Two-Tight-End Sets Work in Redskins' Favor

[jrockster21]

I find it amusing that when we actually get good depth at a position that people want to get rid of that depth.

My thinking exactly :applause: ...With our only other options at wr being Thrash (who will be gone before either Moss or ARE) and Mix (who's TALL), we would be fools to get rid of either one next year or even the year after that, even if both Thomas and Kelly end up panning out for us. Restructure their contracts? Sure. Give Kelly and Thomas more playing time eventually? No problem. Cutting both Moss and ARE outright because "we don't need them anymore"? Shortsighted and insane.

I don't think anyone was saying to get rid of Moss and ARE because we WANT to (at least I certainly wasn't), we were saying they will be cap casualties*, especially if Kelly and Thomas work out.

I think Moss will rework his deal to stay in the b&g - ARE will probably not do so.

*if there is a salary cap

[Darth Tater]

Cutting ARE and Moss would mean we would be back at square one with a slim WR roster. We know what Moss is capable of and I think ARE really stepped up last year. If anythign, they redo their contracts.

Great article though. Saw that on CBS

By 2010, we will KNOW if Thomas and Kelly are better options plus we'll have had a couple of years to find back-ups in those positions. Moss and ARE are gone only if both Thomas and Kelly turn out and we've found better back-up options. We will NOT be slim at WR or at least no more slim than any other option. I'll agree that most likely, only one of the two we drafted will become starter material and maybe neither. No one can say we won't find better options than Moss and ARE over the next two years (of course, no one can say we will). I wouldn't be surprised to see both ARE and Moss gone by 2010 although I would not bet on it.

[KNGwithOUTaCrwN]

I will get bashed for this but I you can put this down in the books, Santana Moss and ARE will NOT be Redskins in the 2010 season (possibly even 2009 depending on how the new guys work out)

maybe not el but i think moss will still be around

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I don't think anyone was saying to get rid of Moss and ARE because we WANT to (at least I certainly wasn't), we were saying they will be cap casualties*, especially if Kelly and Thomas work out.

I think Moss will rework his deal to stay in the b&g - ARE will probably not do so.

*if there is a salary cap

If the Skins want to keep ARE and Moss, they won't be cap casualties. Jansen has been figured to be a "cap casualty" for years now precisely because so many fans think he's expendable ("too many injuries, play has dropped off, he's too old", etc.). Yet the Skins value his presence enough to keep him on regardless. With the salary cap continuously rising and Snyder more than willing to use cash to keep players, I don't really see the cap coming into play.

And I do think there are a number of fans who WANT to get rid of either Moss or ARE (or both) if Kelly and Thomas pan out because they feel both are overrated and both are injury prone and both are too small...things like that.

[Thinking Skins]

Many young QBs have problems with touch. People act like this is unique to Campbell. For every bad short/intermediate throw he had last season, he in return had a good one. I agree though about the optimism. Three pass catchers Campbell can look at eye to eye can only be a positive thing.

Even with our passing game issues (at times), I still feel ARE had a good season. It's Moss who fell off until December when he was the Moss of '05 again.

Ya know, I've been reading stories like this about young qbs having problems with touch, locking on their initial WRs, and reading defenses (all of which people have said that JC struggled with last year). The fact that I hear this is common and that I have confidence in Zorn's abilities as a quarterback coach kind of makes me think that JC will be okay with these things. I don't know how soon he will pick these things up though.

[TheLongshot]

I don't think anyone was saying to get rid of Moss and ARE because we WANT to (at least I certainly wasn't), we were saying they will be cap casualties*, especially if Kelly and Thomas work out.

I think Moss will rework his deal to stay in the b&g - ARE will probably not do so.

Is there a real need to rework either of their deals, particularly since the team planned things out way in advance? (Especially since Lloyd and his paycheck is gone.)

What we got are a couple of rookies who are probably going to be locked up for 4-5 years at a relatively cheap rate. Despite what some fans think, Moss and ARE are not disappointments. Until any of those players get to the point where they aren't worth having on the team due to performance or playing time, they are going to be on this team for a while.

Jason

[Robbnva]

I find it amusing that when we actually get good depth at a position that people want to get rid of that depth.

Did I say i wanted Moss and ARE gone? NO I didn't, I just predict that they will be gone.

[The Sisko]

Here's a bit more info. on two tight end sets in general plus a blurb or two about Zorn/Holmgren's use of it in Seattle.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2006-10-18-nfl-report_x.htm

The latest to employ the shotgun was Seahawks quarterback Matt Hasselbeck, who used it on a few snaps for the first time in Sunday's win against the Rams.

Hasselbeck and quarterbacks coach Jim Zorn used it as a corrective measure for the pressure Rams defensive coordinator Jim Haslett was mounting.

"This was the first time we used Matt in shotgun," Zorn says. "He's always had the option to be in gun. But both he and I like the option to be under center. (....and there goes Oldfan's theory about the shotgun gaining ascendency here -Y) The rhythm and the timing of the drop really makes the timing of throws much better than the timing of the gun, where you have to retime your throws. But we tried it this week."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs07/columns/story?columnist=sando_mike&id=3193845

As Holmgren uses the coming weeks to contemplate his professional future, he might also wonder how far the Seahawks might have gone had they only found a reliable tight end for an offense that historically demands one....

...Holmgren generally likes to get 75 to 80 catches per season from his tight ends.

http://www.mockingthedraft.com/2008/4/21/446904/sbnation-nfl-mock-draft-pi

Mike Holmgren runs the tightest West Coast in the NFL, and his tight ends must be able to inline block, chip, run precise patterns and above all else, actually play the tight end position on the field. You know, off tackle, strong side. While Fred Davis or Dustin Keller might be considered better overall athletes, the 6'3" and 6'2", respectively, "rocked up slot receivers" would be badly mismatched in Holmgren's scheme. Last season, Holmgren squeezed life out of the craggy Marcus Pollard: 15th ranked DPAR, 5th ranked DVOA. Had Pollard run the 40 last season, his time would have been in linemen country, but Seattle's scheme never required burner speed or Gatesian athleticism, only versatility, good timing and deception.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/10/20/ramblings/strategy-minicamps/4412/

Two-tight end sets place seven blockers on the line of scrimmage. Most defenses operate on a base 4-3 scheme. A seven-on-four battle in the trenches puts the defense at a severe disadvantage. When possible, defensive coordinators move one or more linebackers down to the line of scrimmage to create a 50 front when facing a multi-tight end formation. The seven-on-five matchup gives the defense a fighting chance. But against some teams, it’s just not wise to put an extra defender on the line of scrimmage. The Cowboys have two of the best wide receivers in football, and opposing defenses need all available bodies in pass coverage. Bill Parcells and his assistants know that they can pick up easy yardage on the ground by executing simple plays while the defense is on its heels.

[Oldskool]

For those that would have rather had a DE than Davis, go back in the draft after we selected Davis and tell me who you would have selected..

The DE's taken in the 2nd round after the Davis pick are as follows:

Calais Campbell

Quentin Groves

Jason Jones

None of these guys will be a true pass rushing threat in the NFL. Solid DE's but not one of them would start this year in place of Daniels.

I was wanting a DE very badly this year in the draft, but I also knew and stated several times that the DE crop this year was very talented at the top but once you got done with the top 5 or so players, the talent level dropped to a great degree.

The Davis pick makes sense because of how the WCO is played. Along with the Kelly and Thomas selections, it was needed to overhaul the receivers on the roster to run a smooth, consistent short to mid range passing attack.

Dallas used a 2 TE set to their advantage last year. Indy and New England did and have for years as well.

[Thinking Skins]

http://www.mockingthedraft.com/2008/4/21/446904/sbnation-nfl-mock-draft-pi

Mike Holmgren runs the tightest West Coast in the NFL, and his tight ends must be able to inline block, chip, run precise patterns and above all else, actually play the tight end position on the field. You know, off tackle, strong side. While Fred Davis or Dustin Keller might be considered better overall athletes, the 6'3" and 6'2", respectively, "rocked up slot receivers" would be badly mismatched in Holmgren's scheme. Last season, Holmgren squeezed life out of the craggy Marcus Pollard: 15th ranked DPAR, 5th ranked DVOA. Had Pollard run the 40 last season, his time would have been in linemen country, but Seattle's scheme never required burner speed or Gatesian athleticism, only versatility, good timing and deception.

So he's saying that Davis doesn't fit into the Holmgren offense? I've heard kinda contradictory reports on his blocking abilities, but I have heard he can run routes and catch. If anything, I feel that he can help JC with the over the middle stuff, and learn to do the run protection stuff.

[Thinking Skins]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/10/20/ramblings/strategy-minicamps/4412/

Two-tight end sets place seven blockers on the line of scrimmage. Most defenses operate on a base 4-3 scheme. A seven-on-four battle in the trenches puts the defense at a severe disadvantage. When possible, defensive coordinators move one or more linebackers down to the line of scrimmage to create a 50 front when facing a multi-tight end formation. The seven-on-five matchup gives the defense a fighting chance. But against some teams, it’s just not wise to put an extra defender on the line of scrimmage. The Cowboys have two of the best wide receivers in football, and opposing defenses need all available bodies in pass coverage. Bill Parcells and his assistants know that they can pick up easy yardage on the ground by executing simple plays while the defense is on its heels.

That was a nice example of using the two tight end set, but how could you leave this out:

The modern two-tight end set was developed by Joe Gibbs and his Redskins staff in the early 1980s. It was created as a countermeasure against 3-4 defenses in general and Lawrence Taylor in particular. Gibbs discovered that an extra tight end on the line of scrimmage was in better position than a fullback to stop Taylor and other elite blitzers. Gibbs soon learned to use the second tight end as an all-purpose blocker: that extra tight end (usually Don Warren, back in the day) might go in motion before the snap to unbalance the offensive line, or he might slip into the backfield as a fullback or sneak into pass patterns. The modern H-back was born.

The two-tight end base offense enjoyed a brief 80s heyday, with the Redskins, Chargers, and a few other teams using it as their standard package for a few seasons. When the West Coast Offense came into vogue, fullbacks made a resurgence. Most teams had a two-tight end package in their playbooks, but it was a short-yardage formation or a wrinkle: few teams drafted and built around a two-tight end philosophy.

The recent return of the H-back and the two-tight end set can partially be credited to comebacks by the 3-4 defense and by Gibbs. But it is also an adjustment to the personnel that is currently available. Colleges send the NFL plenty of quality tight end prospects every year, most of them top athletes who are able to run, block, and catch. Meanwhile, most college fullbacks are slow-footed lead blockers. Pro coaches need the versatility that the tight ends provide, and multi-tight end sets allow them to mass as many as four eligible receivers near the line of scrimmage. Those extra tight ends give coaches plenty of options

[The Sisko]

Hey, I was trying to limit large blocks of text as outlined in the ES rulebook. But, there's nothing in there about serial posts that end up accomplishing the same thing. Way to go.

As for Davis' shortcomings as mentioned in the above article, I don't know that I'd call him a bulked-up slot guy. He's just not that fast. However, I do think he can be a slightly faster version of Cooley IF he puts in the time to improve his route running. Neither of he nor Cooley is going to win any blocking contests though so that's still a problem.

[Oldskool]

As for Davis' shortcomings as mentioned in the above article, I don't know that I'd call him a bulked-up slot guy. He's just not that fast. However, I do think he can be a slightly faster version of Cooley IF he puts in the time to improve his route running. Neither of he nor Cooley is going to win any blocking contests though so that's still a problem.

I wouldn't say that route running is an issue for Davis at all. USC runs a modified WCO system and you don't lead your team in receiving in that type of system by running sloppy routes. Last year he was running not only TE routes but Split End routes as well.

Davis will have to work on his blocking, that is a given. The half assed effort he gave in college won't cut it in the pros.

[LoudMouth12thMan]

I will get bashed for this but I you can put this down in the books, Santana Moss and ARE will NOT be Redskins in the 2010 season (possibly even 2009 depending on how the new guys work out)

That's insanity based on two factors:

Santana is a solid #2 receiver on any team in the NFL, and ARE is a prototypical slot guy on any team as well. The question is, can one of these rookies become a #1 caliber receiver by next season in their second year? My hunch is that they are hoping that one of these guys Kelly or Thomas becomes a starting 1 or 2 this year (at the earliest) but at least by the start of the '09 season. :2cents:

HTTR

[TakeTheFG]

You know why JC is comfortable with Cooley. He can run any route necessary, unlike our other WR and the guy can flat out catch any ball in near vicinity

[Pedro]

I like the Davis pick to a degree, and I now won't have to hold my breath every time Cooley gets up slowly (or Moss or ARE either, isn't that nice?), but my only question about the two tight end set thing is this: Couldn't Sellers do it? He's a good receiver, and about the size of an O lineman. Why not have him in there? I guess we can now run a pretty sick jumbo package, wish we had that option the last two years.

Also, I am really beginning to like Todd Yoder a lot. I hope he still gets some PT because he is a pretty damn good #2 TE. Great #3.

Heavy Jumbo in weight order

Mike Sellars 6-3 284

Todd Yoder 6-4 253

Chris Cooley 6-3 249

Fred Davis 6-3 247

Anthony Mix 6-5 235 (I expect about 220 come preseason)

Malcolm Kelly 6-3 219

Devin Thomas 6-1 218

As can be seen that's 4 guys at around 250lbs or more plus another 3 around 220lbs. Six at 6-3 or more in stark contrast to last season.

On the 2 TE sets re: Davis I expect him to do well in his rookie season. Teams struggle to match up to Cooley already so their second best guy will be on Davis. Now imagine a 4 or 5 WR set close to the goal line, with guys taken from the above list, and imagine the mismatches with teams trying to find that many big guys who can cover.... I'm expecting a trucking convention