Good.  Our TE group >> our WR group.  Plus if it is effective it should help the WR and RB production by putting the secondary in mismatches.

---

I can understand a 2 tight set with no fb. But 3? Often? Why? You have Allen Robinson,Lee and Hurns. Why telegraph your offense when you can strain the defense outside and in with your receiver and te talent. Interesting, I'm no expert but to me you make your offense very easy to read and you only have 2 potential receiver threats to cover rather than 4 or 5. I don't get it.

 

It is very valuable to line up and have the defense know what you want to do, and still be capable of doing it.  That means Bortles isn't on his back so often.

 

Just like the Seahawks should have run the ball last year.

---

IMO, the deep ball will be incorporated to keep defenses honest.  You can still go deep with 3 TEs, especially if one is J Thomas.  Then there's Denard in the backfield and Lee on the outside.  Let them stack the box against the run - BOOM!  TD.

---

Nothing says taking advantage of the new NFL rules than focusing on the running game.

 

This offseason, the NFL did approve being able to hold WRs and hitting them at random as they come across the middle right?

---

who is the tight end we got that people were comparing his combine numbers to maxx williams?

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

Something about this scheme makes me anxious. There is not a high risk/reward. I feel like defenses will stack the box and keep us to minimal gains. Why do I just envision a lot of 3rd and 10 situations, forcing Bortles to find a deep receiver, when stretching the field is not our cup of tea? I guess a key factor here is how much better our line can block.

 

 

I can understand a 2 tight set with no fb. But 3? Often? Why? You have Allen Robinson,Lee and Hurns. Why telegraph your offense when you can strain the defense outside and in with your receiver and te talent. Interesting, I'm no expert but to me you make your offense very easy to read and you only have 2 potential receiver threats to cover rather than 4 or 5. I don't get it.

 

Well, if you go with three Tight Ends on the field at one point it means that the Defense is either going to have to put more LB types on the field in order to shake off those blocks or have a CB assigned to a Tight End. Wouldn't you like the advantage that a 6' 5" or greater Tight End going up against a DB gives you?

 

Take a look at this formation:

 

X T G C G T Y

             Q           W                 Z

 

 

             B

 

 

X - TE (Lewis)

Y - TE  (Koyack / Harbor / Jacobs)

W - TE (Thomas)

Z - Motion WR (Sterling?)

 

Now who are you, as a Defense, going to assign to the "X" in that scenario? A Corner? Lewis isn't awesome, but I think he can outwork a Corner. And if you do assign him a Corner wouldn't that be an obvious check to a Run play for the QB?

 

Who's going to cover "W"? You want to have your Nickle Corner trying to match up with Thomas? Granted, it's an obvious formation and it's not without it's flaws but it does provide the team with some advantages.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

I can see it working for our run game to an extent but do you really think Lee can win outside by himself? Lewis can be covered by most athletic lbs. They double Thomas and Lee gets the 1 on 1 with a possible safety over the top. I just hope our line improves on Sundays. I just think this is moving away from what is advantageous with the rules favoring 3 wide+. If the line is better why can't they win with a single back 2/3 wr set with Thomas possibly lining up in the slot with Lewis in at te? Again, these guys are the coaches for a reason, but it seems to me this is moving backwards. As long as we win I really could care less lol.

---

Well, if you go with three Tight Ends on the field at one point it means that the Defense is either going to have to put more LB types on the field in order to shake off those blocks or have a CB assigned to a Tight End. Wouldn't you like the advantage that a 6' 5" or greater Tight End going up against a DB gives you?

 

Take a look at this formation:

 

X T G C G T Y

             Q           W                 Z

 

 

             B

 

 

X - TE (Lewis)

Y - TE  (Koyack / Harbor / Jacobs)

W - TE (Thomas)

Z - Motion WR (Sterling?)

 

Now who are you, as a Defense, going to assign to the "X" in that scenario? A Corner? Lewis isn't awesome, but I think he can outwork a Corner. And if you do assign him a Corner wouldn't that be an obvious check to a Run play for the QB?

 

Who's going to cover "W"? You want to have your Nickle Corner trying to match up with Thomas? Granted, it's an obvious formation and it's not without it's flaws but it does provide the team with some advantages.

I can see this formation being a nightmare for defenses in short yardage situations.

 

If they beef up to stop the run, you throw it over them. If they put pass defenders out there, you run it through them.

---