"We have been running 2-TE sets"

[AdamJT13]

Thanks for all the calculations Adam, but I was wondering if you could break something else down for me if you have time...

Could you calculate our TE's per play before and after the Flozell injury?

The information I have doesn't break it down by game.

I'm going to try to chart the personnel and formation on every one of our 1,133 offensive plays last season by going over the tapes, but I have no idea how long it's going to take.

 

[jterrell]

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.

What you are missing is that we WANTED to run it essentially EVERY PLAY last season. BP did not want to have a FB on the roster at all. He was forced to because Campbell and the other backup TEs were too limited. They could not catch a lick.

What we have done is draft Fasano and signed the SEA TE so we can run the offense as BP wants.

It was the "base" offense last year in that we used it most often on first down. We went 3 WR some on 3rd down but almost never on 1st. We used a FB again some on 1st but mostly on 2nd and 3rd and shorts.

I am not sure there is really any debate at all here.

The facts are pretty clear about the percentage of plays guys had and the TE's add up to a about 1.63 TEs per play. Thats a 2 TE set an awful lot. Certainly more than the FB or 3rd WR spots were played.

In the end not sure that all the semantics really matter.

We intended to get better as a 2 TE offense and we did this off-season. I think more NFL teams are looking to go that route and that it makes sense but again some folks hated the 3-4 as well. No problem from me against those who just dislike change or favor other systems. In the end it is what it is regardless and we just have to hope it is executed well.

Your base point here is reather hard to argue. It is not liek we are switching offenses. We are not. We are simply replacing Polite/Campbell with Fasano who is a younger and more athletic player. We were already using Witten and Campbell a lot on 2 TE sets 3 years ago and we would have used it more had Campbell not gotten injured than seemed to lack any speed upon recovery.

 

[theogt]

I can translate it for you...

"I have no idea what I'm talking about... Clearly I was completely wrong and now I'm going to ignore the sheer volume of proof you have provided to contradict my points... Further I will be taking my ball and going home, I don't want to play with you anymore..."

But seriously, nice work on the numbers as usual Adam.

Your translation is a bit rusty. Perhaps you should work on that. Adam said at a maximum there could be ~47% and a minimum of ~37% of plays with two TEs on the field. That's not necessarily a 2 TE set. It just means that somewhere in there is the percent of total plays with 2 TEs on the frield, and that less than that number was the amount of "2 TE sets". My estimation was that about 1/3 of total plays were the 2 TE sets that we're all talking about. Given Adams precise numbers thats not exactly too far off. In fact, I'd say its pretty close. In other words, I'm not retreating from anything I said.

I'll say again, that even if we used "2 TE sets" 1/3 or more times last year, its not the same "2 TE set" we're using this year. In the end, the idea that nothing has changed from last year is ridiculous.

Translate that.

 

[theogt]

Your base point here is reather hard to argue. It is not liek we are switching offenses. We are not. We are simply replacing Polite/Campbell with Fasano who is a younger and more athletic player.

That's precisely my point. THAT is a big change. Campbell and Polite combine had 12 catches last season. 12 CATCHES!!!! Fasano will get much more than that. Why? Because its a different style offense.

 

[RiggoForever]

Yeah but we are going to run it most of the time now, especially on 3rd down's to create the mismatch of a Tight End on a linebacker rather than a slot receiver on a nickelback.

Also if your putting either Fasano or Witten in the backfield, it becomes difficult to determine which one is going out for a pass and which is staying to pass protect/block.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

then we're not doing anything new this year over last?

we didn't run the 2-TE offense in the nickel, which we will be doing some this year, basically we're going to be using the 2-TE offense more than we have been, and we're putting 2 receiving threats at TE on the field instead of just 1 and the other being strictly a blocker

 

[Hoofbite]

I wouldn't say Dallas ran a 2-TE last year........I would call it the 6-OLinemen approach. Dan Campbell was just about as worthless as one could get at catching the ball so he didn't provide any options in the passing game. Fasano is supposed to be a good reciever so it should be interesting to see what happens.

 

[theogt]

I wouldn't say Dallas ran a 2-TE last year........I would call it the 6-OLinemen approach. Dan Campbell was just about as worthless as one could get at catching the ball so he didn't provide any options in the passing game. Fasano is supposed to be a good reciever so it should be interesting to see what happens.

Yeah, it was either a "6 O-lineman approach" as you call it or a 1 TE set with Polite as a FB. Definitely not what people are considering the "new 2 TE set".

 

[dboyz]

Your translation is a bit rusty. Perhaps you should work on that. Adam said at a maximum there could be ~47% and a minimum of ~37% of plays with two TEs on the field. That's not necessarily a 2 TE set. It just means that somewhere in there is the percent of total plays with 2 TEs on the frield, and that less than that number was the amount of "2 TE sets". My estimation was that about 1/3 of total plays were the 2 TE sets that we're all talking about. Given Adams precise numbers thats not exactly too far off. In fact, I'd say its pretty close. In other words, I'm not retreating from anything I said.

I'll say again, that even if we used "2 TE sets" 1/3 or more times last year, its not the same "2 TE set" we're using this year. In the end, the idea that nothing has changed from last year is ridiculous.

Translate that.

The fact that you've repeatedly tried to dodge is that the 2 TE set was our "base offense," last year i.e. it was more commonly used on 1st or 2nd down than any other personnel package. I don't know how you can refuse to admit that. (Even Parcells in a recent PC spelled this out)

Now is it going to be different this year, with TO and Fasano? You bet. Fasano is more of receiving threat than Campbell and is a bigger target than Polite. And IMO the biggest change will be having TO on the field instead of Keyshawn. Teams will have to keep a safety over the top to properly cover TO. Then who will cover the TE on that side. A linebacker? There's a chance for great mismatches with this offense and I'm looking forward to it.

And is it going to be used probably even more this year than last year? You bet. We probably won't even carry a fullback. But the basis was there last year and in previous years.

 

[theogt]

The fact that you've repeatedly tried to dodge is that the 2 TE set was our "base offense," last year i.e. it was more commonly used on 1st or 2nd down than any other personnel package. I don't know how you can refuse to admit that. (Even Parcells in a recent PC spelled this out)

Now is it going to be different this year, with TO and Fasano? You bet. Fasano is more of receiving threat than Campbell and is a bigger target than Polite. And IMO the biggest change will be having TO on the field instead of Keyshawn. Teams will have to keep a safety over the top to properly cover TO. Then who will cover the TE on that side. A linebacker? There's a chance for great mismatches with this offense and I'm looking forward to it.

And is it going to be used probably even more this year than last year? You bet. We probably won't even carry a fullback. But the basis was there last year and in previous years.

Dodged? Maybe. It depends on your definition. I said it numerous times and I'll say it again. Even if you consider the "old 2 TE set" as our base offense (and I wouldn't necessarily consider it as such) its not the same 2 TE set we're running this year. The overarching point is that this IS A CHANGE IN PHILOSOPHY. I don't know how anyone could refuse to admit that. Sure BP would have loved to implement it last year, but he didn't have the personnel. He has amped up the number of times we've had 2 TEs in the game, but he has yet to implement this new philosophy.

 

[dboyz]

Dodged? Maybe. It depends on your definition. I said it numerous times and I'll say it again. Even if you consider the "old 2 TE set" as our base offense (and I wouldn't necessarily consider it as such) its not the same 2 TE set we're running this year.

I think we all agree that it won't be the same offense, because the personnel will be different. I made that clear . However it was our base offense and it sounds like you're coming around to that idea. Or maybe I'm just being optimistic.

 

[theogt]

I think we all agree that it won't be the same offense, because the personnel will be different. I made that clear . However it was our base offense and it sounds like you're coming around to that idea. Or maybe I'm just being optimistic.

You're way too optimistic for my taste.

 

[Charles]

That's precisely my point. THAT is a big change. Campbell and Polite combine had 12 catches last season. 12 CATCHES!!!! Fasano will get much more than that. Why? Because its a different style offense.

Dan Campbell limited the versatlity of our 2TE base formation.

The only difference is that Fasano can hopefully run routes, while Hannam hopefully takes over most of the blocking duties.

I think the underlying reason most want to claim the 2 TE set will be new or wasn't a base formation in the pastr 3 seasons is because they want to justify taking a TE in the 2nd RD when it wasn't considered a need.

For your information a 1/3rd of any offense is considered a base formation.

I suggest you do some research. The 2 TE package has been a staple or base. The way in which we deploy the TEs from the formation is the only thing thats going to change.

For example the Cowboys hope to get more passing receiving production out of Dan Campbells TE role from Fasano while hoping the combination of Fasano and Hannam will produce the same running blocking production brought by Campbell when he was helathy.

Fasano ability (hopefully) to run routes from Dan Campbells TE role is the only difference. The base 2 TE formation is nothing new, the offense hopefully will be more versatile from the base 2 TE formation.

Those who think it's new would have had a legit argument in 2003 the second after we drafted Witten in the 3rd RD.

Stat INC is flawed as point out by Adam.

An accurate assesment can only be made if they defined the formation based on the players in the huddle prior to the play, not where the players lined up after the play was called.

 

[theogt]

Charles, you're still not getting it. If there wasn't a change in philosophy there wouldn't have been a need. Since the offense is changing, there is a need to fill a role that is empty (H-back/roving TE/whatever you wanna call it). Dan Campbell didn't fill that role. Lousaka Polite didn't fill that role. We didn't have an offense that used that role last year. While having 2 TEs on the field technically means that we're using a "2 TE set" it doesn't AT ALL mean that we're using the 2 TE set like we are now. IT HAS CHANGED.

Oh, and 1/3 of plays with 2 TEs on the field doesn't necessarily mean that 2 TEs is a base.

 

[dboyz]

Dan Campbell limited the versatlity of our 2TE base formation.

The only difference is that Fasano can hopefully run routes, while Hannam hopefully takes over most of the blocking duties.

I think the underlying reason most want to claim the 2 TE set will be new or wasn't a base formation in the pastr 3 seasons is because they want to justify taking a TE in the 2nd RD when it wasn't considered a need.

For your information a 1/3rd of any offense is considered a base formation.

I suggest you do some research. The 2 TE package has been a staple or base. The way in which we deploy the TEs from the formation is the only thing thats going to change.

For example the Cowboys hope to get more passing receiving production out of Dan Campbells TE role from Fasano while hoping the combination of Fasano and Hannam will produce the same running blocking production brought by Campbell when he was helathy.

Fasano ability (hopefully) to run routes from Dan Campbells TE role is the only difference. The base 2 TE formation is nothing new, the offense hopefully will be more versatile from the base 2 TE formation.

Those who think it's new would have had a legit argument in 2003 the second after we drafted Witten in the 3rd RD.

Stat INC is flawed as point out by Adam.

An accurate assesment can only be made if they defined the formation based on the players in the huddle prior to the play, not where the players lined up after the play was called.

Good points. In approaching this year's draft, I was thinking (and hoping)that we might take a TE in the first day, based on the fact that Parcells loves TE's and 2 TE is our base offense. In fact I was in the chatroom on draft day and after our first round pick, I suggested we might a consider a TE with our 2nd round pick. The one I knew the most about was Pope from Georgia so I suggested him. Most people thought the idea was ridiculous, but someone (i can't remember who) suggested Fasano would be a good fit.

 

[Charles]

Charles, you're still not getting it. If there wasn't a change in philosophy there wouldn't have been a need.

I disagree. The need was filled the minute Witten was drafted in 2003. That is when the philosophy change happened. Parcells knew (as he's done in the past) that he needed a passing catching TE in the mold of Bavarro, Coates etc to implement his philosophy enter........Witten in '03

Since the offense is changing, there is a need to fill a role that is empty (H-back/roving TE/whatever you wanna call it). Dan Campbell didn't fill that role.

A Healthy Dan Campbell definately fit the role as showcased in 2003, but due to wear and tear, injuries etc Dan Campbell's role as a blocking TE diminished.

The Cowboys decided to address the role by adding a hopefully a more versatile TE in Fasano and signing Hannam to assist in replacing the exceptional blocking production brought by a healthy Dan Campbell.

Lousaka Polite didn't fill that role.

Polite shouldn't even be in this discussion. While I admire his ability to seize the opportunity and make the best of it, he won the FB gig by default when Darian Barnes went down. He was good enough to be involved in 20% of the offense.........His play inspired the "We are out of the FB business" from Jerry Jones.

We didn't have an offense that used that role last year. While having 2 TEs on the field technically means that we're using a "2 TE set" it doesn't AT ALL mean that we're using the 2 TE set like we are now. IT HAS CHANGED.

That was because of the PERSONNEL LIMITATIONS(see Dan Campbell), thus limiting the2nd TEs role in the offense.

The offense as set up in 2003 allows for the "Dan Campbell role" to do what they hope to get from Fasano.

Dan Campbell with his limited pass catrching skills posted his highest receiving yards in 2003 and his 2nd highest yard per reception in his career, but because of his limited route running abilities the Cowboys weren't able to fully exploit the 2 TE pass attack, but it was a negative they could live with due to Campbells exceptional run blocking and Witten's excellent route running.

Nothing has changed the only difference is while Campbell would run a 5 or 10 yard route stop in a gap and turn for the ball, Fasano hopefully will run real route catch the pass over his shoulder and threaten the defense vertically.

Nothing change excepet hopefully the route running ability of Fasano.

Oh, and 1/3 of plays with 2 TEs on the field doesn't necessarily mean that 2 TEs is a base.

Yes it does, especially for a old school coach like Parcells who loves the power running game and the ability to disguise run or pass with 2 TEs (or HB) on the field.

I recommend you take a look at Parcells past teams and when they were at their best.

 

[theogt]

I disagree. The need was filled the minute Witten was drafted in 2003. That is when the philosophy change happened. Parcells knew (as he's done in the past) that he needed a passing catching TE in the mold of Bavarro, Coates etc to implement his philosophy enter........Witten in '03

Witten was only half of the puzzle. Witten isn't the need that was filled this draft. Witten isn't filling the H-back position.

A Healthy Dan Campbell definately fit the role as showcased in 2003, but due to wear and tear, injuries etc Dan Campbell's role as a blocking TE diminished.

No, he didn't fill that role in 2003.

That was because of the PERSONNEL LIMITATIONS(see Dan Campbell), thus limiting the2nd TEs role in the offense.

Yes, since we didn't have the personnel, WE COULDN'T IMPLEMENT THE CHANGE!

The offense as set up in 2003 allows for the "Dan Campbell role" to do what they hope to get from Fasano.

No, Fasano will be used differently, i.e., much more in the passing game. While Campbell in 03 was closer to the role than he was subsequently its still not the same. Again, BP may have wanted to change in 03. He may have attempted to change in 03. But he didn't change in 03.

Yes it does, especially for a old school coach like Parcells who loves the power running game and the ability to disguise run or pass with 2 TEs (or HB) on the field.

I recommend you take a look at Parcells past teams and when they were at their best.

What does this have to do with a base offense?

 

[Charles]

Good points. In approaching this year's draft, I was thinking (and hoping)that we might take a TE in the first day, based on the fact that Parcells loves TE's and 2 TE is our base offense. In fact I was in the chatroom on draft day and after our first round pick, I suggested we might a consider a TE with our 2nd round pick. The one I knew the most about was Pope from Georgia so I suggested him. Most people thought the idea was ridiculous, but someone (i can't remember who) suggested Fasano would be a good fit.

I took quite a beating from some posters about the TE position for the past 3 seasons.

I wanted the Cowboys to draft Heath Miller in 2005. It was pretty evident that Dan Campbell was breaking down.

I made this Fasano comment"Don't worry guys Jason Witten, Sean Ryan, Tony Curtis and Anthony Fasano will get the job done this season.http://dallascowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49304&page=2&highlight=Fasano almost 2 months before the draft.

 

[theogt]

I took quite a beating from some posters about the TE position for the past 3 seasons.

I wanted the Cowboys to draft Heath Miller in 2005. It was pretty evident that Dan Campbell was breaking down.

I made this Fasano comment"Don't worry guys Jason Witten, Sean Ryan, Tony Curtis and Anthony Fasano will get the job done this season.http://dallascowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49304&page=2&highlight=Fasano almost 2 months before the draft.

Well I commend you on that. Nice forward thinking. I wasn't around here during the 05 draft. I wouldn't have ragged on you for wanting Heath Miller if I was though.

 

[Charles]

Witten was only half of the puzzle. Witten isn't the need that was filled this draft. Witten isn't filling the H-back position.

Witten was only half the puzzle when Parcells made the philosophy change, the other half........Dan Campbell was signed as a free agent in the off-season prior to the 2003 draft.

No, he didn't fill that role in 2003.
Yes, since we didn't have the personnel, WE COULDN'T IMPLEMENT THE CHANGE!
No, Fasano will be used differently, i.e., much more in the passing game. While Campbell in 03 was closer to the role than he was subsequently its still not the same. Again, BP may have wanted to change in 03. He may have attempted to change in 03. But he didn't change in 03.
What does this have to do with a base offense?

I think you are a bit confused. You don't have to 2 TEs with pass catching skills inorder to justify calling it a 2 TE offense. As long as you employ 2TEs in the hurddle prior to the snap regardless of the TEs abilites you have a 2 TE offense.

Parcells always goes back to the drinking well that has serve him well. Having 2TE has been a staple and base on all his teams.