I am unfamiliar with the 2-tight end set...

[superpunk]

And Hos is sucked in.....

 

[Hostile]

And Hos is sucked in.....

I can't help it. The hollow sound of hand to chest is like waving a red cape in front of a bull.

 

[superpunk]

I can't help it. The hollow sound of hand to chest is like waving a red cape in front of a bull.

LOL...we threw out of the 2 TE set "staple" of our offense a whopping 77 times last year. FYI...Bledsoe attempted 499 passes. (15%, for you statisticians out there.) 1 TE set 268 times - over 50%.

 

[acheman]

Doesn't this also mean we will have to have two flankers on the field at all times, VS a flanker and a split end? Will Glenn have to line up on the line of scrimmage in this formation (and thus face possible jams at the line) in order to make the TE on his side of the offense be an eligible receiving threat? This offense is supposed to disguise whether we are running or passing, and disguise to which side right? So it stands to reason we must have both TE's as eligible receivers, or else the defense will only be forced to cover one and/or suspect when and where we may be running the ball. I know the Cowboys have thought all of this out, I am just asking if my thoughts on this matter are correct or incorrect.

 

[MapleLeaf]

Defences work on the premise that they are required to cover the entire field and thereby cheat based on down and distance, offensive formation, players on the field and motion.

Their cheating is really about shading to either the left or right side of the field, adjusting your depth short or deep and substituting personnel for the situation they see.

With two TE sets if you have "bookend TEs" who are equal in all ways. Block like demons (Campbell in his prime.) at the point of attack, run routes like Kellen Winslow and find open seams like Novacek then you can present a balanced offence to the defence.

The majority of your playbook and situations can be run out of this formation. The defence can't tell whether you are right handed or left handed. They cannot define a strongside to your blocking scheme and consider that your point of attack.

They don't know which side of the intermediate zones will be flooded with a TE.

Ultimately they have to play the whole field and they won't know if they can substitute players who can match up with the personnel.

The offensive coordinator's dream is to run the entire playbook out of one formation and make it difficult for the defence to figure out when to bring the nickel, dime or blitz packages.

The icing on the cake would be to have a QB who is ambidextrous so they cannot have any idea which is his blind side to blitz. A perfect two TE set would be a very difficult formation to defend.

The basis for this set is that both TE have to be able to block as well as lineman. It remains to be seen if Witten and Fasano can bring that dimension to Dallas. If they do...watch out!!!

 

[acheman]

What are the rules concerning being an eligible receiver? I know that the tackle has to be covered on the line of scrimmage by the flanker and the TE is off the line of scrimmage. In a traditional offense the Tackle on the other side is usually covered by the split-end lining up on the line of scrimmage. What exactly is the rule to be an eligible receiver?

 

[Hostile]

What are the rules concerning being an eligible receiver? I know that the tackle has to be covered on the line of scrimmage by the flanker and the TE is off the line of scrimmage. In a traditional offense the Tackle on the other side is usually covered by the split-end lining up on the line of scrimmage. What exactly is the rule to be an eligible receiver?

You pretty much covered it. The only thing you didn't cover is that if an OL comes in as a "Tackle Eligible" he has to report to the Referee that he is Eligible and they notify the defense.

 

[acheman]

I meant in terms of this two TE set. Will both WR's have to be on the line covering both TE's, thus placing TG on the line to get jammed?

 

[Hostile]

I meant in terms of this two TE set. Will both WR's have to be on the line covering both TE's, thus placing TG on the line to get jammed?

No, either one of them can come off the Line as long a WR is out wider than they lined up and they can go in motion or into the backfield.

 

[acheman]

"You will have to forgive my friend, he is a bit slow" (referring to myself here)
Who can go in motion the TE or the WR? If you mean the wideout as long as another WR is lined up outside of him then we would not have any backs on the field with two TE's and three WR's. Thus an obvious passing situation. If you meant the TE can go in motion then what are the rules once he motions to the other side of the field or into the backfield concerning the WR and tackle he has just left? In order to be eligible don't both Witten and Fasano have to be covered by a flanker? If so do they (the TE's) both have to be off the line of scrimmage in order to be eligible. Sorry I am not following your answers.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

LOL...we threw out of the 2 TE set "staple" of our offense a whopping 77 times last year. FYI...Bledsoe attempted 499 passes. (15%, for you statisticians out there.) 1 TE set 268 times - over 50%.

How a "TE" is accounted for statistically skews any of those statistics. Some sites only consider a player a TE if he is lined up on the line of scrimmage and not on the wing. I believe that STATSinc is this way. Whenever Witten was able to go in motion he was not considered a TE. That's the only explanation that I can see.

Campbell was on the field for more plays last year than either Polite or Crayton and was the "starter" so 2TE was for all intents and purposes the base offense last year.


I guess the easiest way to understand this is to look at Washington's statistics. Cooley is not considered a TE for the statistics.


Another way to look at it with those statistics is 77 out of 2 TE, 268 out of 1 TE = 345 passes out of 499.

Does anyone really believe that Dallas threw the ball 154 times out of 0 TE or 3 TE sets?

 

[Hostile]

"You will have to forgive my friend, he is a bit slow" (referring to myself here)
Who can go in motion the TE or the WR? If you mean the wideout as long as another WR is lined up outside of him then we would not have any backs on the field with two TE's and three WR's. Thus an obvious passing situation. If you meant the TE can go in motion then what are the rules once he motions to the other side of the field or into the backfield concerning the WR and tackle he has just left? In order to be eligible don't both Witten and Fasano have to be covered by a flanker? If so do they (the TE's) both have to be off the line of scrimmage in order to be eligible. Sorry I am not following your answers.

Either one, but not both. Let's say the left side. As long as someone lines up on the Line Of Scrimmage wider than the OT on the left is is a legal formation. There has to be at least 7 players on the LOS. If one goes in motion, say the TE and sets up in the backfield the WR on that side is now not free to move. Same rule applies to both sides. All remain elligible receivers.

 

[Charles]

LOL...we threw out of the 2 TE set "staple" of our offense a whopping 77 times last year. FYI...Bledsoe attempted 499 passes. (15%, for you statisticians out there.) 1 TE set 268 times - over 50%.

:laugh2: Nuff said............. need go no further

 

[Charles]

Oh brother.

If you are going to tell me this 2 TE set will be just like the previous 3 years then by all means come right out and say it and be wrong yet again. Clearly they (Cowboys Management) see a new wrinkle.

It will........the only difference is that a more versatile TE in the offense allows the Cowboys to expand their plays from simple base formations like 2 TE more effectively. Their aren't any new wrinkles, just improving on what we do due to versatility.

Here is what Drew Bledsoe stated in an interview today on the ticket. As per Imanroshi and Trickblue's recaps:

http://dallascowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55269

So this 2 TE set. Is this a radical departure from last season? Or are this just basically replacing Dan Campbell?

It gives us some really great flexibility. I loved working with Dan, but now we got two effective pass catchers from the TE position. Last year we moved Jason around a lot in the backfield and putting him in motion, and when you got two guys like that you have a lot of diversity out of your simple base formations. Now we’re a threat to throw the ball from a power running formation. It can be a lot more deceptive for the defense.

Note, even if we had implemented this last year when Miller was available I still wouldn't take him over the guys we did take. There were serious holes on the defensive side of the ball. Or did you sleep through 2004? Oh I know, this was probably during your orientation into the religion of Carl & Kevin Poston. You have a legit excuse I guess.

:wink2:

Once again it won't be implemented this year. As stated by Drew Bledsoe 2 TEs have been a base formation. A more versatile TE (hopefully in Fasano and Curtis ) would gives us more versatility out of our 2 TE base formation.

I also saw your boy superpunk 15% remark. He got a good laugh out of it. I couldn't even bring myself to reply. I bet you know why???

 

[Alexander]

I have to give you credit, Charles.

You took some abuse for Heath Miller last year and this pick vindicates you.

 

[superpunk]

How a "TE" is accounted for statistically skews any of those statistics. Some sites only consider a player a TE if he is lined up on the line of scrimmage and not on the wing. I believe that STATSinc is this way. Whenever Witten was able to go in motion he was not considered a TE. That's the only explanation that I can see.

Not sure about that. I think they count you as your listed position, regardless of where you line up. I tried to look into that, but couldn't find much. Some reasons for thinking that will be shown below. In any case, we ran motion minimally last year - and it's not even a guarantee that all of those motion plays involved a TE. Drew attempted 140 passes (28%) from a motion set, and Julius had only 67 of his 257 (26%) attempts come from motion sets.

Campbell was on the field for more plays last year than either Polite or Crayton and was the "starter" so 2TE was for all intents and purposes the base offense last year.

I just don't know that's the case. What I saw, and my gut, tells me it wasn't. I saw Campbell out there alot, yes - I also saw Polite and Crayton out there quite a bit, and us running three wide alot. Bledsoe attempted a 200 passes from a 3 WR set last year. 268 using a single TE. That tells me a FB, a 3rd WR, 4 WR, or 2 RBs were out there an awful lot. The motion theory could have something to do with it, but not enough to skew the 2 TE set down to only 77 attempts. Julius attempted 147 carries from the single TE set, 103 out of the I formation.....and only 42 out of the 2 TE set, and 70 out of a single back formation, indicating he was running with 3 wide, or a FB much of the time.

Sorry to get so "statsy", but I watched every game. I don't have a photographic memory, but I know that while we used the 2 TE set quite a bit, it was nowhere near our base. We ran many more plays out of the I, or going three wide. I don't think something technical like how a site determines what position a player is counted as, is going to skew the numbers that badly - particularly considering that the percentage of plays involving motion is so low. I'm not saying you're wrong - you might be right - I just don't think even if you are right, that it will have that great an effect. I know what I saw on the field, and the stats bear it out.

 

[superpunk]

I also saw your boy superpunk 15% remark. He got a good laugh out of it. I couldn't even bring myself to reply.

I see. So....hitting the quote button, highlighting the fact that I used pass attempts in my response, and making an asinine remark accompanied by an emoticon, rather than addressing the point....doesn't qualify as a reply.

Now I know why you make so little sense - you're speaking a different language! LOL

When really, if you had done a little research, you would have seen the same trend borne out in the rushing statistics as well.

And if that's not what you were trying to convey with you hilarious little attempt at condescension - then see above, for language reference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by superpunk
LOL...we threw out of the 2 TE set "staple" of our offense a whopping 77 times last year. FYI...Bledsoe attempted 499 passes. (15%, for you statisticians out there.) 1 TE set 268 times - over 50%.

:laugh2: Nuff said............. need go no further

 

[Hostile]

:laugh2: Nuff said............. need go no further

Maybe I just don't get it, but isn't all this below "going further?"

It will........the only difference is that a more versatile TE in the offense allows the Cowboys to expand their plays from simple base formations like 2 TE more effectively. Their aren't any new wrinkles, just improving on what we do due to versatility.

It doesn't appear that Valley Ranch agrees with your assessment. They're talking about adding plays, I.E., "new wrinkles."

Here is what Drew Bledsoe stated in an interview today on the ticket. As per Imanroshi and Trickblue's recaps:

http://dallascowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55269

So this 2 TE set. Is this a radical departure from last season? Or are this just basically replacing Dan Campbell?

Man, that's hard on the eyes. Where did I call it a "radical departure?"

I didn't? Okay, thank you.

It gives us some really great flexibility. I loved working with Dan, but now we got two effective pass catchers from the TE position. Last year we moved Jason around a lot in the backfield and putting him in motion, and when you got two guys like that you have a lot of diversity out of your simple base formations. Now we’re a threat to throw the ball from a power running formation. It can be a lot more deceptive for the defense.

I need an aspirin. Fonts changing sizes, stuff bolded for no apparent reason. I think I rubbed my temples raw.

What I can't figure out is what it is you think Bledsoe is saying that backs you up and proves me wrong.

Once again it won't be implemented this year. As stated by Drew Bledsoe 2 TEs have been a base formation. A more versatile TE (hopefully in Fasano and Curtis ) would gives us more versatility out of our 2 TE base formation.

By implementation you know I was talking about the addition of a more versatile TE in the 2 TE sets. I don't want to hold your hand through every discussion.

I also saw your boy superpunk 15% remark. He got a good laugh out of it. I couldn't even bring myself to reply. I bet you know why???

My boy SuperPunk? He isn't a shadow. He and I have had some pretty good debates. You seriously underestimate the man by calling him my "boy."

 

[Charles]

Sorry to get so "statsy", but I watched every game. I don't have a photographic memory, but I know that while we used the 2 TE set quite a bit, it was nowhere near our base.

http://dallascowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55269
It gives us some really great flexibility. I loved working with Dan, but now we got two effective pass catchers from the TE position. Last year we moved Jason around a lot in the backfield and putting him in motion, and when you got two guys like that you have a lot of diversity out of your simple base formations. Now we’re a threat to throw the ball from a power running formation. It can be a lot more deceptive for the defense.

...........4 letters HDTV

You stated that the running game 2 TEs percentage was very similar to the passing. That would make 2 TE set a combined 30% of the offense. That is a 1/3RD of the offense. A 1/3RD. If you've played football before a 1/3 RD of any playbook is considered a staple

 

[Clove]

I'm also thinking that alot of screens and sweeps are going to come from this set, and now we have the personell to run it.
JJ is very fast and quick/ Both TE's can get out in the opened field as well as our smallish Tackles and Guards.

You can eat up some serious yards if you can dice teams up with screens like Washington does. Alot of their stuff is smallish screens and behind the line dumps with blockers in front. Look out for a WR screen with any of our speed demon WR in TO/Glenn and Skyler Green.