PDA

View Full Version : Four Wide?


LukesDad88
08-17-2009, 06:48 PM
I am psyched by the depth of the WR Corps! Sweed has impressed me with his progression since last year, and Wallace looks to be the best rookie receiver we've picked up recently. He's adjusting to the game fast! I'm predicting now that we'll see alot of four wide formations. I keep getting this image with Wallace and Sweed lined up on one side with Hines and Santonio on the other. I can see Wallace and Sweed flying down the field on fly routes, Wallace's speed getting him open with a sure score if the ball's not underthrown, and if it is underthrown, there's Sweed right on the spot, using his height and strength to bring that ball down.

This could be Ben's +4000 yard, 30 TD MVP season.

The Lakelander
08-17-2009, 06:50 PM
This could be Ben's +4000 yard, 30 TD MVP season.

I'll settle for 3500 and 30 myself. :laughing:

steelreserve
08-17-2009, 06:57 PM
I'll settle for 3500 and 30 myself. :laughing:

I'll take 500 yards and 50 interceptions if it means we win the Super Bowl.

Not that we'd be likely to with those numbers, but you know what I mean.

AllD
08-17-2009, 07:09 PM
4 wide, but who is blocking? We need more short yardage passing plays like screens and slots which depends less on hands. However, we are fat with receivers. Ward, Holmes, and Miller have outstanding hands. McDonald also has an excellent pair. Sweed is much better, but no better than a #3 at this time. Wallace could serve double duty as a WR and KR.

ANDYMISIU
08-17-2009, 07:11 PM
Don't forget about McDonald!! depth is a great thing! but I'm not sure Wallace beats McDonald on the depth chart. But, it wouldn't make a difference to me either way.

Slanted August
08-17-2009, 07:25 PM
4 wide, but who is blocking? We need more short yardage passing plays like screens and slots which depends less on hands. However, we are fat with receivers. Ward, Holmes, and Miller have outstanding hands. McDonald also has an excellent pair. Sweed is much better, but no better than a #3 at this time. Wallace could serve double duty as a WR and KR.

If we went four wide would we be then able to dictate to the defense to react and keep them honest? I cant remember if we tried this in the Eagles Offensive debacle last year but I did remember the screens (both receiver and running back) getting blown up.

mmalone
08-17-2009, 07:56 PM
If we went four wide would we be then able to dictate to the defense to react and keep them honest? I cant remember if we tried this in the Eagles Offensive debacle last year but I did remember the screens (both receiver and running back) getting blown up.

mcdonald has the hands.. he would catch everything in detroit that was thrown to him.

if we go 4 wide would that not help parker or mendy as lone backs whe they hit the holes as the defense is a bit more streched out ....

instead of the offense all bunched up inside the hash marks.... with one wide.

wootawnee
08-17-2009, 08:28 PM
4 wide means quick Montana like passes......Slants, outs, ins, and flys.......Quick ones.......

lilyoder6
08-17-2009, 08:49 PM
u can do 4 wide.. have say ward and wallace/mcdonald do under neath routes and holmes and sweed doing mid- range routes...

and even then u could have a hb delay

tony hipchest
08-17-2009, 08:59 PM
4 wide with a running back means taking heath miller off the field.

i dont know if i like the idea of taking one of our best offensive players off the field unless he needs a blow.

mmalone
08-17-2009, 09:54 PM
4 wide with a running back means taking heath miller off the field.

i dont know if i like the idea of taking one of our best offensive players off the field unless he needs a blow.

i guess you would mix it up... te in rb out

rb in te out

mixing it up sounds like it may be a good idea...

OneForTheToe
08-17-2009, 09:55 PM
I'll take 500 yards and 50 interceptions if it means we win the Super Bowl.

Not that we'd be likely to with those numbers, but you know what I mean.

Amen.

Steeldude
08-17-2009, 10:40 PM
I keep getting this image with Wallace and Sweed lined up on one side with Hines and Santonio on the other

BR has yet to show he can handle a 4 WR set. it's a good idea, but not very effective yet.

Steel_Bus_24
08-17-2009, 10:47 PM
Id much rather pound the rock right down their throats


The less Ben has to drop back the better. he can't keep taking the pounding he does

BlastFurnace
08-17-2009, 11:00 PM
But....But....we don't win when Ben throws more than 18 times a game...according to ESPN....LOL.

X-Terminator
08-18-2009, 01:22 AM
Id much rather pound the rock right down their throats


The less Ben has to drop back the better. he can't keep taking the pounding he does

I know everyone is enamored with "smashmouth football," but the fact of the matter is, you still need a good passing attack to win - especially in the playoffs where every team gears up to stop the run first and foremost. I'm just fine with Ben passing 25x per game.

MasterOfPuppets
08-18-2009, 01:59 AM
Id much rather pound the rock right down their throats


The less Ben has to drop back the better. he can't keep taking the pounding he does
if ben wants to stop takin the pounding, all he has to do is learn to get the ball out quicker. he spends waaay to much time lookin for the home run route instead of just taking the shorter route, or the check down.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
08-18-2009, 03:45 AM
if ben wants to stop takin the pounding, all he has to do is learn to get the ball out quicker. he spends waaay to much time lookin for the home run route instead of just taking the shorter route, or the check down.

You know, everyone keeps saying that. We wouldn't have won the Superbowl last season if he wasn't good at doing just that, PERIOD!

I can't find the numbers now, but a graphic flashed up I think during the Eagles game (shudders) that stated that Ben had only half the time before contact that the Mannings and Brady (shudders) have. Something like 2.3 seconds or something where the others had like 4 seconds to make a decision.

Galax Steeler
08-18-2009, 05:01 AM
I believe that Arians will have a different passing game planned this year with so many weapons how could you not with the speed and hands we have at the reciever spot.

HometownGal
08-18-2009, 07:06 AM
4 wide with a running back means taking heath miller off the field.

i dont know if i like the idea of taking one of our best offensive players off the field unless he needs a blow.

Good point. :thumbsup:

Having 5 very capable wideouts is a blessing, but I don't see the quad happening on a regular basis.

Texasteel
08-18-2009, 07:45 AM
Good point. :thumbsup:

Having 5 very capable wideouts is a blessing, but I don't see the quad happening on a regular basis.

Agreed on a regular basis, but could happen from time to time. Like maybe on 3rd and long?

O Sensei
08-18-2009, 08:37 AM
I'd like to see some Miller shifting outside to give us four wide sets from a 3 wide, get the big fella in space, dump off to intermediates, mixing in runs, try drawing defenses tighter...gasp...thus potentially opening up longer routes.

Four wides on third and how long? 15 yards and in yeah, I could see it, NE kills defense by going into that, hitting a lazy drag route by a back...kevin faulk...which seems to always gain more than you'd think it would....love to see mendy get a shot at that.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the impact a potentially reliable Sweed and/or Wallace could have in the 3 or 4 wide sets, we haven't really had that stretch the field guy since burress and ben loved him. Even if they aren't catching alot of balls defenses will still need to account for them leaving Hines, Heath, backs and 'Tone a little free'er perhaps. Curious to see how 'Tone is utilized within these sets, as a slot he could be absolutely deadly..theoretically. All this is predicated on the assumption that Sweed and Wallace continue to improve and are ready to assume these roles of course. Perhaps it's heresy but these are far better tools than BA had in cleveland when the brownies backup kinda burned us years ago, this could potentially be a very, very good passing offense, spread anyone(?).....jk.

scsteeler
08-18-2009, 08:58 AM
I'll settle for 3500 and 30 myself. :laughing:

I don't care about the stats but if it nets us another SB then I would be THRILLED with those nimbers. :thumbsup: