Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. The Browns Board
  3. Vickers Cut By Cowboys

Vickers Cut By Cowboys

The Browns Board
31 12 1.1k
  • Louisville SluggerL Louisville Slugger

    I would love to see him back in a browns uniform, but I have to wonder why no team keeps him on their roster for more then a couple seasons. Does he have some character issues or something?

    hoortaH hoorta wrote on
    #4

    @louisville-slugger said:

    I would love to see him back in a browns uniform, but I have to wonder why no team keeps him on their roster for more then a couple seasons. Does he have some character issues or something?

    So why haven't we ditched Marecic already? Vickers on one leg and a bad back is better.

    👍
  • hoortaH hoorta

    @louisville-slugger said:

    I would love to see him back in a browns uniform, but I have to wonder why no team keeps him on their roster for more then a couple seasons. Does he have some character issues or something?

    So why haven't we ditched Marecic already? Vickers on one leg and a bad back is better.

    nickersN nickers wrote on
    #5

    @hoorta said:

    So why haven't we ditched Marecic already? Vickers on one leg and a bad back is better.

    there's another back we drafted too..a white kid...he was on the practice squad last season...

    Nickers...."There are no old running QB's in the NFL "~Sam Rutigliano~
  • ballpeenB ballpeen wrote on
    #6

    He's useless.

    If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
  • miktoxicM miktoxic wrote on
    #7

    well i guess in his mind at least he's not black..............

    ????

  • S Shep wrote on
    #8

    Nobody gives a shit about fullbacks anymore.

  • S Shep

    Nobody gives a shit about fullbacks anymore.

    nickersN nickers wrote on
    #9

    @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...

    Nickers...."There are no old running QB's in the NFL "~Sam Rutigliano~
    S 1 Reply
  • chocoC choco wrote on
    #10

    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.....

    S 1 Reply
  • nickersN nickers

    @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...

    S Shep wrote on
    #11

    You may... but the league doesn't. It's a dying position. Most teams prefer more receivers on the field and when they want a lead blocker just let the TE/H-back shift into the backfield. After Vickers got cut, Sobo instantly Tweeted that the position has become more than diminished... it's becoming extinct. Look at whatsisname, that uber-FB from Baltimore. They didn't seem the slightest bit concerned about losing him and nobody's fighting over him.

    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...

  • chocoC choco

    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.....

    S Shep wrote on
    #12

    I don't wanna beat on Nick because he's far from the only football fan who digs in a little against how dramatically the league is changing. RBs are becoming hugely devalued, 3-4 ILBs are getting smaller and faster, and "fullback" is becoming a term or grandchildren might not even know.

    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.....

  • chocoC choco wrote on
    #13

    I'm not trying to be a dick either, just curious on his take. I'm sure you saw servos (?) Breakdown of norvs historic use of fullbacks, which suggests he doesn't use them unless they are dynamic and versatile....

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

  • S Shep wrote on
    #14

    Norv and especially Chud are innovators who like to stay at the front edge (like Chud embracing the RO)... and both have creatively skirted the need for a conventional fullback over the past couple years.

    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.

  • nickersN nickers wrote on
    #15

    And you wonder why QB's are getting killed...cuz FB's are useless...LOL...bring on Arena NFL...

    Nickers...."There are no old running QB's in the NFL "~Sam Rutigliano~
  • S Shep wrote on
    #16

    I wasn't wondering why QBs were getting killed. I didn't know they were. They get hit less than ever because of rules, quicker passing games, etc.

  • chocoC choco wrote on
    #17

    They're not really useless, but there's now more being required of them. The traditional throwback FB is obsolete, in favor of a more offensive threat that can do other things rather than block. Coaches can scheme better protection, rather than utilize a roster spot on a guy that can't really do much other than block.

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

  • chocoC choco wrote on
    #18

    http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2013/1/30/3933932/chargers-cut-him-or-keep-him-leron-mcclain

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

  • sisky fringoS sisky fringo wrote on
    #19

    Vicker's has been trying to remain in Texas since he left Cle. it will be interesting to see if offered work elsewhere if he will take it and where he eventually ends up...if anywhere.

  • S Shep wrote on
    #20

    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.

  • S Shep

    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.

    Tim Couch Pulls OutT Tim Couch Pulls Out wrote on
    #21

    @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.

    I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride
  • S Shep wrote on
    #22

    Indeed. We're at a place where a downhill "banger" is tough to field except in short yardage situations. You need so damn many cover guys.

  • S Shep

    Indeed. We're at a place where a downhill "banger" is tough to field except in short yardage situations. You need so damn many cover guys.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #23

    @shep said:

    Indeed. We're at a place where a downhill "banger" is tough to field except in short yardage situations. You need so damn many cover guys.

    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.

Log in to reply