I think a 2 TE set with Gonzalez and Cottam could be difficult to defend…We all know most LB’s can’t keep up with Tony, and I think Cottam is even faster than Gonzalez. Both of them are much bigger than DB’s, so now there will be two mismatches running down the seams. I am assuming that they will double Tony and give safety help on Bowe, leaving Cottam and the #2 WR facing single coverage. Now if we run 2 TE sets, we can’t do what Solari did, and only put in the 2nd TE when we were running to his side. I swear, every time Dunn went in last season, the whole freakin’ stadium new we were going to rush behind him. A few years ago, our line was so dominant that we could get away with that; we could have put up a big flashing sign that said “Hey, we’re going to run a toss sweep left behind Dunn, Shields, and Roaf.” and we still would have gotten 6 yards. But now that our line is composed of mere mortals, we will actually have to trick the defense a little (and I am sure Gailey will). I love the idea of running a considerable number of our plays from 2 TE sets, both rushing and passing.

Welcome!

Would not a blocking TE be a better pass blocker than a FB?

The more guys you have up on the line of scrimmage blocking for you, the more push your line gets. Isn’t the whole idea of it that you get as many yards for each run as you can? I don’t know that they have very many plays in the playbook where they are thinking “OK, this play we are only going to get 2 yards”. They want to get as much with each play as possible. So if you make more yardage out of the 2 TE set, why would you not use it all the time?

Obviously there are situations where a FB is more useful, say if you are on the goal line and the defense knows you’re going to try to jam it in there. But when there is a FB in the backfield, the defense knows that 9 times out of 10, he’s there for blocking and nothing else, usually for the run. With 2 TEs, they both COULD be there for blocking or they both COULD be there to go out on pass routes. What if you have Tony G, our “receiving TE” and Brad Cottam, our “blocking TE” in at the same time. You could use both to block, both to go out in pass paterns, or use Tony G as a decoy (how many times was he double and triple teamed last year?) and still pass it out to Cottam who is still a capable receiver. If the other team has a guy assigned to Gonzalez (as most teams were doing last year) you can just leave him in to block with Cottam running a route and you’ve basically made the guy assigned to Gonzalez useless while still getting Gonzalez blocking someone else.

The reason the 2 TE set helps both the RB AND the QB improve their success is because the defense has a much tougher time guessing what you’re going to do with it. It is a compact formation that can be used to bash out the run, or it can explode in all directions crossing up defenders in defending the pass.

But the question is, how often are we going to use the FB compared to the 2 TE set? Teams like the Steelers are moving farther and farther away from the FB. And if it ends up we aren’t going to use a FB all that often, is it really worth eating up a roster spot with him or can we not develop offensive plays to make up for not having a FB in those rare situations where one is called for?

Kris Wilson was 6’2” 250 lbs., considered a receiving TE
Mike Merritt is 6’3” 270 lbs., considered a blocking TE

Could you not take 4 TEs and no true FB, but work with Merritt on handling the handful of situations that you would need a FB to fill in? Kris Wilson was never intended to be a blocking FB and very rarely did they ever ask him to block for the run. He was simply put in that position to try to get him on the field to use his talents.

If Merritt has that capability to be used as a jumbo blocking TE when they want him and double as a lead blocker for goal line situations, that would be a very economical use of the roster spot that would allow us to get another talented player on the squad.