Conor Orr: Giants looking into roster with no FB

.

can fill part of the duties. The reality is that we don't have versatile TE(s). They can hardly be classified as capable of basic TE duties. Shoot on any other roster, they would lucky to be sniffing backup TE roster positions.

An outlet receiver and pass pro, I'm sure both will be similar. I think Connor is a better player than the likes of Fells and Davis, so I don't know about this idea.

now, I wonder how Hynoski and/or Connor would do as a TE?

because they didn't want to be laughed at...

if they let Conner go.

Good call, Vin. What I find interesting, though, is that the Giants still want a physical presence at running back, which is why they're still entertaining a guy like Hillis as the fourth back in this system. I think the fullback question is so much more about versatility. They can save an extra roster spot and keep four tight ends (bigger bodies, better hands, more useful across all specials).

and strong at FB. I'll be disappointed if the keep a mediocre or worse TE over either of the fullbacks.

hynoski is taking quite a few carries in the singleback

will be interesting to see who they keep hynoski vs. hillis

Conner all the way.

In comment 11782818 Steve in South Jersey said:

Quote:

and strong at FB. I'll be disappointed if the keep a mediocre or worse TE over either of the fullbacks.

Steve, I tend to agree with you.

I think we still need that FB to help at the point of attack. I don't think our TEs have shown that yet. I think a FB that can do it all is pretty valuable and can also be used in a variety of ways.

3rd and 1 - we need a yard and you want to be able to pound it. Who would you want leading your RB to the hole? Conner or one of our many average TEs?

In comment 11782797 drkenneth said:

Quote:

.

Maybe one of the FBs could win the TE competition...

can he play that dual role?? I think the Giants will wind up keeping one true FB and three TE's

it makes sense not to burn a roster spot on one.

to handle pass protection and a few receptions out of the backfield, I would keep either over the older Hillis.

Conner over Hynoski.

And take the 3 least worst Tight Ends still walking on Labor Day.

Lets not re-invent the wheel to make a 53-man roster.

a month ago. Hillis is going to play the FB role if he can block. He has better speed and hands out of the backfield than Hyno or Conner. Blocking is the key and if they can use a TE to offset that then its a no brainer.

This will allow us to keep an extra DB or DL which seems like we've got a lot of good depth at. Hopefully keeping only 2 Qbs will allow us another extra roster spot.

I would like to see this in action during the game at some point, in the pre season. Get rid of the old way of doing things in the previous system and find ways to be creative.

the guys at FB are probably better as a group then the TE group.

Not sure what getting rid of the more talented players accomplishes.

in terms of moving players around. You could have 2 TEs in the game. One at FB and one at the TE spot. If Eli sees something he can change the formation, and move the TE to the other side, to the same side as the other TE, or in the slot. All of a sudden you have the flexibility to change your formations and run short passing concepts that allow the TEs to be used in the best possible spot to succeed.

need a roster spot for a FB, if they can fill that role with he RB's and keep them all involved (Hillis and Williams specifically).

I think they keep Jennnings, Wilson, Hillis and Williams - Cox, etc. are gone.

there will always be a roster spot dedicated to the fullback position, and held by a traditional player of that position.

Given the relative talent levels between FB and TE. And does this mean an extra (4th) TE or an extra (5th) RB. If so, the your trading off Connor or Hynoski for who the #4 TE or #5 RB. If not, it would put a lot of trust in the top 3 TEs at least. And reports are they have been practicing formations with a FB. That would be a very interesting devopment.

In comment 11782810 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

because they didn't want to be laughed at...

I think it's more like he read BBI and acted like it was his own thought

We know he can block and we see he can both run with the ball and even catch.

I think it would be dangerous to just have a TE or another H-Back back there.

My personal opinion.

Maybe a big RB instead of a FB, but the Giants would be severely limiting their offensive options if they used any TE in the league as a FB.

In comment 11782888 Jupiter said:

Quote:

Maybe a big RB instead of a FB, but the Giants would be severely limiting their offensive options if they used any TE in the league as a FB.

Actually it would increase your options just by the various formations you can now add by having a TE in the FB spot. That's a lot of versatility by adding a TE, assuming he can do a decent job and not totally suck.

or may not, use a FB in their O scheme. But I place little confidence in unnamed sources, particularly this early in camp. It's usually BS. But irrespective of whether the Giants decide to go with a FB, the fact that they have "big, strong RB's" will have little to nothing to do with the decision. Either they believe they can get the play blocked in the new scheme without FB's, or they can't. RB's, big and strong or otherwise, are going nowhere if the Giants can't block the play.

who can come close to being as effective blocker as Conner. He was one of the few bright spots on last year's offense.

In comment 11782860 AnishPatel said:

Quote:

in terms of moving players around. You could have 2 TEs in the game. One at FB and one at the TE spot. If Eli sees something he can change the formation, and move the TE to the other side, to the same side as the other TE, or in the slot. All of a sudden you have the flexibility to change your formations and run short passing concepts that allow the TEs to be used in the best possible spot to succeed.

Agreed.

I forget which player recently commented that they can run the entire playbook through the no huddle. I imagine having the ability to move your TE to any position as opposed to a FB who handcuffs what you can do with his limited skill set, is a great advantage that they want to utilize.

You have a typical I formation, I pro Right.

You have Connor and Jennings in the backfield with a TE to the right.

You can throw out of it or run using that formation.


You add a TE instead of a FB and everything opens up.

You can run I pro Right. You can move the 2nd TE to the OL, and run Ace-Double Tight and run it. You can flex both TEs out and run Ace-Double Slot and throw or run from there.

Still not enough formations? How about you flex out both TEs to X or Z, and run Trips or Bunch formation out of there.

Sure Connor is very good. But if the TE can run block at a decent job, I'd take the flexibility or versatility to run many formations any day, assuming the TE doesn't suck or be god awful at run blocking. Even if he is decent, I'd still use that. Just so many formations ELi can change to.

the NFL again. Frankly, the odds that they don't simply aren't very high, given what they're working with and banking on breaking out.

If they end up not carrying a FB and put even more in the TE basket, color me wary. Seems like yet another something that is inevitbly going to blow up badly in their face.

Last year there were too many times when we had Pascoe, Conner, and Myers on the field with Jernigan and Randall on the sidelines.

Our personell was better suited to three or 4 wide and we did not do it enough.

For those in favor of cutting Hillis, look at the RB depth chart:

Jennings: 29 years old and has only had 1 season of over 150 rushing attempts.
Wilson: Fumble problems and coming off a severe neck injury. Total of 115 NFL carries.
Williams: Rookie. 0 NFL carries.
Gaskins: 2nd year, practice squad player. 0 NFL carries.
Cox: 2nd year player, 7th round pick. 22 NFL carries. Bounces everything outside and probably not an NFL caliber player.

Sure, I'm playing devil's advocate a little bit but there are a ton of question marks. We all think the run game will be improved, but Hillis is the insurance policy.

As comparison, Hillis has 670 NFL carries and is almost a year YOUNGER than Rashad Jennings.

Coughlin said he wants the return of a reliable, physical running game and Hillis can help with that.

do McAdoo and Coughlin want to keep a young player with potential (Gaskins) or a traditional FB as an insurance policy?

And is there another position where an extra roster spot is needed.

If the new offense runs single back sets and move TE's as lead blockers, why keep a FB if the offense doesn't use it?

Don't know the strengths of this offense, dont know how FBs might fit in, don't know our TEs, don't know what works and what doesn't AT ALL.

IM GLAD this is a question on the table. But running the ball with big blocking athletic bodies that can still squirt out and catch the ball or even carry it for deception purposes can be accomplished with FBs even more than TEs.

We simply do not know what we're looking at yet. And if think the coaches are still figuring that out as much as we are.

It would be stupid to staple yourself to the same kind of depth chart they've had, but at the same time with this different team - we have to keep options open to get the best out of the pieces we have.


To me the most complete team inlc

Includes a FB, maybe 2.

TE is an extremely weak position...so for the purpose of the final 53 week roster.....only keep 2 TE's while adding 1-2 more on the practice squad...FB is a stronger position I would keep 1 possible both...

I saw enough of Bear Pascoe in the backfield to know that I'm not particularly thrilled with the idea of a TE lining up at FB. Granted, this isn't Gilbrides offense anymore so that's not completely relevant. I'd just feel a lot better if we had a legit FB on the roster.

A "balanced" attack of close to 50/50 pass/run isn't likely to fly without some of those carries coming from a traditional 2 back set.

Jeez I hope our new offense isn't overly influence of by Green Bay's shit show of RBs the past few years until Lacy.

Plus I envision more and more clubs gearing up their defenses, both by dint of personnel and scheme, to counter wide open passing attacks and therefor being slightly less comfortable vs an old fashioned Woody Hayes type attack.

Or maybe we're gonna 65/35 pass/run?

They have two perfectly good FBs who have already proven that they can contribute. One of them should stay on the team.

They have five TEs who have at best managed to hang around the league by swapping teams a few times. One is a very raw undrafted rookie, one is another Reese/Ross draft bust, one of the veterans couldn't get a job with anybody last year, and another one was dumped by the team that drafted him. Not one of these guys has shown themself to be a high quality NFL player. Most of them haven't even proved that they can block well enough to have value to any team, let alone catch the ball.

I know Patti has aluded to this in her past reports, but actually doing it with the players they have now reeks of trying to shove the system onto the players, not making the best use of the players they have on the roster. It would really get this new offense off on the wrong foot in my eyes.

without a fullback, but I think it would be a mistake to enter week 1 without one on the roster as an insurance policy.

happen. Connor was a pretty good lead blocker last year and hyno is a big help when healthy too.

For me this is like a 'cut deossie' idea. Coughlin's always had a FB in this offense and in green bay they featured the FB a lot too. I don't see how that would change any time soon. Not to mention Connor/Hyno are both better football players at this point in time than any of the TEs.

Orr says "Spending a crucial roster spot on a player that doesn't have the ability to split out during an audible and be a credible receiving threat makes little sense."

So just who among the GIANTS current TEs - Donnell, Fells, Grimble, Davis, and Robinson - actually constitutes a credible receiving threat? Donnell who doesn't know where the boundaries of the field are? Fells who couldn't get a job with any team last year? Grimble who is a raw rookie and a slow one at that? Davis who was released by Chicago after they felt he wasn't the answer at TE? Robinson who has hardly played in two years and seems to be having problems with the mental aspect of the game?

I submit that Hynoski is more of a credible receiving threat than any of these TEs. And that both Connor and Hynoski are better blockers than any of them.

I might go a little farther and ask just how spending a crucial roster spot on a young QB that can't contribute at all makes any sense. Or how choosing a back-up QB that has never won an NFL game and falls apart under pressure (Painter) over another back up QB who has actually won some games (Carr) and does a great job of simulating the opposing QB in practice makes any sense.

Or how signing a bunch of failed OTs but acquiring no new talent to back up Beatty and Pugh makes any sense.

Or how, oh, screw it. Sometimes the personnel decisions of this team just defy all logic.

forcing your personnel into a an offensive design rather then designing the offense around your players abilities.

Connor at H-Back? We know he can block, has good hands, not bad running the ball. He'll never win a race against a DB but should be competitive against LBs.

occasions where they will be fourth and one or third and goal in a crucial situation where they will need a true fullback. If they don't keep Hyno or Conner they will regret it.

first and foremost can read and pick up a blitz, regardless of his title.

Kevin Gilbride is going to himself:

"Sure, once I leave Tom is thinking about going no Fullback.
Hey Tom! Guess who ran one of the top offenses in the NFL in Houston with NO FULLBACK!
Hint, his initials aren't BM..."