- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 12,473
- Reaction score
- 7,476
We rarely if ever use a 4th WR. We can run the entire playbook without hogan, Dorsett and Patterson.
So what keeps the defense from playing 8 in the box against us all game long?
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.We rarely if ever use a 4th WR. We can run the entire playbook without hogan, Dorsett and Patterson.
If you mean obvious passing situations, like 3rd and 12, no.
If you mean passing while in 3-TE sets, WTF not? I think BB's dream goal line package would be 1 WR, 3 GRONK-like TEs who can block or pass, and 1 RB.
I think we use Gronkowski and allen on running plays and Gronkowski and Hollister on pass plays.
The X factor here may be Sony Michel, his pass catching ability may be the key, not sure this team wants to run down White.. so having a "good" second receiver at RB may give rise to a different type of offense..
It has been reported that Hollister has made a lot of gains in the past year, but how that translates into this second season remains to be seen..
Huh? Against Tom Brady?So what keeps the defense from playing 8 in the box against us all game long?
If Hollister is being productive, I have no problem with that formation a few times a game.Do any of you really want us in 3 TE sets in passing situations? I don't. I would almost always play Gronk, Hogan, Patterson/Dorsett, and White/Burkhead/Michel. The 11th player would a blocking/outlet TE or FB, or one of the above players.
WR (2)
TE (1)
RB (1)
QB (1)
blocker or 3rd WR (1)
Until Burkhead and Michel are healthy, we have
[Gronk, Hogan, Dorsett/Patterson, White, Allen/Develin] as our passing offense
Apparently, I have outraged some by suggesting that Hollister is not one of our top receiving targets. IMHO, we only need 3 WR's, 1 TE and 1 RB as targets.
Bennett was very important as a backup to Gronk and importantly was a good blocker. Hernandez was important because of the lack of other receiving threats.
You have your opinion. For me, Hollister is at least behind Gronk, 3 top receivers, and 2 RB's.
Perhaps our #7 receiving threat has gotten a lot of reps in the past. I don't think so.
===========
In 2017, seven receivers accounted for 90% of the receptions. The other 8 totaled a bit more than 2 receptions per game. Those 7 included 1 TE, 3 WR and 3 RB's. The 4th WR and the 2nd TE were next at a bit less than 1 reception per game each.
I see no reason for a change.
I'd posit that putting Hollister in instead of Allen, would force teams to dedicate a coverage guy to Gronk and a less athletic coverage guy for Hollister. This could result in lots of catches for Hollister. As for a 3rd TE, that would force teams to go "big" and that is where Hollister's athleticism would really be an asset.
And of course, the Patriots could run from the formation if teams go nickel. I wouldn't make the 3 TE package something they run all the time, but it could work for no huddle.
Having Holiister in instead of Allen would result in Gronk being an outlet receiver at best. His primary role would be blocking. Hollister instead of a WR would simply mean that the defense would be dealing with a less skilled receiver. PLUS, PLUS for the defense.
Having Holiister in instead of Allen would result in Gronk being an outlet receiver at best. His primary role would be blocking. Hollister instead of a WR would simply mean that the defense would be dealing with a less skilled receiver. PLUS, PLUS for the defense.
I disagree. Patriots do just block with their 5 OLmen....Also could keep a RB in to block or chip and release.
I do. If our #2 TE catches only one ball/game, I will be very disappointed.In 2017, seven receivers accounted for 90% of the receptions. The other 8 totaled a bit more than 2 receptions per game. Those 7 included 1 TE, 3 WR and 3 RB's. The 4th WR and the 2nd TE were next at a bit less than 1 reception per game each.
I see no reason for a change.
What? Why would gronk pass block? That makes absolutely no sense at all.Having Holiister in instead of Allen would result in Gronk being an outlet receiver at best. His primary role would be blocking. Hollister instead of a WR would simply mean that the defense would be dealing with a less skilled receiver. PLUS, PLUS for the defense.
It’s rare that they leave a TE in to pass block, very rare.Sometimes they do, sometimes they use a blocking TE in addition.
The point is that using a "receiving TE" who isn't competent at inline blocking takes away some playcall-change and protection call options at the LoS.
Absolutely nothing.So what keeps the defense from playing 8 in the box against us all game long?
I would.Huh? Against Tom Brady?
Why would you think a 4th receiver would be what affects that.
You gonna play 8 in the box against gronk, hogan, Dorsett, Patterson, white/Michel/Burkhead?
Burkhead is too high.IMO, here's the order of our pass targets (from most to least likely to be targeted in 2018):
1.) Gronkowski (duh)
2.) Edelman (sans 4 games of course)
3.) White/Hogan (Depends on game plan)
4.) Hogan/White (Depends on game plan)
5.) Dorsett/Burkhead (Depends on game plan)
6.) Burkhead/Dorsett (Depends on game plan)
7.) Patterson
8.) Hollister
9.) Michel
10.) Develin
11.) Allen