Jump to content

Who do you think will be our starting fullback?


Recommended Posts

Like I said in another post, I don't want to see a FB starting, period. I'd rather see either 3-WR or 2 TE sets being used. But if a FB is used, I don't care one way or the other between these 2... might as well be Goldberry or Joe Burns for that matter. Whoever contributes the best on ST, cause I wouldn't keep 2 of them, waste of a roster spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said in another post, I don't want to see a FB starting, period. I'd rather see either 3-WR or 2 TE sets being used. But if a FB is used, I don't care one way or the other between these 2... might as well be Goldberry or Joe Burns for that matter. Whoever contributes the best on ST, cause I wouldn't keep 2 of them, waste of a roster spot.

733369[/snapback]

 

Agreed...with our depth at WR...it makes a lot of sense to put as many playmakers out there (and that does not include #22...sorry Nate)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said in another post, I don't want to see a FB starting, period. I'd rather see either 3-WR or 2 TE sets being used. But if a FB is used, I don't care one way or the other between these 2... might as well be Goldberry or Joe Burns for that matter. Whoever contributes the best on ST, cause I wouldn't keep 2 of them, waste of a roster spot.

733369[/snapback]

 

You are right on target mentioning the ability to contribute on ST being a big part of who it makes more sense to keep. I would once again add that I hope the team is not so hidebound dedicated to either a 3 wide approach, a 2 TE approach (or both( that it is unable to have the personnel to go to a full house backfield when that approach is the best one to get the jod done.

 

However, even with a diverse attack, this means the FB is not going to be a position player used all the time and if so the way this player is gonna contribute to the team is on ST or he is just sitting on the bench taking up a roster spot.

 

I've heard great things about Ricard as a lead blocker with his proven experience leading the way for a 2000 yard rusher and being trained by Sam Gash and a little bit that he has rushed the ball but not with extraordinary results (not unexpected for someone from the Sam Gash school or a problem if he blocks effectively for a 2K faining RB).

 

However, I have not heard any details yet about whether Ricard showed the same prowess as a check down receiver Gash showed or whether he has any ST experience. These facts would tell us alot if anyone has them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said in another post, I don't want to see a FB starting, period. I'd rather see either 3-WR or 2 TE sets being used. But if a FB is used, I don't care one way or the other between these 2... might as well be Goldberry or Joe Burns for that matter. Whoever contributes the best on ST, cause I wouldn't keep 2 of them, waste of a roster spot.

733369[/snapback]

 

Yeah, but WR aren't built to block like a fullback on every running play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said in another post, I don't want to see a FB starting, period. I'd rather see either 3-WR or 2 TE sets being used. But if a FB is used, I don't care one way or the other between these 2... might as well be Goldberry or Joe Burns for that matter. Whoever contributes the best on ST, cause I wouldn't keep 2 of them, waste of a roster spot.

733369[/snapback]

 

Uh, If you have a suspect line and iffy quarterbacking, having a blocker in the backfield isn't an especially bad idea.

 

It's not like the Bills have a killer passing offense that strikes fear into opponents... :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...