DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Fullback

I was just reading thru the WR thread and it hit me that Charles and DeValve lined up as a fullback many times.

I was wondering would you guys think about signing either a FA or drafting a monster fullback. I think with the offense we run, and the backs we have, having a guy that can clear the way would be huge. They also could be helpful in the pass protection aspect. And if their hands are good, that's a bigger plus.

Not a TE to play fullback, but a bigger ass-busting fullback.

Forget a fullback. Orson does fine in that role and does other things as well.

As I have said for many years, if blocking is what you want, just put a reserve guard or DT back there. The Fridge wasn't a fullback, but he was a pretty good lead blocker when asked.

Just consider Orson Charles a fullback if that floats your boat.


Plus, the college game doesn't utilize a FB anymore. It's now about a big TE who can block and can run and catch.

I don't see it happening.

Freddie's offense is all about being able to do almost anything out of any formation. A FB would severely limit that ability.

Keep Orson.

He can block; and I think most people forget he was a TE in college. #godawgs #UGA

I agree with Peen. No need for a Conventional Fullback. Not with a RB like Nick Chubb. Orson Charles offers us more variety, as he can block as a FB and a TE.

Waste of a roster spot. Better to keep Orson Charles

I like what we have now. use an interior lineman for short goes if needed. Put a couple of 'em back there and pretend it's single wing. But we need more out of that position than the old lead blocker. Is Vickers available?

If you never get into any short yardage downs, then we don't need us no steenkink FB's.

Just move the chains if the refs will let ya.

He's a FA right? We'll need to lock him up. (bad choice of words, but you know what I meant)

I think I remember that you've been saying that there insn't a need for a FB for years. Am I right about that?

Charles was a decent to good blocking TE/FB from what I've gathered

That would be a perfect way to get Corbett on the field more. Put him in at FB for short yardage.

[quote=DeputyDawg]That would be a perfect way to get Corbett on the field more. Put him in at FB for short yardage. [

Just make sure you let him know before you try to hand him the ball. I remember that going horribly wrong with a 3rd string TE once.

If there's no FB, then there's nobody to blow away. That said, if we can find Christian Okoye Jr who is 6'4 230 and can run a 4.6, why not let him run it. We need to utilize our skill players, at all positions including TE, instead of using them as blockers primarily.

Thanks for the replies. I agree with Charles being a good choice to fill the role. I also think DeValve could be a weapon.

Wasn't a suggestion, just kind of thinking out loud, and picturing a FB mashing the MLB and Chubb running free.

Thanks again.

It's okay, man. It was a football question and a football thread. Kudos to you.

You are correct. Peen has been talking about the FB position being outdated for years now. I also remember him talking about how the NFL would have to adapt to college QBs in this era, but he was one of the few voices on that one.

The judge wuz right.

It seemed like the team stuggled converting in yard to go situations. Maybe there are some statistics out there that can show if this is the case or not, but it sure seemed that way.

So I don't know if we need a FB, but it felt like we needed something.

I am glad I found this thread. I have been thinking for a couple of months now that I would love to see the team add a real fullback. I really like James Devlin from New England, and would like to see a guy like that here in Cleveland blocking for Chubb. Not sure how realistic it is now though given our current offense, and that fullback is kind of a dead position in college. I would be thrilled though if we draft one in one of the later rounds.

The key to todays fullback, is catching ability. If you get one with those skills, he can be very valuable. I thought DeValve could have been this guy, but his injuries have really set him back.

I imagine a play action situation where the fullback is leading, chips the LB and sits in the open spot. Just another option for Baker.

I don't know if it would fit with todays offenses, but there are teams that still use FBs, and they seem effective for them.

If you're going to use a FB, I prefer an actual FB, not a TE playing out of position. Guys like Terrelle Smith and Lawrence Vickers were like heat-seeking missiles while blocking for guys like Reuben Droughns and Jamal Lewis. They also had some receiving abilities but at 240+ lbs, their forte was blowing up LBs in the hole as lead blocker. They were also better in pass protection than Devalve, Fells, or Charles IMO.

While I believe Devalve could be taught to be a better blocker, I don't believe he can ever have the burst out of his 3-pt stance or the explosion at the point of attack that a FB (who was probably a RB in high school) would have. IMO, most TEs are taller and more likely to be long striders who take longer to get to top speed than is required in a lead-blocking back. They also have a higher center of gravity which makes them more vulnerable to a bull-rushing DL or LB if they are kept back as pass protectors.

Dang,, you are right, he had been saying that for a lot of years... Forgot all about that..

I agree with this 100%. All one has to do is look at the typical body type of a FB and a TE to see how vastly different the two are. There's a reason for that.

Orson Charles - ~250lbs.... and Mayfield took fewer hits & sacks than any Browns QB of the last 20 years over the last seven games.

It's hard to argue against Charles' pass-blocking based solely on that.
Smith & Vickers were excellent FB's, but we can get more out of that spot on the field by utilizing an H-Back that can block as well as those guys, but is better at catching & running. We don't need them to ever carry the ball because we're loaded at RB.

And I think you hit on the key issue. The main function of a FB is as a lead blocker for your RB. Most FB's are shorter with a lower center of gravity to play that position than a TE.

But how much you would use a FB in your scheme would strongly dictate whether it would be wise to use a roster spot for a FB.

It's absolutely a trade-off.
Sticking with the examples of Vickers and Smith, both are 6' even. Orson Charles is 6' 3".
Pure FB's will be better blockers, but won't be quite as good running and catching as a TE - so, which aspect do you prioritize: Run Game or Pass Game?


Looking at how Kitchens operated and going off what I've heard of Monken's views on a balanced offense, I'd suspect we will lean toward roster choices that emphasize the Pass Game.

Say good-bye to the FB in Cleveland, give a hearty Welcome Back to the H-Back.

Anyone seen Aaron Shea, lately??

I agree w/you and Devalve hasn't been a good blocker in his career. And while I agree w/the notion that you can be taught to be a better blocker, I'm pretty sure some don't have the
"want to."

Devalve seems like a tweener... not quite a TE. Not quite a wideout. I think if someone developed a role for him he could be quite effective. I believe he has good hands and can do some nice things, but I think his days are numbered here.

I still really like Devalve. I think he was drafted to be a football player here and a hybrid who could fill in at TE HB or WR if necessary. I don't think we will have a need for him. I hope he remains... and I could be wrong about him, but I'm losing hope that he will be a contributor here. In the right place he could actually be a monster.

Canada?

New England

I love a good sense of humor.

Apparently... You're still here...

And I always will be.

I agree. Teaching somebody to block is pretty basic to football. I am sure DeValve has been taught, by good coaches.

To me it's like catching a ball. If you aren't good at it by this point in your career, you probably never will.

I get his point. I like DeValve as well and think he can be really good if placed in a featured role.

IMO, Devalve is a finesse/receiving/non-blocking type TE. He's not a FB or an H-Back.

Many of us just ignore him anyway...

Devalve was a QB in high school and a WR at Princeton. He was used more like a WR when he first arrived. He's still transitioning to TE in the pros. He may get there, he may not. He was bulking up last year and worked on his blocking. He was also injured the start of the season and fell behind. I still think of him as a tweener and there's a team out there who could play to his strengths. He's not super fast, but he's no slouch. And he makes good plays/catches with the football. I'm not sure what our plans would be with him moving forward. I believe Charles is a RFA, and Fells is still under contract and played well. Drafting any type of TE like TJ Hockenson would probably spell the end of Devalve. I don't see us drafting a TE at 17, however, but Hockenson is probably going to be a beast. Perhaps there would be a team out there willing to trade a pick for Seth if it came to that. He could be very useful for the right team.

I don't see it. As of now he's what, the third or fourth choice on the team at TE? He will never be featured above a talented TE. Let's look at the Browns alone. We drafted Njoku. If Devlave had the ability to be a feature type player, why was Njoku drafted and played ahead of him?

Devlave is a stop gap TE at best. He's the kind of player you use until you can find an upgrade at he position. We found an upgrade in blocking with Charles and a better actual offensive weapon in Njoku.

IMO- Devalve will be lucky to have a roster spot here in the fall.

I don't doubt he will have long odds to make the team. Injuries have hurt him.

I still think if a team uses him correctly, he can be a good player in the league. He has good hands and finds ways to get open.