4 Tight End sets

guffus

guffus

Well-Known Member
http://bleacherreport.com/0nd-patriots-offense

http://qctimes.com/sports/college/big-10/iowa/

The NE Patriots implemented a 4 TE set in 2015 because they had an abundance of good TE and a lack of tall recievers, with some favorable results.

Could Iowa, facing a similar situation in 2017, also use a 4TE set this year? Could they even use it in non-red zone situations?

Although the jury is still out on the potential talent that iowa's young tight ends and young recievers have, I believe the consensus is that Iowa's WR will probably suck, and its TE will eventually be good.

So why not go all out with the tight end formations?
 
Wisconsin has used 3 and on rare occasion 4 TE's whenever Chryst has directed the O. It has been a staple of its offense. Not sure why others haven't at least infrequently employed it. If a couple of you TE's can block and catch and a couple others have the talent to get down field as well it forces the D to be honest. It works for every down. Sometimes I think OCs are locked in on who's on the field and how the O should line up in today's schemes given the down.
 
Lest we forget, Iowa debuted a 3 TE package against tOSU in 2013 w/ some very good success. An inexperienced D with a lack of gap discipline was the major factor in that close loss. Still the "big boy" offense had great success against the Buckeyes, particularly in the first half, and everybody's reaction was like "where has this been all year"?
 
NC%20State%20heavy.png


first-play.png


GronkTD1.png
 
bitmap said:
Lest we forget, Iowa debuted a 3 TE package against tOSU in 2013 w/ some very good success. An inexperienced D with a lack of gap discipline was the major factor in that close loss. Still the "big boy" offense had great success against the Buckeyes, particularly in the first half, and everybody's reaction was like "where has this been all year"?
Click to expand...
Not great that the only example is in a losing effort.
 
3 TE sets with Wadley and Butler in the backfield (both can catch as well). Power game to pummel the D and enough receiving options to make it difficult to cover. Also not sure which RB will get the ball on runs. Iowa power game!
 
I love that there are dreamers on this board that believe the Iowa offensive system will actually change. I would love to see that as well, but no.
 
Only because he threw shorter out routes on 3rd down. His playbook may have had different names, but the offense did not look that different overall.
 
TJHawkeye said:
Only because he threw shorter out routes on 3rd down. His playbook may have had different names, but the offense did not look that different overall.
Click to expand...
When I first read this I thought ??? but thinking about it essentially all GD did was eliminate about 25% of the existing plays and then used what was left in a situational fashion. That last part was lost on the players who came from KOK's system where fundamentally they ran similar plays. The difference being they ran the play as called under KOK but had to react to the defense's reaction in GD's incarnation. Think about it - w/ KOK it was run down and out then turn back and look for the ball. GD's version was run down and go out if the defender is to the inside, cut inside if the defender is outside, and come back if you are double teamed. No wonder they looked confused...
 
bitmap said:
When I first read this I thought ??? but thinking about it essentially all GD did was eliminate about 25% of the existing plays and then used what was left in a situational fashion. That last part was lost on the players who came from KOK's system where fundamentally they ran similar plays. The difference being they ran the play as called under KOK but had to react to the defense's reaction in GD's incarnation. Think about it - w/ KOK it was run down and out then turn back and look for the ball. GD's version was run down and go out if the defender is to the inside, cut inside if the defender is outside, and come back if you are double teamed. No wonder they looked confused...
Click to expand...

Thats actually a very interesting comparison. So under a Davis system, even if each individual WR figures out what he is suposed to do, how is the QB suposed to keep track of where each WR is going and react fast enough to know where to throw the ball?

No wonder the Davis offense needed a QB with a high IQ. Either that, or a QB athletic enough to just tuck it and run when its not obvious who to throw to, or have WR fast enough to make it obvious who to throw to. This explains a lot why JVB, JR and CJB could sometimes look like a deer in the headlights when they could not run. JVB never really could run and had bad pocket presense. But JR and CJB were both more effective when they were healthy and could run when needed. Yes, for those who don't remember, JR had decent mobility in the pocket when he was healthy.
 
guffus said:
Thats actually a very interesting comparison. So under a Davis system, even if each individual WR figures out what he is suposed to do, how is the QB suposed to keep track of where each WR is going and react fast enough to know where to throw the ball?

No wonder the Davis offense needed a QB with a high IQ. Either that, or a QB athletic enough to just tuck it and run when its not obvious who to throw to, or have WR fast enough to make it obvious who to throw to. This explains a lot why JVB, JR and CJB could sometimes look like a deer in the headlights when they could not run. JVB never really could run and had bad pocket presense. But JR and CJB were both more effective when they were healthy and could run when needed. Yes, for those who don't remember, JR had decent mobility in the pocket when he was healthy.
Click to expand...

<<JR had decent mobility in the pocket when he was healthy.>>

As evidenced by his senior year bat Michigan. No Spring ball, so no getting pummeled, and time to rest/recuperate the knee. It paid off for him.
 
TJHawkeye said:
Only because he threw shorter out routes on 3rd down. His playbook may have had different names, but the offense did not look that different overall.
Click to expand...


You're kidding right. Looked very different. They threw everything to the outside. Davis didn't utilize the middle of the field and downfield AT ALL. No TE's downfield or anything. Davis literally cock-blocked Iowa's offense by only using 1/4 - 2/3 of the field. Easy for the D to cover when know won't go in the middle.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
Remember when he was trying that WR read option where the WR would make a read and adjust his route. Never worked as Vandenburg could never get on the same page with the receiver.
Click to expand...


I literally wrote this prior to reading the posts above. I then read all the posts to the end. Weird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top