Search results

Recent history supports it too. NE spent a decade trying to make it work including three drafts.

Because for it to be worth investing 3 second round picks in 6 years on it, it better improved your passing game and your whole offense. That is the argument for it. If you have two good TEs that can block and receive, you can create mismatches because teams have problems countering your...

Yep. I have no issue with 12 sets. You just don't need to invest in a second round pick to run 12 sets and a second round pick could be used to improve your team, more efficiently, in other ways.

Chip Kelly and Marvin Lewis haven't done shit with a two TE set in the NFL. Again, looks good on paper, let's try it. Already discussed Belichick.

The all time leader in receptions for TEs for the Skins is Cooley. Gibbs used his TEs almost exclusively as blockers.

LOL Bob, you guys really can't offer any sort of counter argument other than SF, who already has a deep team and a ton of picks, took a TE and that NE made it work after like a decade of trying. That's it. That is really the extent of your argument. History does not support it.

Teams keep trying and it just doesn't work. Even NE had a more prolific offense when they weren't based around two TEs. 3 second round picks in 6 years on a team with major holes. Like I said, on paper it sounds great, in practice, not so much. Give me an offense other than NE where this...

I'm not saying I want a blocking TE. I don't want a TE at all in two. You build a more prolific offense by investing those resources in other positions. Namely, OL and WR. History has shown this. Everyone is suddenly spouting off about SF's apparently amazing 11th ranked offense. Guess...

Still decent free agents out there. I think the new CBA will mean a lot of these older vets won't get a contract though. With a lower cap, teams will go with more of the lower paid younger guys.

What does that have to do with the efficiency of a two TE offense? Oh, short field, not as much of a chance to gain yards. Explain scoring then.

No, don't think it will create a prolific offense. If you want to improve the running game, wouldn't you get a TE who was a better blocker?

2012 Niners: 11th in yards, 11th in scoring 2011 Niners: 26th in yards, 11th in scoring

I think I've already stated why I don't think it will work. I'll state them again. 1. League history 2. Lack of ingenuity from the OC

I hope I am completely wrong on this and have egg on my face at the end of the year. Like I said, it seems to be fool's gold in the league. Teams chase it......but it never works out like they think.

And not just in Dallas, but league wide throughout history. That is my biggest argument. People convince themselves of the benefits in their head.....and they do make sense.....they just don't seem to ever pan out in practice. Honestly, if I hadn't ever followed football and someone sat...

Yes, I completely understand the theory of the two TE set. I've been debating this with people for years now. If it is such a potent offense, how come nobody really ever has a prolific offense with this as the base? Shouldn't it be trending in the league like a 3-4 if it created these great...

You seem to. And you don't really seem to have any valid rebuttal to anything I'm saying.

Hey, I hope so. Like I said, I think there are multiple things working against this: 1. NE is the only team I know of that has even moderately had success with this after multiple misfires and investing significant resources in it 2. You can name a much longer list of three wide offenses...

And my point is that the two TE set being this great mismatch is a fallacy.

Yes, I'm not dbair. I'm critical of these team when it is deserved. At least, what, 5 of those LBs picked for the 3-4 are still playing.