-
Welcome!
Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!
Or simply create a new Huddle account.
Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posts
-
(1).thumb.jpg.39d47488da35eba0b4aca548ded58784.jpg)
By LinvilleGorge · Posted
Yeah, when you're wanting to run multiple TEs and your TEs are a weakness you're basically handcuffed yourself. I think there's a good chance our passing attack would look significantly different if we had a quality receiving TE. -
By LinvilleGorge · Posted
That and when you fug around with someone else's spouse and the spurned spouse goes nuclear and puts your poo on blast... well, you should've been doing your part of the "mind your own business" mantra. -
We also have to consider cause and effect. Maybe the reason we don't target TEs is not by design, it is due to personnel. If we are going to use 12 (2 TEs) and 13 (3 TEs) sets to improve the run game, we need some TE options. It is ridiculous to think we can do that without TEs who can run the seams and move the chains in the pass game. I think that is the plan folks. We ran 3 TEs about 1 in 12 plays last year, and we did not have the TE personnel to do that as effectively as needed. If we had better TEs, we might run 3 TE sets more--say 10%, and 2 TE sets 20% of the time. You always need the pass option when you do this, and frankly, nobody was scared with Tremble, Evans, and Sanders out there. It is an area they are likely to address.
-
-
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.