PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Why do we once again have a FB?


Status
Not open for further replies.

ALP

Pro Bowl Player
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,175
I know this is a bit premature, since final roster cutdown still has not taken place, but I think it is a pretty safe bet that Mr. Develin makes it to the 53... So my question is, what does a FB bring to the table (other than the obvious), and why has BB seemingly gone back on his decision to stop carrying a FB? After Evans left for New Orleans we did not fill that void; now we are doing so once again.

I do want to get ahead of the affordable personnel answer. Good, cheap FBs could have been had the years we did not carry one; if BB wanted one, it would not have been at all difficult to get one. He did not want to fill that roster position though. Now, (for the 2nd straight year?) we will have a FB again.

That's the question I want someone to ask BB.
 
BB likes skill-position guys who block hard and also have a pass-catching size-mismatch advantage.

FBs seem cheaper than TEs these days, and also offer more flexible on running plays. BB's only gone one season in recent years without having either a FB or the Gronk/Ahern duo.
 
Kind of lucked into it or unlucked into it by virtue of the timing of Aherns arrest. I wouldn't say FB and TE are interchangeable but there is enough over lap that if you have multiple TEs like Hernandez and Gronk you don't have a big need for the FB. Take one away so close to camp and finding the FB became an easier way to fill the void.

Then as it would be the kid is really good and very versatile. I think he is going to be a bigger part of this offense than most realize. Between STs, run blocking, pass protection, some receiving both from backfield and TE slot, as well some short yardage carries he will have a pretty high snap count.
 
Because:
james-develin-will-not-go-down-against-houston.gif
 
Maybe "defensive genius" Bill Belichick will revolutionize yet another offensive position (QB, tight end, slot receiver ... fullback).
 
Amazingly, there's was only one really bad defensive play in that. Develin's first and third efforts were successfully stopped. He had an open route for his fourth effort. The one big failure was the missed tackle on his second effort, when the defender burst through an opening, missed the immediate tackle (excusable) and fell down rather than staying in the play (the big screw-up).
 
I remember BB giving in in depth answer to this last year. He goes on for a while. Basically it sounds like he likes the variety it gives you in blocking over a TE.

Full article: Could fullback be making a comeback? - espnBoston


"By having [a fullback] in the backfield, you can create that same four-man surface or three-man surface after the snap so the defense doesn’t know where the four-man surface or three-man surface is. The fullback has to -- he can build that from the backfield. And then there are also, let’s say, a greater variety of blocking schemes with the fullback in the backfield because he can block different guys and come from different angles. He's not always behind the quarterback. He could be offset one way or the other and create different blocking schemes and angles that it’s harder to get from the line of scrimmage."

There's a lot more at the link.
 
I'm slowly becoming a big, no huge Develin fan.

You saw that run vs. Houston. He's a throwback type for sure. You just don't see many guys like him anymore.
 
If you forget about position for a second, Develin has been one of the best players.

As for having a fullback, I'm not totally against it. We're not going to have an incredible 2-TE attack like before, so we'll have to improvise. Develin gives us some versatility.

And for those who think you can't win a championship in today's NFL with a fullback, Seattle had 2 on the roster last year, the Ravens had a Pro Bowl FB the year before, the Giants had Hynoski the year before that, the Packers had John Kuhn the year before that, and the Saints had Evans the year before that. That's the past 5 Super Bowl winners.

So no big deal if we carry a FB or not. It doesn't doom our chances of winning a Super Bowl.
 
I remember BB giving in in depth answer to this last year. He goes on for a while. Basically it sounds like he likes the variety it gives you in blocking over a TE. Full article.
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-...d/4747254/could-fullback-be-making-a-comeback

"By having [a fullback] in the backfield, you can create that same four-man surface or three-man surface after the snap so the defense doesn’t know where the four-man surface or three-man surface is. The fullback has to -- he can build that from the backfield. And then there are also, let’s say, a greater variety of blocking schemes with the fullback in the backfield because he can block different guys and come from different angles. He's not always behind the quarterback. He could be offset one way or the other and create different blocking schemes and angles that it’s harder to get from the line of scrimmage."

There's a lot more at the link.

Great find. Thanks!
 
As one indicator of how much positions change over time -- Steve Belichick was a fullback, and his distinguishing physical trait was speed.
 
BB likes to show different fronts. He featured 5-wide in 2007. He went to 2 TE. And now, while everyone else is adding more TEs to match that idea, he's bringing back the FB.

I think it's all about versatility and talent. BB's finally found a good FB...let's put some plays into the play book for him. Keep defenses studying to keep up.

What doesn't change dies. What's old is new again.
 
Having a FB on the field means having an Attitude on the field, a toughness that this offense had
lacked from 2009-2012, the Gronk years notwithstanding. There should always be room in the offensive backfield for somebody willing & able to open holes, pick up the blitz & gain the tough,
drive-sustaining yards needed to finish games.
 
When the club did not have a fullback, they would sometimes use a lineman in that role. After injuries occurred due to players not familiar with the position, that idea was discarded.

The club then used tight ends in the role of a fullback when somebody was needed to fulfill that role.

Considering the current state of affairs with the tight end position, it stands to reason that counting on a tight end to be a fullback is no longer a viability.

It seems to me the best course of action for this year's club is to reverse roles, and now include a fullback on the roster who can, when called upon, fulfill the role of a tight end.
 
Because McDaniels use one and Bill O'brien does not.
 
If you had asked me, in week 3 or 4 of last year I would have said Develin is awful and needs to go but over the course of last season he improved instrumentally and this offseason he appears to have improved his game even further, he is a solid NFL player and could develop into a very good one.

In addition, Josh McDaniels has always been in favor of using a fullback in the offense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf’s Pre-Draft Press Conference 4/18/24
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/18: News and Notes
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/17: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/16: News and Notes
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/15: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-14, Mock Draft 3.0, Gilmore, Law Rally For Bill 
Potential Patriot: Boston Globe’s Price Talks to Georgia WR McConkey
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/12: News and Notes
Not a First Round Pick? Hoge Doubles Down on Maye
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/11: News and Notes
Back
Top