Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Reese permanent move to RB?
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DOCLEW 28


Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 10789
Location: East Oakland
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BNich0622 wrote:
DOCLEW 28 wrote:
And he is just a UDFA rookie from Stanford. Just think of what a solid college back with more stats would do.


He went to Washington, where he played WR.


I was talking about Stewart there. Laughing

And for the record, I would rather have Reece at FB where he creates so many mismatches with linebackers. We just have to do a better job of getting the ball to him in those situations.
_________________

Raider X hooked me with the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5299
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chali21 wrote:
Honestly I think we should keep him at FB and bring another RB in. Here's why, you'll have more weapons that way. I mean how many teams have to acount for a RB and a FB?


+1

If you have Reece at RB and say Schmitt at FB, the D will focus on Reece because Schmitt (like most FBs) is really just a blocker. However, you put another RB out there with Reece at FB, thats 2 guys that can take a hand-off or catch the ball. Reece at FB = an extra weapon on the field.
_________________


Silver&Black88 on the sig

La_Vader wrote:
I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5299
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

blancanieve wrote:
Meyers has solidified the TE position for us and if Reece can be the Running back those are two spots that we don't have to be looking into other than getting backups at those positions cause i don't see Dmac back with us next year


I understand your reasoning, but we dont need to use a high draft pick or a ton of money on a RB next offseason if DMC is gone. A guy like Peyton Hillis can be had for pretty cheap and we dont need an elite back anyway. Keeping Reece at FB gives him chances to get carries, and he will be a target in the passing game as always, but having another RB in there just means one more guy for the D to worry about.

RB- Stewart/ FB-Reece > RB- Reece/ FB- Schmitt
_________________


Silver&Black88 on the sig

La_Vader wrote:
I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
holyghost


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5703
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I support Reece to RB. I really don't see Reece at FB as an extra weapon and I will tell you why.

There's just not a ton of ways to get a FB involved. Once he goes into the line whether it's a run or a play action, it severely limits how he can get the ball because then he has to pick through the line to get to his spot. If he's out playing fullback then swing passes and screens are about all we can see out of him.
Most of his receiving plays at FB, before he went to RB, were split out wide, or in motion, but very few came while he was actually playing fullback. Which means he was not actually playing fullback at the time. He's wasted at fullback and not such a great blocker anyway where he's needed there. I never supported or understood the move to fullback in the first place considering his game has always been his extraordinary receiving ability.

I say a move to RB or even a multi use TE like Aaron Hernandez is absolutely in order for this guy. Say goodbye to Schmitt, and get one or two legit blocking fullbacks in here this offseason. Schmitt is horrendous by the way. Can't run short yardage, can't barely block. Can drink beer, that's about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 31812
Location: Rochester, NY
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ugh, hell to the no. Sure, let him run more often but as the starting running back? You serious, bro?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5299
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

holyghost wrote:
I support Reece to RB. I really don't see Reece at FB as an extra weapon and I will tell you why.

There's just not a ton of ways to get a FB involved. Once he goes into the line whether it's a run or a play action, it severely limits how he can get the ball because then he has to pick through the line to get to his spot. If he's out playing fullback then swing passes and screens are about all we can see out of him.
Most of his receiving plays at FB, before he went to RB, were split out wide, or in motion, but very few came while he was actually playing fullback. Which means he was not actually playing fullback at the time. He's wasted at fullback and not such a great blocker anyway where he's needed there. I never supported or understood the move to fullback in the first place considering his game has always been his extraordinary receiving ability.

I say a move to RB or even a multi use TE like Aaron Hernandez is absolutely in order for this guy. Say goodbye to Schmitt, and get one or two legit blocking fullbacks in here this offseason. Schmitt is horrendous by the way. Can't run short yardage, can't barely block. Can drink beer, that's about it.


Reece actually does very well catching balls out of the backfield and in the flats. Either way, just because he is a FB, doesnt mean he couldnt be put in motion, or split wide, it just means when he is on the field, there will typically also be a RB on the field at the same time. He would still be going against LBs and making them look silly. Thats why Reece at FB allows for an extra weapon, whereas most teams just have a body at FB who presents little threat to run or catch.
_________________


Silver&Black88 on the sig

La_Vader wrote:
I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DOCLEW 28


Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 10789
Location: East Oakland
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZoomWaffle wrote:
blancanieve wrote:
Meyers has solidified the TE position for us and if Reece can be the Running back those are two spots that we don't have to be looking into other than getting backups at those positions cause i don't see Dmac back with us next year


I understand your reasoning, but we dont need to use a high draft pick or a ton of money on a RB next offseason if DMC is gone. A guy like Peyton Hillis can be had for pretty cheap and we dont need an elite back anyway. Keeping Reece at FB gives him chances to get carries, and he will be a target in the passing game as always, but having another RB in there just means one more guy for the D to worry about.

RB- Stewart/ FB-Reece > RB- Reece/ FB- Schmitt


If we get a rookie RB I doubt that it will be a high pick. We do our homework and we can get one in the lower rounds when he falls.
_________________

Raider X hooked me with the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
holyghost


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5703
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If anyone said Starting running back, that's not what I meant. I thought the thread was about a move to RB, not to start him there.

Agreed on some of the points of the last post, but half of what you said is what I am saying.
Being at FB he can catch in the flats, and screens. Noone said he couldn't and we all know he can. But that's just about all you can do with a fullback in a fullback formation without motion or splitting him wide. I'm all for a 2 back set with him, then any sort of motion can be devised to move either guy anywhere. Will they do that? I think that one is above Knapp and Allen's heads, and 11 games into the season we won't see a major offensive shift made like that.

So my point is if all you do to get him involved is move out of the fullback position in some way, why keep him there? He's a mismatch any way you slice it, you don't have to have him at fullback to make that happen. Anyone covering him is either too small or too slow, anyone tackling him same story..

Seems to me he gets the ball alot less at fullback and I think it's because of the points I stated. Well I want to see, and I think we all want to see, him getting the ball more. If that means a move to RB then move him. It's not like there will be a transition period, the dude has moved seamlessly from position to position. If we're going back to having him touch the ball twice a game at fullback, then I'm dead set against the guy at fullback. I would have to be led to believe the offense does not have very many plays designed for the fullback. Change the offense mid season or just move the guy? I doubt this team's ability to design a super creative offense in the offseason, much less midseason, so the easy answer is to move the guy.

And once again, let me reiterate I don't even know why they moved him to fullback to begin with. Wasted 3 years of his career, 2 to even make the team, and now that we see he can play just about any skill position whether it's RB, WR, TE, HB, or FB, fullback is the least impactful position of all of them. So the question is why is Reece at fullback NOT a dumb move? Waste 2 years of his career teaching him a position that isn't really important at all, only to find out in his 4th year that it will take him a week to learn a new position of far greater impact. SMH.

I know, mismatch. Like I said, he's a mismatch at any position. At fullback, he goes from being a mismatch to a decoy because he barely touches the ball. Playing decoy with a mismatch is an error, because a mismatch can't be accounted for. Therefore the opponent won't fall hard for the decoy because they can't handle the mismatch in the first place!?

When the opponent bends over backwards trying to stop the bleeding cased by the mismatch, that's when you employ it as a decoy. Not willy nilly, just because..

I swear I have never seen a team waste the years of it's players the way the Raiders do. Every guy taes 3 years to develop, then 8 years into his career someone finally figures out to move Huff to CB. 4 years into his career someone finally figures out Reece is a mismatch and can play 5 positions. After they train him to be a fullback for 2 years, aduh. There's no talent recognition going on here, but at least the new regime seems to be a bit quicker on figuring these things out..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group