"We have been running 2-TE sets"

[BigDFan5]

At the moment I am looking for the exact time during the Press Conference that Parcells stated we have used the 2TE set.

Maybe you guys with doubts can go back and listen to the Press conference again. Parcells clearly stated that the 2 TE set has been a Base formation and went on to say we've used it at a very high percentage.

Jeff Ireland was also on a morning talk show where we clearly stated we ran alot of the 2 TE set.

The 2TE set has been a staple. Why hasn't anyone gone back to the 2003 and 2004 seasons to get stats? I am guessing it will be fruitless because the Head Coach can state we use the 2TE set 80% of the time last year and Stats Inc or ESPN will differ.

The 2 TE set has never been our base offense, the numbers do not lie. we used 2 TE set 19% of the time last year

 

[superpunk]

went on to say we've used it at a very high percentage.

I'm almost positive that was NEVER said.

 

[Charles]

*BASE* - can be interpreted a lot of different ways. it could also be the "base" of other formations that are *not* two TE sets.

how can you look at a play breakdown and *still* say it's something else?

why don't you take the time to refute it factually and not w/supposition?

Why don't you go listen to the 05/05/06 Press conference. Thats all the proof you'll need. Listen to the part when Parcells talks about only having a FB in 20% of the offense.

A base formation is very simply a BASE formation. Any formation in which Witten and a combination of Campbell/Ryan or Pierce appeared in prior to the snap is a 2 TE base formation. It doesn't matter if the TEs lined up as a WR or FB or HB . Those derivations came from a 2 TE base formation.

The addition of Fasano hopefully makes us more versatile from both TEs.

 

[AdamJT13]

Bledsoe passed out of a 2 TE set a total of 77 times, he threw out of a 1 TE set 268 times and 0 TE set 100 times

Barber ran out of 2 TE set 33 times a 1 TE set 74 times and 0 TE set 21 times

Julius ran out of 2 TE set 42 times out of 1 TE set 147 times and 0 TE set 38 times



That is 648 plays that were either 0 or 1 TE sets

and 152 plays run from a 2 TE set

total of


800 plays 19% were 2 TE sets



So when I hear we always ran the 2 TE set I am trying to figure out when we ran it?

The problem is that STATS Inc. (where those figures come from) likely looks at where players line up, not who is on the field. If Jason Witten lines up in the backfield and another tight end is on the line of scrimmage, is that a two-tight end formation? What if Witten is lined up wide?

Last season, Lousaka Polite was on the field for only 28 percent of the offensive plays. Dan Campbell, Brett Pierce and Sean Ryan were on the field for a combined 51 percent.

Essentially, all we're doing this season is getting rid of a non-weapon's 28 percent playing time and dividing it among players who are bigger threats -- mostly Fasano, Crayton and Hannam.

 

[iceberg]

Why don't you go listen to the 05/05/06 Press conference. Thats all the proof you'll need. Listen to the part when Parcells talks about only having a FB in 20% of the offense.

A base formation is very simply a BASE formation. Any formation in which Witten and a combination of Campbell/Ryan or Pierce appeared in prior to the snap is a 2 TE base formation. It doesn't matter if the TEs lined up as a WR or FB or HB . Those derivations came from a 2 TE base formation.

The addition of Fasano hopefully makes us more versatile from both TEs.

why? you're refuting physical data w/heresay.

i've seen physical evidence saying we only ran it 19% of the time. you want people to take you seriously (although it's probably too late for that) then why not compare apples to apples and refute it with a play breakdown also instead of relying on some press conference where who knows what is said?

 

[Charles]

I'm almost positive that was NEVER said.

Well if Parcells clearly states that we only had a FB in at 20% of the offense and Parcells offenses are pretty mcu run oriented then common sense would let you know that TEs were used at a very high percentage, be it the running or passing game.

Just listen to the Press Conference. I'd suggest extending your 2 TE set stat search beyong 2005 to 2003, but if they couldn't deduce that we ran a lot of 2 TE last year then quite frankly I doubt you'll get an accurate take on out offense since 2003.

 

[iceberg]

The problem is that STATS Inc. (where those figures come from) likely looks at where players line up, not who is on the field. If Jason Witten lines up in the backfield and another tight end is on the line of scrimmage, is that a two-tight end formation? What if Witten is lined up wide?

Last season, Lousaka Polite was on the field for only 28 percent of the offensive plays. Dan Campbell, Brett Pierce and Sean Ryan were on the field for a combined 51 percent.

Essentially, all we're doing this season is getting rid of a non-weapon's 28 percent playing time and dividing it among players who are bigger threats -- mostly Fasano, Crayton and Hannam.

so this goes back to what i said it depends on how you define "base". if a TE is in the backfield, and the other is on the line, is it still a 2 TE offense?

 

[BigDFan5]

Why don't you go listen to the 05/05/06 Press conference. Thats all the proof you'll need. Listen to the part when Parcells talks about only having a FB in 20% of the offense.

A base formation is very simply a BASE formation. Any formation in which Witten and a combination of Campbell/Ryan or Pierce appeared in prior to the snap is a 2 TE base formation. It doesn't matter if the TEs lined up as a WR or FB or HB . Those derivations came from a 2 TE base formation.

The addition of Fasano hopefully makes us more versatile from both TEs.

so FB 20% of the time

2 TE 19% of the time

Lone setback 51%


So there is 90% right there

 

[DMX690]

so this goes back to what i said it depends on how you define "base". if a TE is in the backfield, and the other is on the line, is it still a 2 TE offense?

I would consider this a 2 TE offense.

 

[Charles]

why? you're refuting physical data w/heresay.

i've seen physical evidence saying we only ran it 19% of the time. you want people to take you seriously (although it's probably too late for that) then why not compare apples to apples and refute it with a play breakdown also instead of relying on some press conference where who knows what is said?

Why should I go fishing for stats, when BILL PARCELLS (yep that would be our head coach) stated that the 2 TE has been a staple.

When the he coach replies that we've only used a FB 20% of the time on offense when asked a question about TEs...........bells should be going off in your head ice.

I don't need to go fishing for stats when in one press conference Parcells clearly states 2 TE is nothing new and it has been a staple. Listen to the press conference.

Personally, I didn't need Parcells comments to know the obvious. I watch the games and realize that Witten and Dan Campbell are on the field almost every offensive play, be it run or passs. That my friend is a 2 TE base formation no matter where they line up.

 

[Charles]

so FB 20% of the time

2 TE 19% of the time

Lone setback 51%


So there is 90% right there

So other than the Olinemen who was blocking for Julius Jones in the 51% lone back set. :laugh1: Please tell me we preferred having WRs blocking.:laugh2:

 

[Charles]

The problem is that STATS Inc. (where those figures come from) likely looks at where players line up, not who is on the field. If Jason Witten lines up in the backfield and another tight end is on the line of scrimmage, is that a two-tight end formation? What if Witten is lined up wide?

Last season, Lousaka Polite was on the field for only 28 percent of the offensive plays. Dan Campbell, Brett Pierce and Sean Ryan were on the field for a combined 51 percent.

Essentially, all we're doing this season is getting rid of a non-weapon's 28 percent playing time and dividing it among players who are bigger threats -- mostly Fasano, Crayton and Hannam.

 

[Charles]

so this goes back to what i said it depends on how you define "base". if a TE is in the backfield, and the other is on the line, is it still a 2 TE offense?

Yes it is. It doesn't matter where the TEs line up. If we had 2 TEs in the huddle when the play was called, then it's automatically a 2 TE base formation.

 

[iceberg]

Why should I go fishing for stats, when BILL PARCELLS (yep that would be our head coach) stated that the 2 TE has been a staple.

When the he coach replies that we've only used a FB 20% of the time on offense when asked a question about TEs...........bells should be going off in your head ice.

I don't need to go fishing for stats when in one press conference Parcells clearly states 2 TE is nothing new and it has been a staple. Listen to the press conference.

Personally, I didn't need Parcells comments to know the obvious. I watch the games and realize that Witten and Dan Campbell are on the field almost every offensive play, be it run or passs. That my friend is a 2 TE base formation no matter where they line up.

so whatever BP says, you take for total gold and find no need to validate?

 

[BigDFan5]

So other than the Olinemen who was blocking for Julius Jones in the 51% lone back set. :laugh1: Please tell me we preferred having WRs blocking.:laugh2:

5 OLineman 1 TE, QB and 3 WRs plus JJ = 11

 

[Charles]

so whatever BP says, you take for total gold and find no need to validate?

Yep, I'll take Parcell's word over Stats Inc or ESPN stats any day.

I see, I have to go out of my way to validate my point.

What is Stat Inc? Football bible!!!:laugh2:

 

[iceberg]

Yep, I'll take Parcell's word over Stats Inc or ESPN stats any day.

I see, I have to go out of my way to validate my point.

What is Stat Inc? Football bible!!!:laugh2:

just remember such a "hard line" WILL come back to haunt you. i hope you're not hypocritical when this doesn't go your way.

 

[Charles]

just remember such a "hard line" WILL come back to haunt you. i hope you're not hypocritical when this doesn't go your way.

Ummm okay

 

[iceberg]

Ummm okay

hey - YOU'RE the one who said the words of BP take precidence over facts in standard places for facts to be kept.

now just remember that, ok? if you come back with a "fact" ANYONE ELSE can come back with a BP quote and it WILL take precidence over your facts.

YOUR rule. not mine.

you'll rue the day you did that.

 

[Charles]

hey - YOU'RE the one who said the words of BP take precidence over facts in standard places for facts to be kept.

now just remember that, ok? if you come back with a "fact" ANYONE ELSE can come back with a BP quote and it WILL take precidence over your facts.

YOUR rule. not mine.

you'll rue the day you did that.

No I won't because I've always and will always take the word of Parcells over any person or entity when it comes to Football.

Anyway later bro.