Will the Giants keep a Fullback on the roster this year?

In comment 13458866 NYGmen58 said:

Quote:

In comment 13458856 ron mexico said: Quote: supposed to play some fullback Ellison is not a fullback, that wouldn't make sense.

Except thats what he did for the Vikings. He often blocked for Adrian Peterson.

to seeing him in camp/preseason

The full time space commitment to a FB on the 53 man roster is too limiting. the use of a FB in the Giants offensive schemes have steady (and dramatically) reduced over the recent years. this is not unique to the Giants, it is a league wide trend. Offensives are / have evolving away from the use of the FB as a stand alone position.

That is not to say that certain offensive formations will not use a lead blocker that, in previous periods, were performed by a FB.

In the current offensive schemes, the part time role of a FB is being performed more and more by the hybrid Tight End (TE).

The Giants have been steadily heading in that direction for years. Using the hybrid TE as a lead blocker and in multiple roles as dictated by down, distance and offensive schemes.

Last year the Giants plans were completely derailed by not having an effective hybrid TE on their roster.

The recent signings and draft choices only reinforce that. Perhaps the FB signed last weekend as a UDRFA signee can perform as a hybrid TE as well.

No, a pure full time FB will not be on the final 53 man roster. We will see 4 TEs to fulfill the hybrid TE functions.

some SJS games last year and this kid is not making the team he was only okay lead blocking and never touched the ball. I am sure he is physically strong with decent speed but he does not have NFL talent at all.

If you want to run the ball in short yardage sits, you need a blocking FB ... and I would take a blocking FB over David Tye on the roster in a heartbeat. If you don't have a 6th or 7th blocker on the field, you can't run consistently in short yardage... Maybe it's Ellison ... but it's definitely not Engram or Tye.

and many fans are clinging to outdated concepts about the FB

The hybrid TE of today performs as the lead blocker.

A pure stand alone FB is a dinosaur - extinct in the NFL

Maybe he can learn to block from FB and H-Back positions.

Maybe he can learn to block from FB and H-Back positions.

Damn!

In comment 13458949 Gross Blau Oberst said:

Quote:

and many fans are clinging to outdated concepts about the FB The hybrid TE of today performs as the lead blocker. A pure stand alone FB is a dinosaur - extinct in the NFL

Is that why Kyle Jusczyk got a four-year $21 million dollar contract from San Francisco? So they can call it Jusczyk Park?

In the end, I doubt there will be room for Shane Smith - or any other pure fullback - on the roster. Many variables are in play, including whether Davis Webb bumps Geno Smith and Josh Johnson off the roster. I think that's unlikely, and I don't think the team will skimp elsewhere to carry a fullback. But if the running game looks significantly better in pre-season with a pure fullback clearing the way for Perkins/Gallman, McAdoo may decide that it's worth the price, especially if said fullback shows Kuhn-like hands.

problem with the Offense. I am not so sure, as McAdoo and Reese had plenty of time to add one after injuries hit in preseason with FB/Hback players but chose to move ahead without one.

Or were they just being stubborn?

Quite a few teams still employ a Fullback.
Link - ( New Window )

He's competing with the bottom of the depth chart at TE and RB. In the end, everything he does outside of lead blocking will dictate whether or not he makes the roster. If he can contribute on specials and offer a little bit of versatility at the FB position, he's got a real shot.

Is that the Giants have made a real effort to get more physical on offense. They brought in a big body in Fluker for the right side of the OL, a big WR that is one of the best blocking WRs in the league in Marshall, a big capable blocker at TE/Hback in Ellison and even Engram if you look at him like a big WR. This guy fits the profile, he would be able to contribute in certain packages and serve as insurance/depth for Ellison. I don't think the coaches want to end up in the same position they found themselves in last year.

If he can flash on specials he has a shot. He won't make it if he is not good on specials.

There will be a good battle for the TE spots this year. I think Tye could be in jeopardy this year.

Engram is a threat and Adams has more upside. Don't need 4 TEs. Unless Adams just completely collapses or someone gets hurt, I think Tye is toast

that true fullbacks are going the way of the dodo bird. Klaatu's link would not load for me, so I can't comment on it, but I swear a few years back, the Giants were noted as being one of the few teams who had a dedicated fullback. It may be making a comeback, and there may be a select few who make it as a well paid FB, but I don't think it's fair to start a thread asking if Giants will keep a fullback, and then mock someone for saying no.

Seems to me, the Giants problem was that they planned on the fullback role being fulfilled by a fullback, and when the FB options went down, they were left without a backup plan

Lots of people speaking in absolutes when in reality, no one knows for sure.

No offense to the OP - the question is a valid one. I was more referring to the manner in which some give their answers.

Assume even split between offense/defense (for simplicity) + 3 ST's (K/P/LS). That means 25 offensive players:

QB (3) - only way I see 2 is if they're confident Webb can be the backup which seems like a long shot given his "project" label
RB (4)
WR (6)
OL (8)
TE (3)

That totals 24. So they can keep a FB or add RB/OL/TE depth (don't see them keeping more than 3 QBs or 6 WRs). As of now, I can see 4 TEs with Engram, Ellison, Tye, and Adams. Especially if they plan to line Engram up outside often.

Plus Ellison and Engram (in college) both have experience at HB so it adds some flexibility (Tye does too, but you don't want him in a blocking role...)

But now, I doubt it.

Smith could be the most under-the-radar impact player they've picked up. He could help tremendously in the run game, and give them more formations and looks on offense.

I think they were horribly hamstrung last year by NOT having a Fullback.


And McAdoo NEVER said he didn't want a fullback. What he said recently was:
"I've heard that I don't want a fullback in my offense -- that's news to me."

McAdoo comes out the west coast offensive which he's been installing here. A 3-4 yard pass to the flat is the same as a 3-4 yard run with a FB leading the way. With the personal the team is assembling they now have a TE, slot receiver, and 3 running backs (if Gallman can catch like the scouting reports say), that can all handle 3-4 yard routes with ease.

I hope the team transitions away from the philosophy of running it up the gut with FB because

a) our o-line isn't build to push the other guy backwards, b) the odds that our talent takes a swing pass to the house is greater running it between the tackles.

odds we can take a 3-4 yard route the the end zone is greater then breaking all the tackles required to bust through the defense when trying to ram it between the tackles with a FB.

makes it tough to carry a fb also

I could see them carrying him on the practice squad in case our blocking TE gets dinged up.

Tye makes the team this year.

That said, McAdoo's offense under TC had a FB, and the GB offense had a FB.

Hey is going to fill a Bear Pascoe role according to himself.
"And in college all I watched was Bear Pascoe film" - Ellison - ( New Window )

he is doing the "pool jump"
Link - ( New Window )

boil down to his work on ST's. He has experience at LB so presumably he's decent at tackling
Link - ( New Window )

FB is just not that important in this offense--or most NFL offenses today. Keeping a FB would come at the expense of another position so who gets cut?

I think one of the reasons they signed Ellison is they see him as a multi-position guy, who can play FB, H-Back and TE. That way the defense does not know what is coming. You trot a FB out there in this offense, the defense basically knows you are going to run.

In comment 13459041 fkap said:

Quote:

that true fullbacks are going the way of the dodo bird. Klaatu's link would not load for me, so I can't comment on it, but I swear a few years back, the Giants were noted as being one of the few teams who had a dedicated fullback. It may be making a comeback, and there may be a select few who make it as a well paid FB, but I don't think it's fair to start a thread asking if Giants will keep a fullback, and then mock someone for saying no. Seems to me, the Giants problem was that they planned on the fullback role being fulfilled by a fullback, and when the FB options went down, they were left without a backup plan

It's not fair to start a thread asking if the Giants will keep a Fullback, and when someone says that Fullbacks are going the way of the dinosaurs it's bad form to criticize that assertion using a high-priced free agent signing as an example? It's not fair to back that up with a page from Spotrac.com listing all of the Fullbacks in the league now (along with their contracts)? That's not fair? Tell me then, what is fair?

This way if there are injuries you can always bring him up to the active roster.

It is a numbers game right now. We will keep at least 3 TE maybe 4. I see 4 RB, 6 WR. 8-9 OL and 3 QB.

25 for offense: 3 QB, 4 RB, 3 TE, 6 WR, 9 OL

In comment 13458880 BillT said:

Quote:

The question is keeping a FB instead of who? 3 TE and a FB? 3 RB and a FB? The roster spot has to come from somewhere. Where vis the question.

Bingo.

on the roster but with perkins and gallman they have players they think can pick up those yards without one,they are far more likely to deploy a 6th OL in goal line situations then run a FB and when/if they do i think they have ellison tabbed for that role

fullback is making a slight resurgence in the nfl the giants under coughlin and green bay,baltimore (who had 3 FB on their roster as i remember even matched an offer to vonta leech to prevent the giants signing him away) so i hope they do even to sell the run on playaction pass to engram at the goalline would be worth carrying one if they were thinking about blount that means they may have room for FB if they make the cut

if i had to choose i would cut geno to carry a FB,rather see what webb could do in the event eli went down because either way the season would be a wash .better to be a wash and see if webb is any good than a wash to see what we already know about geno anyway

the FB questions seems to be an annual conversation on BBI. Many of us recall the power running days when FBs ruled supreme to enable the TB.

IMO, the game has changed and the FB has mostly been phased out (yes, like the Dinosaur or Do Do bird) as a pure position on the 53 man rosters. This is due to the changing nature of the game and roster math. tough to keep a pure fullback who snap count is ever decreasing.

Last July I posted this. Time for a revisit. A year older and given time I could update the numbers to include the 2016 season.

Quote:

The traditional role of the FB on the Giants (and the NFL in general) has and continues to change. Traditionally, the FB was the lead blocker for a dedicated running game. The NFL, and the Giants over the last few years has transitioned to more of the pass centric offensive scheme. In the 2015 season, Ten teams — the Arizona Cardinals, the Cincinnati Bengals, the Chicago Bears, the Denver Broncos, the San Diego Chargers, the Miami Dolphins, the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Indianapolis Colts, the St. Louis Rams and the Philadelphia Eagles — did not have a fullback listed on their roster. Teams like the Bengals or Colts, which didn’t carry a fullback, lined up a tight end as an H-back, slightly offset behind the tackle’s hip, or motioned the HB into the backfield when a lead blocker was required. Other teams list a FB on the roster, but in truth are filled by Tight ends (e.g. the Bengals Ryan Hewitt, a second-year tight end from Stanford, and the Bears Tight End Zach Miller is listed as a fullback). As with most NFL teams, the Giants offense has been trending more and more to a pass first offense, and that continues in 2016 with the change in head coach (Coughlin was still a run first traditionalist). With the arrival of McAdoo in 2014, I think the Giants were trying to break that traditional mindset and open up the offense. With McAdoo now in charge, any previous hesitations are gone and the offense will continue to evolve to a more open, quick pass style attack. In this scheme the traditional single role FB has limited value. Consider the dramatic downward trend of the Giants use of the FB position over the last 4 seasons. In the 2015 season, the NYG employed the FB in 11.85% of the teams total offensive snaps. (OC McAdoo) In the 2014 season, the NYGs used the FB in 18.17% of the teams total offensive snaps. (OC McAdoo) In the 2013 season, the NYGs used the FB in 26.19% of the teams total offensive snaps. (OC Gilbride) In the 2012 season, the NYGs used the FB in 41.17% of the teams total offensive snaps. (OC Gilbride) Source: Pro Football Reference In place of the traditional blocking FB, the Giants will probably switch to a TE/HB who can perform multiple roles as required in a pass first, short passing attack similar to the current version of the west coast passing scheme. It is no secret that the Giants have been seeking an upgrade at TE since at least 2012. The Giants are looking for a TE who is an effective in line blocker, capable of blocking from the backfield, and is also a credible receiving threat from out of the backfield, in line, or split out wide. The Giants did try to acquire this type of TE through FA signings and the draft, but most were not successful in fulfilling the role (e.g. Beckham, Meyers, Pascoe, Donnell, Robinson, Fells, Cunningham, and Tye). To be fair, in 2012, the Giants did have this type of player in Bennet, but his tenure was short lived. Heading into the 2016, the Giants have taken the next series of steps to find the multi-role TE/HB they have been looking for. The 2016 TE/HB candidates (listed in order of who I think fits the Giants TE/HB needs best) include: (base scouting reports lifted from BBI) Will Johnson. As many mentioned earlier, Johnson was a coveted, if not low profile, FA acquisition signed early in the FA period (4 April). Johnson’s scouting report shows his versatile and proven performance. In four seasons with the Steelers, Johnson only missed one regular-season game, and started 20 contests. He has 31 career receptions for 235 yards and two touchdowns. Johnson is versatile with the ability to play H-Back, tight end, and fullback. He is a good lead blocker who can also catch the football. Johnson is a solid special teams player. Johnson fits the versatile multi-role TE/HB position.

As we all know, Will Johnson did not work out for the Giants. Now it is Ellison's and Engram's turn

In comment 13458880 BillT said:

Quote:

The question is keeping a FB instead of who? 3 TE and a FB? 3 RB and a FB? The roster spot has to come from somewhere. Where vis the question.

I'd keep 3 TEs and the FB. Ellison, Engram, and Adams, and maybe put Colin Thompson on the PS. Tye is awful. If he brought anything to the table either as a receiver or a blocker there would have been no need to sign Ellison and draft Engram. LaCosse hasn't made it out of camp healthy in two years. Enough is enough.

BTW, I never stated your comments were unfair. Bring on the counter points.

A civil discussion is welcome

Keep a player (outside of LS, K, and P) who plays so few snaps and is not versatile on offense or STs is the roster math challenge.

for those of you who want to keep a FB on the roster, WHY???

What benefit do you think a FB brings to this team?

In comment 13459285 Giantsfan79 said:

Quote:

for those of you who want to keep a FB on the roster, WHY??? What benefit do you think a FB brings to this team?

Lead blocker for the run game, additional blocker and safety valve on pass plays, special teams contributor.

In comment 13459260 Gross Blau Oberst said:

Quote:

BTW, I never stated your comments were unfair. Bring on the counter points. A civil discussion is welcome Keep a player (outside of LS, K, and P) who plays so few snaps and is not versatile on offense or STs is the roster math challenge.

No, that post was directed at fkap. And you have to admit that you kind of set yourself up for "Jusczyk Park."

should have known better....... No way you could pass that by

Notice that list you gave is current with a lot of lower tier guys. I would like to revisit the count for in season roster. I betya the count is dramatically lower. Less than the ten from 2015 even.

Highest paid FB is at 2 million. Most of them make near the minimum

Everyone wants to cut Will Tye. But if Tye had been a free agent this year, he probably would have gotten more than 2 million from someone. Maybe 2yr/5m or something like that.

Money equates to value in the NFL. So, even though Will Tye is not very good, he has more value than any FB currently in the league.

Plus, Bill and Brady don't have a FB, so that clinches the argument :))

I seem to remember Green Bay always had 1 or 2 FBs when McAdoo was there. Kuhn was a major factor in that offense for years. I'm not saying Smith is close to Kuhn talent-wise but his measurables and pro day numbers are off the charts. And supposedly he's a good special teamer. I could see him making the team. There's no reason to carry 3 QBs on the roster. Absolute waste. That's where the spot for a FB would come from. Carry a 3rd QB on the PS.

where the stock market is heading.

In comment 13458965 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

problem with the Offense. I am not so sure, as McAdoo and Reese had plenty of time to add one after injuries hit in preseason with FB/Hback players but chose to move ahead without one. Or were they just being stubborn?

Well they kept two back up QBs instead of a FB. That was stupid and stubborn IMO. Neither guy will be on the roster this year. Just a weird move. And since TC never did it that had to be a request from McAdoo

In comment 13459071 David B. said:

Quote:

Smith could be the most under-the-radar impact player they've picked up. He could help tremendously in the run game, and give them more formations and looks on offense. I think they were horribly hamstrung last year by NOT having a Fullback. And McAdoo NEVER said he didn't want a fullback. What he said recently was: "I've heard that I don't want a fullback in my offense -- that's news to me."

So to my last post. Why keep Johnson and Nassib. There wasn't anyone available? Johnson and Whilock both got hurt in. preseason. He's full of shit

is more of a mystery than the lack of a fullback. In today's NFL, you barely account for a FB, let alone, backup plans. So, when the Giant's FB went down, and the backup went down, it was oh shit time. and the third line of what to do didn't work out, so really, oh shit time. Gee, do you think they recognized that with a blocking TE and several catching options to counter no running game?

My personal opinion is that Nassib was injured early and remained that way throughout the year. NO ONE expects Johnson to be a qualified backup. It's why they brought in Smith. It's why they drafted Webb. Nassib had his moments, but obviously washed out, and I think it was injury. I always hesitate to label anyone in the NFL as a NOPE, but it's pretty obvious neither Johnson or Nassib was considered a yes last year. I'm guessing they still held out hopes, and probably not much as he was a pick of the previous regime, and they held out hope on the injuries, but finally, the writing was on the wall with marginal talent and an injury and IR kicked in, followed by out of the NFL.

But, you do have to wonder why they kept two marginal backups and not pick up a full back. full backs are falling out of favor, so there should have been someone desperate for a low paid job in the NFL.

the giants have not been able to run well in years. with the lack of quality additions to the OL they almost need to have a FB. I like the Ellison addition but he is the only inline blocker (TE) guaranteed to make the team. Matt Lacosse has the abilty to block but missed all of last season and will have to fight like a dog to make this team.

Engram is more of a receiver and J.Adams is more of a vertical receiving tight end.

A FB would help the offense become more balanced and keep opposing defenses away from Eli, not to mention bolster the rushing attack.

Is still out there.