Depth as an Issue

[charlie813brown]

New England in real life ran a 2 TE set (Gronk and Hernandez). They had a 3rd TE (Daniel Fells anyone?) but I don't recall them EVER running a three TE set. Its not a realistic formation, except for goal line. The other factor is, the TEs each on separate teams in real life can get good, long updates, but if they were all on the field together, wouldn't because they didn't have WRs to open up the field. That is my problem. It would take me 2 secs to devise a Defensive scheme against this offense, but because the numbers don't come from this offense, it is seen as reasonable.

Once again, I am not faulting NE for using this system, I would too. I just think it shouldn't be allowed.

[Goodell]

Looking at it more tonight, there are some things I'd recommend changing.

To clarify for some newer to the league following along, though, no one can enter any specific formations. It's just a grade for general receiver quality on the squad including backups. Nobody can say how many TEs or WRs they want on the field at one time or in different situations. It doesn't really work that way. But we can examine and adjust if needed the way the receiver area grade is calcualted for teams. There is a change with it I think should be made there after looking at it further, as I was off in my initial statement of how I thought that was (or perhaps should be) calculated.

If we look at the other area grades, they do what I mention with an emphasis on the quality of depth.

DEFENSIVE FRONT 7: 2 DE, DT/NT, 3 LB, DT/LB (3-4 or 4-3) + DL/LB Backup
SECONDARY: 4 CB/S Starters + Backup
OFFENSIVE LINE: 5 Starters + Backup + FB/TE if help grade

Receivers does not, though.
RECEIVER STRENGTH: Top 3 Receivers + Backup

In a league where there are a lot of quality TEs (we even created a position for them of TEWR) as well as pass-happy offenses where if your QB isn't getting 4000 yards they are looking to replace him, just looking at those few number of receivers amongst both WRs and TEs doesn't really do that grade justice when compared to the other area grades that seem to capture quality depth better. We look at more DBs for team grade than WR+TEs combined and that doesn't really make sense. There are a couple of places, perhaps like that, where the NFL wasn't as pass-happy when we first started 5 years ago and we might need to adjust to keep up with the new passing realities.

We are now pulling in extra skill position players this year (per a previous poll) with more WRs getting involved in our sim results since all player stats for all games are now uploaded.

I mentioned earlier that if it didn't already would make sense to me to have your starting two WRs be part of any team receiver strength grade. I would propose this small tweak there to that grade.

RECEIVER STRENGTH: Top 4 Receivers (at least 2 WRs) + Backup

We'd also make more TEs into TEWRs if they received a decent amount of passes last year to increase the number of players who would factor into that increased receiver corp measurement.

That would still allow a TE-packed team to have 3 TEs in their overall receiver strength grade (although one of them would be treated like a backup grade and not counted as highly as the two higher ones) but the grade couldn't only be 3 TEs and one backup WR. It would have to be at least 2 WRs, 2 other receivers (either WR/TE) and a backup (either TE/WR).

That seems reasonable to me.

[Ulrich82]

I'm all for it. This is a better version of what I mentioned about only allowing 2 TEWR's to count in the WR grade.

[charlie813brown]

Goodell, as always, you amaze! Great idea and adjustment. I think this works within the rules and allows people to have more realistic rosters.

[Royce R]

i support proposed idea.

[Ben C.]

I'm ok with this too.

[Jared A]

I'm ok with it, but would say it limits teams a little.


I would still disagree with anyone who says a core set of receivers with Tony Gonzalez, Jason Witten, and Vernon Davis wouldn't be successful. Someone said that they'd stack the box... HAHAHAHAH... wouldn't those three TE's LOVE to have linebackers trying to defend them?

[Strategist]

I love the idea and have to disagree that those 3 TE's would not scare people. To have them all out there you are not going to be able to strech the field as much.

[Ben C.]

I love the idea and have to disagree that those 3 TE's would not scare people. To have them all out there you are not going to be able to strech the field as much.

The fact the team will not be able to stretch the field as much will be reflected by the lower average reception that the TEs bring into play (and thus lowering the effectiveness of the team's passing game). But the passing game would still be successful - TEs like Witten, Davis, and Gonzalez are all matchup nightmares. A corner is too small and a linebacker is too slow to cover them. So it is reasonable that an offense that primarily runs 3 elite TEs would be able to move the ball down the field. It would just be a little bit of a slower movement than if they completely spread the defense by putting 4 WRs out there instead.

[sportznut]

I love the idea and have to disagree that those 3 TE's would not scare people. To have them all out there you are not going to be able to strech the field as much.

The fact the team will not be able to stretch the field as much will be reflected by the lower average reception that the TEs bring into play (and thus lowering the effectiveness of the team's passing game). But the passing game would still be successful - TEs like Witten, Davis, and Gonzalez are all matchup nightmares. A corner is too small and a linebacker is too slow to cover them. So it is reasonable that an offense that primarily runs 3 elite TEs would be able to move the ball down the field. It would just be a little bit of a slower movement than if they completely spread the defense by putting 4 WRs out there instead.

Exactly. Just b/c its not the norm, or anything we've seen, it doesn't mean it couldn't be done, or be successful. No doubt it would be a more methodical approach down the field though.