The Different Worlds of the Y and F Part One: The Passing Game.

The realities of a Tight End and a WR are very different. Only few have enough juice to blur the lines. Explaining the different roles and the trap of "flex" Tight Ends. Part 1: Passing Game

As I’ve discussed before, this position is not so simple as “tight end” vs “not tight end.” In recent years, familiarity with the differences between the traditional, in-line “Y” TE and movable “F” TE has increased. People understand now that you can’t just stick any guy listed as a TE on the line of scrimmage and expect him to fulfill the job description. I’m not here right now to elucidate the definitive difference, I think there’s enough out there that it’s well understood.

It’s time, however, as students of the game… as a Draft community, Fantasy community, gambling community, and general football-watching public to think about all of this a little bit more critically. In evaluating players from scheme to scheme, or in the case of the draft, level to level, it’s important to understand the differences in a bit more detail to accurately forecast fit and translation, as best we can at least.

This is a discussion for purposes of high capital investments like high draft picks on players like Dalton Kincaid and Evan Engram, and the roles we project them in. It’s not to suggest these players can’t be rostered at all, it only pertains to the projection of an every-down role and usage limitations relative to investment. Designated pass-rushers and dime DBs are nice, even necessary to have, but they aren’t worth high picks or prices, nor are they even starters.

The football field is the world’s biggest chessboard, and understanding the game is not as simple as understanding what the pieces do. It’s deeper, it comes down to value, opportunity costs, what other pieces can/can’t do, and most importantly the different realities of each of the pieces. The Y and the F are not just TEs, well the Y is, but to understand the F as it pertains to the TE position, we have to understand the “F” more broadly as a nebulous, often misused term.

2023 Miami Dolphins Offense-Shanahan System.

Different systems use letters differently, but this principle holds in every offense and Shanahan-ese puts it most clearly, so we use that. Who your F or “adjuster” is determines what you’re in. As such, the position type you use most often at the F determines who you are as an offense. There is one key element at the core of this decision if you’re making it wisely: TEs are almost always dramatically worse WRs than WRs. The whole idea of a TE is to be the only position to block truly in-line and catch the ball. If you remove that first element, you bump up against the receivers.

There’s another majorly important thing to understand. You’re going to need an F and a Y on the field regardless, and the Y, as the in-line guy, has to be a TE. You cannot choose between an F and a Y type at TE, you either have just a Y or both on the field. This is why Ys are more valuable, they never have to come off the field while F-only TEs do frequently unless you’re comfortable playing 12 all the time.

The theory of positional relativity is something that’s generally never been codified as a term to my knowledge but is generally understood by coaches in deployment. In simple terms, the idea is that certain positions deal with different realities than others. For instance, a good LB may be a great coverage defender, but that doesn’t mean you can put them at S, or CB. They’re good in coverage “for a linebacker” and at linebacker things. At TE more than anywhere else, this theory is misunderstood. We discuss often, due to guys like Travis Kelce and Brock Bowers the idea of living in 12 personnel and making them the primary F. This is a great way to run your offense if you can do it, but what we don’t understand is that it’s unusual for that not to be a drag on your passing menu. Again, for the most part, TEs are not WRs. They can do it but most can’t. And if you can’t, you’re going to be in a rotational role only outside of a select few Greg Roman-y offenses that run like service academies. The defensive equivalent would be putting an ILB at nickel and living in base D all the time. With Fred Warner or prime Lavonte David, it could maybe work, but these are rare beasts akin to the Kelces of the world. Even then, it isn’t even really attempted. When we look for slot defenders who can play “positionless,” they come from DB bodies, not LB bodies. Sacrificing a touch in run D is less costly than sacrificing a bunch in pass D, so you get pass defenders modified to defend the run, not the other way around. Athletically it just usually doesn’t work.

The same goes for our emerging power slots (or blocking Xs in the case of Ayomanor and Nacua, who move around) on O, either currently in the league or entering it. You’ll keep seeing more and more of them. The fact of the matter is that an F-only player, whether a TE or WR is not going to be treated like a big body in the run game (unless he’s a true fullback but that’s a different matter). There are two scenarios in which a 2nd TE is treated like a big body and matched with base defense.

1: They are big and strong as a blocker, in this case, they’re not an “F-only” player, they’re just occupying that role and could play the Y if in a different grouping.

2: The rest of the run game is terrifying and/or the offense is so run-heavy that the pass is not the primary concern. This often has nothing to do with the nature of the 2nd TE. If you look at the Eagles, nobody is terrified of Grant Calcaterra as a blocker but because of the nature of their attack, you defend run first. These are overall exceptions.

Defenses defend pass first now and you have to either force them out of that with serious blockers or have true wide-receiving chops at the F to attack it. If you don’t, and you don’t have an extra Y-type blocker at your F spot, you’re just borrowing from both the run and pass in exchange for slightly more blocking than a slot. This is okay in a rotational setting, but as the dominant snap-consuming basis of your offense, a disaster. They will end up facing the same looks and realities that a slot receiver deals with and mostly get smothered. Again, think of this as the offensive mirror of the difference between a nickel DB and an inside LB. Let’s examine what this all means and why this is the case. What is each position dealing with?

The structure of standard down defense, in other terms.

Third downs and 2-minute are different with no run threat, but in standard situations, the back-7 of a defense is built inside-out. Like the rings of Saturn, but for coverage instead of how old the rings are or whatever (not a big Saturn guy). The further out you get, the better and more equipped for space coverage defenders are. This is why Y matchups and F matchups are totally different and as pass-catchers, TEs who can’t play in-line can’t be graded as receivers against those who can. The whole reason TEs can even function as pass-catchers in their 6’5, 250 bodies for the most part is that they don’t have to be WRs. Here’s how all that works.

The Passing Strength

So the F (whether it be a slot or 2nd TE is immaterial) determines the “passing strength” of a formation. This is part of why, in Shanahan terms, he is called the “formation-adjuster.” If he’s to the same side as the Y, it’s usually gonna be 3x1, if he’s away, it’s gonna be 2x2 (the outside 2 WRs are fixed most of the time and they have separate modifying terms for when they’re not). In general, formations are either 2x2 or 3x1. Whichever side the F is on usually determines where the nickel is gonna go.

Now none of the minutiae of that is super important, but in general it is important to understand that if someone is gonna play the F on a full-time basis and eat a significant amount of space, they’re gonna end up on the outer rings of the formation and coverage hierarchy. Even if the Y is split out too, he’s usually gonna be accounted for with a less good coverage body than the F, whether man or zone. I must preface this all by saying that this all is just in general and only encompasses a critical mass of situations that determine overall usage, it is not absolute play to play. With that in mind, let’s examine the difference in the pass-catching requirements of the Y and F.

The Y, a Sheltered Pass-Catching Role.

The reality of the situation is that a lot of TE receiving looks like this. A lot of it. While there are plenty of TEs who can flex out a little bit and win in space, there are very few who can do it *full-time*. A lot of the production, even from guys like TJ Hockenson, Sam LaPorta, and David Njoku who are used often in a flex role comes from their ability to occupy the Y in 11 personnel situations and be sheltered from having to consistently play a WR role. They’re still able to credibly occupy the true TE-only spot and be treated by defenses as such. The reality is that a lot of TE value in the passing game comes from the fact that they have to treat you as an in-line element. The bulk of your big plays tend to be dressed up and your role in the dropback game mostly exists as an underneath element settling into space and working favorable matchups.

In true man coverage (Cover-1 or 0), the Y is accounted for by one of the safeties, a more favorable matchup than the nickel, usually a modified corner.

In 2-high coverages (man-match and zone coverages alike) or any zone coverage more broadly (including Cover-3), the Y is going to mostly be working nearest to inside LBs. The way for you the viewer to tell what role someone is in is the personnel grouping rather than the formation. You can move a rook across the board, it doesn’t make him not a rook. If there are 3 true WRs on the field, that guy is being accounted for as a Y and gets this advantage. If there are 2 TE, one of them is getting the F matchups and one of them is getting the Y, you can usually tell that by formation (who is closest, who is in-line, or just who is the better and worse receiver).

Even in situations that aren’t just “man cover a man”, the defender you’re relating to is still going to have to match you athletically, so these still count as LB matchups.

The most non-underneath stuff the Y is usually needed for is stretching the LBs in the seams, which is more about feel for space than anything requiring more advanced WR route-running and athleticism.

The F, Filling the “Slot” Role

In the modern game, again unless you are a super run-first, condensed always and forever unit like the Ravens, the F that eats a majority of the snaps at the position is going to have to be able to fill a slot receiver’s role. at the NFL level, there are exceedingly few of these offenses, and you won’t reshape your whole unit to accommodate a weird 2nd TE you drafted. A key element of the job description is working on the outer reaches against both man and zone. You have to be quicker, more detailed as a route-runner, and overall better in space than a huge majority of TEs because you simply have to range over more of it against a defender better equipped to patrol it. All of the stuff the Welker, Edelman, and Beasleys of the world did, you still have to do.

Additionally, WR bodies in the role give you the range to move around a bit more, play outside (usually only as a changeup), and box you in much less as a passing attack. While athletic testing profiles may look similar, there is a certain fluidity, flexibility, and practical speed that don’t get captured on paper but are very real.

If a TE type is going to occupy this position at a high enough level to allocate resources to, he’s gonna have to be able to play like Drake London or Khalil Shakir. There are way, way more slots who can get in the way as blockers than 230+ pounders who can do this. All of that is why I think people are entirely too cavalier about projecting TEs into “power slot” roles. Power slots already exist and are growing far more common from the WR position. Dalton Kincaid can’t eat this role full-time in the way Khalil Shakir can, which is why he doesn’t play all that much, it’s why Kyle Pitts got replaced by Drake London…many such cases!

The Cheat-Code: The Flex Y

The ultimate value you could ever be lucky enough to come across at the TE position is a guy who is an elite in-line blocker that can make serious plays and do WR things in the passing game. That’s how you get situations like this. You can’t just put a WR at the Y and game the system because defenses have checks for that, knowing there’s no in-line blocking to honor. All you generally have to be is passable/competent in-line to get these matchups without hurting the overall offense (substantially), but the guys that can do it while ADDING to the run game without need for sheltering as legitimate forces…they are hydrogen bombs you can aim at coughing babies in the pass game as a result. That edge has to be earned, but it’s why TEs can be true matchup nightmares. It’s not because they’re big normal WRs like broadcasters say all the time, but because schematically there’s no way for a defense to simultaneously account for a single body out of 11 that is both a 6th OL and a 4th WR. While the receiving numbers may be similar or even inferior to a Kelce, Bowers, or Andrews, who are very good slots regardless of position, their overall value on the chessboard is astronomically higher. These guys are very rare, and all you need from the Y generally is the ability to do that dressed up Y stuff we talked about earlier. If you want a cheat-code though, these types are the best players the position has to offer (and why Gronk is the clear GOAT).

Part 2

In part 2, coming soon, we will discuss the differences in run-blocking asks between the roles. As a preview, the difficulty inverts. The F has the WR job in the passing game, but the Y has the OL job in the run game. Why you can’t just put anybody in-line coming soon….