1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Forgotten Fullback

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by 87Buffster, Aug 22, 2008.

  1. 87Buffster

    87Buffster Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    6
    “Right now, I don’t think they have anything in there for me to get a carry,” Cantrell said.

    That just strikes me as strange. A well timed quick handoff to the fullback in the right situation, when a defense is keying on the tailback, is a great weapon and can be devastating. Not having some plays in there to utilize the fullback on a carry out of the backfield seems a bit like having a tight end that never goes out for a pass. It is a lost opportunity to give the defense one more thing to worry about.
     
  2. snakeyman

    snakeyman Snake Charmer Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    37
    He'll get a carry or two at the right moment, he better. And when he does, look out. Hawk's a former FB so he probably has a soft spot in there for the big guy.
     
  3. Lt.Col.FrankSlade

    Lt.Col.FrankSlade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    207
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TUKrH197eE&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TUKrH197eE&feature=related[/ame]
     
  4. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    47,334
    Likes Received:
    3,337
    The quick handoff to the fullback is a loser of a play. It almost never works against a halfway decent team. The reason is that it takes one offensive player out of the game - the tailback. And, essentially, the quarterback as well. So there are 11 defenders against 9 on a play like that.
     
  5. str8jacket

    str8jacket Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    5
  6. drew6236

    drew6236 Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    9
    Perhaps they are only saying to the media that he won't be getting any carries. Come on people.

    What works better, telling the world the fullback is going to get the ball and doing it OR telling people he might get a carry or two and then giving him a couple every game.

    I always hated when the fuskers used that play in the 90's. Pissed me off because it always went for 10+ yards.

    I think it could work sometimes on short yardage situations...
     
  7. 87Buffster

    87Buffster Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    6
    Not from what I have seen - fullback carries have often produced great results used properly, meaning sparingly, and when the linebackers on the defense are starting to overcommit to the tailback. That argument is strange.. You could say that any running play is a loser of a play because it takes 2 or 3 wide receivers out of the play.
     
  8. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    47,334
    Likes Received:
    3,337
    Receivers block, too. At least they're supposed to.
     
  9. Cornh8er

    Cornh8er Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,509
    Likes Received:
    78
    anyone remember super bowl 33? I dont think howard griffith had a carry all season and he ended up with 2 rushing touchdowns that game.
     
  10. Lt.Col.FrankSlade

    Lt.Col.FrankSlade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    207

    In 1997 - Griffith had 9 rushes and 11 receptions.

    In 1998 - Griffith had 4 rushes and 15 receptions.
    (In the Super Bowl, he had 4 more rushes [including 2 TD's] and 1 more reception)
     
  11. The Guest

    The Guest Guest

    Seems like Schmidt (sp?) had a big one against OU in the Sooner's latest failed BCS bid (sorry UBT...I know, I know, we can't complain about OU's bowl game performance if we can't get to a BCS ourselves).

    EDIT:

    I'm an idot. Next time I'll check out the youtube link before I post...if I can't offer a fresh perspective, perhaps I'll get the spelling correct.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 22, 2008
  12. Cornh8er

    Cornh8er Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,509
    Likes Received:
    78
    yeah we can, we can do whatever we want
     
  13. The Guest

    The Guest Guest

    Yeah! Good point.

    I just remember being annoyed with the other Big XII North fans who used to chide CU as being an "embarrassment to the division" for our repeated failures in the Big XII Championship game. My response was usually, "if you don't like it, then win the damn division, whiners."

    I'm trying to offer the same courtesy to OU. At least they got there...wish they'd win a couple.
     
  14. buffalo30

    buffalo30 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    774
    Likes Received:
    36
    I've been saying the same thing for years. It can work very well if it is set up properly and blocked properly.
     
  15. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    47,334
    Likes Received:
    3,337
    Any play, when set up properly and blocked properly, will work very well.

    I still don't like the play. Not that it can't work, just that it puts the offense at a numbers disadvantage.
     
  16. buffalo30

    buffalo30 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    774
    Likes Received:
    36
    Loser of a play?:wow: Ha Ha Ha
    Look up the rushing stats for John Bayuk, Ward Walsh, Wilmer Cooks, Tom Nigbur, John Tarver, Bo Matthews, Jim Kelleher, James Mayberry, Anthony Weatherspoon, Eric McCarty, Erich Kissick, George Hemingway and James Hill, just to name a few. See how many yards they gained compared to the yards they lost rushing the ball. Some of them never lost a yard in an entire season.
    Oh, here's one more... even in the day of the diminishing use of the fullback: Brandon Drumm carried the ball 11 times for 128 yards gained, no yards lost and an 11.6 average in 2002.
    :wink2:
     
  17. Wise Old Man

    Wise Old Man Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    8
    See. I think the full back is useless with what we are running. but what i would LOVE to see is us going back to a Smashmouth team. I.E. 2001. . . maybe. After we build and watch our line and new backs Grow. . . . I miss the punch in the gut plays in stead of 40 times a game end around.. Oh well. Maybe its just me
     
  18. Lt.Col.FrankSlade

    Lt.Col.FrankSlade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    207

    With an RB like Darrell Scott (not to mention Ray Polk) and a ball possession control QB like Cody Hawkins, it would make a lot of sense to me for the Buffs to run the ball out of the I-formation, and to utilize that running to create play-action passing.

    But all the rage these days seems to be on this spread no-huddle offense.
     
  19. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    47,334
    Likes Received:
    3,337
    In the right situation, any play will be successful. And those are all great examples of good fullbacks who can run the ball when given the chance. However, football is a game of numbers. When you run the fullback, you allow the 11 defenders to deal with 9 offensive players.

    Obviously the play can work given the right set of circumstances. I just would be very weary of making it a regular staple of my offense.
     
  20. Hugegroove

    Hugegroove Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,694
    Likes Received:
    82
    Lt.Col.

    I hope they can accomplish both. If so, the defenses will have a hard time adjusting and the defensive coaches will have a hard time trying to figure out their substitution scheme.
     
  21. buffalo30

    buffalo30 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    774
    Likes Received:
    36
    Yes, I fully understand the game of numbers and the concept of hat-on-hat blocking at the point of attack. I have discussed it for years on the netbuffs site long before Allbuffs came on the scene. I have described numerous running plays where the number of blockers is equal to or greater than the defenders at the point of attack. Many of them employed pulling linemen and a blocking back at the point of attack. I described the basis for the 98G play on netbuffs before it was used by the Buffs in 2001. The curious thing about those play descriptions was that Watson actually used the same terminology that I had used to describe the plays on netbuffs when he was interviewed about the Buff's running game by the Boulder Daily Camera. (It was hinted to me by someone close to the program that Watson had been aware of what I was talking about.)

    Much of my running game discussions were stimulated by Neuheisel's pass happy offense that used a one-back formation and the disappearance of the running game. I got sick in 2003-05 after Marshall and Bieniemy left and the new line and backs coaches along with Watson went back to the one back formation. The running game again fell apart.

    A fullback running the ball sure doesn't need to be a staple of the offense unless it is part of an option offense. However, using all of the weapons in a non-option offense should be done to keep the defense from keying on one player all the time. The fullback dive can be called as an audible when the defensive line and linebacker alignment gives an advantage at the chosen point of attack. It can also be used as a called play with pulling the off-side guard. That gives an advantage in numbers at the point of attack.

    I'm not completely sure of what the Buff's offense will look like this season. I have a good idea, but I want to see it first. I am still not sold on the competence of the offensive coordinator. I'll be happy if he proves that he is competent. If I had big, tough linemen who can drive block, big fullbacks who can block well, and several good tailbacks, I would be using them in a power running game with a diverse passing attack built around it. I hope we don't see an offense that is a pansy-assed passing offense with 40-50 passes every game and only 20 running plays. If they go 12-0 with an offense like that, so be it. But I doubt an offense like that will consistently carry a team to the conference title and beyond. Stay-tuned. If I feel like breaking down the offensive plays on slow motion film and discussing it on the boards again, you will see me here and on the "other" site.:smile2:
    Take care.
     
    SBG likes this.
  22. Hugegroove

    Hugegroove Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,694
    Likes Received:
    82
    BUFF 30 -

    Come back often
     
  23. BehindEnemyLines

    BehindEnemyLines beware the habu Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    14,251
    Likes Received:
    723
    The FB dive has another affect - it can slow the pursuit of the back-side LB(s). Running the dive a couple of times earlier in the game can make the pursuit hesitate for a split second, which can be the difference between a RB making a decent gain and taking it to the house.
     
  24. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    47,334
    Likes Received:
    3,337
    If you get the LB's and safeties keying in the tailback, the numbers work again.

    I think 30 and I agree on this more than disagree. By keying on the tailback, the linebacker (or safety) takes himself out of the play. What I said earlier about using the play against good defenses still applies. Playing a team like Oklahoma or Texas, who have speed at LB, means a play like that probably won't be as successful. We could probably run it all day against CSU, who, once Scott comes in the game will be keying on him all day long.
     
  25. wsp4820

    wsp4820 Sally Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,978
    Likes Received:
    1,195
    But, didn't he get about 30-40 of those in the NU game when he was basically playing as a TB in the 2nd half?

    I think that the FB handoff works when the QB is a threat to keep the ball. If you know the QB isn't going to bootleg out with it or run the option, once you see the hand off the Dline and LBs can collapse. However, if the LBs have to stay honest because the QB can break containment to the outside then you have the D waiting for that split second so you can create the hole. I guess if you have some plays in the book that include either play action to the FB or a fake to the FB and quick pitch to a TB, then you could get the same effect. But, if you aren't doing that, I'm with Sacky, it isn't likely to be successful because you are outnumbered at the point of attack.

    EDIT: just read 30's post. Nice work there. It still seems to me, however, that if the QB isn't a threat to keep the ball it would be pretty difficult to find the alignments in which you still have an advantage with the FB handoff.
     
  26. Lt.Col.FrankSlade

    Lt.Col.FrankSlade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    207

    I think I posted a link showing what a fullback dive did against OU.


    OU's linebackers are ****ty. Weakest position on their team.
     

Share This Page