Good read, from one armchair guru to another.
When you describe TE skills as varied do you mean one dimensional TEs like Minnesota did last season with one blocker and one receiver, or are you referring to TEs who are each well rounded as blockers, receivers, and runners (YAC) such as NE hopes to have?
By varied, I mean varied like Daniel Graham and Ben Watson. I.e. Graham is a better whereas Watson is certaintly a better receiver.
Looking at your run formation using two H-backs & two TEs (I don't like HB since that has always been a half-back to me, but you "done good" by defining it in the article) you are clearly advertising what you will do out of that formation, as an armchair defensive coordinator I'd go with a 4-4 to counter, either bringing a SS up (remember Tebucky and Sanders have both been playing LB is situational drills) or substituting a LB. You don't have the personnel in to create a passing counter-punch since cover-two LBs will easily stay with your H-backs and TEs, two CBs and a FS with the LBs will shut you down.
I disagree with the point that you are advertising what you were doing with that formation. The QB is equally able to run a play-action pass, regular pass or draw out of this formation against most defenses (i.e. the typical 4-3 or our 3-4, where the LBs aren't fast enough to cover everyone). If most defenses went into a 4-4, I would use a pass play the next play and get a first down. As for the weakness to the cover-2: obviously it's there for this formation. The solution is to mainly stick to the small and wide formations against a cover-2 as to better disguise your intentions.
There are plenty of LBs who can run side to side to make plays, the "Tampa" defense Dungy employs has the speed to stay with fast TEs. On a team by team basis you would have to account for them in your game planning, unless you used a Steeler approach and just plowed ahead with the same game plan every time and hoped to grind out a win.
This is true. Certain defenses, including Indy's and Chicago's, would be far more adept to deal with this type of threat than others. If necessary, we could mix it up and go back to some old school formations, just to screw with their heads.
Your three TE set with a WR split to one side or a two WR-two TE sets are your strongest formation using the NE and SF TEs you describe. You force the defense to stay in a base defense. You can create blocking mismatches through movement of the TEs as well as receiving mismatches on Ss and LBs. The defense will try to counter with smaller faster LBs for coverage, but they won't hold up as well at the point of attack on running plays.
I agree with this statement. Perhaps having an HB split wide and put in motion sometimes would be a good addition to the running playbook.
The question to ask is how well this will hold up against the proliferation of 3-4 defenses? Colvin and McGinest* are larger LBs who cover okay in short zones. Vrabel and Bruschi have demonstrated their ability to work deeper and even play some limited man coverage. The Steelers can do something similar with their players, your offense will try to stretch the field with faster TEs like Watson and SF's new kid, but your still working against a base eight man pass defense.
* Yeh, Willie is in Cleveburg and Beisel isn't a good coverage LB yet, but we don't know how the LBs will shake out yet this season so I'm using last seasons as my base.
I would say that the 3-4 would be better against this type of threat, but not by much. This type of threat would severely limit their ability to blitz and therefore open up the run.
You chose to go away from RBs like Dillon and use RBs like Tomlinson who is a better receiver and shiftier in the open field, but there is no reason you can't use a Dillon in this set, you can take a power approach where you wear down a defense using the big TEs and RBs to pound on the LBs, and you wear out their legs with the fast TEs and H-backs. The beauty of the formation is it will work for Dillon, Maroney, Faulk, Pass, or Evans, despite the differences in their skill sets.
Any RB could work in this system. including Dillon. However, having a receiving threat in the backfield makes the entire passing game more effective because they have to take that into account as well. A team with LT in the backfield using this offense would surely do better against, say, a Cover 2 (who would have to have someone watching the RB) than a backfield with a Jerome Bettis. A 3rd-down back would be vital to a system with a power back - i.e. the Dillon-Faulk attack in 2004 - in my opinion. This could just be a difference approach due to preference, of course.
As far as a name - this is an old football formation from the days of run and rerun, it's just upgraded for the talent level available at TE and H-back. I myself see no need to name it anything special, after all the so-called West Coast offense was based on Paul Brown's old offense. I'm sure an expert could tell us how it was different, but I'd bet the key difference was the talent level allowing greater latitude.
:rocker:
