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

[EastDallasCowboy]

My turn to ask a couple questions. One that I've been afraid to ask because I should know it, and the other because I should just know it.

1) What exactly is an H-back? I know Cooley is one, but what is it that makes him different from a TE exactly?

2) I know there are rules regarding OL for pass blocking versus run blocking, in that they have to stay relatively stationary while pass blocking to avoid running an illegal route. How do these rules apply to TEs? How long can they pass block before running the route-or if they start pass blocking do they need to continue to? I played TE in high school, but it's been years and I just can't remember the intricacies of blocking rules.

Thanks

 

[Hostile]

My turn to ask a couple questions. One that I've been afraid to ask because I should know it, and the other because I should just know it.

1) What exactly is an H-back? I know Cooley is one, but what is it that makes him different from a TE exactly?

An H-Back is still a TE but he has a more diverse role. TE's line up outside the shoulder of a an OT with one hand on the ground.

An H-back can line up there, in the backfield as a FB basically, or go in motion.

Techinically it's the same, but H-back has more responsibilities in that the role has added wrinkles.

 

[EastDallasCowboy]

So he's just a combo FB/TE really?

 

[Hostile]

So he's just a combo FB/TE really?

Pretty much.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

So he's just a combo FB/TE really?

As a matter of fact, the NFL doesn't even know how to list a H-Back as witnessed by them listing Coolely as a FB for Pro Bowl voting.

 

[Austin28]

It's the same as it's always been-- but normally you have a receiving TE on one side and a blocking TE on the other side which makes things more predictable.

Fasano gives Dallas the option of throwing to either side. The weak side backer and DE don't know if he's staying in to pass block, run block, or running a pass pattern, so not only is it harder to guess the play based on the formation, with Fasano it's also not clear which side to put your best cover guys on.

Furthermore, the weakside defenders have further to go around the outside to get to the QB, and if they peel their ears back and rush passed the TE the QB might just throw right over their heads to the same TE. Washington used to torture the New York Giants this way with Donny Warren of all people, because the Giants would be convinced there's no way Washington would throw him the ball.

It's not a super-special trick, but it allows Dallas to do more from the same formation without substitutions.

Nice analogy there Ravi, my old friend.

The blocking scheme is also much different in the 2TE set. It's more horizontal and lateral than it is vertical. It's more about guessing, or making your opponent guess, than it is about brute strength.

It also allows you to disguise plays and the play action pass usually plays an important role in this offense. The already versatile TE position, becomes even more versatile when you consider the number of possiblities a defense has to account for.

Is it a run play or a pass play? Is the strong TE going for a pass or is he staying in to block. Think about the possiblities there. There are several.

It forces teams into the middle of the field and can really open up the offense to players like Terrell Owens and Terry Glenn.

Julius Jones and Barber seem to run better out of these formations. We also don't have to use a roster spot for a FB. TEs tend to make for better special teams players ...

Don't let some people on here fool you though. They've been running this since last year in preseason. It put their best 11 guys on the field. Some fans just didn't catch on until someone pointed it out to them ... A lot of JJs initial success came out of a 2TE set .. that's when I started noticing it. It's a flexible offense, but you have to have 2 quality TEs to run it.

 

[Austin28]

Good summary. It would be interesting to see how the 2 TEs will line up. I suspect they will not line up the same every time, but will switch sides, move around, go in motion, etc.

You mean like they did last year???

In addition to outside the OTs on either side of the line, there's H-Back as you mentioned and Witten could even move into the slot where he could cause a matchup problem or be an extra blocker out wide on a sweep or screen. Not sure on Fasano in the slot so I can't comment on him yet. If anyone thinks he could line up out there please say so.

Sure he could ... not sure if he'd be as good as Witten though ...

Witten was good last year at lead blocking IMO .. he may not be the best run blocking tight end .. but I remember a few good lead blocks he made on linebackers ...

Give it up for Witten!

If Julius is playing near what they expect of him it could be a very lethal offensive look. Figure 7 potential blockers on run plays and up to 5 receivers counting the RB on pass plays.

Well, yeah, that's what the whole 2 TE set is about .. don't forget they already have to worry about TO and Glenn now ...

This change has been taking place for a while now ... it just wasn't as obvious as the switch to the 3-4 ... to most people ...

It could be fun to watch and will create some matchup problems especially given it will be harder to double team TO or Glenn.

Exactly!

 

[StanleySpadowski]

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.



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.

You're getting "statsy" but your cross-pollinating them. How many WRs on the field has no bearing on how many TEs are on the field.

Look at it this way. The stats you provide included 345 passes in 1TE and 2TE sets and that Bledsoe threw 499 passes. How many plays did Dallas run without Witten on the field? I don't have the number off hand but I can say that it was very rare for him not to be out there. This would indicate that a vast majority of the other 154 passes came from a 3TE set. Since we know that this is patently false then it obvious that the original numbers have an error.

I guess I just have to hope that AdamJT will provide us with an answer to %s out of each set.

 

[EastDallasCowboy]

can anyone answer my question on TE blocking?

 

[Trip]

If the tight end lines up as an eligible receiver, which they always do, then he cannot be flagged for ineligible receiver downfield. The same blocking rules do not apply.

Of course he could be flagged for setting an illegal screen or something like that but he can leave the line of scrimmage to block.

Also, a tight end can block initially at the line of scrimmage, then sneak out into the pass pattern.

 

[Hostile]

can anyone answer my question on TE blocking?

2) I know there are rules regarding OL for pass blocking versus run blocking, in that they have to stay relatively stationary while pass blocking to avoid running an illegal route. How do these rules apply to TEs? How long can they pass block before running the route-or if they start pass blocking do they need to continue to? I played TE in high school, but it's been years and I just can't remember the intricacies of blocking rules.

Since TEs are eligible receivers there is no restriction on them with regards to releasing duing pass blocking. They can go downfield at the snap of the ball, slip a block, fake a block, whatever and get open.

 

[EastDallasCowboy]

What makes them eligible recievers though?

Is it simply the fact that they lined up 3 away from the center? Or is it because they set at a different depth?

Seems to me with either situation, then a member of the large FG coverage line would be an eligible reciever as well.

 

[Trip]

What makes them eligible recievers though?

Is it simply the fact that they lined up 3 away from the center? Or is it because they set at a different depth?

Seems to me with either situation, then a member of the large FG coverage line would be an eligible reciever as well.

Must have 7 players on the line of scrimmage. Only the interior 5 are ineligible receivers, everyone else is eligible including the QB. Also, if someone with a lineman number is lined up in a spot other than the interior 5 spots on the line then he must report to the officials, or he too is ineligible. Best way I can explain it.

 

[kmd24]

Look at it this way. The stats you provide included 345 passes in 1TE and 2TE sets and that Bledsoe threw 499 passes. How many plays did Dallas run without Witten on the field? I don't have the number off hand but I can say that it was very rare for him not to be out there. This would indicate that a vast majority of the other 154 passes came from a 3TE set. Since we know that this is patently false then it obvious that the original numbers have an error.

What about 4 WR sets (0 TE?).

And Dallas did run a lot of 3 TE in short yardage and goal line, even if one of the TE's was an OL.

 

[superpunk]

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

If you've spoken english before you know that a "staple" is generaly accepted to be the principal element or feature of whatever you're describing. Julius and Bledsoe ran a combined 119 out of 756 plays from a 2 TE set. That's 15% (Basic math lesson - 15% of two different items, does not equal 30%). If that equates to a "staple" in your book, by all means, continue reading that marvelous work of fiction.

If you actually bothered to read and understand your quote above, you would see that they referenced base formationSSSSSS. I have no doubt that a two-TE set is ONE of our Base FormationSSSSSSS - I've acknowledged that I've seen it many times. It is hardly our staple, or main offensive set, however. Maybe it will be now, but it was not last year.

 

[superpunk]

You're getting "statsy" but your cross-pollinating them. How many WRs on the field has no bearing on how many TEs are on the field.

Look at it this way. The stats you provide included 345 passes in 1TE and 2TE sets and that Bledsoe threw 499 passes. How many plays did Dallas run without Witten on the field? I don't have the number off hand but I can say that it was very rare for him not to be out there. This would indicate that a vast majority of the other 154 passes came from a 3TE set. Since we know that this is patently false then it obvious that the original numbers have an error.

I guess I just have to hope that AdamJT will provide us with an answer to %s out of each set.

Well, if we go 3-wide, unless we are going empty backfield as well, there will be only one TE on the field. Three-wide 2 TE set is something I can't remember ever seeing. The number of WRs on the field certainly does affect the number of TEs on the field - and you didn't want to accept the TE stats at face value - so I felt a little cross pollination was necessary, to show that the relationship was relative.

Like I said before - 200 pass attempts came with three wide. Unless we were running phantom 3-wide 2TE sets that I never saw, that's plenty of times only one TE (at most) was on the field. We went 4+-wide 64 times. (all passing stats) Julius had 169 rushing attempts with at least 2 backs in the backfield - out of a possible 257 attempts. That's about two-thirds of the time, when it is VERY likely we were not running out 2 TEs. His main rushing set was the I formation, which we don't run 2 Te out of very often, unless we're in short yardage.

Like I said, the 2 TE set is a familiar formation for this offense. It is not, nor has it been, the offense's staple, or main formation. It is grossly outnumbered by three WRs, and the I formation.

 

[jrumann59]

All these percentages are confusing me could you guys put up a pie chart.......oohhh pie I love pie:beer2:

 

[superpunk]

 

[StanleySpadowski]

Well, if we go 3-wide, unless we are going empty backfield as well, there will be only one TE on the field. Three-wide 2 TE set is something I can't remember ever seeing. The number of WRs on the field certainly does affect the number of TEs on the field - and you didn't want to accept the TE stats at face value - so I felt a little cross pollination was necessary, to show that the relationship was relative.

Like I said before - 200 pass attempts came with three wide. Unless we were running phantom 3-wide 2TE sets that I never saw, that's plenty of times only one TE (at most) was on the field. We went 4+-wide 64 times. (all passing stats) Julius had 169 rushing attempts with at least 2 backs in the backfield - out of a possible 257 attempts. That's about two-thirds of the time, when it is VERY likely we were not running out 2 TEs. His main rushing set was the I formation, which we don't run 2 Te out of very often, unless we're in short yardage.

Like I said, the 2 TE set is a familiar formation for this offense. It is not, nor has it been, the offense's staple, or main formation. It is grossly outnumbered by three WRs, and the I formation.

Again, you are missing the point.

You CANNOT use statistics to prove something unless you know how players are accounted for under those statistics.

You just can't draw any legitimate conclusion from obviously flawed numbers.



Try and explain this then. Dan Campbell started more games than Polite. There were games that Polite didn't even play.

Then go back to the '03 and '04 seasons. Chart the number a plays a FB (not a TE lined up in the backfield) was on the field. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to understand that Dallas has employed a 2TE set as its primary offense since Parcells arrived.

 

[superpunk]

Again, you are missing the point.

You CANNOT use statistics to prove something unless you know how players are accounted for under those statistics.

You just can't draw any legitimate conclusion from obviously flawed numbers.

I've done all I can to find out how those statistics are determined. All I see is that when a TE iis on the field, they count him as a TE, regardless of where he lines up. If you don't want to take it at face value - that's fine with me. Just don't come tell me the numbers are obviously flawed, when you have no way of proving that. In an attempt to show that maybe, they weren't as flawed as you believe, I showed you the large amount of times we went 3 wide, or lined up with two backs in the backfield - both formations where it is very unlikely that we went 2-TE. That's not good enough either. Meh. Whatever.

Then go back to the '03 and '04 seasons. Chart the number a plays a FB (not a TE lined up in the backfield) was on the field. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to understand that Dallas has employed a 2TE set as its primary offense since Parcells arrived.

I don't have access to that info....and don't know where to find it. Polite didn't play but two games. The games he played, he was in there quite a bit, as was our 3rd WR, whoever he happened to be at the time, with regard to injuries and such.

Could the numbers be flawed? Maybe. I don't think they are. That's your standpoint. You're going to have to prove it to me, before I accept it though. I know what I saw, and what I remember, and the information available to me, confirms I'm not crazy.

Maybe I am. We'll see.