Notifications

Here's 1  

Page 2 / 2
  RSS

DumCoach
(@dumcoach)
Diamond
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 8620
September 17, 2012 10:22 pm  

Why not stone?

DC - point of stone is to deny free release of TE and to create a negative bubble in the backfield to either force B deep or push him back into middle.  Why not do that here?

They could attempt to hook Sam, SS, DE and C but that still leaves Mike to clean up and there's very little chance they're blocking all of those players perfectly.
Seems like the benefits of stone outweigh the risks in this formation.

I agree you can stone but is the TE nasty split at 3-4 yards?

"Football is for the kids - But let's win anyway."


ReplyQuote
Loftdawg
(@loftdawg)
Copper
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 82
September 18, 2012 8:41 am  

Looks like his comment was based on the first version of the formation that had the TE close in and the WBs outside of him.

If the TE is Nasty, then agree Stone makes no sense.


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: