Ray R
Club Member
All this uproar about running backs blocking implies we need a fullback, doesn't it?
I'm a big fan of fullbacks. There has been a lot of extended name changes for "Ends" and "Backs" that seem to specify some single aspect of those positions. TE, WR and such. The need for an offensive player to block has never gone away. I remember when "Fritz" threw a block a year or two ago, and he was playing QB at the time.
Overspecialization has just made it easier for defenses to determine coverage, as far as I'm concerned. Get any receiver you want with any body type you want, just quit diluting their responsibilities. You can do that while occasionally emphasizing their skill set, which in the NFL should include blocking - something colleges often overlook.
I remember reading posts from "Lemmings", among others, who got mad at Gase for making sure Gesicki practiced blocking, then they go on to try and tell me how much they know about football. They already showed me how much they know about football - superficial and greatly limited!
Receivers, any kind of receiver (End, TE, WR, etc.) should be able to run, catch and block.
Backs, any kind of back (half back, full back, etc.) should be able to run catch and block.
Do you see the similarities? The differences should be small and the similarities should be great!
The only exception that makes sense to me is having a Fullback that is big enough to block a big Defensive Lineman. This is because a QB, any QB, may need some extra blocking while waiting to throw the ball. The Fullback will still need to be a good running back and receiver and be the last chance to help the QB by getting the ball and making some headway as opposed to the QB taking a hit for a loss.
Let's formalize the Fullback position and elevate our receivers for as broad a spectrum of specialized receiving routes as possible, just to keep the Defenses on their heels!
I'm a big fan of fullbacks. There has been a lot of extended name changes for "Ends" and "Backs" that seem to specify some single aspect of those positions. TE, WR and such. The need for an offensive player to block has never gone away. I remember when "Fritz" threw a block a year or two ago, and he was playing QB at the time.
Overspecialization has just made it easier for defenses to determine coverage, as far as I'm concerned. Get any receiver you want with any body type you want, just quit diluting their responsibilities. You can do that while occasionally emphasizing their skill set, which in the NFL should include blocking - something colleges often overlook.
I remember reading posts from "Lemmings", among others, who got mad at Gase for making sure Gesicki practiced blocking, then they go on to try and tell me how much they know about football. They already showed me how much they know about football - superficial and greatly limited!
Receivers, any kind of receiver (End, TE, WR, etc.) should be able to run, catch and block.
Backs, any kind of back (half back, full back, etc.) should be able to run catch and block.
Do you see the similarities? The differences should be small and the similarities should be great!
The only exception that makes sense to me is having a Fullback that is big enough to block a big Defensive Lineman. This is because a QB, any QB, may need some extra blocking while waiting to throw the ball. The Fullback will still need to be a good running back and receiver and be the last chance to help the QB by getting the ball and making some headway as opposed to the QB taking a hit for a loss.
Let's formalize the Fullback position and elevate our receivers for as broad a spectrum of specialized receiving routes as possible, just to keep the Defenses on their heels!
