Fullback: Half Empty of Half Full?
by maritimebronco on Jun 2, 2009 6:28 PM MDT
Email
PrintSo I was watching Spencer Larsen Interview on the Denver Bronco website and I realise that we don't really have a true Fullback like most NFL teams would have. We have a lot of players that can play Fullback and switch into this role along with other duties but we have no true West Coast or Smash Mouth Fullback.
It is funny having played Rugby you think of a Fullback as being the guy who is 'Fully Back' from the line. Think Safety/Speed which is the complete opposite of the Football Fullback.
When you think Fullback in the traditional football sense you think power running and blocking. Players like Jim Brown, Larry Czonka, Mike Alscott and others are the iconic Fullbacks in NFL history. They combined ripping the ball and crashing into the people ahead of you with blocking that knocked Defences on their butts. In more recent times this position has continued to be about those things but has also included catching the ball out of the back feild and crashing it up the field.
While Denver has players that are capable of doing this there is no true Fullback currently on the roster. Players listed at Fullback are Peyton Hillis and Spenser Larsen. While both of these players can play the FB role well they lack aspects of the fullback position to really label them Fullbacks.
Potential Fullbacks
Spencer Larsen - He has great blocking ability and will consistently put someone on their ass. His main fall back at the Fullback position is that he is not comfortable running the ball nor can he really catch the ball. The other thing to remember is that he also plays Linebacker and is a big part of Denver's Special teams. As per HoosierTeacher's posting on the TED LB I think Larsen will play a significant role rotating with Andre Davis. With his other roles tiring him out and draw backs as a FB he is not the quintessential FB.
Peyton Hillis - Hillis blew me away last season as a running back and I'm sure he did the same for many of you. If you haven't checked out some of his highlights (almost every play) from You Tube please do he is awesome. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48HAiaY3vps&feature=related. Hillis is a great runner and catcher but lacks the elite blocking ability to lead the way for the back behind him. I think he could rotate in at a number of positions on the offense if he knee heals up. But I think he is better with the ball in his hands which means fighting for a running back spot.
TE - I suppose we might try to convert one of the Tight Ends on the roster to play Fullback but there might be a problem with them running the football. It might be an interesting idea but I doubt if the team would do it.
Schlueter - this guy runs a 4.7 40 yard dash which is fast enough play Fullback in the NFL. I don't really see him running or catching the ball but he might compete with Lichtensteiger as the Redzone Fullback.
I know that McDaniels typically runs a lot of single set back fields meaning that the Fullback is a position that is not as important in his offense. And it will be interesting to see the Fullback position filled by a versatile rotation. The thing to remember is when Denver breaks the single season rushing record (3165 yards New England 1978) Jamie Dukes and his MSM meatheads are going to be wondering who the Fullback is?
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
21 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
good post!
i liked K-Lich in as the red zone fullback, and i think hillis will be starting fullback with larsen playing LB. the combo of hillis and moreno out there at the same time will cause a lot of trouble for the defense.
"It means nothing to throw for 4500 yards, 25 touchdowns, and you dont win"-Brandon Marshall
Neckbeard vs The Spleen: How better can this get?!?!
red zone FB
I couldn’t help but wonder if Schlueter would play in the RZ FB role this year, too. It’s truly rare to find a player of his size possessing such extraordinary metrics — 6’3, 285, 4.7 – 40yd.
Schlueter (6-2 3/8, 290 pounds) ran the 40-yard dash in 4.7 seconds, had a 35-inch vertical jump, a 9-foot-3-inch long jump, a 4.28-second short shuttle, and a 7.42-second three-cone drill.
"The news and the truth are not the same thing." - Walter Lippmann
Probably half full.
Hillis and Moreno will provide us with one of the most exciting seasons that we have had in years. Haven’t heard to much about Torain. He may blossom as well. Not impossible to use Schlueter in the red zone. The bears used the ‘Frig’.
Thanks for the post maritimebronco
I think you forgot one, Marcus Thomas Played sparingly at fullback during his senior seasonat Mandarin High School in Jacksonville, Fla. and had a 100-yard rushing performance… HeHe!
Tactics without Strategy is the noise you hear before Defeat!
I didn't even know that but that would be kind of interesting
I know that he likes to run the ball when he’s made his interceptions. Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing?
by maritimebronco on Jun 3, 2009 4:47 AM MDT up reply actions
Great Post
I didn’t realise that the Broncos had such a plethora of talent at fullback. It’s definitely half full. rec’d
Lamont Jordan and Ryan Torain would be other candidates
I doubt these two players would make the transition though they could spot from time to time.
Lots of thoughts.
First, Rec’d. This is a position that doesn’t get a lot of attention, and you’re sharp to realize the issues.
I’ve written before that the FB is likely to cease as a position in pro football. I expect the change over the course of the next twenty years. However, several teams (not just Denver) are not carrying true FBs already. I believe that at least one team isn’t filling the position at all (I had mentioned this recently, but can’t recall offhand which team it is).
I have to confess that when I started to read your post, I had forgotten that Pinnock was gone. Part of the way through, I had to ook up the roster and realized how right you are.
Still, I’m not concerned. We can run 2 TE sets with the talent that we have, and we can run 3 WR / 1 TE sets often. Perhaps we can run 2 RB sets (as in pro formations), but I doubt it. We can run a lot of single back sets at any rate.
I love Hillis as a FB. In fact, he IS a true FB, having played there in college and for Denver (until injuries plagued the team). Folks really want to see him running more, so he may be used with Moreno alot as a rotation, spell, or change of pace. But I have to confess, I wouldn’t mind seeing him at FB. He can still do all the nifty things a true FB does, but when the defense isn’t expecting it, he can run from the FB position. Either way, I’ll be fine. I would like Larsen in one role or the other. I’m not sure I see him starting at LB this year, and he may not be a top draw at FB (for the reasons you’ve mentioned).
So it would see we may have a little intrigue on the offensive side of the ball too!
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
Back in 2005
2005 as that first season that McDaniels called the plays for New England. He had a 217 lb fullback by the name of Patrick Pass who was used, when on the field, as a second running back at times, a blocker at times and a receiver the rest of the time (Link). I’d look for Hillis to be seen and employed in a similar vein. Coach McDaniels has already commented that HIllis’ versatility will provide a wide variety of options. And, as you say, there’s always Leatherhead Larsen for the straight blocking approach!
Hillis/Moreno in '09
I think you are right Bear.
I just went back a re-read your story, and I buy your line of thinking.
It will be difficult to shift my paradigm when thinking about the McDaniels approach. I’m looking at depth rosters (still) from a more classical approach, and I’ll need to shift my context to understand the new way. I was proud of myself when the draft began to make sense (because I changed how I approach drafting to a new school of thought). Filling the roster (and depth charts in particular) will be more difficult for me. I’m grateful that I’m wise enough to know this limitation, but frustrated at the difficulty of un/re-learning years of principles relating to how a player and a position are “meant” to be evaluated.
I’ll be more at home once the season kicks into gear, and we get back into the on field dynamics.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Jun 4, 2009 1:09 PM MDT up reply actions
shifting paradigms
I think we can boil it down, and it doesn’t require studying a new form of ‘fuzzy’ math to understand.
Playing more than one position has the effect of creating a bigger roster. Late picks — especially — can justify their place on the roster by filling in at as many positions as possible. Special Teams duties are very important (which everybody always says but it’s often ‘lip service’ to the idea), so some players are ST specialists first and backups on offense/defense secondarily.
The salary cap makes getting more out of the bottom of the roster essential. Added to this effect, teams have to staff 4 ST units plus the offense and defense with a 45 man active roster (46 w/3rd QB), so there’s a premium on every roster spot. And it’s really a 42/43 man active squad if you ignore the K, P & LS.
On the strategic front — I think the general idea is to have wider range of options, which makes the opponent prepare for more things. The basic idea is give yourself a greater number of possible mismatches. And the Patriots installed a lot of game day packages designed to do this, as well as making adjustments during the game. The philosophy could be viewed as the opposite of the Packer power sweep’s “you know what we’re going to do now try to stop us” approach. The point, on both offense and defense, is to seek out weaknesses, and having what is in effect a greater roster size expedites this strategy.
BTW — the odd thing is that I posted on these ideas last year. I’ll have to hunt for those posts in the archives. Another theme in those posts was the idea to use the running game to help the defense. I also suggested an attacking style defense that tried to confuse the offense. Maybe I was just a year early on this stuff?
"The news and the truth are not the same thing." - Walter Lippmann
I understand the concept.
The problem is reshifting my thinking about traditional roles of a player.
For example, I understand that a bigger roster is made when a player plays more than one position. But my classicist thinking is (for example) that the guy on the team best suited to play at DE is not going to be the guy best suited to play at OLB. Thus, if I’m using a DE to play at OLB, I’m not using him at his best position and I’m also displacing the guy best suited to play at OLB.
I understand the ideas, and I even admire them. But it will take some time for me to retrain how I evaluate players. My context is “players as position specialists”, and I’ll need to adjust to “players as interchangeable athetes”. Neither view is right or wrong, but a coach is likely going to fall into one camp or the other.
An example of the dilemma is “biggest need” vs “best available” when drafting. Folks can argue past each other all day because they are going to argue the draft from their own perspective. I can’t (for example) defend the recent Denver draft from a “biggest needs” angle, because Denver clearly wasn’t trying for needs in the draft. Looked at from a totaly different paradigm (best available) the draft was a massive success. I had to adjust my thoughts from thinking as a needs guy to thinking like a BPA drafter. When I did, everything made sense.
Right now some of the depth chart moves don’t make sense to me, nor CAN they. I don’t evaluate talent as interchangable. This may sound like a silly problem that is easy to change. But I’ve spent years evaluating talent in several sports that I’ve coached where I’ve selected athletes based on what position they best help the team in. For some folks, athletes are selected differently.
A good example is when I coached distance events in track. My head (track) coach was from a different school of thought than I. I trained the athletes for endurance, because that is what I did best. But when it came time to determine which athletes competed in which events (both sprints and distance), the HC made the determinations (not the sprint coach or I). He was a master. We didn’t go for wins for individuals (as I would have) by simply putting the best people in each event in those events. instead, he went for overall points for the actual meet with high individual finishes (not neccessarily 1st places in individuals). It is hard to explain (because again, I’m not built to think in those terms), but we always managed to win team events. We didn’t win a lot of individual events within meets, but here and there we sacrificed 1st place individuals (for several second and third place finishes by using a superstar in several lesser events than wearing him out in his best events.
As a team, we were probably better or lesser than other teams from year to year, but we always dominated the actual meets and tournaments because of where our head coach put our runners, and that seemed to play a bigger role than how good our kids (and the competitions) actually were. In other words, our HC had a winning system that seemed to prove that his placement scheme overrode actual on track athleticism.
I wonder if (to some extent) the same kind of thinking goes into the Ameoba type thinking that McDaniels is bringing here. If so, I’ll have to undergo a tranisition of thinking from a guy who sees players as “best at…” and look at them as “also able to…” It’s no small thing to switch the line of thinking, even if I understand it. I was able to internalize BPA during a sort of epiphany while writing about the draft, but I have no experience with drafting, so the change was easy to make. Having evaluated talent at the HS level, the change in this area will be more difficult for me.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Jun 5, 2009 3:22 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
That was a good explanation HT
I hope that last sentiment is true. It would explain a lot.
With the 12th pick, the Broncos select Knowshon Moreno - Roger Goodell
That'll move the chains - Andy Samberg
Hillis and Alstott
I think there are a lot of paralells between Hillis and Alstott. They’re essentially power backs who were moved to fullback to accomodate flashier RBs.
They also both have the amazing ability to make contact with their pads about a foot off the ground while maintaining their balance.
not worried
i don’t remember a true fullback under shanny really, either. maybe in the sb years. i agree it is being phased out in a lot of offenses, and single-back sets, h-backs, and te sets seem to be popping up. i thought pinnock was more of a true blocking back(but that’s it), and don’t know much about schlueter’s skill-set. but i think we have guys that can get the job done in the red-zone/short-yardage, where we likely may use one. hillis/larsen blocking for moreno/torain/buckhalter should be good enough for most uses, i would think.
taste my blintzkrieg!
2009-year of the secondary?
Wasn't Howard Griffith a pretty classic FB?
He was an underrated player….
"I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" -- Wimpy J. Wellington
That depends entirely on how you define "classic FB"
the position has changed considerable over the years and it changes based on the system/formation.
In an option offense the FB is primarily an inside runner;
in a pro-set offense the FB is largely interchangeable with a HB, although usually with more inside running assignments;
in a traditional (non-option) I-formation the FB is primarily a lead blocker;
many one back systems retain the FB and ditch the HB.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jun 4, 2009 12:30 PM MDT up reply actions
Good points, SWG
I thought that McDaniels was nice enough to solve this one for us in today’s DenverBroncos.com, the subsection entitled Hillis Impresses:
Through offseason workouts, Peyton Hillis has caught McDaniels’ attention.
McDaniels sees the second-year pro who can play both fullback and running back as a valued commodity. In practice, Hillis is being used in a range of ways. In single-back formations, he is occasionally running the ball – McDaniels said he is a strong candidate to get the ball in goal-line situations. In two-back sets, he’s typically blocking. And McDaniels wants to use him in a receiving role, too. At Wednesday’s practice, Hillis was split out wide all over the field.
“He’s got great hands, he’s got a great feel for the passing game and he’s a very tough runner when you give him the ball. He’ll do a lot of different things for us,” McDaniels said. “We tell our players they all create their own roles and he’s certainly done a good job of taking what we’re giving him and doing it very well.”
Hillis/Moreno in '09
Giffith was probably the only true FB that Shanny employed
and was certainly the most talented. Sapp was undersized, and Kyle was a bit on the small size as well it seems.
Offhand, looking at what makes each player able to contribute (in terms of physical skillsets) the FBs skillsets seem antiquated in terms of the speed of the game in its current incarnation. I agree with both Dave and HT that it is being phased out.
The cool thing is, once it has been phased out, you might see a return to it over the years to address some NEW tectonic shift int eh NFL landscape…
There is no army so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
by Jeremy Bolander on Jun 4, 2009 8:57 AM MDT up reply actions
At FB I think our cup overflowith...
.
Guardian of the Gate to La La Land!
Gonsoulin, Taylor, Little, Wright, Gradishar, Atwater, Davis, and Sharpe...
Why are they not in the Hall...I just don't understand.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Getting Social With MHR
Web Stuff
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
