Weird Cleveland formation for Zeke/Cowboys?

[waldoputty]

The Cleveland formations that netted over 40 yards really got me thinking.
I think they had 3 OL protecting the QB and blocking for RB.
It forced the defense to spread apart because the offense had running backs with blockers on each side.


Imagine this formation - how would the defense defend this formation?
You need at least 3 defenders on each edge (6 players)
Let leaves 5 defenders to defender Dak and Zeke in the middle.
So all WR/RBs all get single coverage.
We can choose among Zeke, Morris, Jackson, Dunbar, Dez, Twill for WR/RB (not getting into Romo/Dak on the outside at this point)
They only get 5-in-a-box against 3 our OL, Dak and Zeke...
We had to play 2 deep so the running game would feast...

TE2
Free/Green RB/WR/QB

Martin
Tfred Dak/Romo Zeke
TSmith

Leary RB/WR/QB
Witten

 

[jday]

The Cleveland formations that netted over 40 yards really got me thinking.
I think they had 3 OL protecting the QB and blocking for RB.
It forced the defense to spread apart because the offense had running backs with blockers on each side.


Imagine this formation - how would the defense defend this formation?
You need at least 3 defenders on each edge (6 players)
Let leaves 5 defenders to defender Dak and Zeke in the middle.
So all WR/RBs all get single coverage.
We can choose among Zeke, Morris, Jackson, Dunbar, Dez, Twill for WR/RB (not getting into Romo at this point)
They only get 5-in-a-box against 3 our OL, Dak and Zeke...
We had to play 2 deep so the running game would feast...

TE2
Free/Green RB/WR/QB

Martin
Tfred Dak Zeke
TSmith

Leary RB/WR/QB
Witten

I truly appreciate the time you devoted to posing this question but the Cowboys dont need gimmicky plays to be successful.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

I truly appreciate the time you devoted to posing this question but the Cowboys dont need gimmicky plays to be successful.

We needed several gimmicky plays against the eagles

 

[jwooten15]

I don't know why the Browns didn't run more plays out of that formation after they burned us on that one. Not like they had anything to lose...

 

[waldoputty]

I truly appreciate the time you devoted to posing this question but the Cowboys dont need gimmicky plays to be successful.

i am looking for options that reduces 8 man fronts and run blitz.
this formation puts so much pressure on the edges that forces defenses to play 1 deep or 2 deep or go into zone.

with the number of skilled players with good rac, speed, we can play be really good that this formation.
think about Jackson (4.35), Zeke (4.45) and Morris as the 3 rbs.
or more extreme, put Romo in the middle and Dak on the edge and Dez on the other edge.

 

[guag]

That is a pretty odd formation, surprised I don't remember that from that game. But as @jday mentioned, I don't know if we need stuff like this in our offense. Perhaps if we were struggling and looking for ways to jumpstart some momentum (like the Philly game maybe). Then again, maybe something like this would be useful if the offense stalls again like against Philly.

What (if any) are the downsides to a formation like this?

Almost looks like something you'd see in the Arena league or wherever.

 

[waldoputty]

That is a pretty odd formation, surprised I don't remember that from that game. But as @jday mentioned, I don't know if we need stuff like this in our offense. Perhaps if we were struggling and looking for ways to jumpstart some momentum (like the Philly game maybe). Then again, maybe something like this would be useful if the offense stalls again like against Philly.

What (if any) are the downsides to a formation like this?

Almost looks like something you'd see in the Arena league or wherever.

Less protection for QB if they blitzed everything.
More risk in the extra pass to the edge RB/WR/QB.

But it causes a matchup nightmare for the D.
Also it pretty much prevents the D from doing run blitz or 8-in-a-box, 7-in-a-box, 6-in-a-box against our 3 OL, Dak and Zeke.
Worst case it would be 5 against 5 for our standard running game.
If they threatened blitz, Zeke only has to swing out to get a pitch and he would be 1-on-1 with a single defender with lots of space.

You could also add a FB and reduce one player on the side, but would get one more defender in the middle. But you can then probably bring 1 more blocker on the point of attack.

 

[jday]

i am looking for options that reduces 8 man fronts and run blitz.
this formation puts so much pressure on the edges that forces defenses to play 1 deep or 2 deep or go into zone.

with the number of skilled players with good rac, speed, we can play be really good that this formation.
think about Jackson (4.35), Zeke (4.45) and Morris as the 3 rbs.
or more extreme, put Romo in the middle and Dak on the edge and Dez on the other edge.

You might be right...I'm certainly no expert. But I do believe there is something to the concept of not fixing what is not broken. Right now they are winning and what they are doing is working, so I say just keep doing what your doing and don't change a thing.

 

[drawandstrike]

Cleveland knew we weren't an effective team at blitzing. If you tried this formation vs a team that can blitz with speed, your QB has even less time to get rid of the ball. If a blitzer comes instead of covering 1 of the receivers on the edge, he's gonna have to be accurate with a very fast pass, maybe under 2 seconds.

Cleveland made this work on a short slant that the receiver turned into major yardage when Wilcox blew his tackle attempt.

 

[waldoputty]

You might be right...I'm certainly no expert. But I do believe there is something to the concept of not fixing what is not broken. Right now they are winning and what they are doing is working, so I say just keep doing what your doing and don't change a thing.

BTW, I appreciate your polite criticism...

I see what you are saying and we are doing that with Dak.
I am certainly no expert.
It just seems our skilled player matches well with such a formationa:
1. 2 probowl level QBs
2. 2 big fast Rbs and 1 tiny fast Rb
3. Dez
4. Mobile OL players that can play guard or tackle - TSmith, Free, Martin, Collins

 

[waldoputty]

Cleveland knew we weren't an effective team at blitzing. If you tried this formation vs a team that can blitz with speed, your QB has even less time to get rid of the ball. If a blitzer comes instead of covering 1 of the receivers on the edge, he's gonna have to be accurate with a very fast pass, maybe under 2 seconds.

Cleveland made this work on a short slant that the receiver turned into major yardage when Wilcox blew his tackle attempt.

Lets work out your scenario - I am assuming the QB, RB, WR players are playing at least shotgun depth or even a little deeper on the sides.
1. If the D only has 2 defenders to play your players on the side (TE, OL, WR/RB/QB), then they are risking a huge play every time. Even if there is a huge blitz, all our QB has to do is recognize it and launch the ball to the side with less defenders. So I dont believe that is a credible threat.
2. In terms of the 5 defenders with blitzing in the middle, it is also very dangerous. If the blitzers are coming between the OL, then Zeke simply has to release to the side for a huge play. If the blitzers come from both edges, Zeke can read and release further to the side and has 1 blitzer to beat for a big play. If the blitzers come from one edge, Zeke can read and release to the other side, again another big play.

Did that make any sense?

 

[Doomsday101]

Better way Dallas could have attacked that formation is be getting out of the 2 deep safety and bring the one safety up and let him have a free shot at the QB.

 

[drawandstrike]

Lets work out your scenario - I am assuming the QB, RB, WR players are playing at least shotgun depth or even a little deeper on the sides.
1. If the D only has 2 defenders to play your players on the side (TE, OL, WR/RB/QB), then they are risking a huge play every time. Even if there is a huge blitz, all our QB has to do is recognize it and launch the ball to the side with less defenders. So I dont believe that is a credible threat.
2. In terms of the 5 defenders with blitzing in the middle, it is also very dangerous. If the blitzers are coming between the OL, then Zeke simply has to release to the side for a huge play. If the blitzers come from both edges, Zeke can read and release further to the side and has 1 blitzer to beat for a big play. If the blitzers come from one edge, Zeke can read and release to the other side, again another big play.

Did that make any sense?

"Just launching the ball over there where there's few defenders" because you're under the pressure of a blitz you'd better be Troy Aikman accurate or you'll get picked.

A gimmick play might work once or twice, but you'll have to go away from it then because defenses will be ready for it. The Wildcat had some early success and then defenses totally shut it down.

 

[JDSmith]

It looked like the Browns tried to go back to it on the next play, but then abandoned it and shifted into a normal formation. I'm guessing they didn't like something about the Cowboys personnel or formation in response to them trying to run it again.

 

[thunderpimp91]

"Just launching the ball over there where there's few defenders" because you're under the pressure of a blitz you'd better be Troy Aikman accurate or you'll get picked.

A gimmick play might work once or twice, but you'll have to go away from it then because defenses will be ready for it. The Wildcat had some early success and then defenses totally shut it down.

This. Cleveland got a big gain on this play because its unexpected and creates alignment/assignment issues. I'm sure it took rod about 30 seconds to adjust to the formation. You can pull it out once for shock value, but no consistent success will come from it. I'm sure the cowboys have something similar in the playbook, but at 7-1 there is no need to give away your tricks

 

[Temo]

The Cleveland formations that netted over 40 yards really got me thinking.
I think they had 3 OL protecting the QB and blocking for RB.
It forced the defense to spread apart because the offense had running backs with blockers on each side.


Imagine this formation - how would the defense defend this formation?
You need at least 3 defenders on each edge (6 players)
Let leaves 5 defenders to defender Dak and Zeke in the middle.
So all WR/RBs all get single coverage.
We can choose among Zeke, Morris, Jackson, Dunbar, Dez, Twill for WR/RB (not getting into Romo/Dak on the outside at this point)
They only get 5-in-a-box against 3 our OL, Dak and Zeke...
We had to play 2 deep so the running game would feast...

TE2
Free/Green RB/WR/QB

Martin
Tfred Dak/Romo Zeke
TSmith

Leary RB/WR/QB
Witten

You need only 2 defenders on each edge, minimum -- only 2 would be eligible receivers. Actually with your particular set up, they'd need one on one side and 2 on the other.

 

[JBell]

The Cowboys had 4 defenders occupying the 2 receivers at the top. Whatever defender is on the top hashmark should have been watching the middle along with Lee and the two lineman.

 

[waldoputty]

This. Cleveland got a big gain on this play because its unexpected and creates alignment/assignment issues. I'm sure it took rod about 30 seconds to adjust to the formation. You can pull it out once for shock value, but no consistent success will come from it. I'm sure the cowboys have something similar in the playbook, but at 7-1 there is no need to give away your tricks

Good time to such a formation:
1. 2nd and 1
2. 2nd and goal with less than 3 yards to go.

 

[basstapp]

It makes running the ball easier and you could definitely use it to isolate Bryant in single coverage

 

[waldoputty]

You need only 2 defenders on each edge, minimum -- only 2 would be eligible receivers. Actually with your particular set up, they'd need one on one side and 2 on the other.

I dont understand.

If the ball all is swung out to the WR/RB, he would have 2 blockers.
If you only have 2 defenders, it could be ugly.

At a minimum, I would expect 1 additonal defender playing deep, or play zone.
I dont see how the D can play only 2 against 1 OL, 1 TE and 1 WR/RB.
Not sure what you mean by the one on one side.