Quick, name the player:
And a throwback video:
Your Monday musing: has the fullback been replaced by the TE? I remember a time when fullbacks were the bread and butter of offenses, and as a former middle school football coach, was one of the most important aspects of running a single wing offense (we had no linemen, give me a break).
Give me a big fast guy who is willing to crack heads and carry the ball one time a game, and I’ll give you a winning football team. Discuss.
FRED
MUNZENMAIER. Had to look up how to spell his name.
He doesn’t really need to be that fast. And Mark Richt liked himself some fullback. Always kept one or two.
Size and space. Everyone is bigger now so you gotta spread things out and the premium to get guys in space has de-valued the FB spot (for now – everything comes full circle). Look at Bowers – basically the size and athleticism of the old San Fran FB Tom Rathman. Put him in space, or that slick little uncovered, 2nd lineman spot like the TD vs Michigan and he’s a problem. Now that you get that player in a spot to earn money, other dudes want to be there.
Given athletic, dual-threat QBs and so many kids who would have played hoops now playing wide receiver, the fullback isn’t coming back as a position of need. The game is 7 on 7 with big men to protect the QB and create running lanes. Short yardage is inside zone, QB power, and the sneak or short passing.
John Riggins may not have been able to play in today’s NFL. The best he would have been would be a 1st and 2nd down thumper ILB who would come off the field in passing situations. Even then, I’m not sure he would have a roster spot.
CTE is another reason sending the FB into extinction.
Yeah, if you can get five to ten (and often more) yards with a TE instead of two to three (and usually no more) with a FB, you’re going to scheme TEs into the game.
I suppose FBs could make a comeback if defenses become so spread out and light in the ass that they can’t stop a power running game. But I doubt most highly ranked teams are going to look like 2007 Hawaii.
The FB is not relevant at any level of football at this point. Every high school runs spread and very little under center to get athletic QBs in space. Most college teams have abandoned 2 back sets except in very specific circumstances. Even the NFL has abandoned the old pro-set offense based on 21 personnel.
In the very specific situations where teams run what appears to be 21, much of the time the fullback is an athletic DL (Jalen Carter), a TE (Bowers) or a linebacker.
A specific player tagged as a fullback has gone the way of the buggy whip. A tough fullback is now an inside linebacker. An athletic FB is now a tight end/H-back or becomes an edge defender.
If coaches and players from the 1920s all got resurrected and started football blogs they would argue that teams today are missing opportunities by not running The Notre Dame Box.
The game evolves.
Gaskilldawg
Once defenses evolve to defend fast, spread out offenses, some small school will recruit a bunch of bruisers, pack in tight and run through those fast defenses. Rinse and repeat.
That’s where I am, too. It’s cyclical and when someone figures out they can “manball” (sorry, I know) these light defenses set up to stop the pass. It’s going to come back around. Will everyone jump in with big-bodied bruisers when it works? Probably, everyone wants to win.
Quayvon Hicks would have been a hell of an inside linebacker and probably could have been a 3-down LB instead of playing fullback.
It was cool in its day. I don’t believe it’s coming back. Too much has changed.
Kirby uses his TE’s as FB’s in short yardage situations. They’re of somewhat limited utility in modern CFB. Two-back offensive packages that aren’t short yardage aren’t common in today’s game.