Two Tightend Sets

HolyHandgernade · 07-30-2006, 01:22 PM

After the initial shock of the Roaf retirement, I started thinking we might not be as bad off as I initially thought. I was away this weekend, so I apologize if this has already been brought up.

Wouldn't it make sense to alter our offensive scheme around more two tightend sets so that Dunn could help chip at the LT side? Since we were already moving in the direction of LJ as the centerpiece, it seems we were going to move away from the FB anyway. It cuts down on the three wide receiver sets, but TG is our main pass catching threat anyway. We end up with more play faking to set up the throws and possibly throwing a little caution into fast charging d-linemen if LJ continues his torrid pace.

I know it would help if we had WR who could make their own plays better if they stack the box, but someone still has to release with TG, right?

Like I said, I was away this weekend, so is this just another Captain Obvious post?

-HH

**noa** · 07-30-2006, 01:23 PM

I think we will definitely incorporate this into our scheme. We have plenty of time to figure out what to do.

CoMoChief · 07-30-2006, 01:28 PM

I dont think were gonna lose that much in the running game without Roaf. Yes he was an amazing blocker, but we will miss him tremendously in the pass protection phase of the offense more so than in the running game. Its much easier to run block than it is to protect the QB in passing situations.

jspchief · 07-30-2006, 01:33 PM

We already use a ton of two TE sets.

Now we'll just be running them without a HoF left tackle.

**cdcox** · 07-30-2006, 01:52 PM

I definitely think we'll see even less 2-back sets than we did last year (something like 40% of snaps) as pointed to by yhe allowed departure of Tony Richardson and Ronnie Cruz likely being the only FB on the roster. That means either 2 TE sets or 3 WR sets. The former is definitely a better runnning formation and offers better pass protection.

So yes, I agree.

**Rausch** · 07-30-2006, 02:00 PM

If ever there were a time to move Bigfoot to FB/H-Back now would be it...

**cdcox** · 07-30-2006, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

If ever there were a time to move Bigfoot to FB/H-Back now would be it...

If we use him, our opponents will know about him and start game planning around him. Best keep him under wraps.

07-30-2006, 01:22 PM
HolyHandgernade Integralist Join Date: May 2001 Location: Murrieta, CA Casino cash: $10006370	Two Tightend Sets After the initial shock of the Roaf retirement, I started thinking we might not be as bad off as I initially thought. I was away this weekend, so I apologize if this has already been brought up. Wouldn't it make sense to alter our offensive scheme around more two tightend sets so that Dunn could help chip at the LT side? Since we were already moving in the direction of LJ as the centerpiece, it seems we were going to move away from the FB anyway. It cuts down on the three wide receiver sets, but TG is our main pass catching threat anyway. We end up with more play faking to set up the throws and possibly throwing a little caution into fast charging d-linemen if LJ continues his torrid pace. I know it would help if we had WR who could make their own plays better if they stack the box, but someone still has to release with TG, right? Like I said, I was away this weekend, so is this just another Captain Obvious post? -HH
Posts: 3,875

07-30-2006, 01:23 PM	#2
noa Band Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $-634547	I think we will definitely incorporate this into our scheme. We have plenty of time to figure out what to do. __________________ Sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes, well, he eats you.
Posts: 8,302

07-30-2006, 01:28 PM	#3
CoMoChief Mahomes Dynasty Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Parts Unknown Casino cash: $7672254	I dont think were gonna lose that much in the running game without Roaf. Yes he was an amazing blocker, but we will miss him tremendously in the pass protection phase of the offense more so than in the running game. Its much easier to run block than it is to protect the QB in passing situations. __________________
Posts: 39,245

07-30-2006, 01:33 PM	#4
jspchief BAMF Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Your Face Casino cash: $9998710	We already use a ton of two TE sets. Now we'll just be running them without a HoF left tackle. __________________ Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the judgment that something is more important than fear. The brave may not live forever but the cautious do not live at all.
Posts: 27,207

07-30-2006, 01:52 PM	#5
cdcox www.nfl-forecast.com Join Date: Sep 2000 Casino cash: $-568231	I definitely think we'll see even less 2-back sets than we did last year (something like 40% of snaps) as pointed to by yhe allowed departure of Tony Richardson and Ronnie Cruz likely being the only FB on the roster. That means either 2 TE sets or 3 WR sets. The former is definitely a better runnning formation and offers better pass protection. So yes, I agree.
Posts: 46,032