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

[JPFolks]

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?

[twfish]

Could see some big numbers from AL if they use this often and the line can hold

[Smonroe]

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.

[TKnight24]

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

[HtownColt]

Forget that formation, redzone should be 21 personnel and run Spider 2 Y banana to Dwayne Allen out the FB position

[TKnight24]

Forget that formation, redzone should be 21 personnel and run Spider 2 Y banana to Dwayne Allen out the FB position

[AntonMcG]

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...

[AntonMcG]

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.

[YOUR GM]

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

[jvan1973]

https://twitter.com/HolderStephen/status/493778728141721601

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

See, what you would have there is a five yard penalty

[Superman]

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.

[AntonMcG]

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.

[Superman]

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. 

[AntonMcG]

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??

[NewColtsFan]

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.....

[Smonroe]

Small favor, please......

 

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

 

Thanks.....

Here ya go!

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=indianapolis-colts&id=6556

[Superman]

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. 

[AntonMcG]

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.

[jvan1973]

Here ya go!

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=indianapolis-colts&id=6556

i think he meant the thread on here in which the OP claims to have been ridiculed

[Mikemccoy84]

Always could have luck run the qb keeper if they go small

[superrep1967]

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. 

[throwing BBZ]

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.... !

[fatboy]

Watch TRich stumble and fall on the sidelines during this formation...

[chad72]

This will help against blitzing teams, to spread them out (something Brady did against the Steelers all the time), force them to play coverage and allows easier hot reads, IMO even if they blitz.

[NewColtsFan]

Here ya go!

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=indianapolis-colts&id=6556

 

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."

[Superman]

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. 

[Draztik]

I swear I saw this formation on bleacher report showing the Colts lined up in it before

[YOUR GM]

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

[YOUR GM]

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

[azcolt]

as long as we can average better than 2.9 yards in that formation, it will be a plus.

[Superman]

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.

[RomanianColtsFan]

I am not a fan of empty backfield especially when your offensive line can't block. It may be OK if at least one of your 5 receivers assigned to actually block.

[Gavin]

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

[SOMDColtsfan]

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

[Warhorse]

This will help against blitzing teams, to spread them out (something Brady did against the Steelers all the time), force them to play coverage and allows easier hot reads, IMO even if they blitz.

Bootleg?

[SteelCityColt]

See, what you would have there is a five yard penalty

It's a bold move Cotton...

[AntonMcG]

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.

[AntonMcG]

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.

[AntonMcG]

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

 

 

With two TEs?

[JPFolks]

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.