CSBill Posted July 28, 2021 Posted July 28, 2021 I like Gilliam, if he is a FB who can block, protect, and catch (and run) the ball, there will be a place for him on this team.
Boxcar Posted July 28, 2021 Posted July 28, 2021 (edited) 18 hours ago, Patrick_Duffy said: Lookout!! That means Ertz is on the way!!! 🤪 Latest news on Ertz is that he bleached his hair and he reported to the training camp for the team he plays for. That's a big deal! Watch out for the Iggles, everyone. They are going to do damage in the NFC East. Maybe even finish third. I literally can't find anything else. Edited July 28, 2021 by Boxcar
NoSaint Posted July 28, 2021 Posted July 28, 2021 20 hours ago, Mark Vader said: The Tight End/Fullback hybrid. Isn't that an H-Back? meh. For roster designation it doesn’t matter much. Eligible for a few new jersey numbers but everything else is exactly the same. 1
FilthyBeast Posted July 28, 2021 Posted July 28, 2021 Even if we don't make any other additions at TE I can't see Gilliam making the roster but pretty sure we can easily get him onto the PS if we want to keep him around. 1
GunnerBill Posted July 28, 2021 Posted July 28, 2021 9 minutes ago, FilthyBeast said: Even if we don't make any other additions at TE I can't see Gilliam making the roster but pretty sure we can easily get him onto the PS if we want to keep him around. I think he will. He has key special teams value.
BigAl2526 Posted July 28, 2021 Posted July 28, 2021 It's the only designation that makes sense to me. Yes, he could line up as a TE or even WR in some plays, and of course he would need to contribute heavily on special teams, but FB gives him a chance to contribute something that not many others on the team can really do. 1
NoSaint Posted July 28, 2021 Posted July 28, 2021 5 hours ago, BigAl2526 said: It's the only designation that makes sense to me. Yes, he could line up as a TE or even WR in some plays, and of course he would need to contribute heavily on special teams, but FB gives him a chance to contribute something that not many others on the team can really do. ultimately he could be listed at WR and play a FB role. This designation doesn’t change much. And we can keep 12 tight ends and no full backs if we wanted. I think we all pictured him in the kind of H back, versatile around the line of scrimmage role, and not a big threat split out wide consistently. Even as a “FB” officially I think we all expect him to be an in line blocker like a TE on snaps and more of a passing threat than a traditional FB too. it’s a pretty minor procedural update in the grand scheme.
The Dean Posted July 30, 2021 Posted July 30, 2021 I think many, if not most, NFL players who aren't a roster lock would be happy with any designation that gives them a better shot at making the team. Still it's good to give an attaboy when someone happily does it. Attaboy, Reggie! On 7/28/2021 at 7:47 PM, NoSaint said: ultimately he could be listed at WR and play a FB role. This designation doesn’t change much. And we can keep 12 tight ends and no full backs if we wanted. I think we all pictured him in the kind of H back, versatile around the line of scrimmage role, and not a big threat split out wide consistently. Even as a “FB” officially I think we all expect him to be an in line blocker like a TE on snaps and more of a passing threat than a traditional FB too. it’s a pretty minor procedural update in the grand scheme. Pretty much. But I wonder then, why bother? Maybe it's because they want Reggie to work with the backs in TC, because that's where he will learn the most this year. So his number and position fit right in. Honestly, dunno, But wondering if it doesn't matter (which it kinda doesn't it seems) why do it? Distracting noise for the press, opponents? Seems strange.
LABILLBACKER Posted July 30, 2021 Posted July 30, 2021 On 7/27/2021 at 1:30 PM, BLO_RIO said: This makes sense, soon to be cut Patrick DiMarco approves this message.
Brianmoorman4jesus Posted July 31, 2021 Posted July 31, 2021 I actually think the reason our run game struggled so bad last year was the lack of a fullback. I understand that most teams are going away from it and I understand that most people are going to disagree with what I’m saying. But just because those things are true, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. It’s true, a lot of teams are moving away from a true fullback. But a lot of the physical teams (especially the ones that can run it between the tackles) still have one. You can be an offense that scores a lot, that throws a lot and also has a fullback. There is no rule saying those things have to be mutually exclusive. IMO this team puts way to much into STs personnel. Especially on game day. It’s truly overkill a lot of the time. If we have room for all of these ST only guys, then we have room for a FB. I’m not suggesting a complete overhaul of offensive philosophy but it would be nice if we could run it, when the defense is expecting us to run. It would also open up the play action even more. You don’t have to play a FB every down like it’s 1984 but you don’t have to not have one all together. There’s substantial middle ground.
ALF Posted July 31, 2021 Posted July 31, 2021 (edited) 6' 244lbs that's a FB who can catch or block not sure yet. Edited July 31, 2021 by ALF
Simon Says Posted July 31, 2021 Posted July 31, 2021 File this under "I really don't care that much. "
Recommended Posts