Ronnie the 3rd WR All Along?

[Shouright]

Linehan ran a ton of 3 WR sets in Minnesota, and there was a lot of talk on this board in the offseason about who would be our 3rd WR to team with Chambers and Booker.

With our trying so hard to get Ricky back, I think Ronnie may have actually been the guy we intended to be the "3rd WR." This way Linehan gets his 3 WR, one-back set, but he has a lot more flexibility with it than he had in Minnesota. Ronnie can stay in the backfield or split out, which gives Linehan a huge variation of plays to design for the personnel involved.

Of course I don't mean Ronnie is going to be switched from RB to WR exclusively. What I'm saying is that he may start plays in the backfield with Ricky and then either stay there or split out. If he splits out we have our 3 WR, one-back set, and we have a mismatch in coverage on Ronnie and/or the WRs with only 4 DBs in the game.

Why would 4 DBs be in the game? Because the defense would need to stay in its base D to defend Ronnie's staying in the backfield with Ricky. If he splits out we have a mismatch somewhere, which is what you don't get with a traditional 3 WR, one-back set using a WR as the #3 receiver, because the D just brings in another DB to defend the 3rd WR. And the 3rd WR traditionally is "stuck" where he's at -- he isn't going to go into the backfield and block for the RB.

Thoughts?

 

[bigmiamifan]

I think that's the way we go. Didn't they already say that they'd have the two RBs on the field at the same time? I like the mismatches.

 

[DeathStar]

my so excited for ricky's return.

 

[BigDogsHunt]

Linehan ran a ton of 3 WR sets in Minnesota, and there was a lot of talk on this board in the offseason about who would be our 3rd WR to team with Chambers and Booker.

With our trying so hard to get Ricky back, I think Ronnie may have actually been the guy we intended to be the "3rd WR." This way Linehan gets his 3 WR, one-back set, but he has a lot more flexibility with it than he had in Minnesota. Ronnie can stay in the backfield or split out, which gives Linehan a huge variation of plays to design for the personnel involved.

Of course I don't mean Ronnie is going to be switched from RB to WR exclusively. What I'm saying is that he may start plays in the backfield with Ricky and then either stay there or split out. If he splits out we have our 3 WR, one-back set, and we have a mismatch in coverage on Ronnie and/or the WRs with only 4 DBs in the game.

Why would 4 DBs be in the game? Because the defense would need to stay in its base D to defend Ronnie's staying in the backfield with Ricky. If he splits out we have a mismatch somewhere, which is what you don't get with a traditional 3 WR, one-back set using a WR as the #3 receiver, because the D just brings in another DB to defend the WR.

Thoughts?

Its possible, St Louis does it with Faulk as well. Certainly not a problem to keep Ronnie on the field with Ricky in the back field.

Ultimately its hard to complain about an approach that rotates players throughout the offense and defense to keep bodies fresh and give experience to your overall depth.

i like it.....

 

[SuperDuperFan]

Linehan ran a ton of 3 WR sets in Minnesota, and there was a lot of talk on this board in the offseason about who would be our 3rd WR to team with Chambers and Booker.

With our trying so hard to get Ricky back, I think Ronnie may have actually been the guy we intended to be the "3rd WR." This way Linehan gets his 3 WR, one-back set, but he has a lot more flexibility with it than he had in Minnesota. Ronnie can stay in the backfield or split out, which gives Linehan a huge variation of plays to design for the personnel involved.

Of course I don't mean Ronnie is going to be switched from RB to WR exclusively. What I'm saying is that he may start plays in the backfield with Ricky and then either stay there or split out. If he splits out we have our 3 WR, one-back set, and we have a mismatch in coverage on Ronnie and/or the WRs with only 4 DBs in the game.

Why would 4 DBs be in the game? Because the defense would need to stay in its base D to defend Ronnie's staying in the backfield with Ricky. If he splits out we have a mismatch somewhere, which is what you don't get with a traditional 3 WR, one-back set using a WR as the #3 receiver, because the D just brings in another DB to defend the 3rd WR.

Thoughts?

Good post. I think we will definitely line them both up in the backfield at times, with Ronnie often splitting out as a WR. Could also open up reverses to him and things like that. Its gonna be exciting to see.

 

[Shouright]

I think that's the way we go. Didn't they already say that they'd have the two RBs on the field at the same time? I like the mismatches.

I know they ran it in the preseason, but I didn't see Ronnie split out at all (could've missed it), probably because he hadn't had enough time to learn the playbook, or because Linehan was still working on developing plays for that set.

But yeah, I don't know of any other teams in the league that can do this. Defenses would have a hard time defending this. If they take out a LB and bring in an extra safety, we can run on them, and if they keep their base D we can pass on them. With Frerotte's knowledge of the offense, he can even change plays just before the snap based on how the defense lines up on Ronnie when he splits out.

 

[tcdrover]

Its possible, St Louis does it with Faulk as well. Certainly not a problem to keep Ronnie on the field with Ricky in the back field.

Ultimately its hard to complain about an approach that rotates players throughout the offense and defense to keep bodies fresh and give experience to your overall depth.

i like it.....

RB even looks kind of like Faulk, only much bigger. (& obviously younger)...

We are going to kick some serious *ss when Ricky returns. :rofl3: :rofl3: :rofl3:

Can't wait for the rematch with the jests...:fire:

 

[BennyVW]

We saw that once in the pre-season. Brown in motion to the slot. Frerrote went back looked for brown who was covered, and then hit wide open ricky who got a few yards. Then we had brown blocking for ricky. The D started to freak out, they were thinkign to much and their flow was interupted. Now that ronnie is begining to establish himself as a legitimate playmaker it should work to an even greater degree.

 

[JBinSD]

Linehan ran a ton of 3 WR sets in Minnesota, and there was a lot of talk on this board in the offseason about who would be our 3rd WR to team with Chambers and Booker.

With our trying so hard to get Ricky back, I think Ronnie may have actually been the guy we intended to be the "3rd WR." This way Linehan gets his 3 WR, one-back set, but he has a lot more flexibility with it than he had in Minnesota. Ronnie can stay in the backfield or split out, which gives Linehan a huge variation of plays to design for the personnel involved.

Of course I don't mean Ronnie is going to be switched from RB to WR exclusively. What I'm saying is that he may start plays in the backfield with Ricky and then either stay there or split out. If he splits out we have our 3 WR, one-back set, and we have a mismatch in coverage on Ronnie and/or the WRs with only 4 DBs in the game.

Why would 4 DBs be in the game? Because the defense would need to stay in its base D to defend Ronnie's staying in the backfield with Ricky. If he splits out we have a mismatch somewhere, which is what you don't get with a traditional 3 WR, one-back set using a WR as the #3 receiver, because the D just brings in another DB to defend the 3rd WR. And the 3rd WR traditionally is "stuck" where he's at -- he isn't going to go into the backfield and block for the RB.

Thoughts?

Good post again Shouright, but do you wake up in the morning thinking of formations and mismatches that put these two on the field at the same time? Its funny cuz you are constantly coming up with this stuff. Not complaining, only observing.

 

[MadLib]

I know they ran it in the preseason, but I didn't see Ronnie split out at all (could've missed it), probably because he hadn't had enough time to learn the playbook, or because Linehan was still working on developing plays for that set.

I definitely saw Ronnie motion to the slot leaving an empty backfield. Im pretty sure it was against Carolina.

 

[Shouright]

Good post again Shouright, but do you wake up in the morning thinking of formations and mismatches that put these two on the field at the same time? Its funny cuz you are constantly coming up with this stuff. Not complaining, only observing.

I'm getting excited man. I think this is the one way we could possibly have a near-elite offense this year. I've thought of the formations and plays and stuff before, but it really just hit me that Ronnie could be the 3rd WR in Linehan's offense in a much more versatile way than he's had other guys playing that position in Minnesota.

 

[dolphan117]

I would be very suprised if we dont do this. I remeber near the draft some analysts even said if you wanted to you could convert him to wr. We wont do that but I could see him being used like Brian Westbrook in Phily. I dont think most people understand what he does for that team. You just cant cover him with a Lb.

 

[Disgustipate]

It seems like generally when Ronnie is split out wide, he's lined up to the outside, not in the slot. I've seen him line up at WR a fair amount.

Vs. the Broncos, they did something real neat. They came out in a 5-wide with Chambers, Booker, Boston, Welker, and Brown at WRs, and then motioned Brown in to fullback and Boston in to tailback and handed off to Ronnie for a few yards.

 

[JBinSD]

I think that if he ends up doing that, he'll have a lot of chances to put Ronnie Brown in space with one DB or one LB.

How about this. I know you like the exact scenarios...

Your set like you said, in Strong I formation. Ronnie moves from FB to Left Slot. Chambers is lined up LEFT to stretch the field, and Booker is lined up right.

At the snap, its a fake handoff to Ricky like he's going to run right off tackle. Chambers runs a Fly Route and hopefully doesn't get jammed at the line of scrimmage. Booker runs a stop and go.

Hopefully the safetys bite and think Gus is going long. Gus takes a look downfield for any really favorable matchups. If the safeties go into double coverage or play the long ball -- your matchup is to the left Flat where Ronnie Brown is with one defender in space. I think that Ronnie Brown is most effective in the this situation -- and whoever is in charge of wrestling him to the ground is going to fail. He breaks the first arm tackle and the rest is beating the secondary.

 

[Shouright]

It seems like generally when Ronnie is split out wide, he's lined up to the outside, not in the slot. I've seen him line up at WR a fair amount.

Vs. the Broncos, they did something real neat. They came out in a 5-wide with Chambers, Booker, Boston, Welker, and Brown at WRs, and then motioned Brown in to fullback and Boston in to tailback and handed off to Ronnie for a few yards.

That's exactly what I mean in terms of the versatility with this. With 5 or 6 DBs on the field, you can run up the middle for 10 yards pretty easily -- there aren't any LBs there to make the tackle.