I said several years ago that running would become more important as teams geared up with smallish pass defenders to stop the pass and caught the same flack that the OP is catching here for his theory. Again, I'm not backing his theory, I'm just saying there is no way of knowing how it would fare unless it is used.

Zeke on a DB should be a mismatch, any way you want to slice it. I think you would probably agree with that statement. If so that is a favorable situation you want to duplicate as often as possible.

The problem is using a one size fits all plan. The Patriots change game plans drastically week to week and change personnel groupings like most of us change underwear, to create mismatches.

Against a 4 wide receiver grouping you wouldn't expect to see big LBs on the field. You would expect to see smaller, faster LBs against that personnel grouping. Some teams probably have bigger DBs that could handle Zeke. Some teams would have smaller linebackers who can cover the pass. It's not a one size fits all proposition.

All I am saying is that the offensive game plan should be altered schematically to create mismatches. If we can run the same personnel group (jumbo) and run it for 6 yards on every play--then why ever pass the ball? That's not realistic most of the time, so use what works (until it doesn't) but don't be afraid to think outside the box.

 

[Verdict]

I have a feeling we're going to get the FB/HB involved more in the passing and running game.

I like Rod Smith and Zeke both lining up out there with 3 wide outs.

Both effective blockers that can catch out of the backfield and run the ball with authority.

I think we're going to see that more than 4 wide sets and our starting TE to get Jay Novacek like targets and #'s. 40 - 55 receptions and 450 - 600 yards a season.

I'm certain they're going 90's Cowboys with the attack behind the line of scrimmage sprinkled in with that Scott Linehan/Vikings passing attack. Of course no Randy Moss but those long spread routes.

As always, every team attempts. What's the outcome?

I like the idea and think it would suit what we have on offense.

It's what I believe Garrett and Linehan both know best in their respective strengths on offense. Garrett being a former NFL QB and playing in our former dynasty system knows the protection and reads behind the line of scrimmage and Linehan obviously having a thorough background as an OC for the last decade and a half was also a WR coach during his tenure in the NFL.

If they're going down this year, they might as well go down with what they know.

I don't know if we WILL pass the ball more to Zeke and Olewale but personally I think we SHOULD see more passes to them. Here's a toast to great minds thinking alike!

 

[OmerV]

I said several years ago that running would become more important as teams geared up with smallish pass defenders to stop the pass and caught the same flack that the OP is catching here for his theory. Again, I'm not backing his theory, I'm just saying there is no way of knowing how it would fare unless it is used.

Zeke on a DB should be a mismatch, any way you want to slice it. I think you would probably agree with that statement. If so that is a favorable situation you want to duplicate as often as possible.

The problem is using a one size fits all plan. The Patriots change game plans drastically week to week and change personnel groupings like most of us change underwear, to create mismatches.

Against a 4 wide receiver grouping you wouldn't expect to see big LBs on the field. You would expect to see smaller, faster LBs against that personnel grouping. Some teams probably have bigger DBs that could handle Zeke. Some teams would have smaller linebackers who can cover the pass. It's not a one size fits all proposition.

All I am saying is that the offensive game plan should be altered schematically to create mismatches. If we can run the same personnel group (jumbo) and run it for 6 yards on every play--then why ever pass the ball? That's not realistic most of the time, so use what works (until it doesn't) but don't be afraid to think outside the box.

If you are talking about throwing in wrinkles to create mismatches, I agree. And the Cowboys do that at times, although maybe not as often as some. But that's different than using those wrinkles as a base offense.

The OP is extrapolating what "can" (not always) happen with runs in 4 WR sets on teams that pass 75% of the time as if it would work exactly the same if the run/pass ratio were 50/50, and that's not logical. It assumes defenses wouldn't/couldn't adjust - that they would somehow have to defend the same against a 50/50 run pass ratio as they would with a 25/75 run pass ratio. Defenses adjust against any style of offense based on what the opposing team prefers to do within that offense, and a 4 WR set isn't somehow or magically an exception to that. It's plain flawed logic by the OP, and it's refusal to accept that different variables result in different circumstances and results.

As for the idea that we "can't know unless we try", this suggests NFL teams and coaches are going blind on this and have no basis for rejecting these kinds of offenses as their base offense. Again, it's not as if teams and coaches are working in a hole with no knowledge of or experience with 4 WR sets. It's not as if they don't understand its strengths and weaknesses. It would be ludicrous to suggest they are blind on this.

 

[zerofill]

The Patriots have won a whole bunch of Super Bowls by being a run-first team that spreads the field.

When did 350 yards a game Brady become run first? 500+ yards in a losing effort is run first?

 

[waldoputty]

Which would be doing other teams a favor. If I were game planning against Dallas I would love to make it a passing game and take Zeke out of the equation

we may not have a wr1 but we have several wr2/wr3 types. i think many of you are worrying about the lack of a wr1. hurns, thompson, austin and beas all are wr2/wr3 types, and the rookie could be though we shall see. it plays to the type of game that green bay plays where all the wr are good route runners, and on top of that, we have 2 guys that run 4.3s that green bay did not have. that is just another reason to put more wrs on the field as the 4th cb on the other team has to deal with a wr2/wr3 threat.

in your defense, you are pressing (with no single safety deep) 4 wrs of which 2 has 4.3 speed, and thompson was the best receiver at buffalo last season (yes their wrs sucked) while hurns had a 1000 yard year in the year he was not injured. if they play beas, he has shown that more than 1 guy was needed to cover him in the slot (assuming last year was not a real decline)...

if you have 7 in the box to stop zeke, you are simply asking for it in terms of a dak roll out buying time for 4 wr2/wr3 types getting open against single coverage. also 2 pairs of wrs (assuming 2 on each side) can be running pick plays. 1 successful pick, it could be 6. a jet sweep would give you an extra blocker against a zone if the jet sweep and zeke go in the same direction. dak can read the d reacting to jet sweep and could hand it to zeke (against a zone) or roll out to the other side in man coverage.

let say you are in a zone defense, and you have austin running a jet sweep while zeke is in the back field. what are you 1 or 2 lbs going to do? are they going to shift over a bit? if not, we can have an extra blocker if zeke and austin run in the same direction. if they do shift over, the play can also have zeke run wide in the other direction and get a db to beat up on. the lbs and dbs have to make up their mind really quick.

if you have 6 in the box, many teams have also implement plays that finesse one dl. for example, simply 'ignoring' a DE and running to the other side (chiefs did that). that again gets you the advantage running wide. the defense would have the same dilemma with the jet sweep.

all at the same time, the defense ALSO has to defend zeke running up the middle with a dominant OL. are they going to spread out a bit with all this motion or are they going to worry about zeke running up the middle?

 

[Future]

When did 350 yards a game Brady become run first? 500+ yards in a losing effort is run first?

They've always been run first. Always. They're just the best at exploiting other teams when they stop the run.

 

[OmerV]

The Patriots have won a whole bunch of Super Bowls by being a run-first team that spreads the field.

The Pats are not a run first team. The last 5 years they have thrown the ball 58% of the time. They also use a blocking TE extensively - 4 WR sets is not the base offense.

 

[OmerV]

They've always been run first. Always. They're just the best at exploiting other teams when they stop the run.

No, they haven't. The stats don't back that up.

 

[waldoputty]

It's not lack of familiarity - like you, I've seen it a lot in the college game. But it's easier for you to claim that's where I'm coming from than to acknowledge my comments about the college game being different from the pro game, and where it is used in the college game is in a pass heavy offense, not a run heavy offense. You ridiculously refuse to grasp the simple concept that the approach of the opposing defense to that kind of base set would be different if a team was running 50% of the time out of it than it is when college offenses run 25-30% of the time out of it. Running can be effective in college because the defenses have to put there first and highest priority on stopping the passing game, and even then the running game isn't always anything more than a nice compliment rather than a significant driver in the offense. It's laughable that you think defenses would plan the same as they do with a pass heavy team if the Cowboys used a 4 WR set in a run heavy offense, and it's ridiculous that you don't understand NFL coaches are always looking for an edge and have been looking and different offensive styles throughout history, and they have rejected the idea you propose.

i have said from the beginning that the college game is different and it is no surprise that most teams cannot do this because they lack the personnel.

i bothered to get a few nice illustrations to show a few plays. instead of responding to the plays and how it would be stopped, you basically just say it cannot be done because others cannot make it work. btw, the eagles also used this formation, and we have better personnel than the eagles for doing this. better ol, better rb and faster wrs.

this team has some unique personnel that makes it rather unique:
1. a top OL that demonstrated the ability to zbs block with devastating results
2. zeke, easily top 3 rb who can run, catch and block with 4.4 speed
3. 2 wrs that run 4.3 and can catch, run sweeps and proven returners that perform well in space
4. a qb who can roll out and scramble
5. forgot to mention beas who has proven slot abilities that demand more attention

just in zeke and austin alone, you have 2 game breakers who can stretch the defense because they can simply go in opposite directions.

think about teams putting 8 or even 9 against zeke, this forces defenses to favor dbs over lbs, something that zeke can beat up on.

 

[waldoputty]

The run and shoot has been tried many times and always loses to good D's. No thanks.

previous run and shoot teams dont have our ol and rb.

 

[waldoputty]

Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that there will be LBs on the field despite the OPs claims to the contrary, nor does it change the fact there are some offensive schemes that do not make sense as the primary offense regardless of personnel. The OP is using flawed logic.

Essentially what he is doing is looking at colleges that run this kind of offense and seeing that there are occasional large running lanes because the defense gets spread out, but what he chooses to ignore is that those are very pass heavy offenses and the opposing defenses have to focus far and away most of their efforts on stopping the pass. If a team tried to have a run heavy offense out of those same sets, defenses would adjust to that.

ah, i did not say there will not be a lb on the field.
whether it is 1 or 2 is debatable.
i believe the 4.3 speed and zeke's 4.4 speed will force the d to go db-heavy.

 

[waldoputty]

If you are talking about throwing in wrinkles to create mismatches, I agree. And the Cowboys do that at times, although maybe not as often as some. But that's different than using those wrinkles as a base offense.

The OP is extrapolating what "can" (not always) happen with runs in 4 WR sets on teams that pass 75% of the time as if it would work exactly the same if the run/pass ratio were 50/50, and that's not logical. It assumes defenses wouldn't/couldn't adjust - that they would somehow have to defend the same against a 50/50 run pass ratio as they would with a 25/75 run pass ratio. Defenses adjust against any style of offense based on what the opposing team prefers to do within that offense, and a 4 WR set isn't somehow or magically an exception to that. It's plain flawed logic by the OP, and it's refusal to accept that different variables result in different circumstances and results.

As for the idea that we "can't know unless we try", this suggests NFL teams and coaches are going blind on this and have no basis for rejecting these kinds of offenses as their base offense. Again, it's not as if teams and coaches are working in a hole with no knowledge of or experience with 4 WR sets. It's not as if they don't understand its strengths and weaknesses. It would be ludicrous to suggest they are blind on this.

talking about previous run/pass ratios does not show how in the world the defense would adjust.
teams do not use this type of offense because they dont have the personnel to do it.
i dont remember any team in recent history with the dominant ol, top rb and 2 guys with the 4.3 speed.

 

[OmerV]

ah, i did not say there will not be a lb on the field.
whether it is 1 or 2 is debatable.
i believe the 4.3 speed and zeke's 4.4 speed will force the d to go db-heavy.

The way to handle Dez is not to let him break through the line of scrimmage and try and run him down with a DB, it's to try and stop him from breaking through to begin with.

As for all the talents you have mentioned the team has, those translate into success in a 2-3 WR set too, and the QB and RB will have additional blocking.