The Colts should invest into a true fullback

[BlueShoe]

I believe this offense is screaming for a fullback. 

 

I was hoping that Granson could be that hybrid FB/TE (F-Back). Unfortunately, he doesn't block well. MAC is our best blocking TE. Problem is he does not block well on the move (in space). Woods could develop into a blocker, but he is not there right now. Kalinic is one of the most unorthodox blockers I have seen. He can be effective, and we are not giving out style points for blocks here... However, once the NFL gets some film on him... What he is doing will not work for the long term. He isn't technically sound enough, at least not yet.

 

With a true fullback, Jonathan Taylor's game would go to an entire new level... Let's break down a play from the Raiders game. 

 

This will take a few posts, because I can only upload one image at a time (100kb file limit). Sometimes I get lucky though. and two posts will merge together. 

 

The Colts field 11 personnel, with Taylor, MAC, Pierce, Pittman, and Campbell. The play is designed beautifully. MAC's job is to cut across the backfield and seal the LDE (Maxx Crosby). Braden Smith's job is to take on linebacker, Jayon Brown. If JT gets these blocks, then he will do the rest.

 

 

 

 

From an offensive line standpoint, you cannot block this up better. This is picture perfect. Except for the poor angle taken by MAC, Vince Lombardi himself would be proud of how well the LT, LG, C, RG, and RT blocked this up. 

The problem is with the block from MAC on Crosby. Crosby uses an easy swim move on MAC to toss him out of the way. 

This thread is not designed to pick on MAC. Maxx Crosby is a beast in the run game, folks. That man is a game wrecker in run defense. That said, a talented fullback would make this block. 

The NFL wants to be so creative by disguising what they are doing… That they try to find that unicorn tight end who can block and be effective in the passing game too. It is great to have those guys. But they are unicorns. We were blessed to have Jack Doyle and Dwayne Allen. We do not have anyone on this team who can do what they did. 

 

[BlueShoe]

 

 

This is just too easy for Crosby. He pushed MAC out of the club and made him watch. This happened several times on Sunday, against the Raiders. 

 

[Solid84]

I wonder why we aren’t trying Pinter in those plays. He’s not elite by any stretch, but he’s a way better blocker than MAC. 

[BlueShoe]

Just now, Solid84 said:

I wonder why we aren’t trying Pinter in those plays. He’s not elite by any stretch, but he’s a way better blocker than MAC. 

 

It is a great thought, but Pinter would not be able cut across the backfield fast enough. 

[Solid84]

Just now, BlueShoe said:

 

It is a great thought, but Pinter would not be able tcut across the backfield fast enough. 

I mean, if MAC is fast enough anyone on this team is? 

[BlueShoe]

1 minute ago, Solid84 said:

I mean, if MAC is fast enough anyone on this team is? 

 

LOL. That's funny.

 

Cutting across the backfield is a long way for an offensive lineman to move. 

[AKB]

12 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I wonder why we aren’t trying Pinter in those plays. He’s not elite by any stretch, but he’s a way better blocker than MAC. 

could be a tell that shows run to swap pinter in

[DougDew]

Good thread.

 

Roster limitations impact the ability of certain plays to be executed successfully.  The play caller knows this, which is why they don't call certain plays.  Power plays in short yardage would be one play to not expect to be successful because of how the roster is constructed.

 

A stumpy TE that is useful in the passing game should be able to play like a FB when needed.  Pep could use Doyle this way occasionally, as did Reich/Siranni (but Doyle wasn't stumpy)

 

Teams that focus on having a short spread the ball to different receivers type of offense need to have passing game players first and foremost.  So there is no room on this roster for a FB, especially the active game-day roster.   Our TEs need to be more versatile, and Ballard should pound his fist demanding that his HC accept a player that has lead blocking skills.

 

Interesting, the play caller @ LV put the new TE Kalinic on Max Crosby one on one on a play, and he handled Crosby effectively (maybe Crosby was shocked. lol).  So it doesn't appear to be a play calling issue.  It appears to be about Granson not being a very good blocker but still having a roster spot.  

[Solid84]

7 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

could be a tell that shows run to swap pinter in

Sure, but we’re hardly using MAC in the passing game this year, so I’m not sure anyone is fooled by playing him over Pinter. 

[BlueShoe]

9 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

could be a tell that shows run to swap pinter in

 

1 minute ago, Solid84 said:

Sure, but we’re hardly using MAC in the passing game this year, so I’m not sure anyone is fooled by playing him over Pinter. 

 

Both are very good points... 

[DougDew]

40 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

could be a tell that shows run to swap pinter in

Absolutely.  Predictability is driven by the lack of versatility on the roster.  Its tough for a play caller to overcome that with just play calling.

 

Look up the careers of Larry Centers and Tom Rathman.  Two pure FBs who specialized at lead blocking for their respective JTs, but caught a LOT of passes in the flat and near the LOS.  Very useful/versatile for short yardage/goal line situations.

 

That was back in the day when power running was more prevalent than today's RPO offenses.  So the modern version of the FB would be the stumpy TE receiver who can lead block occasionally.  He could still run to the flat to catch a pass so as to not be predictable.

 

Hopefully, Granson can be taught to lead block.  IMO, he is the guy we have that could fill that role...or replace him.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, DougDew said:

Absolutely.  Predictability is driven by the lack of versatility of the roster.  Its tough for a play caller to overcome with just play calling.

 

Look up the careers of Larry Centers and Tom Rathman.  Two pure FBs who specialized at lead blocking for their respective JTs, but caught a LOT of passes in the flat and near the LOS.  Very useful for short yardage/goal line situations.

 

That was back in the day when power running was more prevalent than today's RPO offenses.  So the modern version of the FB would be the stumpy TE receiver who can lead block occasionally.  He could still run to the flat to catch a pass as to not be predictable.

Moose Johnston. He helped Emmitt out so much.

[chad72]

Your answer is probably Grant Stuard, he plays LB for Colts and stands at 5'11", 230 lbs.

 

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/grant-stuard/32005354-5501-4150-49bd-b5e4a0e6f4f3

 

He has played running back before and should have an understanding of blocking schemes, also shouldn't be shying away from contact as a LB. We should give him a shot, IMO.

[BlueShoe]

You guys are discussing some good points. 

 

I would rather have a FB who cannot run exotic routes than a tight end who cannot block. It is a tradeoff, and more often than not, NFL teams go with the tight end who cannot block. 

 

Like I said above, a tight end who can do it all, is a unicorn. 

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Moose Johnston. He helped Emmitt out so much.

Another up the gut running program....and Emmitt is high on the total career yardage list.

 

Did Moose catch passes?    Some would say that the running game was predictable...but that's when they had the Norv Turner pocket passing QB and vertical passing game to take the heat off of the running game.  Most NFL offenses now have short passing games driven by RPO plays (to protect their QBs). 

 

 The Moose/Emmitt (JT) Combo would not work without a wholesale changeover in scheme and some personnel, IMO.

[BlueShoe]

Just now, chad72 said:

Your answer is probably Grant Stuard, he plays LB for Colts and stands at 5'11", 230 lbs.

 

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/grant-stuard/32005354-5501-4150-49bd-b5e4a0e6f4f3

 

He has played running back before and should have an understanding of blocking schemes. We should give him a shot, IMO.

 

We discussed that possibility before the Raiders game. It seems like we are grasping at straws here though. 

 

NFL teams have outthought themselves on this. Field a team that can do the jobs they are asked to do. Too many square pegs in a round hole approaches. 

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

We discussed that possibility before the Raiders game. It seems like we are grasping at straws here though. 

 

NFL teams have outthought themselves on this. Field a team that can do the jobs they are asked to do. Too many square pegs in a round hole approaches. 

Agreed, Too many specialists for trying to win the match-up battle chess matches. 

 

The active game day roster is not big enough to have enough specialists for every kind of play.  The Colts have had to forego the power plays at the goal line because of it....choosing passing game match ups with different types of TEs.

 

Even the QB sneak @LV barely crossed the goal line....because we had our 37 year old passing QB being pushed by our skinny X WR, lol.  Try that against Simmons and TEN......

[BlueShoe]

10 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Agreed, Too many specialists for trying to win the match-up battle chess matches. 

 

The active game day roster is not big enough to have enough specialists for every kind of play.  The Colts have had to forego the power plays at the goal line because of it....choosing passing game match ups with different types of TEs.

 

Even the QB sneak @LV barely crossed the goal line....because we had our 37 year old passing QB being pushed by our skinny X WR, lol.

 

I view it as a lazy concept. You are correct about the gameday roster limitations... However, it is the lazy way out. 

 

Back in the day, teams would have 3 active backs on gameday... 2 running backs, and a fullback. If your 2 backs go down, then the fullback gets moved to deeper in the backfield. 

 

Again, I would much rather be in a situation, where "IF" I lost both my running backs that I had to turn to a FB (or WR)... Than to have my offense not execute plays. 

 

It is a lazy approach that has been repeated all across the NFL for a couple of decades now. 

 

Hell, in todays world, what would stop us from putting a WR at RB? Team's have done that. Why not have that as a backup plan, if a running back went down. It is all tradeoffs. I prefer to have my offense work as it is designed to work. 

[ruf]

24 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Absolutely.  Predictability is driven by the lack of versatility on the roster.  Its tough for a play caller to overcome that with just play calling.

 

Look up the careers of Larry Centers and Tom Rathman.  Two pure FBs who specialized at lead blocking for their respective JTs, but caught a LOT of passes in the flat and near the LOS.  Very useful/versatile for short yardage/goal line situations.

 

That was back in the day when power running was more prevalent than today's RPO offenses.  So the modern version of the FB would be the stumpy TE receiver who can lead block occasionally.  He could still run to the flat to catch a pass so as to not be predictable.

 

Hopefully, Granson can be taught to lead block.  IMO, he is the guy we have that could fill that role...or replace him.

what about the new rb we have i think his name is moss can he block?

[BlueShoe]

5 minutes ago, ruf said:

what about the new rb we have i think his name is moss can he block?

 

I would be more interested in using Jake Funk. He is smashmouth... I would try him in a blocking role... He is only 5'10" and 205... But I would certainly be checking under the tires there. 

[DougDew]

19 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

I view it as a lazy concept. You are correct about the gameday roster limitations... However, it is the lazy way out. 

 

Back in the day, teams would have 3 active backs on gameday... 2 running backs, and a fullback. If your 2 backs go down, then the fullback gets moved to deeper in the backfield. 

 

Again, I would much rather be in a situation, where "IF" I lost both my running backs that I had to turn to a FB (or WR)... Than to have my offense not execute plays. 

 

It is a lazy approach that has been repeated all across the NFL for a couple of decades now. 

 

Hell, in todays world, what would stop us from putting a WR at RB? Team's have done that. Why not have that as a backup plan, if a running back went down. It is all tradeoffs. I prefer to have my offense work as it is designed to work. 

None of our ball handlers are very versatile.  Our WRs don't block well.  Our RBs lack versatility.  Neither of them can block for the other, and they get smaller as we work down the depth chart.

 

The RBs are brought here to run up the gut.  The smaller ones are here to also catch passes like a receiver....not even typical RB pass catches (look up Centers and Rathman)...remember the comments, Hines should play the slot!

 

Once you have a roster full of specialists, then its pretty easy for a defense to predict what plays are going to be run based upon which skill position player is in the game.  Its got to be one genius play caller to overcome the predictability established by the personnel on the field...we should line up Hines in the backfield by himself then run him up the gut...that will fool them.  LOL.  Stuff.

 

Hopefully we see more versatility at least being tried by Jeff.  Whether it will work very well with our personnel aside from a few surprises, we'll see.

[AKB]

46 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Absolutely.  Predictability is driven by the lack of versatility on the roster.  Its tough for a play caller to overcome that with just play calling.

 

Look up the careers of Larry Centers and Tom Rathman.  Two pure FBs who specialized at lead blocking for their respective JTs, but caught a LOT of passes in the flat and near the LOS.  Very useful/versatile for short yardage/goal line situations.

 

That was back in the day when power running was more prevalent than today's RPO offenses.  So the modern version of the FB would be the stumpy TE receiver who can lead block occasionally.  He could still run to the flat to catch a pass so as to not be predictable.

 

Hopefully, Granson can be taught to lead block.  IMO, he is the guy we have that could fill that role...or replace him.

i don't have high hopes for Granson when it comes to blocking. or much of anything tbh

[DougDew]

18 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

I would be more interested in using Jake Funk. He is smashmouth... I would try him in a blocking role... He is only 5'10" and 205... But I would certainly be checking under the tires there. 

Yep.  To do what you are saying we should do, IMO, we should be activating Funk on game day and not Granson.  Or better yet, if MAC isn't doing well at all, have Woods take over for MAC as we leave Granson in his current role and activate Funk.  (I think Granson is playing well as a pure receiver)

 

That's what having a guy with the size and versatility of Funk on the roster instead of Hines or Linsday makes the O more versatile, especially on the goal line.

[BlueShoe]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

None of our ball handlers are very versatile.  Or WRs don't block well.  Our RBs lack versatility.  Neither of them can block for the other, and they get smaller as we work down the depth chart.

 

The RBs are brought here to run up the gut.  The smaller ones are here to also catch passes like a receiver....not even typical RB pass catches (look up Centers and Rathman)...remember the comments, Hines should play the slot!

 

Once you have a roster full of specialists, then its pretty easy for a defense to predict what plays are going to be run based upon which skill position player is in the game.  Its got to be one genius play caller to overcome the predictability established by the personnel on the field...we should call Hines up the gut...that will fool them.  LOL.  Stuff.

 

Hopefully we see more versatility at least being tried by Jeff.  Whether it will work very well with our personnel aside from a few surprises, we'll see.

 

Unfortunately, I disagree with a lot of what you are saying. 

 

Our wide receivers do block well. But what are we talking about them blocking? A corner? A safety? A linebacker? When we ask our receivers to block corners, they do very good job. If we are asking them to take on safeties and linebackers... Yeah, that is not going to happen. And it shouldn't be expected either. For what it is worth, I have been really impressed with Dulin's blocking. 

 

You said our running backs are brought here to "run up the gut"? Look man, I saw that nonsense being discussed by a lot of folks on this board, and chose not to reply. And for good reason... It is a ridiculous conversation. I am not going down that rabbit hole. 

 

This is the problem. Too many people are worried about being predictable. I could care less about that. If a team executes the play correctly, then it could literally tell the defense what it's running. Do you know how many plays Vince Lombardi had in his playbook? Now that said, having some unpredictability is useful. But it is not everything. Hell, I can run a play, knowing it's not going to amount to much... And accept that result... As long as I know it sets up a play later in the game, that will work. 

 

Bottom line is, if a play is designed to block a specific player, then make sure we field someone who can make that block. Can you imagine the offensive line... Bernhard Raimann, Quenton Nelson, Ryan Kelly, Will Fries, and Braden Smith having to watch the game film of the play I highlighted in the original posts of this thread? They did everything right! It was picture perfect. 

[Indy87]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Good thread.

 

Roster limitations impact the ability of certain plays to be executed successfully.  The play caller knows this, which is why they don't call certain plays.  Power plays in short yardage would be one play to not expect to be successful because of how the roster is constructed.

 

A stumpy TE that is useful in the passing game should be able to play like a FB when needed.  Pep could use Doyle this way occasionally, as did Reich/Siranni (but Doyle wasn't stumpy)

 

Teams that focus on having a short spread the ball to different receivers type of offense need to have passing game players first and foremost.  So there is no room on this roster for a FB, especially the active game-day roster.   Our TEs need to be more versatile, and Ballard should pound his fist demanding that his HC accept a player that has lead blocking skills.

 

Interesting, the play caller @ LV put the new TE Kalinic on Max Crosby one on one on a play, and he handled Crosby effectively (maybe Crosby was shocked. lol).  So it doesn't appear to be a play calling issue.  It appears to be about Granson not being a very good blocker but still having a roster spot.  

 

 

Granson is one of the worst blockers I have seen.

[DougDew]

35 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

Our wide receivers do block well. But what are we talking about them blocking? A corner? A safety? A linebacker? When we ask our receivers to block corners, they do very good job. If we are asking them to take on safeties and linebackers... Yeah, that is not going to happen. And it shouldn't be expected either. For what it is worth, I have been really impressed with Dulin's blocking. 

Sorry, with your previous comment I was thinking that you were asking a WR to fill in as the FB role, or do the push the QB sneak thing.  Yeah, if they are being asked to block a crossing LBer then I don't understand the play design or personnel usage.

 

35 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

You said our running backs are brought here to "run up the gut"? Look man, I saw that nonsense being discussed by a lot of folks on this board, and chose not to reply. And for good reason... It is a ridiculous conversation. I am not going down that rabbit hole. 

Well, my feeling is that none of our RBs are the shiftier hard to tackle Josh Jacobs types. (Zac Brown now excluded). They are all in the mold of being different sized Donald Brown's.  Up the gut running into a hole or a crease is what they do.

 

35 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

This is the problem. Too many people are worried about being predictable. I could care less about that. If a team executes the play correctly, then it could literally tell the defense what it's running. Do you know how many plays Vince Lombardi had in his playbook? Now that said, having some unpredictability is useful. But it is not everything. Hell, I can run a play, knowing it's not going to amount to much... And accept that result... As long as I know it sets up a play later in the game, that will work. 

I agree totally.  But doing that tends to make it a low scoring game...when everybody expects every possession to result in a score.  If we don't get a FG or a TD, its a failed possession.

 

My argument is for those who complain about predictability as being the main problem.  If that is the issue, then having too many players with limited skill sets is the driver of that problem.  

 

Did you ever watch the 1970's Chicago Bears with Roland Harper and Walter Payton...or those same Minny Vikings with Chuck Forman and Ed Molinaro.  They would line up in the split back formation and you never knew who was going to get the ball (although with CHI it was mostly Payton of course) because they could both lead block for each other, or knew if they were going to throw a swing pass and to which RB.  They both could block, catch, and run with power.

 

Compare that to what JT, Hines, and Granson can do and can't do and there is a HUGE limitation to what plays have a good probability of succeeding and which plays don't.  If you want less predictability, get more versatile players who can stay on the field for all three downs instead of rotating a bunch of personnel packages that tends to advertise what kind of play you want to run.

[richard pallo]

So happy to read this thread and I couldn't agree more.  Even remember Reich mentioning this and we even tried a few fullbacks when he was coach and they either didn't work out or we moved on and became enthralled with trying to make Hines work.  But a blocking fullback would really make this offense work and more dangerous than it currently is.  JT is the man and we need to get him open.  Our current blocking TE's don't cut it.  It's very obvious.  I'm hoping Jeff and the new play caller see this as well.  They tried with Kalinic with some success and Jake Funk should be given his shot as well.  I'm thinking that's what they had in mind when we signed him so I'm hoping he is elevated this week.  I liked it that you brought up the old Packers.  They kept it simple.  You knew what was coming with the Packer sweep and teams couldn't stop it.  Perfect execution carried the day.  A fullback leading the way can only help JT get going.  I'm hoping that's the path we go down.  I'm looking forward to seeing what transpires this weekend. 

[Scott Pennock]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

 

Interesting, the play caller @ LV put the new TE Kalinic on Max Crosby one on one on a play, and he handled Crosby effectively (maybe Crosby was shocked. lol).  So it doesn't appear to be a play calling issue.  It appears to be about Granson not being a very good blocker but still having a roster spot.  

Great response and I agree on Kalinic as he was a FB up in Canada from all indications of his scouting reports and such. They are obviously a spread the field offense up there, so he was used more as an H-Back. They kept him around on the PS for a reason, perhaps that is to be his role? A FB/H-Back kind of player?

[chad72]

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

I liked it that you brought up the old Packers.  They kept it simple.  You knew what was coming with the Packer sweep and teams couldn't stop it.  Perfect execution carried the day. 

 

Wasn't that how it was with the Peyton led Colts? A lot of times they lined up the same way with subtle variations of it and it was the execution over razzle dazzle that won. You could tell it was coming but still couldn't stop it because you had a QB who knew where to go with the ball and WRs on the same page to adjust based on reading the D the same way as the QB, more often than not.

[BlueShoe]

23 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Sorry, with your previous comment I was thinking that you were asking a WR to fill in as the FB role, or do the push the QB sneak thing.  Yeah, if they are being asked to block a crossing LBer then I don't understand the play design or personnel usage.

 

Well, my feeling is that none of our RBs are the shiftier hard to tackle Josh Jacobs types. (Zac Brown now excluded). They are all in the mold of being different sized Donald Brown's.  Up the gut running into a hole or a crease is what they do.

 

I agree totally.

 

My argument is for those who complain about predictability as being the main problem.  If that is the issue, then having too many players with limited skill sets is the driver of that problem.  

 

Did you ever watch the 1970's Chicago Bears with Roland Harper and Walter Payton...or those same Minny Vikings with Chuck Forman and Ed Molinaro.  They would line up in the split back formation and you never knew who was going to get the ball (although with CHI it was mostly Payton of course) because they could both lead block for each other, or knew if they were going to throw a swing pass and to which RB.  They both could block, catch, and run with power.

 

Compare that to what JT, Hines, and Granson can do and can't do and there is a HUGE limitation to what plays have a good probability of succeeding and which plays don't.  If you want less predictability, get more versatile players who can stay on the field for all three downs instead of rotating a bunch of personnel packages that tends to advertise what kind of play you are NOT going to run.

 

Thanks for clarifying... I wasn't sure where you were going with some of that. 

 

In the bold... What you are talking about is a Pro Set formation, and it was the base formation of the first playbook I ever created. I ran of lot of really cool 22 personnel packages out if it too. I implemented a lot of misdirection out of the set. It is still today, my favorite formation. I can do so much from it. 

 

As far as running plays in between the tackles... The size of the back does not dictate the effectiveness of the play... And it depends on what type of offense a team is running. There are many different philosophies of running the ball. Look at Maurice Jones Drew. That dude is like 5'6" and he could run power, between the tackles better than most backs 5'11" or bigger. Hines is a good between the tackles runner... Problem is he cannot do that fulltime for a full season. You sprinkle that stuff in. 

 

 

[BlueShoe]

13 minutes ago, Scott Pennock said:

Great response and I agree on Kalinic as he was a FB up in Canada from all indications of his scouting reports and such. They are obviously a spread the field offense up there, so he was used more as an H-Back. They kept him around on the PS for a reason, perhaps that is to be his role? A FB/H-Back kind of player?

 

Kalinic is very raw... He had some effective blocks, but they were very unorthodox. There was a play in the Raiders game, when he dove at Chandler Jones... Full speed across the backfield, and dove 5 yards towards Chandler Jones... Complete faceplant. I would like to know what Chandler Jones was thinking when this rookie came flying at him like Superman. It reminded me of that old TV Show back in the early 80's... I think it was called The Greatest American Hero or something like that. The block somewhat worked, but that is not something we can depend on. 

 

Now the block he had against Crosby (in Kalinic's first appearance), he had the right angle... I am concerned about his hands being outside on the blocks though. 

 

Kalinic has the heart... But the technique is not there yet. 

[DougDew]

14 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

Thanks for clarifying... I wasn't sure where you were going with some of that. 

 

In the bold... What you are talking about is a Pro Set formation, and it was the base formation of the first playbook I ever created. I ran of lot of really cool 22 personnel packages out if it too. I implemented a lot of misdirection out of the set. It is still today, my favorite formation. I can do so much from it. 

 

As far as running plays in between the tackles... The size of the back does not dictate the effectiveness of the play... And it depends on what type of offense a team is running. There are many different philosophies of running the ball. Look at Maurice Jones Drew. That dude is like 5'6" and he could run power, between the tackles better than most backs 5'11" or bigger. Hines is a good between the tackles runner... Problem is he cannot do that fulltime for a full season. You sprinkle that stuff in. 

 

 

Yeah.  Pro set formation.  

 

Agree, size is not the issue (obviously more bulk given everything else equal is better)  I'd say MJD and Hines are two different kinds of  RBs.  MJD is shiftier and also ran with natural forward lean, so he has natural power from behind the pads.  Hines is less shifty (fails to keep his balance as well as MJD) and runs more upright, meaning his chest takes the hit unless he crouches...just a less powerful posture.

[DougDew]

35 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

So happy to read this thread and I couldn't agree more.  Even remember Reich mentioning this and we even tried a few fullbacks when he was coach and they either didn't work out or we moved on and became enthralled with trying to make Hines work.  But a blocking fullback would really make this offense work and more dangerous than it currently is.  JT is the man and we need to get him open.  Our current blocking TE's don't cut it.  It's very obvious.  I'm hoping Jeff and the new play caller see this as well.  They tried with Kalinic with some success and Jake Funk should be given his shot as well.  I'm thinking that's what they had in mind when we signed him so I'm hoping he is elevated this week.  I liked it that you brought up the old Packers.  They kept it simple.  You knew what was coming with the Packer sweep and teams couldn't stop it.  Perfect execution carried the day.  A fullback leading the way can only help JT get going.  I'm hoping that's the path we go down.  I'm looking forward to seeing what transpires this weekend. 

I've been wanting a FB since the days of PM, so I followed that issue until I finally gave up.  I remember the first year Reich got here we immediately either signed or traded for a guy named Havili...a true FB.  Yeah he didn't work out and we ended up going with Hines as a roster spot instead.

 

I'll bet Vince had the right personnel to run his sweep over and over though.  Couldn't do it when he had Hines and Granson on the field. LOL.

[IndyEric07]

I thought Colts shoulda went after Juszkzsvsjzqkwxyzk before he went to the 49ers! 

[Scott Pennock]

1 hour ago, BlueShoe said:

 

Kalinic is very raw... He had some effective blocks, but they were very unorthodox. There was a play in the Raiders game, when he dove at Chandler Jones... Full speed across the backfield, and dove 5 yards towards Chandler Jones... Complete faceplant. I would like to know what Chandler Jones was thinking when this rookie came flying at him like Superman. It reminded me of that old TV Show back in the early 80's... I think it was called The Greatest American Hero or something like that. The block somewhat worked, but that is not something we can depend on. 

 

Now the block he had against Crosby (in Kalinic's first appearance), he had the right angle... I am concerned about his hands being outside on the blocks though. 

 

Kalinic has the heart... But the technique is not there yet. 

Blocking starts with the willingness to do so.......or so I was taught at a young age! Technique can be taught so I hope that is what they saw in him was the raw ability and the effort!

 

As far as the Jones block, I remember that, and I am 100% certain he is getting roasted in the film room for it - in a good way though! Ha!

[sb41champs]

Very few teams devote a roster spot to a true fullback - but - it's a good suggestion.

[jbaron04]

5 hours ago, BlueShoe said:

I believe this offense is screaming for a fullback. 

 

I was hoping that Granson could be that hybrid FB/TE (F-Back). Unfortunately, he doesn't block well. MAC is our best blocking TE. Problem is he does not block well on the move (in space). Woods could develop into a blocker, but he is not there right now. Kalinic is one of the most unorthodox blockers I have seen. He can be effective, and we are not giving out style points for blocks here... However, once the NFL gets some film on him... What he is doing will not work for the long term. He isn't technically sound enough, at least not yet.

 

With a true fullback, Jonathan Taylor's game would go to an entire new level... Let's break down a play from the Raiders game. 

 

This will take a few posts, because I can only upload one image at a time (100kb file limit). Sometimes I get lucky though. and two posts will merge together. 

 

The Colts field 11 personnel, with Taylor, MAC, Pierce, Pittman, and Campbell. The play is designed beautifully. MAC's job is to cut across the backfield and seal the LDE (Maxx Crosby). Braden Smith's job is to take on linebacker, Jayon Brown. If JT gets these blocks, then he will do the rest.

 

 

 

 

From an offensive line standpoint, you cannot block this up better. This is picture perfect. Except for the poor angle taken by MAC, Vince Lombardi himself would be proud of how well the LT, LG, C, RG, and RT blocked this up. 

The problem is with the block from MAC on Crosby. Crosby uses an easy swim move on MAC to toss him out of the way. 

This thread is not designed to pick on MAC. Maxx Crosby is a beast in the run game, folks. That man is a game wrecker in run defense. That said, a talented fullback would make this block. 

The NFL wants to be so creative by disguising what they are doing… That they try to find that unicorn tight end who can block and be effective in the passing game too. It is great to have those guys. But they are unicorns. We were blessed to have Jack Doyle and Dwayne Allen. We do not have anyone on this team who can do what they did. 

 

Yes I was saying this , we a fake run team. Every other run team has a fullback on roster. We could probably draft the best full back in draft in the 5-7 or get undrafted guy. You want to be power run team you need a fullback 

21 minutes ago, sb41champs said:

Very few teams devote a roster spot to a true fullback - but - it's a good suggestion.

Only the real Run teams aka 49ers lol

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, jbaron04 said:

Yes I was saying this , we a fake run team. 

 

6 minutes ago, jbaron04 said:

Only the real Run teams aka 49ers lol

Yep, this is not supposed to be a running team.  Its supposed to be a short passing spread the ball around team.  But we have never had enough assets for that, and JT has been our best playmaker, so he gets fed because he's simply the best option of many not very good options. 

[BlueShoe]

33 minutes ago, jbaron04 said:

Yes I was saying this , we a fake run team. Every other run team has a fullback on roster. We could probably draft the best full back in draft in the 5-7 or get undrafted guy. You want to be power run team you need a fullback 

Only the real Run teams aka 49ers lol

 

Jacobs ran right behind a his fullback, Jakob Johnson and scored. Followed him all the way into the endzone. 

 

[BlueShoe]

This is the 66 yard Tug by JT...

 

Let's just say that MAC falls down and gets in the way of Crosby... Not exactly how you draw it up... Forced Crosby to take a wider angle and miss JT... An effective block for a score does not need to win on style points...

 

 

Imagine what JT would do if we had a fullback who could consistently deliver with technically sound blocks...

 

That's all the space JT needs.... And then it is out the gate!