Fullback?

[Imgrandojji]

Do you guys think we should bring in a Fullback to help support the run game?

 

If we're going to build our game around the run, especially with medium-sized backs, I think we should go ahead and invest in a guy who can lead block.  What do you guys think?

[MPStack]

3 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

Do you guys think we should bring in a Fullback to help support the run game?

I don’t think Reich uses fullbacks. What’s wrong with the run game? 
 

There 4th in the league in rushing.

[pgt_rob]

Maybe occasionally use a full back on some instances but I don't see the need. We tried that in the Pagano era. Everyone knew it was about to be run up the middle.

[BleedBlue4Shoe86]

Don't think he is saying anything is wrong with the run game.  Just asking if bringing in fullback could help the smaller backs we have stay healthier. 

 

correct me if I'm wrong though.

[Myles]

I'd like to see a fullback.   But I think it needs to be one who can catch.   

[Imgrandojji]

11 minutes ago, BleedBlue4Shoe86 said:

Don't think he is saying anything is wrong with the run game.  Just asking if bringing in fullback could help the smaller backs we have stay healthier. 

 

correct me if I'm wrong though.

That and a good fullback is really good at opening gaps for the runners in those up the middle plays.  None of our RBs are really power runners so a FB could boost their yardage efficiency

[P'Son]

Full Backs are a waste of roster space and cap money.  Use a TE on occasion if you want a heavy-weight ball carrier or pass catcher out of the back field.

[DougDew]

I don't see the problem with having a Fullback who can catch.  The D would not know if it is a run up the middle, or a pass to the flat, or a chip block then a hook to an open zone.

 

The NFL has H backs. but they typically aren't the type of lead blocker I'm talking about.

[shakedownstreet]

I could use a fullback massage

[Imgrandojji]

2 hours ago, P'Son said:

Full Backs are a waste of roster space and cap money.  Use a TE on occasion if you want a heavy-weight ball carrier or pass catcher out of the back field.

TEs have their own work to do on the football field and aren't always available to double as fullbacks.

 

None of our RB are really built right to be great lead blockers.

 

There IS a niche in our run-heavy offense that a proper fullback could easily fill.  Evenn if he doesn't catch pases.

[richard pallo]

I am pretty sure I heard that the Patriots used a fullback on more than 50% of their offensive plays.  And they have a real nice lead back in Sony Michel.  So maybe what goes around comes around.  Good coaches adapt to get the most from their players.  BB is pretty good at that.  So I think all options should be on the table.  It could give us a few more opportunities on offense.

[Myles]

Rathmann would be very familiar with the fullback position since he was one.   I think it could be valuable, especially if Brissett will be the QB again next year.   

 

Give Alstott a call.

[Four2itus]

3 hours ago, shakedownstreet said:

I could use a fullback massage

[hoosierhawk]

We got one in #56. 

[NewColtsFan]

6 hours ago, BleedBlue4Shoe86 said:

Don't think he is saying anything is wrong with the run game.  Just asking if bringing in fullback could help the smaller backs we have stay healthier. 

 

correct me if I'm wrong though.

When we need a fullback, we typically use a TE like Doyle.   For what we need and like to do. A player like that is just fine.

 

A player who is only a FB doesn’t give you enough bang for the buck and takes up a valuable roster space in the process. 

[Fisticuffs111]

Kinda wish we would’ve just kept Hentges and used him in that Hewitt kind of role. Lining up at TE and occasionally FB.

 

Although, with the injuries this season I know it would’ve been hard to keep 4 TE’s.

[WoolMagnet]

I’d rather use a Dallas Clark type TE for that if needed.

And i think we need to add an athletic TE anyway.  More flexibility and better use of a roster spot.

[GoColts8818]

30 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

I’d rather use a Dallas Clark type TE for that if needed.

And i think we need to add an athletic TE anyway.  More flexibility and better use of a roster spot.

A Clark type tightend isn’t really built for that because blocking isn’t really their strength.  A guy like Doyle is.  

[Imgrandojji]

14 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

When we need a fullback, we typically use a TE like Doyle.   For what we need and like to do. A player like that is just fine.

 

A player who is only a FB doesn’t give you enough bang for the buck and takes up a valuable roster space in the process. 

In the Superbowl last year, the Patriots had Allen, Gronk, and Develin all on the field for the only drive in which they scored a TD.  They needed them, remember, they were playing Aaron Donalds's team

 

I'll say it again.  Having a TE that can lead blcok is fantastic, but having a FB and TE that can both lead block magnifies your ability to create a hole against a stubborn defense.

 

If you think the only role a FB plays is to rush up the middle, then you haven't been paying attention to how the patriots have been using Develin.  They'll throw him into the teeth of the defense yes.  They'll also use him on end runs to cancel out the first tackle attempt and give the runner a couple more yards. 

 

That's certainly something we haven't been able to do with anyone on our current roster, and in those edge plays, the TE has other responsibilities and can't just be effortlessly diverted to play FB.

 

And if you think the ability to throw another big body at a stubborn front 7 isn't useful... our inability to do that against either PIT or DEN and their big front 7s was one of the biggest reasons we fell off pace this year and got eliminated from the playoffs.  Our run game was ineffective 4-5 times this year putting too much pressure on Brissett (or much worse -- on Hoyer) to try to win the game himself.

 

Don't tell me how we normally do things when how we normally did things this year didn't freaking work when it mattered.

 

There IS a niche for a Fullback on this roster.  Especially when we're playing against bigger front 7s and our OL is struggling to get a good push. 

 

That happened at least 4-5 times this year and was the difference between victory and defeat in at least 3 games that could have changed the whole fate of this team.  Good rushing against any of OAK, PIT and DEN would have changed the outcome of those games and taken pressure off the QB and the D.  Instead we had to try to win those games in the air without a really top QB, and we paid the price for that.

 

I think one of the ways we can adjust to that is by investing in a FB that can help us win the battle at the line when we need to.

 

Heck I KNOW Reich has been feeling the lack of a FB at times because he used Q in that role at times.  Being able to have a dedicated guy for that role makes a certain sense, leaving Q and Doyle to complete their other assignments.

[Nickster]

We need a QB who can pass.  It’s pretty much remarkable that thus team runs it as well as it does with no passing game.

[NannyMcafee]

23 hours ago, pgt_rob said:

Maybe occasionally use a full back on some instances but I don't see the need. We tried that in the Pagano era. Everyone knew it was about to be run up the middle.

 

90% of our plays are run up the middle. 

[Hoose]

An H back/TE in motion works just as well as a fullback. And it's easier to disguise the run/pass call. With a fullback coming into the game, he'd have to be a serious pass catching threat or the D would just stack the box with yet another body. And the fullback obviously eliminates what is likely a more important spot on the 53 man roster. No fullback required. 

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

In the Superbowl last year, the Patriots had Allen, Gronk, and Develin all on the field for the only drive in which they scored a TD.  They needed them, remember, they were playing Aaron Donalds's team

 

I'll say it again.  Having a TE that can lead blcok is fantastic, but having a FB and TE that can both lead block magnifies your ability to create a hole against a stubborn defense.

 

If you think the only role a FB plays is to rush up the middle, then you haven't been paying attention to how the patriots have been using Develin.  They'll throw him into the teeth of the defense yes.  They'll also use him on end runs to cancel out the first tackle attempt and give the runner a couple more yards. 

 

That's certainly something we haven't been able to do with anyone on our current roster, and in those edge plays, the TE has other responsibilities and can't just be effortlessly diverted to play FB.

 

And if you think the ability to throw another big body at a stubborn front 7 isn't useful... our inability to do that against either PIT or DEN and their big front 7s was one of the biggest reasons we fell off pace this year and got eliminated from the playoffs.  Our run game was ineffective 4-5 times this year putting too much pressure on Brissett (or much worse -- on Hoyer) to try to win the game himself.

 

Don't tell me how we normally do things when how we normally did things this year didn't freaking work when it mattered.

 

There IS a niche for a Fullback on this roster.  Especially when we're playing against bigger front 7s and our OL is struggling to get a good push. 

 

That happened at least 4-5 times this year and was the difference between victory and defeat in at least 3 games that could have changed the whole fate of this team.  Good rushing against any of OAK, PIT and DEN would have changed the outcome of those games and taken pressure off the QB and the D.  Instead we had to try to win those games in the air without a really top QB, and we paid the price for that.

 

I think one of the ways we can adjust to that is by investing in a FB that can help us win the battle at the line when we need to.

 

Heck I KNOW Reich has been feeling the lack of a FB at times because he used Q in that role at times.  Being able to have a dedicated guy for that role makes a certain sense, leaving Q and Doyle to complete their other assignments.

Frss as moly, I’m a little astounded at the length of this response...   but so be it.

 

How often do you see this fullback playing?    How many snaps in our offense which might typically have 65-70 plays in a game?

 

Bottom line:  if Ballard agrees with you, then you’ll get your wish.  If not, you won’t.   I don’t know if that spot gets filled by a free agent or a draft pick.    But you’ll likely know by the month of May.    Good luck. 

[pgt_rob]

2 hours ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

90% of our plays are run up the middle. 

90% really? And plus a fullback will automatically say run. It’s not something I’d designate a roster spot for. 

[Scott Pennock]

If there is Mike Alstott or a Tom Rathman out there that can run, block and catch out of the backfield then absolutely!

[Myles]

1 hour ago, pgt_rob said:

90% really? And plus a fullback will automatically say run. It’s not something I’d designate a roster spot for. 

I would like to see a fullback implemented in the offense.   It would add a new wrinkle and give Reich some flexibility to keep the defense guessing.  If he could catch, his presence on the field wouldn't mean it's a run.  Since JB tends to dump the ball off, it could really work.

[MPStack]

1 hour ago, pgt_rob said:

90% really? And plus a fullback will automatically say run. It’s not something I’d designate a roster spot for. 

It’s more “cool idea” than reality. Very few teams have FB’s anymore. 

[Imgrandojji]

3 hours ago, Hoose said:

An H back/TE in motion works just as well as a fullback.. 

 

I don't know how many times I need to say this but for the love of holy buttered bananas the TE has his own assignments on run plays and is often tasked to provide additional push at the line even when the fullback is on the field.

 

No you CAN'T just turn TE into a fullback without sacrificing the other things that TE could be doing.  Saying that you can over and over again doesn't actually make it true.

 

Doyle is way, WAY too versatile to lock him into a FB role.

 

If you use your TE as a FB you're using your backup TE as a TE.  I dunno about you but most of the time I'd rather have a fullback on the field than a backup TE.  Mo Allie-Cox is a good backup, but asking him to pla beyond his role isn't smart,

[Imgrandojji]

36 minutes ago, MPStack said:

It’s more “cool idea” than reality. Very few teams have FB’s anymore. 

Except that the most successful franchise in North American sports has had a fullback on its roster constantly since 2013 and has won 3 SBs with him

 

Just because FBs are out of fashion doesn't mean the fashion is right.  We're playing an older style of football right now and fullbacks are absolutely a fit to the way Reich has been trying to set us up to play

[Imgrandojji]

2 hours ago, pgt_rob said:

90% really? And plus a fullback will automatically say run. It’s not something I’d designate a roster spot for. 

We're going to be a run heavy offense no matter what we do.  If we can't beat defenses who are expecting us, we aren't going to win regardless.  Because teams ARE going to expect us to run more often than not, and with Reich as coach and this roster, they'll probably be right.

[compuls1v3]

On 12/27/2019 at 8:38 AM, Imgrandojji said:

Do you guys think we should bring in a Fullback to help support the run game?

 

If we're going to build our game around the run, especially with medium-sized backs, I think we should go ahead and invest in a guy who can lead block.  What do you guys think?

I'd like to see some two back sets with Hines.

[shakedownstreet]

We could put in two halfbacks and call it a fullback

[Myles]

55 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

Except that the most successful franchise in North American sports has had a fullback on its roster constantly since 2013 and has won 3 SBs with him

 

Just because FBs are out of fashion doesn't mean the fashion is right.  We're playing an older style of football right now and fullbacks are absolutely a fit to the way Reich has been trying to set us up to play

I agree.  Many offenses dont use a fullback much anymore because its a passing league.  With JB, the offense more resembles the offenses of the past where a fullback was an assett. 

[MPStack]

15 minutes ago, Myles said:

I agree.  Many offenses dont use a fullback much anymore because its a passing league.  With JB, the offense more resembles the offenses of the past where a fullback was an assett. 

Sounds like Ballard needs to draft some Mike Alstott’s and Larry Centers! 

[Imgrandojji]

1 hour ago, MPStack said:

Sounds like Ballard needs to draft some Mike Alstott’s and Larry Centers! 

You don't need Alstott to have a good fullback.

 

Guys like Kyle Juschek are an exception.  Juschek is your Alstott type.  But for the most part the fullback functions by making offensive gains easier for other players, especially the RBs.

 

If we had a heavy duty RB who could double as a fullback that'd be nice.  We don't, zero  of our RBs qualify as true power runners and the closest guy we have to that role is not named Mack.

 

  And we're down to 1 quality TE plust Mo Allie-Cox who's a credible backup but not really a starter level player yet.  So a FB has some utility for us.

[Imgrandojji]

1 hour ago, compuls1v3 said:

I'd like to see some two back sets with Hines.

That's something I've called for too, but doing this by no means preclues using a Fullback.

[NannyMcafee]

6 hours ago, pgt_rob said:

90% really? And plus a fullback will automatically say run. It’s not something I’d designate a roster spot for. 

 

The point was that it's never a surprise when the colts run. If you find a pass catching FB he could compliment mack quite well. 2 RB sets isnt always a run either and if one stays in the block the other can run  out for the dump off. This would also compliment hines quite a bit when both the FB and the RB can catch you can still have 2 or 3 WRs on the field. 

 

Or 2 WR with 1 TE and a FB and  RB. It could be quite effective indeed. 

[Imgrandojji]

7 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Frss as moly, I’m a little astounded at the length of this response...   but so be it.

 

How often do you see this fullback playing?    How many snaps in our offense which might typically have 65-70 plays in a game?

 

I see a fb taking 40% of snaps, more against moee physical defenses that are giving our running backs issues

 

The main thing is we need thw run to be as tough to shut down as possible.  A fullback would help us get therw imho

 

[Jackie Daytona]

10 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

 

If we had a heavy duty RB who could double as a fullback that'd be nice.  

So, a TE that blocks the majority of his snaps, ( Doyle ) you argue up and down just simply can't fill the void of a FB.... But then you state that a heavy duty, so power back I take it, can just strap up and play that same  FB role just fine? Lol.   The biggest power backs rarely make good blockers, hell the largest, heaviest duty maybe? Back in recent memory, Brandon Jacobs sucked blocking... So did Bettis.... You think Derrick Henry is gonna lead block more than one or two times a game for a smaller RB?  

[Imgrandojji]

Big rbs are less likely to need a dedicated fullback

 

Andd again again again AGAIN you cant use a TE as a fb because the if the TE is any good he'll be busy being a TE. 

 

TIGHT. ENDS. HAVE. THEIR. OWN. ASSIGNMENTS. ON. RUN. PLAYS. 

 

The Patriots tend to use 2 tights and a fullback when they have them, to try and guarantee penetration against stubborn front 7s.  I want this to be a thing we are at least capable of

 

If im scheming a run i want Doyle out wide selling a pass.  Otherwise i want him a AND a prototype fullback both out there clearing the way for Mack