@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

The Browns are perhaps the one team in history to take a lesson from in this area. In their history they have often essentially used multiple running backs....and NOT just the tailback and the fullback. Go back to say 1950, the Browns used both Marion Motley and Dub Jones together in the backfield. Each a very good running back in their own right...in one game Dub Jones scored 6 TDs. Then you had Jim Brown and Ernie Green together. Jim Brown was considered the fullback, Green the halfback...and Green gained a lot more yards running than people probably remember. Then there was Greg Pruitt and Mike Pruitt. Then after that Mack and Byner. Even into the 90s under Belichick you had Leroy Hoard and Eric Metcalf playing together a lot. In the 1994 playoff season, the fullback: Hoard, gained 890 yards.

So, the way I see it, there is no reason to have a designated "blocking fullback". The Browns could play TR and Montario ...or Lewis...or Jackson...or whoever, together. I mean, they wouldn't be reinventing the wheel by doing that.

@choco said:

Surprise!! This tiny little scat back is gonna be a "lead blocker"....don't worry, he's not gonna run a passing route. This play certainly isn't gonna be play action....

No one will EVER see that coming.....

SMH

It's not supposed to be a trick. It's supposed to cause the defense to show their coverage.

SMH

No one will EVER see that coming.....

SMH

@shep said:

Wouldn't tiny Dion Lewis (he's like 180) be a bit of a stretch for "small fullback?" He's a small human.

Not necessarily. As NFL teams rely more and more on the pass, higher value is placed on hybrid type players.

Lewis wouldn't be a fullback in the traditional sense, but just another mismatch. There have been instances of teams lining up in the I form with two backs rather than a FB and RB. It's not uncommon in the least.

There's not a LB alive who could cover Lewis man-on (except maybe Patrick Willis). Having Lewis at FB would either cause the defense to reveal and change their coverage or risk getting gashed.

It's not an every down thing but I would hope that Chud and Turner would ateast utitlize this a couple times. It's an elementary mismatch.

@shep said:

Wouldn't tiny Dion Lewis (he's like 180) be a bit of a stretch for "small fullback?" He's a small human.

I thought it was gonna be silent g? Those have been the rumblings from a select few anyway....

Smelley is the guy, but Marecic is geared up to redeeming himself this coming season. OTH, a one dimensional

fullback is outdated, I think, like Shep says. I think Smelley was recommended by Richardson.

I would LOVE to see Sheard line up at fullback !

@the-gipper said:

Well, I mean, if the fullback is going to be used rarely, then yes, why waste a roster spot on the position? I mean, if you are only going to use a blocking back for 5-10 plays a game, then do what the Bears did with The Refrigerator, or what the 49ers did with OG Guy McIntyre, or like NE did with Mike Vrabel. Use your nose tackle as your FB. Or your extra OG, or an LB that can be a FB or TE.. Some 320 pound earth mover rather than a 250 pound FB. I mean, couldn't Ismaely Kitchen or Phil Taylor do as good a job of opening the occasional hole as Owen Marecic does?

The question comes into play when a team wants to make a FB an integral part of the passing game. Vickers could do that, be a swing man out of the backfield? But could not also say, Jaball Sheard?

Just a thought.

The 49ers have been doing that for years- using linemen at FB and TE or running passing plays out of Jumbo or Unbalanced formations. A couple years ago I believe they had two OL score touchdowns in a season.

Marecic was an interesting experiment, as he was also a decent LB. The experiment failed.

Chud and Turner like athletic, small, stocky FB's. they both used Mike Tolbert, and Turner also utilized Jacob Hester for a while. We don't have one of those yet, but it wouldn't surprise me to see Dion Lewis play at FB occasionally.

@shep said:

If the fullback is going to be used rarely, then yes, why waste a roster spot on the position? If you are only going to use a blocking back for 5-10 plays a game, then do what the Bears did with The Refrigerator, or what the 49ers did with OG Guy McIntyre, or like NE did with Mike Vrabel. Use your nose tackle as your FB. Or your extra OG, or an LB that can be a FB or TE.. Some 320 pound earth mover rather than a 250 pound FB. Couldn't Ismaely Kitchen or Phil Taylor do as good a job of opening the occasional hole as Owen Marecic does?

The question comes into play when a team wants to make a FB an integral part of the passing game. Vickers could do that, be a swing man out of the backfield? But could not also say, Jaball Sheard?

Just a thought.

@shep said:

More and more, when a team wants a lead blocker, they drop a TE back. Makes it less predictable and doesn't waste a roster spot on a guy who won't be in the lineup all that much.

It's one of those things you don't have to like... but it's pretty impossible to deny. Just like "big run-stuffing middle linebackers" aren't going to be at the top of anybody's shopping list in a passing league.

Tell that to Chicago who took Bostic at 50.

Then again, they're stuck in the 80s.

It's one of those things you don't have to like... but it's pretty impossible to deny. Just like "big run-stuffing middle linebackers" aren't going to be at the top of anybody's shopping list in a passing league.

Not really if you consider how little he was used, Mikey. Simply signing a guy proves nothing....how he's used and production does.

Just the way its progressing....otherwise, leech would have been snatched up shorty after being released.

I really think we'll see a lot of one-back (I believe T-Rich prefers it) and Kellen Davis or Barnidge shifting into the backfield on certain plays. It just isn't something GMs or coaches are sitting around talking about, their desperate search for a blocking fullback.

Leech and Vickers are old school fullbacks, which are useless nowadays.

Prior to last year, the last 10 Super Bowl participants average rushing rank... was 23rd.

@choco said:

Then its isolated to this board. FBs are relatively useless, unless they can run, block and catch. Vickers was 1 of those 3, and a dead giveaway to the defense we were running the ball. Might as well send the D a telegram....

Norv has a history of using versatile FBs a bit, but not to a great degree.

Why not explain to us the importance of the FB in today's passing league. I'm curious.....

So what you understand so well is entirely false. But that's the world we live in.

@nickers said:

your the only one (that doesnt give a shit) Shep...The rest of us understand the importance of having one...

Norv has a history of using versatile FBs a bit, but not to a great degree.

Why not explain to us the importance of the FB in today's passing league. I'm curious.....

@shep said:

Nobody gives a shit about fullbacks anymore.

your the only one (that doesnt give a shit) Shep...The rest of us understand the importance of having one...