FB PLEASE!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from oh-my-beard. Show oh-my-beard's posts

    FB PLEASE!

    I played FB in high school, and the position has always been one of my favorite on the field. I am hoping that the influx of talent and the FB postition in the offseason means that we will FINALLY utilize a true FB in the offense. We as Pats fans love the blue collar guys, and a true FB would quickly become a fan favorite.

    Will McD utilize a FB in this offense this year?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

    I'm afraid the contact rule changes have made the prospects for passing so juicy that the role of a FB has become rather moot compared to its former status.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

    Talented RB's don't need a FB.  Plus it not only takes a weapon off the field it kinda advertises what your going to do.

    Remember the formation and what happened on first down on our final series of our final drive of the Super bowl?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

    To have a FB you need to run the ball, the Pats refuse to do that. As long as we have Welker, Edelman or Ebert, we'll never use a FB.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from KyleCleric2. Show KyleCleric2's posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

    Sure we'll use an FB. Ball control was a big part of winning games for us when we won our super bowls. McDaniels coming back, the additions of Fiammetta and Larsen, as well as the 3rd TE Fells, indicates to me anyway that there will be more of a focus on running. Ridley and Vereen, if they do succeed, provide far more dynamic running potential than what we have had with the Sammie Morris, Antowain Smith, and BenJarvis Green-Ellis types. BB recognizes that the threat of Corey Dillon added a new dynamic to the Pats. He tried to get that back with Maroney. Now he's trying to do that with Ridley and Vereen. The FB and versatile tight ends are a vital part of that. It'll be a competition between Fiammetta and Larsen but one of them will be on the team.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

    Aaron Hernandez and Dallas Clark (if signed) are fullbacks/Hbacks by every definition. If Spencer Larsen makes the team on special teams he will also provide depth at fullback.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

    I don't see a FB being used early in games because of how the O is run, but I hope they use them late in games. A FB can be a valuable tool that can add an extra yrd per carry as a lead blocker. Trying to close out games that extra yrd per carry can be huge. It makes a difference of 3rd and 2 or 3rd and 4. Of course there is so much more you can do in 3rd and 2 then 3rd and 4. That could mean the difference between getting a 1st or a 4th and 1 or 2. An extra 1st is another ~2:15 off the clock and we all know what that extra time means. So the way BB tried to pull in a FB late in the season and his obvious attempt to garner extra FB talent for training camp I think BB is putting together a close out games package.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmcintosh. Show andrewmcintosh's posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

    Fullbacks are complete dinosaurs in this league.  Don't want one, don't really need one.  Maybe for some jumbo package goal line stuff, but between the 20s having one on the field is a waste of time.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rocky. Show Rocky's posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

    Even though the FB has been phased out over the years it is great to have Aaron Hernandez can play: HB, FB, TE, and WR

    He is definitely the type of player likes....

    Like Gronkowski he is somebody the Patriots need to lock up after this season
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

    In Response to Re: FB PLEASE!:
    [QUOTE]Fullbacks are complete dinosaurs in this league.  Don't want one, don't really need one.  Maybe for some jumbo package goal line stuff, but between the 20s having one on the field is a waste of time.
    Posted by andrewmcintosh[/QUOTE]

    You don't think adding an additional yrd+ per carry could have helped run out the clock in the last couple of SB's?

    Dinosaurs or not, when you have the lead and absolutely need to run out clock at the end of a big game or you absolutely need a yrd then having that extra lead blocker who knows how to read the holes opening in the line could make all the difference in the world. FB's are still a need if you don't have a true #1 RB which the Pats don't have
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from threejak. Show threejak's posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

    A true FB?  C'mon the Pats offense looks like something out of "Transformers" and may be even more so in '12 as they add a few pcs. coupled with the maturity of a few others....Correct me if I'm worng but Heath Evans struck me as the last "true" or conventional old school FB type. Today, Pats could line up three or four guys in that positon and drive opposing defenisve coordinators to wearing DEPENDS.

    Multiple skill set players, some kinda obscure are researched, worked-out and  chosen for a very good reason by the "Hooded" one and staff....Mad science indeed...

    A competitive camp would be an udnerstatement and I for one can't wait for the season to start....Should be agreat one in the making....


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmcintosh. Show andrewmcintosh's posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

    In Response to Re: FB PLEASE!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: FB PLEASE! : You don't think adding an additional yrd+ per carry could have helped run out the clock in the last couple of SB's? Dinosaurs or not, when you have the lead and absolutely need to run out clock at the end of a big game or you absolutely need a yrd then having that extra lead blocker who knows how to read the holes opening in the line could make all the difference in the world. FB's are still a need if you don't have a true #1 RB which the Pats don't have
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]
    There are very few "pure" FBs around anymore, and I would be quite surprised if having a FB equates to 1 more ypc every touch.  If that were the case then sign me up, but I seriously doubt it is.  FBs give you almost zero positional flexibility, they are a liability on every play thats not a power lead.  IMO there's just better personell packages to put out there, even if your intent is to run the ball.  I've always felt that the key to good, efficient, running is the offensive line moreso than the FB or ball carrier.  Good run blocking up front can let you get away with very pedestrian backs.  So if anything I'd like to see more investment in the big uglies.  I get your point though, and I think there will be a greater emphasis on running a bit more this season.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

    Belichick's got something up his sleeve...precisely what, is still pretty bewildering to me.

    Like was stated...IF the only other year BB decided to have a FB, was back in the mere couple of seasons with Heath Evans, whom was more of a FB/RB, perhaps just over Stevan Ridley sized 'tweener between the two...and now he suddenly has decided to have for training camp:

    Spencer Larsen (FB/LB...but the last & only very minor D time off, was back in 2008 off the bench):  6'2 243lbs

    Eric Kettani (FB/RB): 5'11 235lbs

    Tony Fiametta (an EXTEMELY good FB): 6'0 242lbs

    Now, and along w/ some of NE's younger bigger RB classified guys-

    Stevan Ridley: 5'11 225 (and MAN...he looked bigger than this all the way back to last year's preseason games)

    Brandon Bolden: 5'11 215lbs (another guy looking much bigger in real life than this listed weight, from the little I saw of him).


    Really...WHAT is goin' on with that?  Those 3 FBs alone?!?  ALL of them...the more research I did on those 3 FBs, were HIGHLY noted seperately and very clearly, for their superior pass-catching abilities based on former collegiate numbers of past scouting reports...

    So...Do you use 1 Bigger 2 back set, wherein there's a Fiametta type blocking for a Ridley type?  Do you use Hernandez as a swing pass-catching TE/RB in motion (and hope 1 of your RBs can also offer something even slightly close to the same)...Here you'd still have the versatility of a 2 TE thing w/ Gronk & Hernandez, but with the added motion-looks of Hernandez jumping behind some monster FB?  What about, a Hernandez/FB type look (howeverTH THAT would work personell crossing-wise)...and thus, use this Hernandez/FB role similarly as Both that pass-catching TE option of your dual TE looks, but also as an in-motion jump-back to set himself up as that lead-backer (whether you'll always use this guy as a lead-blocker, is another issue entirely), While using someone of Vareen's/Woodhead's Quality as that shiftier scat-back (who's also that superb pass-catching option in their own right).  

    See?  Gotta be something weird and novel BB's attempting to try...  It ain't gonna be 2 TEs, 2 RBs (RB + FB), 5 O-Linemen, 1 QB.....and then:  1 Wide Receiver?!?!  Uh-uh...too many skilled wideouts, along with the fact that NE's 2 TE schemes work far too well at already proven & excellently exploitable defensive mismatches, ya know?  So WhatInTH is it?  Belichick doesn't do: Zero FBs for seven years, 1 FB/RB for 2 years...then suddenly 3 FBs with 2 more plus sized RBs for absolutely ZERO purposes whatsoever. 

    Additionally, Even very average Bigger sized RBs seem to benefit NE's Offensive Style of play & compliment just ideally (historically smaller sized weight-wise O-Line developed for quicker pass-blocking...zone run blocking scheme...Brady's A#1 propensity for being exceptional at stepping in the pocket-Which is countered by a heightened interior Defensive pocket collapsing mantra....which in turn, should be RE-countered by NE through the use of an interior bigger back between the guards-tackles, running game threat).

    I just don't know...     

    It's ALSO Belichick's way to "jab" when everybody else is "uppercutting"- Ya know- Everyone moves 1 way, Bill Belichick UN-conditionally is moving the opposite way...  EVERY-one's moving to a 3-4...thus, there's gonna be less 3-4 guys available and far more understanding and comfort against 3-4 Defenses...Thus:  Higher-skilled 4-3 Guys who would've never been available at those numbers on the cheap, ARE now available...  Exact same deal right here w/ FBs.  He will attempt to do SOME-thing with it...BUT what EXACTLY he might try, is known to Belichick...(When it's a BB gameplan, The CIA is probably still as bewildered as the rest of us are).
       
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

    In Response to Re: FB PLEASE!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: FB PLEASE! : There are very few "pure" FBs around anymore, and I would be quite surprised if having a FB equates to 1 more ypc every touch.  If that were the case then sign me up, but I seriously doubt it is.  FBs give you almost zero positional flexibility, they are a liability on every play thats not a power lead.  IMO there's just better personell packages to put out there, even if your intent is to run the ball.  I've always felt that the key to good, efficient, running is the offensive line moreso than the FB or ball carrier.  Good run blocking up front can let you get away with very pedestrian backs.  So if anything I'd like to see more investment in the big uglies.  I get your point though, and I think there will be a greater emphasis on running a bit more this season.
    Posted by andrewmcintosh[/QUOTE]

    Of course the OL is more important then an FB in the running game, it's silly to say otherwise. What that FB does is clear out the LB in gap assignment at the next level.

    Yes FB's generally give an extra yrd per carry, mainly because of their specialty use. They are used to block out LB's and S's that are typically found in gap control and edge containment. Those LB's and S's alone prevent an extra yrd from being gained if not turning it into a lose. Now if the FB was used on every down this wouldn't be the case, but if you go back into film on short yrd situations when BJGE or Maroney had a lead blocker they typically gained 2-3yrds vs in short yrd situations being stuffed at the line or gaining a single yrd. This happened consistently. One reason might be because the FB is kept at full strength and has more power and push for a single play then the D.

    Additionally, the FB's that BB currently has on the team aren't known for carrying the ball but are know for having good hands coming out of the backfield (think Evans). This does give them a multifaceted role then just as a lead blocker
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from helterskelter. Show helterskelter's posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

     With Bill going 80 vs 20 pass vs run mostly in for Pass protection and play action.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmcintosh. Show andrewmcintosh's posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

    In Response to Re: FB PLEASE!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: FB PLEASE! : Of course the OL is more important then an FB in the running game, it's silly to say otherwise. What that FB does is clear out the LB in gap assignment at the next level. Yes FB's generally give an extra yrd per carry, mainly because of their specialty use. They are used to block out LB's and S's that are typically found in gap control and edge containment. Those LB's and S's alone prevent an extra yrd from being gained if not turning it into a lose. Now if the FB was used on every down this wouldn't be the case, but if you go back into film on short yrd situations when BJGE or Maroney had a lead blocker they typically gained 2-3yrds vs in short yrd situations being stuffed at the line or gaining a single yrd. This happened consistently. One reason might be because the FB is kept at full strength and has more power and push for a single play then the D. Additionally, the FB's that BB currently has on the team aren't known for carrying the ball but are know for having good hands coming out of the backfield (think Evans). This does give them a multifaceted role then just as a lead blocker
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]
    Heath never had more than 10 catches in a season in NE, so I'm not quite sure where the versatility argument comes into play.  Fullback is probably the least versitile skill position on offense, they're in the game to take on linebackers like you said, that's it.  If what you are arguing for is a limited role i.e. goal line stuff, then we're on the same page.  What I disagree with is the argument that the Fullback should become a staple part of the Patriots offensive packages or philosophy between the 20s.  It's a waste of a position imo.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

    In Response to Re: FB PLEASE!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: FB PLEASE! : Heath never had more than 10 catches in a season in NE, so I'm not quite sure where the versatility argument comes into play.  Fullback is probably the least versitile skill position on offense, they're in the game to take on linebackers like you said, that's it.  If what you are arguing for is a limited role i.e. goal line stuff, then we're on the same page.  What I disagree with is the argument that the Fullback should become a staple part of the Patriots offensive packages or philosophy between the 20s.  It's a waste of a position imo.
    Posted by andrewmcintosh[/QUOTE]

    I guess the only argument I would have between the 20's if in short yardage plays, screens as an additional blocker, and when you are trying to run out the clock with power running. Short of that I wouldn't use them between the 20's but I would say that 10-20% of O snaps could use a FB in as an extra blocker given certain situations. That amount of snaps is more then most 4th RB's would naturally see and even 3rd RB's in the Pats system sometimes don't see that many snaps in a game, so I guess the question is would you rather have a specialist that fills that role more then say a G or LB trying to fill it or would you rather have that extra 4th RB sitting on the bench hoping Woodhead, Ridley, and/or Vereen doesn't get injured
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmcintosh. Show andrewmcintosh's posts

    Re: FB PLEASE!

    In Response to Re: FB PLEASE!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: FB PLEASE! : I guess the only argument I would have between the 20's if in short yardage plays, screens as an additional blocker, and when you are trying to run out the clock with power running. Short of that I wouldn't use them between the 20's but I would say that 10-20% of O snaps could use a FB in as an extra blocker given certain situations. That amount of snaps is more then most 4th RB's would naturally see and even 3rd RB's in the Pats system sometimes don't see that many snaps in a game, so I guess the question is would you rather have a specialist that fills that role more then say a G or LB trying to fill it or would you rather have that extra 4th RB sitting on the bench hoping Woodhead, Ridley, and/or Vereen doesn't get injured
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]
    Sounds reasonable to me.  I'm all in favor of more efficient running, I just don't like the "run for the sake of running" argument.  Overwhelmingly, you score and win with the passing game now a days, it is what it is.
     

Share