Louisville Slugger Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 I would love to see him back in a browns uniform, but I have to wonder why no team keeps him on their roster for more then a couple seasons. Does he have some character issues or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Back surgery, and he's a fullback. The most irrelevant position in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoeticG Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 If they pick up Vickers, expect Richardson to run through the NFL to the tune of 2500 rushing yards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 I would love to see him back in a browns uniform, but I have to wonder why no team keeps him on their roster for more then a couple seasons. Does he have some character issues or something? So why haven't we ditched Marecic already? Vickers on one leg and a bad back is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickers Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 So why haven't we ditched Marecic already? Vickers on one leg and a bad back is better. there's another back we drafted too..a white kid...he was on the practice squad last season... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 He's useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miktoxic Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 well i guess in his mind at least he's not black.............. ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shep Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Nobody gives a shit about fullbacks anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickers Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Nobody gives a shit about fullbacks anymore. your the only one (that doesnt give a shit) Shep...The rest of us understand the importance of having one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Then its isolated to this board. FBs are relatively useless, unless they can run, block and catch. Vickers was 1 of those 3, and a dead giveaway to the defense we were running the ball. Might as well send the D a telegram.... Norv has a history of using versatile FBs a bit, but not to a great degree. Why not explain to us the importance of the FB in today's passing league. I'm curious..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shep Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 You may... but the league doesn't. It's a dying position. Most teams prefer more receivers on the field and when they want a lead blocker just let the TE/H-back shift into the backfield. After Vickers got cut, Sobo instantly Tweeted that the position has become more than diminished... it's becoming extinct. Look at whatsisname, that uber-FB from Baltimore. They didn't seem the slightest bit concerned about losing him and nobody's fighting over him. So what you understand so well is entirely false. But that's the world we live in. your the only one (that doesnt give a shit) Shep...The rest of us understand the importance of having one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shep Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 I don't wanna beat on Nick because he's far from the only football fan who digs in a little against how dramatically the league is changing. RBs are becoming hugely devalued, 3-4 ILBs are getting smaller and faster, and "fullback" is becoming a term or grandchildren might not even know. Prior to last year, the last 10 Super Bowl participants average rushing rank... was 23rd. Then its isolated to this board. FBs are relatively useless, unless they can run, block and catch. Vickers was 1 of those 3, and a dead giveaway to the defense we were running the ball. Might as well send the D a telegram....Norv has a history of using versatile FBs a bit, but not to a great degree.Why not explain to us the importance of the FB in today's passing league. I'm curious..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 I'm not trying to be a dick either, just curious on his take. I'm sure you saw servos (?) Breakdown of norvs historic use of fullbacks, which suggests he doesn't use them unless they are dynamic and versatile.... Leech and Vickers are old school fullbacks, which are useless nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shep Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Norv and especially Chud are innovators who like to stay at the front edge (like Chud embracing the RO)... and both have creatively skirted the need for a conventional fullback over the past couple years. I really think we'll see a lot of one-back (I believe T-Rich prefers it) and Kellen Davis or Barnidge shifting into the backfield on certain plays. It just isn't something GMs or coaches are sitting around talking about, their desperate search for a blocking fullback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickers Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 And you wonder why QB's are getting killed...cuz FB's are useless...LOL...bring on Arena NFL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shep Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 I wasn't wondering why QBs were getting killed. I didn't know they were. They get hit less than ever because of rules, quicker passing games, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 They're not really useless, but there's now more being required of them. The traditional throwback FB is obsolete, in favor of a more offensive threat that can do other things rather than block. Coaches can scheme better protection, rather than utilize a roster spot on a guy that can't really do much other than block. Just the way its progressing....otherwise, leech would have been snatched up shorty after being released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2013/1/30/3933932/chargers-cut-him-or-keep-him-leron-mcclain Not really if you consider how little he was used, Mikey. Simply signing a guy proves nothing....how he's used and production does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sisky fringo Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 Vicker's has been trying to remain in Texas since he left Cle. it will be interesting to see if offered work elsewhere if he will take it and where he eventually ends up...if anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shep Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 More and more, when a team wants a lead blocker, they drop a TE back. Makes it less predictable and doesn't waste a roster spot on a guy who won't be in the lineup all that much. It's one of those things you don't have to like... but it's pretty impossible to deny. Just like "big run-stuffing middle linebackers" aren't going to be at the top of anybody's shopping list in a passing league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 More and more, when a team wants a lead blocker, they drop a TE back. Makes it less predictable and doesn't waste a roster spot on a guy who won't be in the lineup all that much. It's one of those things you don't have to like... but it's pretty impossible to deny. Just like "big run-stuffing middle linebackers" aren't going to be at the top of anybody's shopping list in a passing league. Tell that to Chicago who took Bostic at 50. Then again, they're stuck in the 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shep Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 Indeed. We're at a place where a downhill "banger" is tough to field except in short yardage situations. You need so damn many cover guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 Indeed. We're at a place where a downhill "banger" is tough to field except in short yardage situations. You need so damn many cover guys. If the fullback is going to be used rarely, then yes, why waste a roster spot on the position? If you are only going to use a blocking back for 5-10 plays a game, then do what the Bears did with The Refrigerator, or what the 49ers did with OG Guy McIntyre, or like NE did with Mike Vrabel. Use your nose tackle as your FB. Or your extra OG, or an LB that can be a FB or TE.. Some 320 pound earth mover rather than a 250 pound FB. Couldn't Ismaely Kitchen or Phil Taylor do as good a job of opening the occasional hole as Owen Marecic does? The question comes into play when a team wants to make a FB an integral part of the passing game. Vickers could do that, be a swing man out of the backfield? But could not also say, Jaball Sheard? Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 Well, I mean, if the fullback is going to be used rarely, then yes, why waste a roster spot on the position? I mean, if you are only going to use a blocking back for 5-10 plays a game, then do what the Bears did with The Refrigerator, or what the 49ers did with OG Guy McIntyre, or like NE did with Mike Vrabel. Use your nose tackle as your FB. Or your extra OG, or an LB that can be a FB or TE.. Some 320 pound earth mover rather than a 250 pound FB. I mean, couldn't Ismaely Kitchen or Phil Taylor do as good a job of opening the occasional hole as Owen Marecic does? The question comes into play when a team wants to make a FB an integral part of the passing game. Vickers could do that, be a swing man out of the backfield? But could not also say, Jaball Sheard? Just a thought. The 49ers have been doing that for years- using linemen at FB and TE or running passing plays out of Jumbo or Unbalanced formations. A couple years ago I believe they had two OL score touchdowns in a season. Marecic was an interesting experiment, as he was also a decent LB. The experiment failed. Chud and Turner like athletic, small, stocky FB's. they both used Mike Tolbert, and Turner also utilized Jacob Hester for a while. We don't have one of those yet, but it wouldn't surprise me to see Dion Lewis play at FB occasionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shep Posted July 16, 2013 Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 Wouldn't tiny Dion Lewis (he's like 180) be a bit of a stretch for "small fullback?" He's a small human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 16, 2013 Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 Somebody earlier made an excellent point - Vickers wasn't versatile enough, and wasn't quick. Smelley is the guy, but Marecic is geared up to redeeming himself this coming season. OTH, a one dimensional fullback is outdated, I think, like Shep says. I think Smelley was recommended by Richardson. I would LOVE to see Sheard line up at fullback ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted July 16, 2013 Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 Wouldn't tiny Dion Lewis (he's like 180) be a bit of a stretch for "small fullback?" He's a small human. I thought it was gonna be silent g? Those have been the rumblings from a select few anyway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted July 16, 2013 Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 Wouldn't tiny Dion Lewis (he's like 180) be a bit of a stretch for "small fullback?" He's a small human. Not necessarily. As NFL teams rely more and more on the pass, higher value is placed on hybrid type players. Lewis wouldn't be a fullback in the traditional sense, but just another mismatch. There have been instances of teams lining up in the I form with two backs rather than a FB and RB. It's not uncommon in the least. There's not a LB alive who could cover Lewis man-on (except maybe Patrick Willis). Having Lewis at FB would either cause the defense to reveal and change their coverage or risk getting gashed. It's not an every down thing but I would hope that Chud and Turner would ateast utitlize this a couple times. It's an elementary mismatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted July 16, 2013 Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 Surprise!! This tiny little scat back is gonna be a "lead blocker"....don't worry, he's not gonna run a passing route. This play certainly isn't gonna be play action.... No one will EVER see that coming..... SMH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted July 16, 2013 Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 Surprise!! This tiny little scat back is gonna be a "lead blocker"....don't worry, he's not gonna run a passing route. This play certainly isn't gonna be play action.... No one will EVER see that coming..... SMH It's not supposed to be a trick. It's supposed to cause the defense to show their coverage. SMH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.