- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Football Offseason Question - 4 TE sets
Posted on 6/3/16 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 6/3/16 at 1:40 pm
With the proliferation of the TE in both college and the NFL, and with defenses inability to stop them effectively, why would a college coach at a smaller job (think Indiana or Oregon State) not try out a 4 TE set? There are way more good pass catching TEs these days, and they obviously are an asset in run blocking. It may also force the defense out of a base formation to stop the bigger bodies
8
Posted on 6/3/16 at 1:46 pm to Buckeye06
It'll eventually get to that point. Teams are getting away from big bodied MLBs, and walk out hybrid LBs are all the rage to stop the spread.
College football is cyclical. The power game will be back.
College football is cyclical. The power game will be back.
Posted on 6/3/16 at 1:47 pm to Buckeye06
There really aren't that many good pass catching TEs in college or pros. And most of the receiving ones are just slow wrs and would get killed trying to block
Posted on 6/3/16 at 1:51 pm to Buckeye06
Why stop there?
What the hell, why not 5?
What the hell, why not 5?
Posted on 6/3/16 at 1:52 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
with defenses inability to stop them effectively
TEs have been around a long time. Not every team has a gronk on the roster.
Defenses typically have less worries in general about the TE than they do receivers.
quote:
why would a college coach at a smaller job (think Indiana or Oregon State) not try out a 4 TE set?
because unless you have 3 TEs better than your best WRs what advantage do you have? You can say it'd help with run blocking, but with 10 in teh box how much does it really help?
quote:
There are way more good pass catching TEs these days
and that number is still dwarfed by the number of good pass catching wide receivers.
a 4 TE jumbo set does have merit and would be useful, specifically in short yardage, but to run it regularly just seems like a waste.
Posted on 6/3/16 at 2:12 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
because unless you have 3 TEs better than your best WRs what advantage do you have? You can say it'd help with run blocking, but with 10 in teh box how much does it really help?
I guess my theory would be you would start recruiting to it. Maybe you already have 2 guys on the roster, and you recruit to kids saying you will run more sets.
I'm throwing it out there because i think it would be helpful. Even with 10 in the box wouldn't you rather have a TE blocking a safety than a WR?
Posted on 6/3/16 at 2:22 pm to Buckeye06
If you're looking for some play ideas, the Pats ran some 4 TE goal line sets last year.
Posted on 6/3/16 at 2:30 pm to Buckeye06
Because you're letting the defense crowd the LOS. At the end of the day, it's a numbers game.
Posted on 6/3/16 at 2:55 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
With the proliferation of the TE in both college and the NFL, and with defenses inability to stop them effectively, why would a college coach at a smaller job (think Indiana or Oregon State) not try out a 4 TE set? There are way more good pass catching TEs these days, and they obviously are an asset in run blocking. It may also force the defense out of a base formation to stop the bigger bodies
No, take my word for it...there aren't very many good pass catching TEs out there who can attach and help in the running game. Might be the toughest position to recruit because there are so few. Hell, it's even tough to find offensive lineman who can do it ala Stanford.
You make a good point about taking defenses out of their base, but the lesser teams CANNOT just lineup and pound the football down a defenses throats. Those teams don't get the players up front to get that done.
Posted on 6/3/16 at 3:12 pm to brg0320
quote:
You make a good point about taking defenses out of their base, but the lesser teams CANNOT just lineup and pound the football down a defenses throats. Those teams don't get the players up front to get that done.
It only works so long though. It's easier to fill out a 4-4 package than for the offense to run with 4 TE for any length of time. A single gap 4-4/5-3 defense is what Oregon switched to against Stanford the last couple years against their OGRE package and it's effectively mitigated it's usefulness. We got crushed trying stay in a 3-4 two gap defense. It also doesn't take that long to install and run it effectively. I'd also submit that the talent differential between Stanford's jumbo sets and our 4-4/5-3 was severely in Stanford's favor. It's just not an effective formation except as a change up.
This post was edited on 6/3/16 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 6/3/16 at 3:16 pm to bisonduck
Well running the 3-4 vs power O behind 2000+ pounds of blockers didn't seem like a sound strategy to begin with.
With bad DTs, lanky DEs, and LBs that can't fill to boot.
With bad DTs, lanky DEs, and LBs that can't fill to boot.
Posted on 6/3/16 at 3:19 pm to Buckeye06
Like in basketball, spacing is required. You need recievers to occupy defenders on different parts of the field (take them deep, etc), to allow TEs to be effective, generally.
Posted on 6/3/16 at 3:21 pm to bisonduck
You've got to be physically better up front and utilize shifts and unbalances to create a numbers advantage. I agree, it has to be more of a supplemental thing; however, I believe Stanford packages it well.
Posted on 6/3/16 at 3:21 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
Well running the 3-4 vs power O behind 2000+ pounds of blockers didn't seem like a sound strategy to begin with.
With bad DTs, lanky DEs, and LBs that can't fill to boo
I have no idea why Nick Allioti stayed in his base in 2013. However, since that game our shitty defense has played it's best against Stanford even though Stanford has better talent on offense. The primary reason for that is they don't stretch the field.
Posted on 6/3/16 at 3:26 pm to brg0320
quote:
You've got to be physically better up front and utilize shifts and unbalances to create a numbers advantage. I agree, it has to be more of a supplemental thing; however, I believe Stanford packages it well.
They do it as well as any team. However, their offense starting humming last year when they starting spreading out teams and sending McCaffrey all over the field. It got too predictable and they were in some tight games they shouldn't of been in the last couple years.
This post was edited on 6/3/16 at 3:27 pm
Posted on 6/3/16 at 3:26 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Like in basketball, spacing is required. You need recievers to occupy defenders on different parts of the field (take them deep, etc), to allow TEs to be effective, generally.
Well...unlike basketball, there's still a time and place for condensed sets. Auburn will reduce their wideouts to get angles in the run game
Posted on 6/3/16 at 3:32 pm to brg0320
quote:
Well...unlike basketball, there's still a time and place for condensed sets. Auburn will reduce their wideouts to get angles in the run game
I don't think anyone is saying that there isn't a time and place for it. However, as a matter of course it's not a good idea. It's really easy to mitigate if you can predict it or prepare for it.
There aren't the scholarship numbers to run a 4 TE set unless you're using jumbo WRs or undersized tackles and then you're just tipping your hat on roles and responsibility.
This post was edited on 6/3/16 at 3:34 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News