Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 3 Wide

  1. #1
    39thebeast's Avatar
    39thebeast is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    conecticut
    Posts
    2,740
    Rep Power
    38

    3 Wide

    I think it would be more advantageous for the Rams to play predominantly in 3 wide sets( 3 WRs 1 RB and 1 TE/FB) this year despite the youth at the WR position.

    1. Help Bradford
    Sam Bradford is a guys used to 4 WR sets.I think he will be able to move into a more pro style offense, but he could ease that transition by playing with 3 WRs instead of 2. He hardly if ever played with a FB. You also give Bradford more options to throw to. I personally would rather him target Gillyard or Amendola than Karney or Fells. If you leave either Karney OR Bajema on the field they can block for you and you still have S-jax and possibly Ogbonaya as capable receiving options

    2. Help S-jax
    Teams may totally disrespect our 3 WRs and leave 3 LBs on the field anyway, but in that case we have a higher chance of getting bigger plays in the passing game. Even if they decide to keep that 3rd LB on the field he is playing more in the space than he would be in 2 wide set leaving more space for S-jax. Most teams would put an extra DB on the field and S-jax has a higher chance of beating a DB than a LB. S-Jax can still have Karney as a lead blocker, but when you look at the number he had 3 100 yard games with Karney starting and 4 without him. So we can get some effective blocking out of other people.

    3. Get the young guys reps.

    I think we will keep 6 wrs and the most tenured of that group will be 4th year man Laurant Robinson. Mardy Gillyard is the explosive young rookie who could develop into a really good slot receiver which most of the time the slot is the 3rd wide receiver. He will need reps to learn the game. Amendola has been the best WR in camp and also could be an effective slot receiver as well. On the outside you have the speedsters Robinson even with the injury strugles can still get deep. The last 2 guys on the roster IMO will be Foster and Gibson who are pretty much rookies because they didn't get alot of time last year due to injuries trades and whatnot. They are more physical type of possession receivers.

    4. We may be worse of at TE than WR.
    Outside of Billy Bajema our TEs are just as inexperienced as our WRs. I would say Robinson, Avery, or Amendola are more primed for for a break out than Daniel Fells or Billy Bajema. I also give Mardy Gillayard the rookie advantage over Oh-Oh and Fendi. If we can find a productive TE in our group that guy can stay on the field with our 3 WRs at the expense of Mike Karney who I stated before did make an impact on the run game, but not as much as you would think.

    Thoughts?


  2. #2
    01d 0rd3r's Avatar
    01d 0rd3r is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    1,259
    Rep Power
    28

    Re: 3 Wide

    I actually really like this idea. We dont really have any kind of threat at TE. Putting an extra receiver on the field and having Karney in the backfield the entire time will alow us to open up our offense a lot more.

  3. #3
    BM_Face's Avatar
    BM_Face is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Age
    43
    Posts
    436
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: 3 Wide

    I think it will be dependent on two things.

    1. Our O-lines ability to block, because if they are not getting the job done, we will need FB/TE help.

    2. Bradford's timing on his release(seems good), and can stay relatively safe, then I think a 3 WR set has many advantages as 39thebeast has pointed out.

    I would love to see us stretch the field with a long-ball threat.
    A defeated look of consternation, dissappointment, or even pain. The name derives from the look one often gets when challenged by a large BM.

  4. #4
    mikhal5569's Avatar
    mikhal5569 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Mass
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,102
    Rep Power
    24

    Re: 3 Wide

    It's actually not a half bad idea in theory, not sure how well that would work in regards to protecting the passer? Also, I have been hearing that K Burton has been having the best camp as far as wr go, not to be picky.

  5. #5
    39thebeast's Avatar
    39thebeast is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    conecticut
    Posts
    2,740
    Rep Power
    38

    Re: 3 Wide

    Quote Originally Posted by BM_Face View Post
    I think it will be dependent on two things.

    1. Our O-lines ability to block, because if they are not getting the job done, we will need FB/TE help.
    I agree it does depend on the O-lines ability to block. But in a 3 wide you still have the versatility to play with 7 blockers. It would limit Bradfords options to the recievers using the RB and the FB/TE in pass protection. You could also protect with 6 by keeping the RB or FB/TE in protection. IMO its a better use of our players all around.

Similar Threads

  1. Wide Receivers Short On Numbers, Credentials
    By r8rh8rmike in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -09-11-2009, 12:53 AM
  2. St. Louis Rams stay 'thin' at wide receiver
    By eldfan in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: -09-09-2009, 07:49 PM
  3. NFL Draft has some great catches at wide receiver
    By MauiRam in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -04-16-2009, 01:36 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: -02-25-2009, 03:27 PM
  5. Early 2007 Wide Reciever Rankings
    By RamsFan16 in forum FANTASY
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -02-07-2007, 12:53 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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