Is anyone paying close attention to our offensive personnel packages lately?

[Superman]

A mistake made several times in 2004?

 

Nope. I never understood why they did it. The only thing that makes sense is that we had played 12 personnel for most of Peyton's career to that point. 

 

It had to be. Stokley has never been considered a TE. The coaches never called him a TE, they never used him as a TE, he never lined up with a hand on the ground... And until today, I've never heard anyone say anything like this. It makes me think you're confusing him with Dallas Clark.

[BlueShoe]

The league might introduce a hybrid designation for players like Jimmy Graham, but they haven't yet. He's still a TE. So is Fleener (and Fleener hasn't proven to be especially valuable as a flex/hybrid player, so far). You're right that the differences between 11/12 personnel are mostly semantics when you have a flex player like that, but the personnel groupings are what they are. If the playcaller asks for 11 personnel, he wants three WRs, one TE and one RB, not two WRs, a TE, a flex TE and a RB. That's the whole point of personnel designations, so that the coaches can get the proper personnel on the field.

 

And in our case, anytime we go with 12 personnel, one of those TEs is going to be Fleener. Maybe they'll figure out a special designation for 12 personnel with a flex TE, but it seems unnecessary in this case. I think 11 and 12 will be our most used packages, or should be, assuming both TEs are healthy. Like you say, 12 allows for great flexibility and minimizes the need for substitutions. And 11 probably puts our best group of playmakers on the field. Anything with a FB should be a situational package only, which pretty much rules it out between the 20s, unless it's 3rd/4th < 2.

 

Pat Kirwan has used terms 11 and 12 hybrid personnel on Serius XM.

 

I am not sure this is an official package though.

[Superman]

Pat Kirwan has used terms 11 and 12 hybrid personnel on Serius XM.

 

I am not sure this is an official package though.

 

Yeah, everybody uses them now. But the main reason is for the coaches to send the right personnel on the field. It's a shortcut.

[BlueShoe]

It had to be. Stokley has never been considered a TE. The coaches never called him a TE, they never used him as a TE, he never lined up with a hand on the ground... And until today, I've never heard anyone say anything like this. It makes me think you're confusing him with Dallas Clark.

 

No confusion. It was not Dallas Clark. It was Brandon Stokley. And I do not know why they introduced him as a TE, but they did. The first time I heard it, I thought it had to be a mistake, And then I heard it again, and again.

[Superman]

No confusion. It was not Dallas Clark. It was Brandon Stokley. And I do not know why they introduced him as a TE, but they did. The first time I heard it, I thought it had to be a mistake, And then I heard it again, and again.

 

Cool deal. I thought you knew the difference between Clark and Stokley, that's why I hesitated to even say that. No offense intended, I know you know 44 from 83. That's still weird.

[BlueShoe]

Yeah, everybody uses them now. But the main reason is for the coaches to send the right personnel on the field. It's a shortcut.

 

How do you know the coaches are asking for HYBRID personnel packages? While I would not see any reason it is not used, I have never heard coaches use that terminology. 

 

If you are referring to personnel packages in general, then yeah. I wrote an entire post about it. It is the first one in this thread. It is what started this entire conversation. 

[BlueShoe]

Cool deal. I thought you knew the difference between Clark and Stokley, that's why I hesitated to even say that. No offense intended, I know you know 44 from 83. That's still weird.

 

Yeah. The only thing I can ASSUME is its because we ran 12 personnel for the start of Peyton's career, as Tom Moore made it once again popular. Belichick gets all the credit for bringing it back though. Go figure.

[Superman]

How do you know the coaches are asking for HYBRID personnel packages? While I would not see any reason it is not used, I have never heard coaches use that terminology. 

 

If you are referring to personnel packages in general, then yeah. I wrote an entire post about it. It is the first one in this thread. It is what started this entire conversation. 

 

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Inside-the-Playbook-Offensive-ID.html

 

It's how teams refer to their personnel packages. As you see from the link, some use different naming conventions (like a deck of cards, or something else). But the whole purpose of the naming conventions, as far as I understand, is for coaches to get the personnel package they want on the field. 

 

So the playcaller will ask for 11 personnel, and then he'll call the play in to the QB, which includes the formation the personnel will align in, and what the play is supposed to be. 

 

Those naming conventions don't include any designation for hybrid type players, whether it's a flex TE, a scatback/slot receiver, etc. The use of hybrid type players is specified in the play call. 

 

Anyways, my point was just that, when coaches call for personnel, using these naming conventions, they're asking for a specific number of TEs, not a hybrid TE and a regular TE. "12" or "Ace" is 1 RB, 2 WRs, and 2 TEs. "11" or "Posse" is asking for 1 RB, 3 WRs (not 2 WRs and a hybrid TE), and 1 TE. Different teams might have different terminology, and as the game continues to change and hybrid TEs get used more, there might be specific names for personnel groupings that specify 1 TE and 1 hybrid TE. But typically, that's not what "12" means.

 

If we're just talking about personnel groupings and throwing around these terms, then that's fine. But Fleener is still a TE.

[BlueShoe]

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Inside-the-Playbook-Offensive-ID.html

 

It's how teams refer to their personnel packages. As you see from the link, some use different naming conventions (like a deck of cards, or something else). But the whole purpose of the naming conventions, as far as I understand, is for coaches to get the personnel package they want on the field. 

 

So the playcaller will ask for 11 personnel, and then he'll call the play in to the QB, which includes the formation the personnel will align in, and what the play is supposed to be. 

 

Those naming conventions don't include any designation for hybrid type players, whether it's a flex TE, a scatback/slot receiver, etc. The use of hybrid type players is specified in the play call. 

 

Anyways, my point was just that, when coaches call for personnel, using these naming conventions, they're asking for a specific number of TEs, not a hybrid TE and a regular TE. "12" or "Ace" is 1 RB, 2 WRs, and 2 TEs. "11" or "Posse" is asking for 1 RB, 3 WRs (not 2 WRs and a hybrid TE), and 1 TE. Different teams might have different terminology, and as the game continues to change and hybrid TEs get used more, there might be specific names for personnel groupings that specify 1 TE and 1 hybrid TE. But typically, that's not what "12" means.

 

If we're just talking about personnel groupings and throwing around these terms, then that's fine. But Fleener is still a TE.

 

What up to this point in our conversation has led you to believe I do not understand how any of this works?

 

Why do you feel the need to inform me of this?

[BlueShoe]

That's going to be a strength of the squad, being able to go heavy and go wide at any point. 

I'm really looking forward to seeing an empty back field from time to time. Reggie, TY, Hicks, FLEENOR and Allen. Who are you covering first?

 

It looks like you will get your wish, because we actually showed a no back set with Richardson out wide against the Giants. I did not even notice until I watched the replay and had to rewind to make sure my eyes were seeing what I thought they were. 

[jvan1973]

No confusion. It was not Dallas Clark. It was Brandon Stokley. And I do not know why they introduced him as a TE, but they did. The first time I heard it, I thought it had to be a mistake, And then I heard it again, and again.

Brandon Stokley at no point in his career was a, or labled as a tight end. You are remembering incorrectly

[BlueShoe]

Brandon Stokley at no point in his career was a, or labled as a tight end. You are remembering incorrectly

 

Nope. I know that he was not, is, or has never been not a TE. That is obvious. He was introduced as a TE in 2004 though. That is a fact.

[jvan1973]

Nope. I know that he was not, is, or has never been not a TE. That is obvious. He was introduced as a TE in 2004 though. That is a fact.

I go to several games every year and i don't recall that.

[BlueShoe]

I go to several games every year and i don't recall that.

 

Me too. And it did.

[jvan1973]

Me too. And it did.

i can't find anything anywhere to that backs this up

[BlueShoe]

i can't find anything anywhere to that backs this up

 

Sounds like your problem. It happened. Did you go to any games in 2004? Sounds to me like you didn't.

[Superman]

What up to this point in our conversation has led you to believe I do not understand how any of this works?

 

Why do you feel the need to inform me of this?

 

You asked how I know that coaches use those naming conventions. I assumed you wanted to know where I was coming from.

 

And if you already knew, that's fine. I don't know why it's offensive to you for me to post it. Maybe someone else is reading and appreciated a little extra information?

[jvan1973]

Sounds like your problem. It happened. Did you go to any games in 2004? Sounds to me like you didn't.

yes several.. Including the day after Christmas against the chargers where brandon caught the record breaking td