2, 3 or 4 wide receivers in base offense?

[MplsBison]

Would you rather see 2, 3 or 4 wide receivers in your base offense?



NDSU has had 2 wide receivers in our base offense since Bohl brought in the west coast system.

We will often line up with a true fullback in an I and a tight end.

[slostang]

Cal Poly switched from 3 to 2 last year when they decided to run the triple option. The base offense is 2 WRs, 1 FB, 2 SB. It worked well for them as they led the FCS (487.1 yds/gm) and were 6th in scoring (39.3 pts/gm). I would say that I am a big fan of the two WR sets for Cal Poly.

[already123]

Schematically, you go with formations...not necessarily personnel. Any formation that puts the most stress on a defense as far as gaps are concerned is the best IMO. I believe the best formation is a 2TE single back set. Here, there are 4 vertical threats on every play, yet defenses have to defend 8 gaps. Now, if you have the right personnel that formation is a b*+ch to stop. Think about this (the lumberjacks used this formation against Weber St last year and killed them with it) 2TE, 3 WR, mobile QB.....THE BEST FORMATION/PERSONNEL GROUP in all of football


(if you have the right QB)

[BEAR]

UCA has 4 WRs, and most games will throw to a minimum of 12 different receivers! I don't know what to call that kind of spread offense...um..superspread? xlolx

[Hoyadestroya85]

we use 3 wide receivers and a tight end and i like that, it's better for the running game, but i do like when we spread it out and line our tight end up in the slot, it was better when we had a great, fast tight end like Matt Sherry (god i'll miss him)

[laxVik]

Cal Poly switched from 3 to 2 last year when they decided to run the triple option. The base offense is 2 WRs, 1 FB, 2 SB. It worked well for them as they led the FCS (487.1 yds/gm) and were 6th in scoring (39.3 pts/gm). I would say that I am a big fan of the two WR sets for Cal Poly.What's Poly doing this year with the new (albeit former) OC Shields? I think he ran the spread when he was HC at Eastern Oregon.

[89Hen]

I'm a huge fan of TE's (keep you minds out of the gutters) so no four WR's for me. I'm always amazed when teams don't utilize them more. My favorite is the "pro set" sometimes with shotgun. Screens, dinks to the TE, delay draws... I'm no defensive guru, but I think that has to be the hardest to defend.

[dukesfan74]

I'm a huge fan of TE's (keep you minds out of the gutters) so no four WR's for me. I'm always amazed when teams don't utilize them more. My favorite is the "pro set" sometimes with shotgun. Screens, dinks to the TE, delay draws... I'm no defensive guru, but I think that has to be the hardest to defend.

I agree. A good tight end in short patterns is, in some ways, better than a running back in short yardage situationsxthumbsupx

[MplsBison]

I'm not that big of a fan of TEs.


It seems to me that a TE will never be as good of a run blocker as a true o lineman will be and he'll never be as good of a route runner/ball catcher as a wide receiver will be.


I like specialization in positions. IE, the running back runs the ball, the qb throws the ball, the receivers catch the ball and the line blocks.



I'd rather have people who do what they do well with a simpler assignment/formation rather than people who can do a lot of things average with a complex assignment.

IE, line up, tell them what you're going to do and then run them over.

[slostang]

What's Poly doing this year with the new (albeit former) OC Shields? I think he ran the spread when he was HC at Eastern Oregon.

Shields has said that it not broke so he is not going to change it. He will run the triple option again with a few new twist. This is Shields second go round at Cal Poly. I think that he has a very good offensive mind and is good at calling plays during a game.

[fuEMO]

For Paladin fans this will be a developing topic for the 2008 season.

I agree with already123. I like the 2 TE single back scheme. And MplsBison as a Furman fan that has seen many excellent blocking and receiving tightends when they can do both they are a b*tch to stop.

When Furman lines up with 2 tightends (Larry Hedden 6-5 248, Chris Truss 6-4 248) they can block, go in motion and become a blocking back, run short routes, and run deep routes. Furman is lucky that they recruit very well at tight end, and coach them up. Hedden and 2008 recruit Silverstein were combo WR/TE types. Sorrells could pass to his tightends 10-14 times a game. I think this will open vertical lanes for Furman's speedsters like Webb, Mims, and Williams. The other interesting part of this is the back. Furman can rotate Brown, LaFrance, Baker, and fullback Brantley as the one back and they are all excellent receivers. I hope this isn't just wishful thinking for us Furman fans.

[Hoyadestroya85]

I like the Flexbone... best formation ever created

[ngineer]

While we will vary, we generally go with 3 WRs and TE. All depends on the personnel you have.

[PapaBear]

A lot of it depends on the talent and versatility of your setbacks.

If either or both of them are strong runners AND excellent receivers with good speed, you can make a mess of a defense with a two-receiver set. The D will often treat two receivers as a run-first formation, allowing you to create favorable matchups (via shifts and motion) with those backs coming out of the backfield.

On the other hand, if your QB is an effective dual threat, you're often better off going with three- and four-receiver sets, because now the defense wants to replace tacklers with cover guys, making it harder for them to account for a QB who can run well.

[McNeese72]

At McNeese. It depends.

It is very situational. I've seen us with four wideouts (rarely) all the way down to a three TE set with a FB and a RB in the I formation. Depends on the situation.

Doc

[813Jag]

At Southern they rarely use 2 wides, so you'll see 3,4, or 5 on the field. The tight end is rarely used although they are targets in the red zone. Last season they ran the QB alot and used swing passes to the RB who was one of our top recievers.

[PaladinFan]

Furman has done very well with a three WR, 1 TE set. FU's best receiver usually lines up in the slot and just goes to work on opposing linebackers.

The Paladins, like was noted, are incredibly efficient with the tightends. I've seen a few games where a TE has caught 5,6 or even 9 balls. But again, this will be a big question mark in 08 about our approach. However, Furman, historically, throws a ton of intermediate routes and mismatches against linebackers. There are very few linebackers in the conference that can move with our tight ends.

[Eyes of Old Main]

I like the Flexbone... best formation ever created

Agreed.

[Eyes of Old Main]

WR's? What is this position you speak of?

In all seriousness, Wofford tends to line up with 2 which are, of course, primarily used as downfield blockers for our RB's, but occasionally catch a pass or two. Wofford also uses TE's to great effect for both blocking and receiving.

[WrenFGun]

UNH usually goes three wide, but will often play 6-7 WR's over the course of the game. Their best returning pass-catcher is their TE (though Boyle and Wright are no slouches). With Santos, UNH ran a lot of underneath routes to Levan, Boyle and Sicko, but I think with Toman, UNH is going to air it out a bit more, because he's got a cannon.

Don't know if Delaware remembers it, but Toman rolled out on one play, and, on the roll, threw a 50 yard bomb to Boyle for a TD. It was absurd. (It may have been Iona, I'm getting old.)

[MplsBison]

At McNeese. It depends.

It is very situational. I've seen us with four wideouts (rarely) all the way down to a three TE set with a FB and a RB in the I formation. Depends on the situation.

Doc


Please don't take offense to this but obviously every team has an assortment of formations for a given situation.


That's why I specifically said base.



What does McNeese typically come out in on 1st and 10, middle of the field?

[already123]

I look at it this way, if you dont use a TE, you become suspect to pressure at times. If you use more than one TE you get people who can load the box. Using a one back one TE set seems to be the most logical. However, you are ALWAYS subject to your personnel....no matter what scheme you are trying to implement

[813Jag]

Southern has been known to go 5 wides on 1st and 10 to start a game. Next game they may use 4 or 3. We really don't have a set number of wide outs in our base offense.

[daywoo7]

I like the asingleback offense with 3 wideouts and a tight end much like what the colts often. I think it helps spread out the defense in the run game more than normal pro sets(2-1). I play Tight End and I feel the tight end is very underutilized by many offenses because not only can they do a good job picking up short to mid range passes over the middle they also help open up the outside for runningbacks and wideouts because our big bodies over the middle draw a lot of attention from linebackers and safeties.

[MplsBison]

However, you are ALWAYS subject to your personnel....no matter what scheme you are trying to implement

But you see, that's what I don't like about the TE.



Sure, in conceptual game planning a TE brings a whole new dimension to schemes.



But when it comes right down to the execution of the game, a lineman will be a better blocker than a TE and a wide receiver will be a better catcher than a TE.

[McNeese72]

Please don't take offense to this but obviously every team has an assortment of formations for a given situation.


That's why I specifically said base.



What does McNeese typically come out in on 1st and 10, middle of the field?

It stil depends. It depends on the score of the game, how much time is left in the game, our game plan on how to best attack the other team, etc.

But I think we have gotten to where, if I had to pick one our sets, our base offense would be a 2 WR, TE, FB (in a wingback type position), TB spread offense type set. With sometimes a 3rd WR instead of a FB.

Doc

[Cap'n Cat]

Give me the single wing. Passing's for pussies.

http://www.hornetfootball.org/images/history/1948-Action2.jpg

[BEAR]

Oh I think a good receiving TE opens up the field in so many ways. Sometimes as an outlet if the receivers are covered or sometimes as a block for the backfield running game. How many times has a TE slipped by the defense into a gap and just made out like a bandit. How do you defend something like that? Plus if you add the fact that the QB sometimes slips out for a pass. It boggles the mind..xlolx

[MplsBison]

How do you defend something like that?


Man a LB on him.

[lc83]

But you see, that's what I don't like about the TE.



Sure, in conceptual game planning a TE brings a whole new dimension to schemes.



But when it comes right down to the execution of the game, a lineman will be a better blocker than a TE and a wide receiver will be a better catcher than a TE.

It makes no sense to say a TE can't catch as well as a wideout. It doesn't matter what position you play...if you got good hands, you got good hands!

And who's to say a TE isn't able to run just as precise routes as a WR either?

Without a TE you lose a possible mismatch down the middle of the field. Also how effective would play action be without an immediate threat after the snap at about 5-10 yrds downfield?

[already123]

But you see, that's what I don't like about the TE.



Sure, in conceptual game planning a TE brings a whole new dimension to schemes.



But when it comes right down to the execution of the game, a lineman will be a better blocker than a TE and a wide receiver will be a better catcher than a TE.




I see where you are trying to go with that. BUT even if you have a recieving TE, it creates an extra gap, there for an added pressure for the defense. People easily forget that any TE can easily double team up to an OLB or safety. You dont have to be a great blocker to cut off backside either... The defense has a decision to make- 1) play 6 in the box and protect against the pass and HOPE that out D-Line makes the difference, or...2) play 7 in the box...likely man up or play cover 2...and allow a skilled recieving TE (not to mention the other 3 recievers) eat them up in the passing game.

Do you see what I am saying?

[MplsBison]

Yes. Both of you. It makes sense.


I still prefer specialization.



Perhaps a compromise is a big body TE type player split out in the slot.

[ERASU2113]

Would you rather see 2, 3 or 4 wide receivers in your base offense?



NDSU has had 2 wide receivers in our base offense since Bohl brought in the west coast system.

We will often line up with a true fullback in an I and a tight end.

We use the spread offense. Seeing how that works I'll take 3-4 any day :D

[SOCAL]

UNH usually goes three wide, but will often play 6-7 WR's over the course of the game. Their best returning pass-catcher is their TE (though Boyle and Wright are no slouches). With Santos, UNH ran a lot of underneath routes to Levan, Boyle and Sicko, but I think with Toman, UNH is going to air it out a bit more, because he's got a cannon.

Don't know if Delaware remembers it, but Toman rolled out on one play, and, on the roll, threw a 50 yard bomb to Boyle for a TD. It was absurd. (It may have been Iona, I'm getting old.)

Actually, it was Delaware--Toman rolled left(he is right handed) outran a linebacker --flicked his hips on the run in order to get into throwing position--hit Levan with a strike for a TD--the TV announcers went crazy--
they commented that "Toman was the best QB nobody ever saw"

[biSon]

We use the spread offense. Seeing how that works I'll take 3-4 any day :D
I would like to see NDSU and Appy St. play each other
see which team's strategy works betterxthumbsupx

[stevdock]

I see where you are trying to go with that. BUT even if you have a recieving TE, it creates an extra gap, there for an added pressure for the defense. People easily forget that any TE can easily double team up to an OLB or safety. You dont have to be a great blocker to cut off backside either... The defense has a decision to make- 1) play 6 in the box and protect against the pass and HOPE that out D-Line makes the difference, or...2) play 7 in the box...likely man up or play cover 2...and allow a skilled recieving TE (not to mention the other 3 recievers) eat them up in the passing game.

Do you see what I am saying?

The other thing to remember when using a TE is it can be a matchup issue with the Defense. If you have a fast TE, that can put huge stress on the Safety/LB that has to cover him, i.e., Miami's TE's. They are normally much faster than the people who cover them. If you have 3 or 4 WR's, you are gonna have CB's covering them most of the time. The other nice thing to do on offense is if you have a really fast RB to put him in the slot so that a LB has to cover him when playing man. I would personally go with 2 WR's then move my TE's and RB's all over the field to get match up advantages.

[bisonguy]

The other thing to remember when using a TE is it can be a matchup issue with the Defense. If you have a fast TE, that can put huge stress on the Safety/LB that has to cover him, i.e., Miami's TE's. They are normally much faster than the people who cover them. If you have 3 or 4 WR's, you are gonna have CB's covering them most of the time. The other nice thing to do on offense is if you have a really fast RB to put him in the slot so that a LB has to cover him when playing man. I would personally go with 2 WR's then move my TE's and RB's all over the field to get match up advantages.

Sounds a lot like what NDSU already does. xnodx

A lot of 2 WR sets, with either one or two TE's, throw in a good helping of 1 WR 2 TE sets, a couple 3 WR sets, and a splash of 4 WR's to taste.

[MplsBison]

I think with our depth at WR this year you will see more 3 WR, 1 back sets.

[bisonguy]

I think with our depth at WR this year you will see more 3 WR, 1 back sets.

They will also use the 3 WR, 2 back set.

[blur2005]

With JMU's offense and Rodney Landers, I like the spread. The more room there is for Landers to maneuver and make plays, the better. Even though Matthews is obviously is a fan of three yards and a cloud of dust, employing the spread, which he has, definitely makes JMU more dangerous. I either like to see four wide or three wide with a tight end who can either move into the backfield in motion to provide blocking or even motion out to run routes off the line.

[FargoBison]

They will also use the 3 WR, 2 back set.

Don't forget about the 2 TE and 3 back set as well.

[MplsBison]

They will also use the 3 WR, 2 back set.


I actually prefer that to the 3 WR 1 back sets.

[MplsBison]

Don't forget about the 2 TE and 3 back set as well.

Only for short yardage.


We aren't playing 1930's ball.

[Bison101]

Only for short yardage.


We aren't playing 1930's ball.

Bingo! xnodx

[FargoBison]

Only for short yardage.


We aren't playing 1930's ball.

I know just wanted to throw it out there...

[bisonguy]

Only for short yardage.


We aren't playing 1930's ball.

I like the jumbo power I when they run PA out of it.

[MplsBison]

But a PA to what?

Without a WO there is going to be at least safety coverage.

[McNeese_beat]

Depends who your best players are. If you have a really good tight end, you want him on the field. If you have three stud receivers, you want them on the field, etc., etc. Got a good fullback? Then your base is two-backs.

I think everybody these days is multiple enough to be able to run various packages. What package is used the most should be dictated by where the talent is. Right now, McNeese has a lot of good wide receivers and a couple of pretty nice tight ends, so I would expect McNeese to run more 3-wide, one tight-end looks and fewer plays with a fullback.

[MplsBison]

Sure you can say that, but how many teams actually have real fullbacks these days? I know NDSU and SDSU do.

[CopperCat]

Sure you can say that, but how many teams actually have real fullbacks these days? I know NDSU and SDSU do.

Furman did, Jerome Felton. I watched him play.xcoolx

[MplsBison]

Triple Option doesn't count as a real fullback.


I'm talking I formation, nothing but a lead blocker, fullback.

[CSUBUCDAD]

After watching Chuck Souths spring game this past weekend it is obvious that Mills will stick with a 4 WR base offense. You think Collin Drafts threw alot, better get your secondaries ready for a workout folks, looks like the Bucs will be airing it out bigtime this year.

[bjtheflamesfan]

LU goes 2 WR and 2 RBs in base. Me personally Id like 4 WR in my base but that is my personal preference and that is why Im posting on a message board and not the LU offensive coordinator

[Kill'em]

For Paladin fans this will be a developing topic for the 2008 season.

I agree with already123. I like the 2 TE single back scheme. And MplsBison as a Furman fan that has seen many excellent blocking and receiving tightends when they can do both they are a b*tch to stop.



No kidding.xoopsx

[Kill'em]

I like the Flexbone... best formation ever created

Rep point for you!