"We have been running 2-TE sets"

[iceberg]

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.

and that's fine - next time YOU use a stat and someone has a BP quote that refutes it, remember in YOUR world, the BP quote wins.

your rule dude. hope you like it.

 

[AdamJT13]

so FB 20% of the time

2 TE 19% of the time

Lone setback 51%


So there is 90% right there

There would be overlapping, though -- fullback and two tight ends, two tight ends and one back, etc.

 

[jterrell]

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

Anytime Polite wasn't in the game essentially.
The 2 TE set includes any hback sets, goalline sets and any other big lineup.

I know in Madden it was the Boys best offense last year, roflmao. I discovered that by accident but it made running and passing both easier. It was just Madden mind you, but the set was in the Boys offense ands those were the best plays.

We will undoubtedly run MORE 2 TE sets but its not like we didn't run them last year. Your numbers represent 19% and are probably a bit low. After Crayton went down we really just didn't have much choice. We had entire games where we didnt even play Polite and didnt play much 3 Wide.

 

[theogt]

Wow. Some peole can be hit up side the head with the facts and will still argue. The FACT IS that we didn't run it as our base offense. IT IS A CHANGE in offensive philosophy.

 

[the_h0wey]

We've been running two tight end sets? No way you would think we drafted some type of TE in the 2nd round or something.... o wait we did n/m... thanks for the news?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

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.

I remember alot of plays with Campbell and Witten on the field at the same time, just that Witten would run to the other side, but before getting there, he would line up in the backfield, as the H-back

 

[playit12]

Wow. Some peole can be hit up side the head with the facts and will still argue. The FACT IS that we didn't run it as our base offense. IT IS A CHANGE in offensive philosophy.

And some people can completely miss the obvious in their zeal to be right... re-read Adams post on the matter for why you are wrong.

The idea of a two TE set is to create mismatches. It doesn't matter if they are playing along the line, spread wide, or in the backfield. If you really want to calculate the number of plays we were in a two TE set, then take every play last year and list off the skill positions personel. Anytime that list includes any two TE's or a TE and one of our big bodied short line blockers (Spears) it's a two TE set.

Before you start fawning over Stat's Inc, you should look into how they calculate their stats. They have been wrong on many many stats before and certainly cannot be taken at face value. A stat is worthless until you understand what exactly they are measuring.

Personally I could care less what the results are. As I understand it, a teams "Base" formation has nothing to do with what they run the majority (or more accurately plurality) of the time. The base is the primary formation from which to adjust out of of. Smaller changes from base are easier to teach and grasp by the players. If you want to throw the ball often in 2-4 reciever sets, then it makes sense to have a 3 wide base. If you want to run the ball you might start with a 2 back set. Parcells is looking for a balance while giving the team additional options in case protection is weak. That is why he is starting with the two TE set, and why he did so last year as well.

 

[superpunk]

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?

My guess is the percentage of times Witten "lined up" in the backfield is ridiculously small. He may have split wide a few times, but that percentage is also small. Looking at Jones and Bledsoe's stats, we also ran motion a very small percentage of the time, so TEs were not moving into new positions all that much.


At least, not enough to affect the overall 2-TE numbers all that much. Was 2-TE one of our base sets? Definitely. But it is not the set we used the majority of the time. That, IMO is going to be the difference this year.

 

[superpunk]

And some people can completely miss the obvious in their zeal to be right... re-read Adams post on the matter for why you are wrong.

So Adam's post is automatically golden? He's been right on a ton of contract stuff, he's obviously got some connections there, but I'm not just going to buy stats thrown out there without anyhting to back them up. Adam is great - he's not infallible.

The idea of a two TE set is to create mismatches. It doesn't matter if they are playing along the line, spread wide, or in the backfield. If you really want to calculate the number of plays we were in a two TE set, then take every play last year and list off the skill positions personel. Anytime that list includes any two TE's or a TE and one of our big bodied short line blockers (Spears) it's a two TE set.

Spears was trotted out there exclusively as a FB in the backfield, if memory serves - not a TE.

Before you start fawning over Stat's Inc, you should look into how they calculate their stats. They have been wrong on many many stats before and certainly cannot be taken at face value. A stat is worthless until you understand what exactly they are measuring.

And before you start denegrating the way they compile those stats, you should be able to prove they're doing it wrong.

Can you?

 

[dboyz]

Wow. Some peole can be hit up side the head with the facts and will still argue. The FACT IS that we didn't run it as our base offense. IT IS A CHANGE in offensive philosophy.

I don't know what you mean as our "base" offense. Please define what you mean. THe fact is on 1st and 2nd down, the majority of the time two TE's were on the field. If that's not your base offense, then what is. In your opinion, what was our base offense last year?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

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?

Granted, this sounds right to me. However Adam and I were talking about wondering what exactly STATS, Inc. claims is a "2 TE set." For example, if Witten and Campbell are out on the field and Witten goes in motion at the fullback position, is that a 1 TE set or 2 TE set.

I never fully accumulated the stats myself when I charted games, but I remember them using a heavy dose of Polite.

Either way, Fasano is a much bigger receiving threat than Campbell ever was and will probably be a better blocker than Campbell was last season. Ought to provide a much different look.

Rich.......

 

[Jarv]

Maybe BP considered Key as a TE...Slow and a good blocker...lol.

 

[DCBoysfan]

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?

I think the diffrence is that Dallas has two TE's who can catch. There are not many teams who have TWO TE's who are a threat to catch a pass, most teams have one that can catch and one that can block.

 

[playit12]

So Adam's post is automatically golden? He's been right on a ton of contract stuff, he's obviously got some connections there, but I'm not just going to buy stats thrown out there without anyhting to back them up. Adam is great - he's not infallible.

I didn't agree with him because it's Adam, I did so because I thought what he wrote was the most logical and involved the best reasoning. I usually take what I consider to be the best position until proven otherwise.

Spears was trotted out there exclusively as a FB in the backfield, if memory serves - not a TE.

Occasionally he was in the backfield, other times he was on the line. Witten was also used in the backfield in this role. In fact, Parcells tried Witten first before resorting to Spears. Again, I'm not sure how we are defining TE vs FB, H-Back, or Split End here? Keyshawn was also brought in several times both in the backfield and up against the line as a blocker, does that mean he was a FB and a TE?

Lets compare Fasano to Cooley for a minute. Cooley is probably used 50/50 in the backfield and on the line. He occasionally is split out, but rarely. So is he a TE only 50% of the time? His role is very similar in both positions. What is consistent is what he brings to the picture. A big body with decent blocking that can catch the ball. He's actually not a very good lead blocker and Sellers was generally used in that role. So I'd argue that it's the roles a player is asked to perform that really define their position. You can put Witten in the backfield or out in the flat, he's still a TE. Just my feelings.

And before you start denegrating the way they compile those stats, you should be able to prove they're doing it wrong.

Can you?

Well that's bad science, but I'll get to that in a moment. First, I don't give them much credence on what I consider "grey area" stats. These are stats like throw aways, dropped passes, and formations. The only stat I have done any investigation on myself is dropped passes. I've found that they do a very poor job in assigning dropped passes and refuse to use them for this stat. Now because of this past experience, I don't think they've earned my trust without proof. Thus until I'm given a good reason to believe their stat's I start with the assumption that they quite possible are wrong. That's good science. As for me proving a negative, I tend to believe that a positive must be proven before a negative can. This is a topic well covered on the internet with a google search so I won't belabor it here. Other sites, Football Outsiders for instance, goes through great pains to exactly point out how they collect their stats (what counts and what is the threshold). I give more weight to those sites that are more transparent with their methods. Kc Joyner is also very transparent with his method. Both of those sources also refuse to use Stat's Inc numbers.

 

[AdamJT13]

My guess is the percentage of times Witten "lined up" in the backfield is ridiculously small. He may have split wide a few times, but that percentage is also small. Looking at Jones and Bledsoe's stats, we also ran motion a very small percentage of the time, so TEs were not moving into new positions all that much.

STATS Inc. gives the formation splits for 1,058 of our 1,066 offensive plays last season. According to their splits, we ran 197 plays with zero tight ends on the field (109 pass attempts, 17 sacks and 71 runs). The problem is, Jason Witten was on the field for all but 40 of our offensive plays last season, including those that were wiped out by penalty. Out of the 1,058 plays broken down, Witten should have been on the field for all but 37 of them. That's already an absolute minimum of 160 plays (15 percent of our total, and 81 percent of the "zero TE" plays) when Witten was considered a "running back" or "wide receiver" by STATS. There were even more than 160 of the "one TE" plays on which Witten or another tight end was considered a "running back" or "wide receiver" because of where they lined up.

Our four tight ends were on the field for a combined 1,615 plays last season, including those wiped out by penalty. Out of the 1,058 plays broken down by STATS Inc., our tight ends should have played a combined 1,508 plays. But STATS' splits count them as tight ends on only 1,145 of those -- leaving 363 times that a tight end (Witten, Campbell, Pierce or Ryan) was counted as a "running back" or "wide receiver." Assuming that the number of times two or more tight ends were counted as a RB or WR on the same play balances out with the number of times a WR, RB or extra OL was counted as a "tight end," that's 34.3 percent of our offensive plays on which a tight end was counted as a "running back" or "tight end." That's not a ridiculously small amount, as you claim.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

the difference between last year and this year is that both TEs this year are weapons that have to be accounted for. Campbell was an OL man essentially and not a pass catching threat. they probably covered him with a DT or DE just kidding. but with fasano and witten you have more flexibility on how you line them up, what routes they run and both are able to go down the seam and catch balls.

the PERSONNEL changes everything. I can put any player out there and call them a TE. its what they are capable of doing that makes the difference in how you defend against it.

polite and campbell and pierce weren't pass catching threats and only one was a decent blocker.

its different this year. you can't leave any one of them alone or you may pay the price. it becomes a match up night mare for defenses. They have to get creative on how they disguise their coverages to fool the offense on who will be one on one. that's why a veteran QB is key because they do go through their options and find the single guy and usually find them quicker than a newbie.


I think the target for fasano should be to catch aroun 30-35 balls. if he is close to that number then he has done his job and has helped open up everybody else.

 

[AdamJT13]

Following up on my previous post, by comparing the STATS Inc. splits to the playing time for our players, there were about 228 times last season when a non-running back was counted as a "running back," about 148 times when a non-wide receiver was counted as a "wide receiver," and about 363 times when a tight end was NOT counted as a "tight end."

Adding up the splits for the number of running backs on the field, the total comes to 1,589. But our running backs would have been on the field for only 1,361 of them (an average of 1.29 per play).

The total for wide receivers comes to about 2,550, but our receivers would have been on the field only 2,402 times (2.27 per play).

And their total for tight ends comes to about 1,145, but our tight ends would have been on the field 1,508 times (1.43 per play).

 

[theogt]

STATS Inc. gives the formation splits for 1,058 of our 1,066 offensive plays last season. According to their splits, we ran 197 plays with zero tight ends on the field (109 pass attempts, 17 sacks and 71 runs). The problem is, Jason Witten was on the field for all but 40 of our offensive plays last season, including those that were wiped out by penalty. Out of the 1,058 plays broken down, Witten should have been on the field for all but 37 of them. That's already an absolute minimum of 160 plays (15 percent of our total, and 81 percent of the "zero TE" plays) when Witten was considered a "running back" or "wide receiver" by STATS. There were even more than 160 of the "one TE" plays on which Witten or another tight end was considered a "running back" or "wide receiver" because of where they lined up.

Our four tight ends were on the field for a combined 1,615 plays last season, including those wiped out by penalty. Out of the 1,058 plays broken down by STATS Inc., our tight ends should have played a combined 1,508 plays. But STATS' splits count them as tight ends on only 1,145 of those -- leaving 363 times that a tight end (Witten, Campbell, Pierce or Ryan) was counted as a "running back" or "wide receiver." Assuming that the number of times two or more tight ends were counted as a RB or WR on the same play balances out with the number of times a WR, RB or extra OL was counted as a "tight end," that's 34.3 percent of our offensive plays on which a tight end was counted as a "running back" or "tight end." That's not a ridiculously small amount, as you claim.

This looks like a little bit of "fuzzy math" to me Adam. If there were 363 times that a TE was not counted as a TE, then out of 1058 plays you say that 34.3 of which a TE was not counted. First, this is a mistake. Certainly not 34.3 percent of these plays a TE should have been counted. For example, if there were times when neither 2 TEs were not being counted as a TE then the number would drop. Second, this is misleading. There are a number of plays in which no TE was counted and in fact there was a TE on the field, but there was only one TE. As you stated earlier that number could very well be close to over 100 plays as there were a number of Witten's plays where he wasn't counted. Third, there may have been a TE not counted when 2 TEs where already counted. Truth be told, we don't know how much of this 34.3 percent number is 2 TE plays that should be added to the original 19% number, but we do know that it is some fraction of that amount.

Therefore, we can assume the the absolute maximum percentage of plays that a 2 TE set was on the field was 43.3% (19% + 34.3%) of the plays. However, we do know that the true number is MUCH LESS. I'd say somewhere closer to 33%. Now this may be a bit of semantics but I wouldn't consider 1/3 of the plays to be a "base offense". I'd assume most teams in the NFL run a "2 TE set" close to 1/3 of the plays.

HOWEVER, as other posters pointed out, even if this 1/3 number is correct and if someone considered that a "base offense" that offense is nowhere near the offense we're going to be running this year. Dan was not a receiving threat. He was not treated as such by us or our opponents. This offense we're planning now, I assume, will run the 2 TE set much more than 1/3 of the plays and will have our 2nd TE much more active in the passing game (or at least a threat of being more active).

 

[iceberg]

points to define:
when a TE lines up outside their position, are they still a TE? do all "stat counters" consider this as a default?

base - base what? obvious to some, still a point of contention.

there are so many points of ambiguity i don't think this will ever get "resolved" simply because people will define their base points differently, giving a different perspective.

 

[theogt]

points to define:
when a TE lines up outside their position, are they still a TE? do all "stat counters" consider this as a default?

This is precisely what the numbers discussion is about above, and I believe my post addresses it pretty well. At a maximum we could have possibly had about 43% of plays with two TE sets because of this discrepancy. However, the true number is much much less than this. I'd assume its close to 33%. Is 1/3 a base offense? Well that's up for debate. I wouldn't consider it to be, and I definitely would assume we'll run 2 TE sets much more than 1/3 of the plays in the future. Not to mention, the whole problem that our "new 2 TE set" will be run much differently than our "old 2 TE set".