Quote: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.

 

 

Quote: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.

---