Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts practice line up with 3WR's and 2 TE's and Empty Backfield!


JPFolks

Recommended Posts

Folks, 

 

A few weeks back I was called out for my outrageous prediction that the Colts would use a set featuring 3 WR's, 2 TE's and an empty backfield.  Well, they are already practicing that very formation.  Sure, it doesn't prove they will use it in a game, but it also proves that my statement was not without merit nor as incredulous as some said it was. 

 

Here's a quote from ESPN: 

  • The Colts showed their offensive versatility during a red-zone drill when they used a formation that featured receivers Reggie Wayne, T.Y. Hilton and Hakeem Nicks lined up out wide on one side and tight ends Dwayne Allen and Coby Fleener lined up out wide on the other side. With both Allen and Fleener standing 6-foot-3 and 6-foot-6, respectively, the Colts will have a height advantage to throw the ball up high to their tight ends against the smaller defensive backs. Luck tried that once on a play when Fleener was defended by safety Delano Howell. He ended up overthrowing Fleener, as the pass went out of bounds. Still, Luck didn’t have those types of options last season. “Coach told us never to compare seasons to seasons because you end up devaluing someone along the way,” Luck said. “So I’m not going to compare it to whatever I’ve played with in the past with some awesome, awesome dudes. But again, it takes a bunch of guys throughout a season and we know that. So the way the guys are playing now, it should be a lot of fun.”

So, it is not only possible, but something they are working on.  And we WILL see it in a game in one form or another.  Why not?  Who else can put that much receiving talent on the field at once?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You're right, they may never use it in a game. I was listening to the NFL Channel on Sirius and guys were talking about how they used some sets in camp that never made it to a preseason game.

I'm sure we'll go empty backfield at some point in the red zone. I hate that formation any other time, it's a license to blitz.

If Rogers makes the team, that's another option for the end zone jump ball. Got to be quick on the release to make it work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a really interesting goal line period. Just went spread formation, 3 WRs, 2 TEs. I'm intrigued. #Colts

— Stephen Holder (@HolderStephen)

July 28, 2014

Anything to help us win games. I don't care if we go 7 WR's with only 1 Lineman (The center) on the field & 2 TE's formation

Long as we're winning games

 

Well, that's illegal, so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, 

 

A few weeks back I was called out for my outrageous prediction that the Colts would use a set featuring 3 WR's, 2 TE's and an empty backfield.  Well, they are already practicing that very formation.  Sure, it doesn't prove they will use it in a game, but it also proves that my statement was not without merit nor as incredulous as some said it was. 

 

Here's a quote from ESPN: 

  • The Colts showed their offensive versatility during a red-zone drill when they used a formation that featured receivers Reggie Wayne, T.Y. Hilton and Hakeem Nicks lined up out wide on one side and tight ends Dwayne Allen and Coby Fleener lined up out wide on the other side. With both Allen and Fleener standing 6-foot-3 and 6-foot-6, respectively, the Colts will have a height advantage to throw the ball up high to their tight ends against the smaller defensive backs. Luck tried that once on a play when Fleener was defended by safety Delano Howell. He ended up overthrowing Fleener, as the pass went out of bounds. Still, Luck didn’t have those types of options last season. “Coach told us never to compare seasons to seasons because you end up devaluing someone along the way,” Luck said. “So I’m not going to compare it to whatever I’ve played with in the past with some awesome, awesome dudes. But again, it takes a bunch of guys throughout a season and we know that. So the way the guys are playing now, it should be a lot of fun.”

So, it is not only possible, but something they are working on.  And we WILL see it in a game in one form or another.  Why not?  Who else can put that much receiving talent on the field at once?

 

I would still have serious reservations as to whether we would ever see such a formation... how often does a team line-up in the goal line of all places, with an empty backfield?

 

It would certainly be highly irregular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, they may never use it in a game. I was listening to the NFL Channel on Sirius and guys were talking about how they used some sets in camp that never made it to a preseason game.

I'm sure we'll go empty backfield at some point in the red zone. I hate that formation any other time, it's a license to blitz.

If Rogers makes the team, that's another option for the end zone jump ball. Got to be quick on the release to make it work.

It may be a license to blitz, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Against the wrong QB, that could spell disaster. Teams rarely blitz Manning/Brady/Brees, despite the fact that all of them use the empty set often, because of their prowess at the pre-snap read. If Andrew has progressed more in the cerebral aspect of his game, bring on the blitzes. Those are quicker to turn into TD's than any other look the defense can throw at him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would still have serious reservations as to whether we would ever see such a formation... how often does a team line-up in the goal line of all places, with an empty backfield?

 

It would certainly be highly irregular.

 

Well it's not goal line, it's red zone. And I think there are plenty of situations where that package would come in handy. I just don't like empty backfield on third and fourth down, or on the goal line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's not goal line, it's red zone. And I think there are plenty of situations where that package would come in handy. I just don't like empty backfield on third and fourth down, or on the goal line.

 

Stephen holder tweeted that it was on the goal line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen holder tweeted that it was on the goal line.

 

You're right, he did. Mike Wells called it a red zone drill. I guess we'll see. Me personally, I think it's a functional package. As functional as any other empty set we'd run. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, he did. Mike Wells called it a red zone drill. I guess we'll see. Me personally, I think it's a functional package. As functional as any other empty set we'd run. 

 

It is just rare to run an empty backfield with two TEs...9 times out of 10 (if not more) you are running with 4 receivers, as you often have to get down field and get chunk plays. TEs won't be blocking in this formation, and there aren't many that can stretch a field like receivers can... so a lot of what a typical TE brings to the table becomes redundant, and their becoming very one dimensional and probably very predictable. The only real reason you would run with two TEs with an empty backfield is if it were a goal line play... but then why would you go empty backfield at the goal line??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, 

 

A few weeks back I was called out for my outrageous prediction that the Colts would use a set featuring 3 WR's, 2 TE's and an empty backfield.  Well, they are already practicing that very formation.  Sure, it doesn't prove they will use it in a game, but it also proves that my statement was not without merit nor as incredulous as some said it was. 

 

Here's a quote from ESPN: 

  • The Colts showed their offensive versatility during a red-zone drill when they used a formation that featured receivers Reggie Wayne, T.Y. Hilton and Hakeem Nicks lined up out wide on one side and tight ends Dwayne Allen and Coby Fleener lined up out wide on the other side. With both Allen and Fleener standing 6-foot-3 and 6-foot-6, respectively, the Colts will have a height advantage to throw the ball up high to their tight ends against the smaller defensive backs. Luck tried that once on a play when Fleener was defended by safety Delano Howell. He ended up overthrowing Fleener, as the pass went out of bounds. Still, Luck didn’t have those types of options last season. “Coach told us never to compare seasons to seasons because you end up devaluing someone along the way,” Luck said. “So I’m not going to compare it to whatever I’ve played with in the past with some awesome, awesome dudes. But again, it takes a bunch of guys throughout a season and we know that. So the way the guys are playing now, it should be a lot of fun.”

So, it is not only possible, but something they are working on.  And we WILL see it in a game in one form or another.  Why not?  Who else can put that much receiving talent on the field at once?

 

Small favor, please......

 

Would you please link that thread so we can take a look at it......

 

Thanks.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is just rare to run an empty backfield with two TEs...9 times out of 10 (if not more) you are running with 4 receivers, as you often have to get down field and get chunk plays. TEs won't be blocking in this formation, and there aren't many that can stretch a field like receivers can... so a lot of what a typical TE brings to the table becomes redundant, and their becoming very one dimensional and probably very predictable. The only real reason you would run with two TEs with an empty backfield is if it were a goal line play... but then why would you go empty backfield at the goal line??

 

I don't see why you classify empty sets as strictly as you're doing. I think you can go empty in situations where you don't need big chunks. In such cases, having TEs go up the seams or get mismatches against LBs is beneficial, especially if it's an early down and the other team has multiple LBs on the field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why you classify empty sets as strictly as you're doing. I think you can go empty in situations where you don't need big chunks. In such cases, having TEs go up the seams or get mismatches against LBs is beneficial, especially if it's an early down and the other team has multiple LBs on the field. 

 

Any time you go to an empty backfield in such a scenario.... you will have an RB who simply goes into motion and line  up out wide as we  saw with Donald Brown several times last year. 

 

If a defense sees an offense cone in the field with no back... they will immediately bring out their dime back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be a license to blitz, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Against the wrong QB, that could spell disaster. Teams rarely blitz Manning/Brady/Brees, despite the fact that all of them use the empty set often, because of their prowess at the pre-snap read. If Andrew has progressed more in the cerebral aspect of his game, bring on the blitzes. Those are quicker to turn into TD's than any other look the defense can throw at him

Sounds like a opportunity for a zone blitz can be very hard to do a pre snap read on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, 

 

A few weeks back I was called out for my outrageous prediction that the Colts would use a set featuring 3 WR's, 2 TE's and an empty backfield.  Well, they are already practicing that very formation.  Sure, it doesn't prove they will use it in a game, but it also proves that my statement was not without merit nor as incredulous as some said it was. 

 

Here's a quote from ESPN: 

  • The Colts showed their offensive versatility during a red-zone drill when they used a formation that featured receivers Reggie Wayne, T.Y. Hilton and Hakeem Nicks lined up out wide on one side and tight ends Dwayne Allen and Coby Fleener lined up out wide on the other side. With both Allen and Fleener standing 6-foot-3 and 6-foot-6, respectively, the Colts will have a height advantage to throw the ball up high to their tight ends against the smaller defensive backs. Luck tried that once on a play when Fleener was defended by safety Delano Howell. He ended up overthrowing Fleener, as the pass went out of bounds. Still, Luck didn’t have those types of options last season. “Coach told us never to compare seasons to seasons because you end up devaluing someone along the way,” Luck said. “So I’m not going to compare it to whatever I’ve played with in the past with some awesome, awesome dudes. But again, it takes a bunch of guys throughout a season and we know that. So the way the guys are playing now, it should be a lot of fun.”

So, it is not only possible, but something they are working on.  And we WILL see it in a game in one form or another.  Why not?  Who else can put that much receiving talent on the field at once?

 

 Uh, dude, they used it against KC. Nothing New!! So anyone who ridiculed you.... haha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm sorry,  that's not what I was looking for.

 

The OP said he predicted this formation and he was called out for it.

 

I'm looking for that thread here on Colts.com

 

Here's what the OP wrote....

 

 

"A few weeks back I was called out for my outrageous prediction that the Colts would use a set featuring 3 WR's, 2 TE's and an empty backfield."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any time you go to an empty backfield in such a scenario.... you will have an RB who simply goes into motion and line  up out wide as we  saw with Donald Brown several times last year. 

 

If a defense sees an offense cone in the field with no back... they will immediately bring out their dime back.

 

Maybe. Some teams might stay in nickel. There's a ton of back and forth with sub packages like this. This is where people start talking about the chess game between offenses and defenses.

 

I'm just saying I see potential benefits to this package, and I think we should use it from time to time. Especially if we're playing a team that would rather keep their LBs on the field than go to a dime package. Others are writing this package off entirely, as if it has no merit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any time you go to an empty backfield in such a scenario.... you will have an RB who simply goes into motion and line up out wide as we saw with Donald Brown several times last year.

If a defense sees an offense cone in the field with no back... they will immediately bring out their dime back.

You may not be able to run a traditional run out of said formation, but some trickery could be used easily. Jet sweeps with TY, fake option jet sweeps where Luck could keep it, etc. Of course this wouldn't be a bread and butter play call, but I'm just showing that there is still the capability to run the ball out of this formation, even without a back on the field. That would honestly make it easier to get a good chunk of yardage because they wouldn't be expecting a run at all with an empty backfield

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a opportunity for a zone blitz can be very hard to do a pre snap read on it.

A zone blitz can beat you regardless of if you have an extra man in the backfield or not. The extra blocker might help, but you can just as easily leave a TE inline to help protect or motion him to the backfield to help chip, if need be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A zone blitz can beat you regardless of if you have an extra man in the backfield or not. The extra blocker might help, but you can just as easily leave a TE inline to help protect or motion him to the backfield to help chip, if need be

 

If they don't tip the blitz by lining up close to the line of scrimmage, then the zone blitz is gonna be too slow to get there anyways. Dummy counts, hot routes, etc., it wouldn't be smart to zone blitz this formation. A simple corner blitz with safety help would be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be throwing slant routes to our TE's(That drives me nuts watching that happen to our Colts! we were powerless to stop it most of the time) out of an empty backfield all day, Corners and most Safeties would not be able to match up 1 on 1 and a Linebacker would have to chase. or just go with 4 wide with Fleener and Allen in the slots and run slant routes all day on there butts or just hand it off to a Back and say make that LB miss. Could always line up two of our bigger wr's out wide and Hilton in the slot and a TE in the other slot (4 wide) with a rb  and give it to Hilton on an End Around and make that LBacker have to give chase

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would still have serious reservations as to whether we would ever see such a formation... how often does a team line-up in the goal line of all places, with an empty backfield?

 

It would certainly be highly irregular.

They didn't say "goal line" situation, they said "red zone" which could mean ball is at the 20 yd line which would make this formation ideal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may not be able to run a traditional run out of said formation, but some trickery could be used easily. Jet sweeps with TY, fake option jet sweeps where Luck could keep it, etc. Of course this wouldn't be a bread and butter play call, but I'm just showing that there is still the capability to run the ball out of this formation, even without a back on the field. That would honestly make it easier to get a good chunk of yardage because they wouldn't be expecting a run at all with an empty backfield

 

Then you are dealing with gadget plays essentially... you may get away with it once or twice in a season, sure. But without the threat of running back, play identification would not be overly difficult to diagnose early in the play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't say "goal line" situation, they said "red zone" which could mean ball is at the 20 yd line which would make this formation ideal

 

 

As I said above... Stephen Holder tweeted that this was being run on the  goal line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small favor, please......

 

Would you please link that thread so we can take a look at it......

 

Thanks.....

 

I didn't think it mattered who it was, but since some  folks seem concerned about whether it even happened, here's the link.

http://forums.colts.com/topic/29385-trade-value-in-coby-fleener/

 

We went back and forth about it across several of the pages.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Popular Now

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • And those are about the best signings the Colts have done under Ballard in 8 years.    Has Ballard even spent over $10+m once in a FA? Gilmore maybe? That’s once. In going on 8 years.    Noone does what Ballard does and he hasn’t had success doing it, so noone’s trying to replicate it. 
    • For your consideration….   Nobody knew who Ebukam was when the Colts signed him week 2 last year.   And nobody knew who Denico Autry was when the Colts signed him in week 2.   “Who?” Was the most popular comment both times.  They turned out really well.      Im not sayin Ballard is going to do it again this year, it hasn’t happened every year, all I’m saying it’s happened from time to time so it’s still possible that CB will find a keeper that people here will like. 
    • Could he do it?  Sure, but it is much tougher for him than most owners in the NFL.  The Colts just layed out $200 million this free agency.  I imagine over half in guaranteed money.  That’s a lot for Jim. 
    • With all that said...       
    • Spending doesn't mean you will win. You still need to spend smart and you still need to draft well and overall make good decisions.    Not spending limits you in your roster construction. I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand. The best teams in the league use ALL available avenues for improving their team. They do not limit themselves artificially with what's possible to achieve. They also concentrate resources into windows of contention. This means at any given time, if you are not spending you are competing against teams that are pouring resources into trying to win it RIGHT NOW. You will just always be at disadvantage because while 1 specific team will need to reload and take their lumps for spending too much in short period of time once in a while, the league as a whole will always have at least a few teams that are in that high spending mode chasing a window for contention.    Now... is it possible you strike gold and beat those teams while relying almost exclusively on the draft? It's possible. If you string together a few insane draft classes. But it's not very likely... 
  • Members

    • stitches

      stitches 18,664

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 16,969

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Solid84

      Solid84 6,064

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NewColtsFan

      NewColtsFan 20,793

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • K-148

      K-148 90

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DynaMike

      DynaMike 152

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Hawkeyecolt

      Hawkeyecolt 1,015

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nancy

      Nancy 395

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • bWild

      bWild 70

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • colts89

      colts89 1,012

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...