View topic - 3 Tightend sets and the signing of Capizzi

[StillViews Profile]

I've watched enough of the Steeler 3 tightend sets to reach the conclusion that they are more likely than not to fail. The reasons that I see are as follows:

- When the Steelers go into an overload 3 tightend set (all three tightends grouped on one side of the line) the defense inevitably responds by shifting their line and linebackers to this side of the line as well. In another words the overload has succeeded in drawing more potential tacklers right toward the area where the running back is headed.

- After the defensive shift one of the defensive lineman is usually lined up over one of the tightends ( a certain mismatch in favor of the defensive lineman). The other two tightends have to block linebackers. I believe the defense plays run all the way and they have a tremendous advantage over the offense in exploding this play. The Steeler tightends are NOT able to block defensive linemen (see Matt Spaeth vs. Trevor Pryce), this is a terrible matchup that the Steeler offense will lose 90% of the time. I also don't forsee the Steeler tightends winning their one of one matchups against good NFL linebackers more than 50% of the times. The linebacker has the advantage in this set up. The linebacker really doesn't have to worry about pass. The linebackers can aggressively play the run at the snap of the ball and stand up or explode thru the Steeler tightends. The problem isn't our tightends can't block. The problem is that NFL lineman and linebackers are supposed to be able to defeat a tightend when they it is a running play and they KNOW where the ball is going to be run.

So we have a situation where for this ill-conceived play to work we have to have ALL three tightends successfully block their opponent. If one of the 3 fails the play blows up. Using my percentages (10% chance of success against a defensive lineman and 50% chance of success against a linebacker) the chance of the play succeeding is .1*.5*.5 = 2.5% of success. These aren't good odds.

So what is the solution.

- Abandon the 3 tightend set altogether.
- Run to the weakside enough that the defense has to stop stacking the strong side.
- Only pass from this set.
- Bring in a tackle eligible as one or more of your tightends (improves the odds somewhat but I still don't like this running formation).

Personally I'd like to see little or none of the 3 tight end set. For the reasons mentioned I don't believe it is a good matchup for the Steeler running game. The other flaw I see is tightends aren't downfield receiving threats either so the defense has nothing at all to fear with this set. There is only 1 WR on the field so linebackers aren't worried about dropping back. They can confidently crowd the line and jam the tightends at the snap of the ball.

On a related note, after reading that Jason Capizzi is going to be activated my hope is that Arians is observing what I have observed and will employ an additional tackle in place of the tightend in 2 tighten sets. Any NFL caliber offensive tackle is a superior blocker to an NFL tightend so it stands to reason that the blocking of the line should improve if the second tightend is a tackle filling that role. The Ravens used this set a lot with Adam Terry coming in to add another blocker to open holes on run plays and to better defend James Harrison on pass protection. We've seen that the Steelers NEVER throw to the second tightend anyway in the 2 tightend set so they aren't sacrificing a good pair of hands for a bad pair of hands (who cares if the ball is never thrown that direction). To the defense, it won't matter if Jason Capizzi or Matt Spaeth runs the route - they have to account for them with their coverage. In running situations however Jason Caprizzi will block better than Matt Spaeth.

In summary - to improve the running game the Steelers need to use much less of the 3 tight end set and use Jason Capizzi as the second tightend in 2 tightend sets.

[jstallworth82 Profile]

I do not like this set up either but the biggest problem is the same problem we have on every formation. We do not deviate from it as in when we get in a certain formation everyone knows we are only running 1 or 2 plays from it and they know that if Hines goes in motion (for instance) it will be play 1. We need to cut down the number of formations and utilize formations to run 8 - 10 plays from to slow down the D and simplify the blocking schemes of our superb O-Line.

[Snockered Pedestrian Profile]

Capizzi couldn't crack the Rams' awful OL; so he's signed off their practice squad onto
the Stillers' 53-man?

Time to commit resources to OL, DL, DB.

[jstallworth82 Profile]

What? Did you expect Pittsburgh to go after an O-Lineman that could block or even recognize the difference in uniforms so they kinda know who to block! HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

This O-Line has got to be the worse Steeler O-Line since before Noll.

[StillMill Profile]

Absolutely brilliant post at the top of this thread by View. Superbly well done.

This (3 TE set) is another Arians' folly --- just another playtoy of Arian's that serves no purpose and actually hinders the offense. The guy is as clueless as a toddler in a college physics class.

[zapunto Profile]

I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the 3-TE set. Argh. When I see it it gets my blood boiling. It's an obvious running formation, and the wrong personnel are on the field to go to the pass. Team run blitz this formation regularly and with lots of success. Our tight ends can't block, and it's STILL run out of a single-back formation! What's wrong with using a fullback out of a double-TE set? Why get more bad blockers on the field that won't have a chance in hell to get open and catch a pass?