Our Base Offesive Set Should Be 3 WRs

[Guest]

Whether that means no FB and/or TE is besides the point.

We need Woods on the field as much as possible.

[YardRat]

Re: Our Base Offesive Set Should Be 3 WRs

It probably will be.

[Guest]

Re: Our Base Offesive Set Should Be 3 WRs

It probably will be.

OK.

So no TE or no FB?

Here you go Mace....

[YardRat]

Re: Our Base Offesive Set Should Be 3 WRs

Gotta have a TE to help the oline, unfortunately.

[Guest]

Re: Our Base Offesive Set Should Be 3 WRs

Gotta have a TE to help the oline, unfortunately.

So no FB.

I agree.

In today's NFL, no FB does not telegraph a run play.

[swiper]

Re: Our Base Offesive Set Should Be 3 WRs

If Marrone is really being honest about keeping Woods s second string, then he's nuts.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Re: Our Base Offesive Set Should Be 3 WRs

Whether that means no FB and/or TE is besides the point.

We need Woods on the field as much as possible.

It already is. Buffalo ran 3WR, 1TE, 1RB ("11 personnel") on nearly 60% of our snaps last year.

[elltrain22]

Re: Our Base Offesive Set Should Be 3 WRs

You can have a TE on the field along with 3 wf's

put Watkins on the line, while Williams and Woods are in the slot. Watkins & Williams line up on one side, with Chandler & Woods line up on the other side. We would have to go 1 back, but I still think this formation gives us the most amount of talent on the field at the same time.

[The Jokeman]

Re: Our Base Offesive Set Should Be 3 WRs

Whether that means no FB and/or TE is besides the point.

We need Woods on the field as much as possible.

Or run a traditional base offense and have Woods on the outside until Watkins earn a starting spot opposite Mike Williams and then kick Woods to the slot. As yes, Watkins been great in practice but he hasn't shown it in game situations but will say he's only got 1 game of action behind his belt.

[The Jokeman]

Re: Our Base Offesive Set Should Be 3 WRs

You can have a TE on the field along with 3 wf's

put Watkins on the line, while Williams and Woods are in the slot. Watkins & Williams line up on one side, with Chandler & Woods line up on the other side. We would have to go 1 back, but I still think this formation gives us the most amount of talent on the field at the same time.

If we play 3 wide in my mind I see Williams on the strong side and Woods in the slot with Watkins outside him. Yet I wouldn't mind seeing Woods and Williams on the outside with CJ Spiller and Dixon in the backfield together. Then on 3rd downs taking Dixon and Spiller out and replace them with FJax and Watkins.

[BillsImpossible]

Re: Our Base Offesive Set Should Be 3 WRs

Gotta have a TE to help the oline, unfortunately.

Seantrel Henderson can change that at RT.

How about a base offensive set with 4 WR?