Wallace:" Tannehill takes some chances and believes in his arm."likes 5 receiver set. | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Wallace:" Tannehill takes some chances and believes in his arm."likes 5 receiver set.

Phindog

Phindog

Active Roster
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
5,817
Reaction score
1,925
Location
New York
Dolphins' Wallace: Tannehill "takes some chances and believes in his arm"

Dolphins wide receiver Mike Wallace seems to have a high opinion of quarterback Ryan Tannehill. And on Wednesday, after Wallace and Tannehill hooked up on several short and intermediate pass routes late in practice, Wallace gave his opinion of Tannehill.
“He’s a guy who takes some chances and believes in his arm,” said Wallace, the free agent signee from Pittsburgh. “A lot of times those work out for him. Today was one of those days.”

By the way, the Dolphins showed some five-receiver sets Wednesday, which should give defenses something to ponder. They had Wallace, Hartline, Keller, and running back Lamar Miller on the field together with an empty backfield and H-back Charles Clay and Gibsoon alternating in the fifth receiver spot.
Wallace seems to like that formation, and he thinks Tannehill likes it, too.
“It’s fun because all of our tight ends are really like hybrid tight ends,” Wallace said. “So anytime we have two of those guys in the game, it’s like we’re going five-wide.

I only paisted two parts of the atricle Read full story...

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/m...,1263035.story​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fintastic2124 said:
A 5 receiver set with those players makes me happy in my pants.
Click to expand...

:up:

---------- Post added at 10:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 PM ----------
Phindog said:
[h=1]Dolphins' Wallace: Tannehill "takes some chances and believes in his arm"[/h]
Dolphins wide receiver Mike Wallace seems to have a high opinion of quarterback Ryan Tannehill. And on Wednesday, after Wallace and Tannehill hooked up on several short and intermediate pass routes late in practice, Wallace gave his opinion of Tannehill.
“He’s a guy who takes some chances and believes in his arm,” said Wallace, the free agent signee from Pittsburgh. “A lot of times those work out for him. Today was one of those days.”

By the way, the Dolphins showed some five-receiver sets Wednesday, which should give defenses something to ponder. They had Wallace, Hartline, Keller, and running back Lamar Miller on the field together with an empty backfield and H-back Charles Clay and Gibsoon alternating in the fifth receiver spot.
Wallace seems to like that formation, and he thinks Tannehill likes it, too.
“It’s fun because all of our tight ends are really like hybrid tight ends,” Wallace said. “So anytime we have two of those guys in the game, it’s like we’re going five-wide.

I only pasted two parts of the atricle Read full story...

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/...ke-qb-ryan-tannehill-20130814,0,1263035.story
Click to expand...

:up:
 
Thats only one of a half a dozen hybrid sets,Omar tweeted about another one but wouldn't say who was on the field.A lot of these will be worked on in closed practices.The TE's lining up as half back and the RB in the slot,it just messes with defenses a little.Still dont know who's gonna run our reverses.I figured Wallace or Mathews.
 
Generally not a good idea to run empty sets unless you have a premier quarterback. I discovered that more than 10 years ago for betting purposes and have mentioned it on countless sites, including here. The teams with terrific quarterbacks actually should run empty more often than they do, while everyone else is typically better off leaving it alone.

Buffalo has been the one hysterical example in recent years. They've abused empty even with awful quarterbacking, as I've mentioned a few times. There have been years when the Bills run empty 4 or 5% more frequently than any team in the league, despite woeful results. It was great theater at that game I attended last December. I guess it's like the 3rd down screen pass, that certain teams don't bother to check the results. It looks cute in practice, so let's run it.

Football Outsiders finally got around to looking at empty a few years ago. Familiar trends, with the best quarterbacks at high DVOA while mediocrities lagged. Some coaches just don't like it even if their quarterback probably would fare well, like Coughlin with Eli.

At this stage I don't think Tannehill is ready. Empty might work against lesser foes but I hope we abstain in the big games against top quarterbacks. That comparison won't work in our favor, trying to force the same style the opponent is using.
 
Awsi Dooger said:
Generally not a good idea to run empty sets unless you have a premier quarterback. I discovered that more than 10 years ago for betting purposes and have mentioned it on countless sites, including here. The teams with terrific quarterbacks actually should run empty more often than they do, while everyone else is typically better off leaving it alone.

Buffalo has been the one hysterical example in recent years. They've abused empty even with awful quarterbacking, as I've mentioned a few times. There have been years when the Bills run empty 4 or 5% more frequently than any team in the league, despite woeful results. It was great theater at that game I attended last December. I guess it's like the 3rd down screen pass, that certain teams don't bother to check the results. It looks cute in practice, so let's run it.

Football Outsiders finally got around to looking at empty a few years ago. Familiar trends, with the best quarterbacks at high DVOA while mediocrities lagged. Some coaches just don't like it even if their quarterback probably would fare well, like Coughlin with Eli.

At this stage I don't think Tannehill is ready. Empty might work against lesser foes but I hope we abstain in the big games against top quarterbacks. That comparison won't work in our favor, trying to force the same style the opponent is using.
Click to expand...

I think you might be missing the point. We won't be coming out in 5 wide. We will be coming out in 2 WR, 2 backs, 1 TE. Out of that package we can run I-form, Pro sets, and other base running formations, but then we can run some hurry up, with that same package, keeping the defense in base 4-3, or 3-4, and send that same personnel grouping into a 5 wide look. Suddenly Clay who was playing FB, Miller who was playing RB, and Keller who was playing blocking TE are now spread out lined up against 3 LBs. There isn't a team in the league that has 3 LBs that can cover those three. The NFL is about mismatches and versatile personnel groupings is one way to force them.
 
KTOWNFINFAN said:
I think you might be missing the point. We won't be coming out in 5 wide. We will be coming out in 2 WR, 2 backs, 1 TE. Out of that package we can run I-form, Pro sets, and other base running formations, but then we can run some hurry up, with that same package, keeping the defense in base 4-3, or 3-4, and send that same personnel grouping into a 5 wide look. Suddenly Clay who was playing FB, Miller who was playing RB, and Keller who was playing blocking TE are now spread out lined up against 3 LBs. There isn't a team in the league that has 3 LBs that can cover those three. The NFL is about mismatches and versatile personnel groupings is one way to force them.
Click to expand...

also creates mismatch opposite way as far as blocking
 
Interesting.

I wonder if Sherman/Philbin wanted to implement this last year, but lacked the team speed to do it. Going to a hybrid set that could either line up in a pro or a five-wide formation would probably require deep and seam threats to work. Hello, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Keller....
 
Awsi Dooger said:
Generally not a good idea to run empty sets unless you have a premier quarterback. I discovered that more than 10 years ago for betting purposes and have mentioned it on countless sites, including here. The teams with terrific quarterbacks actually should run empty more often than they do, while everyone else is typically better off leaving it alone.

Buffalo has been the one hysterical example in recent years. They've abused empty even with awful quarterbacking, as I've mentioned a few times. There have been years when the Bills run empty 4 or 5% more frequently than any team in the league, despite woeful results. It was great theater at that game I attended last December. I guess it's like the 3rd down screen pass, that certain teams don't bother to check the results. It looks cute in practice, so let's run it.

Football Outsiders finally got around to looking at empty a few years ago. Familiar trends, with the best quarterbacks at high DVOA while mediocrities lagged. Some coaches just don't like it even if their quarterback probably would fare well, like Coughlin with Eli.

At this stage I don't think Tannehill is ready. Empty might work against lesser foes but I hope we abstain in the big games against top quarterbacks. That comparison won't work in our favor, trying to force the same style the opponent is using.
Click to expand...

As usual, lots of awesome stuff here, Mr. Dooger. I think empty sets can be effective, when used sparingly, out of the 1 RB, 2 WR, 2 TE sets - especially in no-huddle situations. But I emphasize "when used sparingly." I think you're absolutely right that Tannehill is not ready to have that kind of responsibility. Our O-line isn't built for it either. We're built to run the ball well, take advantage of uncertainty (play action passing and formations that don't telegraph our intent) in the D.
 
Sherman is probably looking at Coyle's myriad and exotic defensive schemes and getting a bit of "scheme envy". On the defensive side, we suspect but don't know yet whether we have the CBs to handle a blitz-heavy aggressive defense and on offense we suspect but don't know yet whether we have the QB to run the more exotic offensive wrinkles like read option and empty sets.

One thing is for sure, successful of not, it makes a refreshing change to be anticipating these sets and not "3 yards and a cloud of punts".
 
I'm all for them trying it from time to time. What we did last year didn't work so why not change things up a little bit. The o-line is what scares me tho. Tanny hasn't been getting much time to pass out of regular formations so to just keep in the 5 to block, that's be the big key there. Can they pass block with just the oline? But there's no doubt that we'd get some mismatches.

Ozzy rules!!
 
I really wouldn't like 5 wide unless we figure out who to put at RG. This line has not shown me enough to think that they can protect tannehill on their own,
 
Agree this could create mismatches which is basically the aim of it, how can a D know what formation to trot out against these guys, and with the hurry up, they could be screwed into wasting a timeout or giving up a TD. Really like this idea and wondered with Reggie last year why we didn't exploit it a bit more.
 
This is great for our Os skill set. Teams prepare for a run seeing 2 TEs and whoops - its a spread pass. Even if pass rush breaks open Tanne has the skills to run in the now wide open field to pick up at least 5-10. Lots of options, harder to plan for. Great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom