Advantages of a 4 WR set

GhostOfPelluer

GhostOfPelluer

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,389
Reaction score
5,309
waldoputty said:
the db has more speed, so that protects against long runs.
but the db has less power so much more likely for zeke to get extra yards.
you think defenses would play 5 dbs instead of 6 when we actually have 2 wrs that run 4.3's?
they would be gambling that they can get to dak quickly in a pass.
and plays to dak's advantage as a good scrambler and throwing on the run.
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard of zone defense?
 
Flamma

Flamma

Well-Known Member
Messages
24,054
Reaction score
20,638
waldoputty said:
well most teams throw out of a 4wr set.
however our advantage is our ol and zeke.
the 4wr set forces the defense into dime (6 dbs)
the 4wr set also forces the defense to put at least 4 dbs wide to cover the 4 wrs.
and at least 1 safety deep most of the time unless they are insane.
Click to expand...

This idea is sound and I'm sure they'll use it from time to time, but a 4 wide single setback as a base formation might not be a good idea. You're essentially running the run and shoot. This is what the Lions did with Barry Sanders. Spread them out and let Barry slither his way through the line. This worked for Detroit until they faced good defenses. Here are the problems I see if Dallas over uses that concept.

Zeke is not Sanders and doesn't run like Sanders.
Dak is not Romo and we will see 7 men in the box from time to time. Romo was pretty good against 0 deep, how will Dak be? Don't forget, defenses try to disguise what they're doing too. If we make it obvious that we always run from that formation then 7 in the box will shut the run game down, then what do you do on 2nd and 13? Running play action with 7 men in the box and only 5 OL is also not a good idea for obvious reasons.
 
armadillooutlaw

armadillooutlaw

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,496
Reaction score
3,556
Didn't we run a lot of four wide sets the first few games last year when the offense came out flat against Denver and most of the Arizona game? They were still stacking the box and the offense was ineffective.
Now maybe having better route runners - Gallup and Hurns - and a couple of speed threats - Thompson and Austin - changes that.
 
AKATheRake

AKATheRake

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,968
Reaction score
2,963
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.
 
waldoputty

waldoputty

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,375
Reaction score
21,163
Flamma said:
This idea is sound and I'm sure they'll use it from time to time, but a 4 wide single setback as a base formation might not be a good idea. You're essentially running the run and shoot. This is what the Lions did with Barry Sanders. Spread them out and let Barry slither his way through the line. This worked for Detroit until they faced good defenses. Here are the problems I see if Dallas over uses that concept.

Zeke is not Sanders and doesn't run like Sanders.
Dak is not Romo and we will see 7 men in the box from time to time. Romo was pretty good against 0 deep, how will Dak be? Don't forget, defenses try to disguise what they're doing too. If we make it obvious that we always run from that formation then 7 in the box will shut the run game down, then what do you do on 2nd and 13? Running play action with 7 men in the box and only 5 OL is also not a good idea for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

no, i do not mean we always run from that formation.
60-40 may be a good split with some jet sweep/fake action also.
with all that, hard to believe a D would just bump-and-run 4 wr and use 7-in-a-box without even a single deep safety.
with austin's speed and return ability, he could take some turns in the backfield while zeke lines up wide as wr.
imagine zeke doing a jet sweep causing major havoc.
 
waldoputty

waldoputty

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,375
Reaction score
21,163
armadillooutlaw said:
Didn't we run a lot of four wide sets the first few games last year when the offense came out flat against Denver and most of the Arizona game? They were still stacking the box and the offense was ineffective.
Now maybe having better route runners - Gallup and Hurns - and a couple of speed threats - Thompson and Austin - changes that.
Click to expand...

i dont think we did.
i did not get to see the denver game though - was on a trip.
thompson is supposed to have fix his route running problems, though not sure about austin.
 

buybuydandavis

Well-Known Member
Messages
24,274
Reaction score
21,273
waldoputty said:
thought about beas also.
question is did he lose a step or just was bracketed last year.
if just bracketed, then he would gain a lot from the 4wr with zeke.
or draw coverage from others.
the issue with beas is that he would be a weak blocker.
would like 2 4.3 speed guys on the outside with thompson and austin.
that leaves hurns, gallup and beas.
Click to expand...

I think Beasley is in his prime. Not a lot of abuse, and more of a technician than an athlete. Green Bay didn't bracket him, and the had two tds.

Bracketing him largely neutralizes him, but I'll take that trade, 2-1, or even 1.5-1 coverage every play. We were hurt last year because Williams, and often Dez, could be covered 1-1 and in press.

Beas is weak as a blocker, but he's clearing guys out of the middle. That's why pairing a FB seemed like a natural. Attack between the tackles, so guys covering a slot are largely out of the play. The guys covering the WRs just don't make it back into the play in time to be a factor. Zeke and our oline, our strength, isolated against the best they can line up against them.

I wouldn't want Austin on the outside. Small guys on the edge disappear behind defenders. Better to have him in the slot to take advantage of his quickness.

I like the guys we have, and remember that when Dez was out for 3 games, we won all three. Dak could deal the ball. Getting it out of his hands quicker, to players better at getting separation, and I think we're ok.
 
GhostOfPelluer

GhostOfPelluer

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,389
Reaction score
5,309
waldoputty said:
sure, they may play cover-3.
but that would only help the running game, probably.
Click to expand...
If we go 4 wide as a base, teams go nickel and dare us to pass, negating the potential mismatch w the extra backer and essentially taking away our strength by using our own scheme against us.
 
waldoputty

waldoputty

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,375
Reaction score
21,163
GhostOfPelluer said:
If we go 4 wide as a base, teams go nickel and dare us to pass, negating the potential mismatch w the extra backer and essentially taking away our strength by using our own scheme against us.
Click to expand...
so you are assuming we cannot pass against a nickel given the big mismatches on the receivers.
 

TruBluSince1982

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
1,340
armadillooutlaw said:
Didn't we run a lot of four wide sets the first few games last year when the offense came out flat against Denver and most of the Arizona game? They were still stacking the box and the offense was ineffective.
Now maybe having better route runners - Gallup and Hurns - and a couple of speed threats - Thompson and Austin - changes that.
Click to expand...

We did, at least in the Denver game. The problem was "it was predictable".

Nearly every time we went four wide we didn't run the ball. We almost always ran the ball out of a heavy jumbo.

We went 4 and 5 wide many times this game but nearly never ran out of 4 wide.

Here just look at the highlights, all you really need to see.. I think I counted one time we ran without a tight end in the box, and that was a poorly executed draw play. By the way don't you generally run draw plays when your passing game is at least somewhat effective?? Lol Good Lord...who are we fooling here

 
Flamma

Flamma

Well-Known Member
Messages
24,054
Reaction score
20,638
waldoputty said:
no, i do not mean we always run from that formation.
60-40 may be a good split with some jet sweep/fake action also.
with all that, hard to believe a D would just bump-and-run 4 wr and use 7-in-a-box without even a single deep safety.
with austin's speed and return ability, he could take some turns in the backfield while zeke lines up wide as wr.
imagine zeke doing a jet sweep causing major havoc.
Click to expand...

In 2016 the Giants rushed 6 when we went empty backfield. Dak had absolutely no time to throw the ball. The WRs didn't even matter. In 2014 teams used 0 deep on us. Romo would even indicate this to his WRs, it didn't seem to bother him too much. Not too sure about Dak.

But don't get me wrong, I don't think you're idea is bad. What our coaching staff would do is run from under center and pass out of shotgun in the 4 wide, giving up what we're doing. Same with other formations and whether or not we're in shotgun. The defense knows what we're doing.

What I'm trying to say is, the Cowboys have to give the defense a reason to put 6 in the box, not expect it. And play action is not always a good idea with little protection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top