Vickers Cut By Cowboys
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
Somebody earlier made an excellent point - Vickers wasn't versatile enough, and wasn't quick.
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 !
-
Wouldn't tiny Dion Lewis (he's like 180) be a bit of a stretch for "small fullback?" He's a small human.
-
Wouldn't tiny Dion Lewis (he's like 180) be a bit of a stretch for "small fullback?" He's a small human.
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.
-
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
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
-
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.
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.
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.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login