4+ wide (1 Viewer)

[-baller]

there's been some talk about the pats and 4 wide formations in earlier threads, and since the pats were such a high profile team in recent years it seems everybody has an opinion on them, while far fewer actually follow what's going on.

since I was over at pro football focus, anyway, doing some snap counts for another post, I thought I'd tally up 4+ wide formations around the league, just out of curiousity.

http://profootballfocus.com/by_week.php?ta...eid=&stats=

unfortunately, a few haven't been posted yet, so I'll edit them in later as they become available.

AZ --- 41 (of 72 total)

CLE -- 9* (of 67 total)

CIN --- 8 (of 63 total)

DEN - 7 (of 56 total)

PITT - 4

NO --- 3

ATL ---2

GB --- 2

NYJ -- 2

SD --- 2

KC --- 1

OAK - 1

SEA - 1

TB ---- 1

WAS -1

TEN, MIA, HOU, BAL, IND, JAX, DAL, DET, SF, NYG, STL, CHI, BUF, PATS - 0

*closed out 34-20 loss 4 wide on last 6 snaps

edit: tallies include everything over 3 receivers, but only the wr position --- not a te used as wr.

 

[Mr. Black]

Do these numbers include the formations were the TE is split out wide basically making him a 4th WR?

 

[TheWheel]

Did you also count 5 wide? If you looking at the spread, it should be 4+, not just 4.

 

[-baller]

Do these numbers include the formations were the TE is split out wide basically making him a 4th WR?

nah, didn't count those.just wanted a positional tally for fantasy purposes.although, when a wr became a qb, or whatever, I actually didn't count them --- but that's pretty minor.

 

[UnknownCoach]

The Martz effect is totally gone in SF.

 

[rowdywalker]

St Louis dont have 4 Wr's (you cant call Stanley a WR more a RS) on their roster! Hell you could argue that they have none.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

You gonna be doing week 2?

According to Reiss, Pats put up another 4 wide goose egg.