DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Time for an active Full Back

OK we have a big problem with our offensive line. There are no real free agent offensive tackles we can sign worth a darn. So how do we keep our QBs ALIVE and not carted off the field?

I think the only viable answer is to have a FB that is a good blocker sitting behind the QB ready to run up and smash into whatever pass rusher makes it past the OT first. I mean you just let him run up and SMASH that edge rusher at full speed. The problem is that the Browns don't have an actual FB so where to get one? For some reason there are none available in FA that I can find for us to pick up that would be a good full time blocker. What to do then?

I would either take an offensive lineman that can run at least a 4.7 and there are surprisingly quite a few. New England drafted one in the third round this year who ran a 4.6 and I think he was an absolute steal for them. Either way, we could maybe activate one of our faster OL on the practice squad and have him play at the FB position and use him as a guardian angel type blocker to cover whoever breaks through the line to keep whatever QB we have starting out of the hospital.

I know that we have Addington? from the d-line sometimes playing at FB position but I honestly don't want him worn out because he is a pretty good defensive line player who is needed on defense for quality rotation.

I just like the idea of a big guy running and smashing into a defensive lineman or linebacker at full speed everytime they think they have broken through. I know when I played offensive line I use to love having the chance to SMASH like that. I love that look after they think they are clear and you hear that grunted "Oh Fug" cause they KNOW it's about to get rough. I just love those swing plays =)

Anyways, this is just my rambling thoughts on how to keep our QBs on their feet while the O-line is a mess. What do you guys think and what ideas do you have?

FWIW

Addington did play FB in HS. So, it's not like living on mars to him.

good thoughts!

Also, watch 44 on the Judkins TD run. He stonewalled his man.

I LONG for the days where we used to run I formation and feature a real fullback. We had some good ones and I love the in your face running style. I really don't understand why the formation isn't still a staple of many offenses. We could draft to be a running team.

I remember when we used to have fullbacks like Terelle Smith and Lawrence Vickers.

I think we like the idea of moving Fannin around ... I notice his role increasing each week

This wouldn't limit Fannan at all. Honestly I'd rather have Fannon and Njoku in on every down. So 1 QB, 5 offensive linemen, 2 TEs, 1 FB as my blocker, Then either 2 WR pr 1 WR amd 1 HB. You could also run no WRs and have 2 HBs with Judkins at the feature back and Samson has already shown he has nice hands for catching the ball. I think it could be a pretty flexible line up where we look like we are running it but can still make some nice passing plays.

I mean our WRs are not exactly looking great with all the passes they are dropping or balls they have bounce out of their hands and turn into turnovers. I think our 2 TEs and Samson can do some good work receiving. I also think it would be hell for teams to stop us when we do run it. I mean our TEs can both catch the ball and run block. Samson being in might make them think we are passing it but a fake handoff to Judkins can't be ignored. If they do start ignoring him then we actually give it to Judkins and he rips off a big run. When they back up to cover Samson because they think he won't be running then let him run and he should have space to pick up 4 to 5 yards easy. On those running plays that offensive lineman is playing at FB he doesn't have to babysit Joe but can do some legit lead blocking. I can just see how confusing it would be for the defense to stop because it could easily be a running play or passing play with almost no way to tell by the personnel in the lineup.

If Dillon is the QB then it gets even harder because they could go with two WRs, 2TEs, and give Dillon the freedom to just run the ball for a quick 4 to 6 yards. If he doesn't run it then we have 4 people who can reliably catch the ball but with the 2 TEs they could easily switch to run blocking for Dillon. Then just use a hurry up offense so you can take advantage of them not being able to change out of defensive packages while you can still be very flexible and take advantage of them for not being as flexible. When the TE's need a rest just go to the regular offense again. Hell you could even swap to the wishbone with 2 WRs, 2 HBs, and the FB. Give Judkins a rest too and let Ford in as the HB for a series since he can catch and pass block decently too.

I mean we don't have great WRs. I am not even sure we have good ones. So if you don't have good WRs then use the GOOD players you have. A good team will adjust how they call plays on who they have available. I mean imagine if Jeudy gets hurt ... which two WRs will we trot out there when we have much better players we can use by being a little creative.

I don't like one dimensional FB's unless you are talking short yardage. I agree with Razor that I like to see both Fannin and Njoku in on nearly every down. If we can line them up as a FB to lead block, great if they can do it. Their being there would still give opposing D's something to think about when it comes to their receiving ability.

For a points challenged team, I don't see the upside of taking away outside, downfield weapons. Besides Huntington being viewed as a defensive player, I don't see him catching 40 balls for 400 yards from an offensive standpoint.

JMO

It looks to me like KS prefers to use linemen as those extra blockers (Olineman along the line and then either O or D lineman at FB). I do miss the days of Chubb and Hunt in the backfield with Hunt as a lead blocker.

I wish you guys well the rest of the season. I think you guys have potential.

As was mentioned Huntington did play FB in HS and he is an excellent blocker. I used to share your thoughts on having a FB. But over time I have adopted Peen's idea that taking up a position on the roster for someone whose main job is a situational blocker isn't a logical move.

Judkins is an excellent blocker as well and you do have Huntington for short yardage situations as needed. You can also add an extra hog to the OL when needed. I don't see a designated FB as the only answer to this situation.

I would say the exception would be if you can get a versatile weapon (ex Juszczyk) that's talented enough to be a feature of the offense.

Yes, as with most things there are exceptions. That's a valid point. They just seem to be very few and far between.

Our FB wears 66.

I knew you’d speak your mind on this topic.

It's nice when you have the luxury to have a true FB but we don't have that luxury now. We have to figure out how to keep our QBs from being torn apart. I know Addington gets some spot play at FB but I think he is too valuable on defense to have him play a full time role on offense. The main thing is to have another REAL blocker to pick up the pass rusher that gets past our tackles.

Great point, which is why Sampson didn’t play much again Green Bay.

That goes back to my point...if they can be an offensive weapon and are also used as such, great, no problem.

Need an offensive weapon for sure. As need to work around that.

Having a QB with the ability to move away from pressure would help alleviate some of that problem.

A fullback in today's offensive schemes only gets about 20% of the snaps.

You get the same productivity and more versatility with a TE and scat-back.

You are better off playing Dylan Sampson and/or Harold Fannin Jr..

Yeah, but I am not talking about using a FB in the traditional sense. I am saying stick another offensive lineman in at the FB slot and have him be a full time blocker to pick up edge rushers because our OT can block crap. In this last game against Detroit got to Flacco so fast he had time to stop and just smash the ball right out of Joe's hands. No QB can do well while the team is blocking so poorly. Before you worry about what kind of offense we will run you have to figure out how to give the QB at least 2 second to throw the ball. I am watching the pocket collapse around Joe while the edge rushers go through unblocked at times because the OT are flat out terrible.

To your point, I believe we saw Fannin lead blocking on at least 1 snap yesterday.

Ok but Fannon is one of the few people who can actually catch a ball on this team so why waste him blocking?

This goes back to what 'peen and others have kinda been getting at regarding the FB position. Having a guy like Fannin back there is a benefit because he can lead block but also do other things. He turns into more of a weapon that a defense has to account for (ala the FB in San Fran whose name I can't spell).

Unfortunately, this will really just bring us back to the same issue that started this thread... our run game not being dominant. The whole KS-offensive identity is predicated on defenses fearing our run game.