Ditch the Te

Talk about the Washington Football Team here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
Post Reply
John Manfreda
Hog
Posts: 2078
youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:52 pm
Location: none
Contact:

Ditch the Te

Post by John Manfreda »

With Al Sanders as coordinator I am all for ditching the the two Te set and moving Cooley to Te, like he used Tony Gonzalez and playing Nemo or Cartwright, or even Emanual white at Full back. What do you all think.
SkinFan 0-16 or 16-0
Hog
Posts: 673
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 8:33 pm
Location: REDSKINZ COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Ditch the Te

Post by SkinFan 0-16 or 16-0 »

John Manfreda wrote:With Al Sanders as coordinator I am all for ditching the the two Te set and moving Cooley to Te, like he used Tony Gonzalez and playing Nemo or Cartwright, or even Emanual white at Full back. What do you all think.


If this were to happen I think Sellars would be the FB.

But I just can't see Joe Gibbs getting rid of the position he created (H Back.) I however could see Cooley running the same routes/plays Gonzo ran from the TE spot at the H Back Spot.
"Tough times don't last Tough people do."- Marcus Washington, Redskins Linebacker

"Big time Players make Big Time Plays in Big Games !!!"- Santana Moss Redskins WR during an upset by The U over Florida Sate
User avatar
ryanw7196
piggie
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:20 pm

Post by ryanw7196 »

Just because saunders came here i dont see joe gibbs ditching his offensive philosophy. In my oppinion I think the only reason Cooley has been as productive as he has is because of the mismatches his position creates and is necessary in our offense, I dont see him being nearly as productive if made into a regular TE.
Last edited by ryanw7196 on Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jerome from SE
The Hogster
#######
#######
Posts: 7225
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

Post by The Hogster »

The Chiefs still ran two TE sets. Saunders runs a variety of plays out of a variety of sets. I heard a quote somewhere where they said he is organized just like GW is on defense, and he can go two straight games without calling the same play out of the same formation at all.
:shock:
SPIT HAPPENS!!
___________________________
User avatar
skinpride1
Hog
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 12:23 am
Location: rocky mount va.

Post by skinpride1 »

The Hogster wrote:The Chiefs still ran two TE sets. Saunders runs a variety of plays out of a variety of sets. I heard a quote somewhere where they said he is organized just like GW is on defense, and he can go two straight games without calling the same play out of the same formation at all.
:shock:
I love this move of getting Saunders to the skins!!I'm so excited and I'm wondering if there are any big K.C. offensive players that are free agents this year that might want to follow Saunders?
RG3....Super Man....check out my socks!!!
Hogfather
######
######
Posts: 692
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:31 pm
Location: London, Ont. CANADA
Contact:

Re: Ditch the Te

Post by Hogfather »

John Manfreda wrote:With Al Sanders as coordinator I am all for ditching the the two Te set and moving Cooley to Te, like he used Tony Gonzalez and playing Nemo or Cartwright, or even Emanual white at Full back. What do you all think.

I don't think we have to ditch the double TE set. We could play Cooley at TE, Sellers at H-Back and maybe sign Tony Richardson for FB.

Here's my thoughts on that from another post:
http://www.thehogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=229547&highlight=#229547
Jansen on his broken thumbs:
"It’s limited me in some ways but has been beneficial in others. It’s like I have a couple of clubs on my hands. I just have to hit people with them."
User avatar
roybus14
Hog
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Maryland

Post by roybus14 »

The Hogster wrote:The Chiefs still ran two TE sets. Saunders runs a variety of plays out of a variety of sets. I heard a quote somewhere where they said he is organized just like GW is on defense, and he can go two straight games without calling the same play out of the same formation at all.
:shock:


Oh boy!!! :celebrate:
Sean Taylor - 1983-2007 R.I.P.... Forever A Skin.....
CcHhDd
piggie
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:22 pm

Post by CcHhDd »

Yea, if i recall, kc ran two tight ends and a singleback offense, just like ours. The only difference is we impliment an h-back more than k.c. did but that's just more variety for saunders
tcwest10
put AM in the HOF
put AM in the HOF
Posts: 8730
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 10:08 pm
Location: NEPA

Post by tcwest10 »

Johnny, that would be a wholesale philosophy change. It's not what we need. All we need to do is improve the WR corps and the protection schemes, and maybe get the run blocking tightened up a little (Ray wasn't pulling like Randy), and we're looking at another couple of wins. That should be good enough for the division.
"Sit back and watch the Redskins.
SOMETHING MAGICAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!"
JPFair- A fan's fan. RIP, brother
PulpExposure
Pushing Paper
Pushing Paper
Posts: 4860
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:01 pm

Post by PulpExposure »

The Hogster wrote:The Chiefs still ran two TE sets. Saunders runs a variety of plays out of a variety of sets. I heard a quote somewhere where they said he is organized just like GW is on defense, and he can go two straight games without calling the same play out of the same formation at all.
:shock:


Actually, from Peter King of SI (who shockingly gives the Skins praise & loves the move).

Dick Vermeil left every facet of the offense to Saunders, and Saunders was so controlling that he never would call the same play over a four-game span. His theory was that if teams studied the Chiefs, he didn't want them ever to see anything predictable in the four previous games that Kansas City had played. "I think that's taking it a bit too far,'' Vermeil told me last year, "but you can't argue with Al's success. It works. He's done a fantastic job. And the fact is, teams do have trouble adjusting to what we do.''
Chris Luva Luva
---
---
Posts: 18887
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 1:55 pm
Location: AJT
Contact:

Post by Chris Luva Luva »

Getting rid of the Hback position would be a move backward for this offense. That position is a wildcard of sorts and is the reasons why Cooley is able to contribue the way that he has.

There is NO reason why Saunders can't implement that position into his offense. I think what will be cool is having both White and Cooley on the field at the same time. You wont know what either of them are there for until the ball is snapped. Is one going for a pass, is the other blocking? Are they both blocking, or both going out for passes? Is one or the other on a delayed route to chip the blitzer or DE and go out into the open flat?

Why would we want to get rid of that? They're going to tie up an atheletic defensive player on almost every down.
The road to the number 1 pick gaining speed!
Post Reply