Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Fullback situation


Swarly

Recommended Posts

In Turner's style of the Air Coryell system, the fullback position is not used in that traditional blocking back style. Remember when Turner came to San Diego and the next season they let Lorenzo Neal go? That wasn't just because Neal was getting older.

In Turner's version, the h-back or TE is more likely to lineup in the backfield than the fullback. Turner's offense usually will feature a 3rd WR more often than not and there will always be at least one TE. The running game has to be a power running game based on the the running back and the offensive line. And instead of the TE and WR being asked to be overly aggressive in run blocking, their speed and and the threat of big plays in the passing game pulls defenders away from the line of scrimage.

Fiametta came out mainly known as a great run blocker. Don't really remember what his pros and cons were coming out but I would say Rosario now has a better chance of being the starter at fullback than Fiametta. Thats the type of fullback Chud probably covets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Turner's style of the Air Coryell system, the fullback position is not used in that traditional blocking back style. Remember when Turner came to San Diego and the next season they let Lorenzo Neal go? That wasn't just because Neal was getting older.

In Turner's version, the h-back or TE is more likely to lineup in the backfield than the fullback. Turner's offense usually will feature a 3rd WR more often than not and there will always be at least one TE. The running game has to be a power running game based on the the running back and the offensive line. And instead of the TE and WR being asked to be overly aggressive in run blocking, their speed and and the threat of big plays in the passing game pulls defenders away from the line of scrimage.

Fiametta came out mainly known as a great run blocker. Don't really remember what his pros and cons were coming out but I would say Rosario now has a better chance of being the starter at fullback than Fiametta. Thats the type of fullback Chud probably covets.

Thanks :thumbsup: :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fullbacks generally take a while to fully develop. Look all the best fullbacks of the past 10 or so years, they've all been in the league 5 or more years, seems like any time you hear of a good fullback it's a guy that's pushing 30. I think Fiametta is more than adequate for what we need. I remember a few times this past season when commentators actually took it back to replay to point out something good Fiametta did. It's not often you see a rewind to praise a FB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2009-04-24/scouting-report-syracuses-tony-fiammetta

http://www.nfldraft101.com/draft/profiles/player/789/Tony_Fiammetta.jsp

Here are a couple of scouting reports that I was able to find on Fiammetta. It does appear that he may be athletic enough and a good enough pass catcher to play in a Norv Turner style Coryell Offense (if that is what Chud is going to run). However, I continue to believe that between Fiammetta and Rosario (a more true H-Back who played fullback in college), Rosario is the better option as a starter at fullback in Chud's system.

Fiammetta really has only ever been asked to be a road grader in Davidson's offense so we really haven't ever seen what he could do in more of a H-Back role. But I think Fiammetta and also Jeff King are the kind of players who fit perfectly in Fox/Davidson's style of offense but may not in Rivera/Chud's. It would not surprise me to see Fiammetta cut in order to keep another H-Back/TE or another WR. Remember how Fox use to always say the nickleback is a starter, well look for Chud to look at the slot reciever as a starter in that same mindset. So having a minimum of 6 WR going into the season would probably be more of a norm for Chud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • That's my biggest concern with making him the 2C.  You split up the Aho Jarvis bromance that accounted for a lot of points.  If Jarvis excels as a C, it could help the team even more though.
    • The Saints being that high is the one that killed me. Chris Olave might not know his name at this point, Shaheed is coming off injury as well, so 31 year old Brandin Cooks might be your best WR...coming off a 260 yard season over 10 games. Kamara is Kamara, but didn't have 1,000 yards last year and is about to turn 30.  Toss in the fact that Taysom Hill may be the best QB on the team and I truly don't understand Barnwell's thoughts beside seeing the names "Olave" and "Kamara" and going yep, that sounds better than "Chuba" and "Thielen". 
    • Now now now, I wouldn't say there is no logic, but there's just not a lot of in-depth thought put into Barnwell's  "analysis." Now to be fair to him (and other national writers), pre-season team rankings are basically clickbait. And...Barnwell, himself, said that "there's a lot of projection here." He basically admits that he doesn't know how the hell things are going to turn out with our receiver group. He also said that "I find myself" more intrigued by Coker than Legette; that does not mean that he said that fans should be, or that Coker will even be better than Legette (regardless of ESPN's per-route-run stat). So, yeah, Barnwell said some things, but even he has to basically admit that he doesn't know how bad or good that our playmakers will be in 2025.  Overall, what Barnwell is basically thinking is that the Panthers have gotten worse at the offensive skill positions, and baked into that is that others have gotten better. That's the argument in July (meaning, please don't give this any more weight than it's due). I would personally be surprised (not shocked) if we end up worse than the Titans, Pats and Giants at least. Once you throw in the Bills, Giants, Jets, Steelers, and even the Chargers, I personally think there are several teams' skill groups that may end up ranked lower than ours by the end of 2025.  @kungfoodudeis one of my dudes, but like others he is over the tipping point. He's had enough. Seeing is believing. I will say this though: Barnwell's piece is less about logic than just good ol' opinion. And to be honest, he might as well be a Huddler throwing out sh¡t in the summer based upon nothing but good feels or bad feels.  Our offense as a whole (just like any other team's) is going to depend upon the play of the O-line and especially the QB. How you can even rank the skill positions without expressly baking those two things in the cake is beyond me. I would dare say that that's not even logical. 
×
×
  • Create New...