Reading all these posts has my head spinning.
I played fullback in HS , back in the day, so I guess I am a little biased twoards that type of football. We ran the Winged -T and the Power I. I blocked, ran with the ball, and caught a pass once in awhile. However, we ran other sets at various times based on our opponent's strengths & weaknesses. Obviously, things have changed and the trend is to a heavier emphasis on the passing game.
I've seen many questions and a multitude of responses regarding our lack of a "true fullback". My question to the obviously well informed posters here is what do you define as a fullback?
I agree we have the skilled players that indicate the main thrust of our offense should be the passing attack of Colt and all the great WR's along with J-Mike. However, there are times ie: down close to the goal line, short yardage situations and just as important, times in the 4th quarter when we are protecting a lead, as on T+1 '06, when it is extremely important to be able to effectively run the ball. All too many times last season we were unable to get first downs by running the ball during crucial situations. These are times when you don't want to put the ball up and risk a sack (also with the chance to get blind-sided creating a turnover), an interception, or a clock-stopping incompletion. I maintain that the most effective way to do this is running the I with a fullback lead. All you really need at that position in this offense is a guy who is fairly athletic who can run a little, keep his feet, and be able to sustain a block for a second or so. I partially agree with the previous poster who said Mack and GD don't really try too hard to find someone who fits that bill or at least do'nt want to spend a scholarship on one.
With the way our offense has evolved along with the absence of a power back like Cedric or Ricky they possibily feel the need is diminished. That being said, it is my belief that we need this set in our arsenal and that it is imperative to develop a fullback who is unelfish enough to give his body up as a blocker with no promise of ever running with the ball. I think that a lead fullback gives you more flexibility in terms of running right or left, inside or out, versus two tights or other options. Is my thinking flawed?
I also think that for the most part you need to go with your best players so I prefer a one TE set versus two right now since I think J-Mike is an awesome talent that can be used in tight or split out. An argument could be made for using a second tight end or H-Back sent in motion to lead a single back instead of a fullback but I feel it tips the play or hole to the D, albeit for a split second, as well as employing a less effective blocking angle. Just my opinion.
I would like to see us use split backs with Colt in the shotgun. I understand what Menjou (I think) was saying about not having a strong dive back but I feel Vondrel and even Obie could fill that position. What a guy like Vondrel gives up in size/power is made up for with quicks and elusiveness. What I like about that set is that, not only could you run the veer or the Urban Meyer Utah option, but you could send JC or Vondrel in motion or straight out into a pass route. Remember the wheel rout JC scored on in the Alamo Bowl? I know you take a WR out of the mix but I am not saying use it all the time but there is plenty of versatility to that scheme. You can run a 10 or 11 set out of that and/or split J-Mike out creating a tough size matchup for a DB thus still giving you a 3-wide look. I had a debate with HPSlugga on the use of multiple sets with his thought being it creates more predictability than less. I see his point but what we are'nt considering is that you can put considerable doubt in the minds of the defense. There is so much you "could" do with different plays and wrinkles that it has to put them on their heels and slows their reaction time which is all you really need. He also made the point that there is just so much offense you can add during the limited amount of time the coaches have with them. Point taken but why can't we add one or two plays to each set a week as we go thru the season. I saw Les Koenig employ a bunch of different formations that seem to work against us and they seemed to execute them pretty well.
Also, as I mentioned on another thread, the addition of Sherrod and Chiles gives us even more options especially near the endzone.
Some more random thoughts: I would also like to see us make more of a commitment to the run. It seems GD likes to revert back to the pass too soon (ie: the a&m game early in the 4th after 4 successful runs gave us two 1st downs).....he just seems more comfortable with the pass offense. I can still see some applications of the one back/shotgun set with Colt but if you are going to run the zone read you need to let Colt carry the ball once in awhile. My thoughts on Colt's running ability is that he is much more effective once he gets going after a couple of steps or when he is scrambling out of the pocket as against Tech late in that game. It seems to me the zone read need a QB who is quick and can make that first guy miss or run thru a tackle which is what VY could do all day long. Another point is, Blaine Irby has the prototypical size of a full back or H-Back if you want so that might be the answer there.
I know that all this also has to be predicated upon what the defense's strengths are and who your playing but that is a discussion for another time since this post is already too long.......
