Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads.Join VIP Now
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: If we get a receiver but no tight end do we go 4 wide?

Hybrid View

  1. -1
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2010
    Posts:
    273
    vCash:
    500
    Thanks / No Thanks

    If we get a receiver but no tight end do we go 4 wide?

    Assuming we grab someone to add to the receiver corp we will have a respectable top 4. Fasano, while a good player, doesn't fit into our new scheme and would be better suited into a 2 TE offense. Clay is a number 2 TE/H-back/Back up fullback and he is what he as a roll player. Egnew has yet to show anything as well. At A&M Sherman was a big fan of using 4 wide and Philbin actually used Finley in the slot or out wide more often than he did on the line. The only reason Philbin uses a tight end over another wide receiver seems to be the added versatility (and in our case because Fasano was better than anyone not named Bess, Hartline, or Bush at pass catching).

    One other thing to consider is that it would mean our running back would have to block more often. Bush, if he returns, is a sub par blocker who is better off running routes on pass plays than staying in to block. Thomas is a decently good blocker, isn't that why we drafted him? Miller had the knock on him coming out of college that he is bad at blocking and receiving. Lane would be interesting and could see time if Bush leaves in the same way the Broncos were using Hester.

  2. -2
    finsfan_84's Avatar
    Seasoned Veteran

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2006
    Posts:
    798
    vCash:
    500
    Loc:
    New Jersey
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I think we should. If we sign a true #1 and can draft a good #2 and resign Hartline for a respectable deal, we would have a nice foursome of receivers. I'd also like to see some 5 wide with Reggie as the fifth if we resign him.

  3. -3
    Zounds's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2005
    Posts:
    4,455
    vCash:
    500
    Loc:
    Orlando
    Thanks / No Thanks
    We could go 4 wide AND have a TE. I honestly dont see how we wouldn't go with a TE because our pass blocking on the edge is terrible.

    People think we need to draft a seam threat TE, but I'll say it wouldnt make any difference because our OT's can block, thus our TE are required to help guys like Martin and Garner.

  4. -4
    j-off-her-doll's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2009
    Posts:
    6,730
    vCash:
    500
    Loc:
    Dream Songs
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Pump the breaks. We haven't signed/drafted anyone yet. We still have the worst group of WR's in the league.

  5. -5
    Twitches Brew's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2010
    Posts:
    1,127
    vCash:
    500
    Thanks / No Thanks
    4 WRs is not a base offense in the NFL. No threat of the run, your QB gets killed, no balance. Can go 4 wides on obvious passing downs; that's about it.

  6. -6
    uk_dolfan's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2012
    Posts:
    3,207
    vCash:
    500
    Loc:
    Northern Ireland, UK
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Signing a pass catching TE is as important as a WR this year. Our system needs a TE threat, it will open up receivers as well as the run game.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •