Pats Running Backs

[captain stone]

Agreed, FB is a luxury, and we use other active game day players there (Seymour, Fletcher, Connolly, Hochstein, etc). The FB makes himself active with st duties, so we can use a legit FB on the handful of plays he will actually participate in on offense.

Seymour & Connolly were injured as a direct result of trying to play FB. I never want to see that happen again.

 

[Ring 6]

That comment was partly in response to my post in which I suggested that Larsen could be a viable option at times in a short-yardage or goalline role. I doubt Larsen was signed for his abilit to carry the ball, but I wouldn't consider it a stretch to see a fullback used in those limited situations, both as a blocker and sometimes as the ball carrier.

We have, in the past, handed off to the lead back, but that was usually BJGE or Morris (or Evans in the past).
In any event, the rushing average of a guy who may get 5 carries in a season on 3rd and 1 is not very relevant. 2.0 would be good.

 

[Ring 6]

Seymour & Connolly were injured as a direct result of trying to play FB. I never want to see that happen again.

Personally, I never bought into that thinking. Football players play football. Not using them because they could get injured is a bad outlook.

 

[strngplyr]

Personally, I never bought into that thinking. Football players play football. Not using them because they could get injured is a bad outlook.

Using them in an unnatural position, unless absolutely required, is something I don't really agree with.

 

[Ring 6]

Using them in an unnatural position, unless absolutely required, is something I don't really agree with.

I guess I just don't find it unnatural to ask a guy to make a block.

 

[mgteich]

for enough, let's restate

Being in the situation where your best option at FB is Seymour or Connolly is simply poor planning and a poor use of resources.

Personally, I never bought into that thinking. Football players play football. Not using them because they could get injured is a bad outlook.

 

[Ring 6]

for enough, let's restate

Being in the situation where your best option at FB is Seymour or Connolly is simply poor planning and a poor use of resources.

We normally laud the versatilty and use of it to form the roster and keep players who can contribute by having a player assume a different role (ie Vrabel at TE, Brown at DB, Solder at TE). I can understand that the next best guy who was less vital would be a better choice than Seymour. That was a poor way to implement the strategy. But the strategy itself is sound. Connolly was a backup OL who sat on the bench all day when he was used at FB. Why not use him at FB to get something out of him in those games? I think Donald Thomas did some of that last year.
I support using an OL for 3 or 4 plays a game over keeping an active FB who will do nothing else, since the OL has to be active in the event of injury.

 

[mgteich]

I believe that we seem to agree on the use of Seymour and Connolly.

Seymour should NOT have been used as a fullback.
Connolly should have been used since he was backup, unlikely to get much time at OG or C

With regard to not carrying a fullback because he would only be used 3-4 times a game, I think that you should consider other roles of that player. The player may be a top special teamer, or even an emergency backup LB's (allowing us to carry only 15 defensive fron seven players instead of 16).

We normally laud the versatilty and use of it to form the roster and keep players who can contribute by having a player assume a different role (ie Vrabel at TE, Brown at DB, Solder at TE). I can understand that the next best guy who was less vital would be a better choice than Seymour. That was a poor way to implement the strategy. But the strategy itself is sound. Connolly was a backup OL who sat on the bench all day when he was used at FB. Why not use him at FB to get something out of him in those games? I think Donald Thomas did some of that last year.
I support using an OL for 3 or 4 plays a game over keeping an active FB who will do nothing else, since the OL has to be active in the event of injury.

 

[Ring 6]

I believe that we seem to agree on the use of Seymour and Connolly.

Seymour should NOT have been used as a fullback.
Connolly should have been used since he was backup, unlikely to get much time at OG or C

With regard to not carrying a fullback because he would only be used 3-4 times a game, I think that you should consider other roles of that player. The player may be a top special teamer, or even an emergency backup LB's (allowing us to carry only 15 defensive fron seven players instead of 16).

Well, thats exactly the point I was making. We won't be carrying a FB to only play FB. They will have to make the team on special teams. (They could also play on 3rd down if they are a quality pass blocker and that would be a reason to make the team in itself). If we do not have a FB who can do more than be the lead blocker in those cases, we will not keep one, and use an OL or a LB.(BTW, this could also be a role for a 3rd TE)

 

[patchick]

I support using an OL for 3 or 4 plays a game over keeping an active FB who will do nothing else, since the OL has to be active in the event of injury.

I think that's the interesting thing about the Pats' signing TWO legit FBs fairly early in free agency, after picking up Polite late last year. On the face of it, that sure looks like a signal that they may start valuing the position at more than a 3-4 play level. Hard to believe with this offense, though -- who do you take off the field?

 

[BlueThunder]

Sure would be nice if Koppen or Connolly could long snap to free up a spot.

 

[patchick]

Sure would be nice if Koppen or Connolly could long snap to free up a spot.

I ask this in genuine curiosity: around the league, do ANY starting centers regularly take long-snapping duty?

AFAIK most long snappers aren't even offensive linemen. Most seem to be around 250-260 pounds and more mobile. (Rob Ninkovich is a former LS, for example.)

 

[Ring 6]

I think that's the interesting thing about the Pats' signing TWO legit FBs fairly early in free agency, after picking up Polite late last year. On the face of it, that sure looks like a signal that they may start valuing the position at more than a 3-4 play level. Hard to believe with this offense, though -- who do you take off the field?

I don't think signing 1,2 or 6 necessarily indicates the level of value, just that there is value, and there will be competition. IMO, the value is special teams in addition to those few plays, and potentially pass protection as well.
I am all for a FB staying in as the blitz pickup for Brady, or an outlet, with Lloyd, Welker, Gronk and Hernandez in the route, if he is a superb pass blocker and blitz pickup guy.

 

[mayoclinic]

I ask this in genuine curiosity: around the league, do ANY starting centers regularly take long-snapping duty?

AFAIK most long snappers aren't even offensive linemen. Most seem to be around 250-260 pounds and more mobile. (Rob Ninkovich is a former LS, for example.)

Here's a current list of long snappers from that definitive source, Wikipedia:

Template:Current NFL long snappers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No starting centers that I can see at first glance. Guys like Zak DeOssie (LB), Clark Harris (TE), and a bunch of guys who were LS in college. All in the 240-260 range, as you say. Not a legitimate lineman in the group as far as I can tell.

I used to wish that Ninko could handle the LS duties and save a much needed roster spot. But given that pretty much every team seems to carry a dedicated LS, it just seems to be something that needs to be practiced to the point where it precludes having a significant non-ST role.

 

[Ring 6]

I ask this in genuine curiosity: around the league, do ANY starting centers regularly take long-snapping duty?

AFAIK most long snappers aren't even offensive linemen. Most seem to be around 250-260 pounds and more mobile. (Rob Ninkovich is a former LS, for example.)

I think you are correct. My wild guess is that teams use specialists because of the frequency of hand injuries to OL. I don't imagine there are many starting OL who don't get banged up enough every week in their hands to be able to be effective long snapping. Not to mention its an awkward motion for a 300 lb fatty.

 

[patchick]

Here's a current list of long snappers from that definitive source, Wikipedia:

Template:Current NFL long snappers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No starting centers that I can see at first glance. Guys like Zak DeOssie (LB), Clark Harris (TE), and a bunch of guys who were LS in college. All in the 240-260 range, as you say. Not a legitimate lineman in the group as far as I can tell.

I used to wish that Ninko could handle the LS duties and save a much needed roster spot. But given that pretty much every team seems to carry a dedicated LS, it just seems to be something that needs to be practiced to the point where it precludes having a significant non-ST role.

Thanks, Mayo. I definitely have the impression that the part-time long snapper has gone the way of the quarterback/punter.

 

[mgteich]

I agree that we will not keep a FB on the team to be a lead blocker.

A FB needs to be able to pick up the blitz and be an outlet receiver. A FB is a valuable asset in a pasing offense as the protector of the franchise.

Well, thats exactly the point I was making. We won't be carrying a FB to only play FB. They will have to make the team on special teams. (They could also play on 3rd down if they are a quality pass blocker and that would be a reason to make the team in itself). If we do not have a FB who can do more than be the lead blocker in those cases, we will not keep one, and use an OL or a LB.(BTW, this could also be a role for a 3rd TE)

 

[mayoclinic]

The roles that I could potential see a guy like Larsen performing:

- ST ace
- lead blocker
- pass protection / blitz pickup
- outlet receiver
- goal line / short yardage option
- depth on defense - that's unique to Larsen

I agree that we will not keep a FB on the team to be a lead blocker.

A FB needs to be able to pick up the blitz and be an outlet receiver. A FB is a valuable asset in a pasing offense as the protector of the franchise.

 

[mayoclinic]

Pats' Pulpit looks at the fullback options:

Saturday Discussion: Which Fullback Should The Pats Keep? - Pats Pulpit

 

[Ring 6]

I agree that we will not keep a FB on the team to be a lead blocker.

A FB needs to be able to pick up the blitz and be an outlet receiver. A FB is a valuable asset in a pasing offense as the protector of the franchise.

BB commented on this during the week.
He implied that the FBs are not only competing for the FB spot, but also competing for FB to be a spot on the roster, and their special teams play will have a big impact on the decision.