Rashad Jennings-6'1", 231
David Wilson-5'9", 205
Andre Williams-5'11", 230
Peyton Hillis-6'2", 250
Kendall Gaskins-6'1", 240
4 of those 5 backs have great size and physicality.
No one has any idea how McAdoo will use the FB or if he will even keep one on the roster. Many assume it will be Hynoski versus Conner for one roster spot but I'm starting to think that the team might just keep the best 5 backs regardless of position, meaning 5 RB's and no FB's could be the way it plays out.
The 5 backs listed above are the 5 I consider the best which leaves both Hynoski and Conner on the outside looking in.
With the size and physical running style of 4 out of those 5 backs, I am wondering if the FB will be rendered useless in this system.
Sure, the Green Bay system used John Kuhn at FB. He is listed at 6'0", 250, but he is not the big, straight-line, bullish, powerful lead blocker like Kevin Gilbride used to use in the mold of Madison Hedgecock. And even so, with the facts I was able to find, Kuhn played on approximately 18 percent of all offensive snaps for the Packers. Not very often. Worth keeping a fulltime FB on the roster this season? Not sure.
Kuhn was often on the move, pass blocking, check-down option and carrying the ball in short yardage/goal line situations. Hillis, Gaskins and even Williams would be more than capable of performing those tasks. And that doesn't even include the TE's that may line up in the backfield as well. Hillis was a FB in college as well as the NFL so he really has the versatility needed to play that position.
With the addition of Eddie Lacy last year, the Packers also ran a lot of single back sets because Lacy has the power to break through arm tackles and two TE sets were more successful that having a lead blocker. Sure, Kuhn was used at times, but as I mentioned before, his role wasn't a bruising, hulking FB.
The more I think about it, the versatility of Hillis might make Hynoski and Conner expendable. Hynoski and to a lesser extent, Conner do have some ball carrying skills, but nothing as compared to Hillis. And that may allow the team to keep a promising, developmental back like Gaskins whom the coaching staff seems to be high on.
So I think the roster battle for the 5th back won't just be Hynoski versus Conner, but it will be Hynoski versus Conner versus Gaskins versus Cox. If the team really does like Gaskins, that means the FB's could be in danger and Hillis would play the role of Kuhn.
I don't see how that materializes without a true FB. This is still a Tom Coughlin coached team.
Big Running Back ≠Fullback
Big Running Back ≠Fullback
But on Madden it works great! :/
um He was the QB coach for two years..
Quote:
McAdoo was never higher than the TEs coach. His duties on some weeks included putting together red zone plays, but that wasn't his offense. Not sure I would rely on what the packers did with the FB as any sort of indicator.
um He was the QB coach for two years..
Which is still not a role in which you set policy. He took his orders from McCarthy and the offensive coordinators. As a rookie offensive coordinator here, it's been carefully made clear in interviews and transcripts that Tom Coughlin still has a very large amount of impact on what this offense will be doing. McAdoo has been very careful to say when asked 'It's not my offense, it's "our" offense.'
2) Out of that group, Hillis is the only one I would even consider to lpay FB, but not full time.
3) Are you saying many assume it will be Hynoski wining the spot, or just those two competing for the spot?
"Henry and John have both done a nice job. We mix — we’re in and out of personnel groups and those types of things at this point," McAdoo said. "You like to use the fullback. The way I was raised, a fullback’s a big part of the things you do. Henry and John have both done a nice job so far."
Link - ( New Window )
So much wrong with this post.
Did you happen to watch the Super Bowl champs last year?
Not sure what they have at TE behind Fleener, or maybe a backup WR (not named Nicks)?
Armchair GM - Allen for Cox and Robinson?
With the size strength and speed of the RBs fullbacks will no longer be needed
I think the myth that the fullback is not used in a west coast offense has more to do with some of the new version systems that stemmed from the Bill Walsh WCO tree, however the WCO at its inception indeed included and featured an athletic fullback.
Such is not the case.
The current O-line is full of question marks and patches. Conner is a first tier blocking fullback, do you show him the door ? Doesn't make sense.