| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Texas_OutLaw7
Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 19396
Location: Cowboys Forum ROH Class of '12
|
 Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 11:05 am Post subject: The FB Position - Vickers |
 |
|
|
As many of you know, I love the ground and pound offense. Give me 3 yards and a cloud of dust any day of the week and I am thrilled. Unfortunately, we don't have that type of offense which I like (and most hate).
We have seen a FB have true impact on this offense in recent days.
So the question is twofold.
1. Do you want, with our new offense, to keep a FB?
2. Is Vickers worth his contact to retain?
Ultimately I am asking if you have been satisfied with Vickers to keep him.
_________________
In Redball I Trust!
The price of progress is trusting the process.
Heart. Leadership. Passion. Will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Desperado82
Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 18277
Location: Maryland
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
1. With the likelihood of us utilizing more 2 and 3 TE sets, I don't think a FB is valuable in this offense any longer.
2. If answer one holds true, then I would say Vickers is no longer worth his contract to retain. Why keep a guy around who won't be utilized?
_________________
^^^mack.
R.I.P. B2TB & SA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WizardHawk
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6956
Location: Hawkeye State
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Hard to justify keeping a guy who won't be used. I too would love to see this team commit to running the ball more and Vickers would be a big help in that area, but at the moment it appears unlikely. Probably best to move on and use the money saved to improve other areas.
_________________
| MrDrew wrote: | | I'm pretty sure the cat destroys stuff because it hates you for shoving it in a box every night. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
htfryar
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 8264
Location: Hot Springs, Arkansas
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I am a HUGE fan of the FB position. Daryl Johnston is one of my all-time favorite players. I love it when teams line up in the I formation and run it down the other team's throat. Part of this is because I played FB in Junior High. As for Vickers, it's like I said in the CAP thread...
| htfryar wrote: | Regardless of the play of the o-line, whether Vickers was standing on the sideline or lined up at FB, the running game was the same. In that regard, he made little or no impact at all. I was surprised by that. I really thought that he would be a difference maker. He just never seemed to develop any chemistry with Murray. The FB-HB chemistry is crucial ina successful running game. The HB should be able to feel where the FB is going to go, prior to him doing so. Murray had that chemistry with Fiametta. With Vickers, not so much. Plus, even when the o-line did create a running lane, when Vickers got to his man, he didn't seem to have much pop in his blocks.
I really liked Vickers in interviews and was highly hopeful that he would be the next great Dallas FB. It didn't happen. I have no problem with us moving on from him if he doesn't perform well in training camp or preseason. Honestly, I wouldn't even care if we cut him today. |
So, I don't see us keeping a FB and Vickers is not worth the money. The fact that we didn't sign a FB as a UDFA to compete with Vickers kinda signals to me that the FB spot might be on it's way off the roster.
_________________
| Jack Nicholson wrote: |
Beer, it's the best damn drink in the world. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DKDALfan
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 1578
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
With 3 very talented TE's and 3 (arguably even more then 3) very talented WR's, I see no need to keep Vickers salary check or even or true fullback at all since they won't get the playing time.
- Instead one of the TE's will serve a FB role on occasion but mostly with the job of passblocking or running routes, while either McSurdy (if he's going to make the roster, a DT or a OL will serve as the FB in goalline formation.
_________________
The lonely supporter of Phil Costa.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaddHatter
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 41475
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
A guy in the field 9% off offensive svaps that has such little impact doesn't deserve his contract
_________________
Ware Stat Tracker: 27 Pressures, 9 Hits, 10 sacks, 4 FF, 7 TFL (thru 8 games) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
plan9misfit
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 18011
Location: RIP: B2TB, T14, & S.A. We miss you.
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I'd still keep a FB on the roster because they do things that TEs don't typically do. If the running game is important to this team, then dumping a FB and thinking that an extra TE can pick up the slack is not terribly responsible.
_________________
Co-Founder: DCRA - No McQuistan, No Super Bowl
| The_Slamman wrote: | | It's like we are in a win now mentality with lose now personnel. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
textaz03
Joined: 09 Nov 2004
Posts: 9455
Location: Land of the Jersey Devil!
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Personally, I love the FB position as well. I would rather keep that FB on the roster than have a 6th WR. It gives us diversity in the play book.
However, if that FB is not productive when he is on the field, I would dump him for a player who is productive. Players need to live up to the contracts they sign, if not, risk getting cut!
_________________
"Courage is being scared to death, but saddling up anyways" - John Wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
plan9misfit
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 18011
Location: RIP: B2TB, T14, & S.A. We miss you.
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| htfryar wrote: | I am a HUGE fan of the FB position. Daryl Johnston is one of my all-time favorite players. I love it when teams line up in the I formation and run it down the other team's throat. Part of this is because I played FB in Junior High. As for Vickers, it's like I said in the CAP thread...
| htfryar wrote: | Regardless of the play of the o-line, whether Vickers was standing on the sideline or lined up at FB, the running game was the same. In that regard, he made little or no impact at all. I was surprised by that. I really thought that he would be a difference maker. He just never seemed to develop any chemistry with Murray. The FB-HB chemistry is crucial ina successful running game. The HB should be able to feel where the FB is going to go, prior to him doing so. Murray had that chemistry with Fiametta. With Vickers, not so much. Plus, even when the o-line did create a running lane, when Vickers got to his man, he didn't seem to have much pop in his blocks.
I really liked Vickers in interviews and was highly hopeful that he would be the next great Dallas FB. It didn't happen. I have no problem with us moving on from him if he doesn't perform well in training camp or preseason. Honestly, I wouldn't even care if we cut him today. |
So, I don't see us keeping a FB and Vickers is not worth the money. The fact that we didn't sign a FB as a UDFA to compete with Vickers kinda signals to me that the FB spot might be on it's way off the roster. |
I posted this in a different thread but it's appropriate here:
| plan9misfit wrote: | The issue still remains thought, ht. The suckage of the running game was based on the abomination of our offensive line in 2012, not a FB's lack of contribution. All it did was prove that a FB can't compensate for the poor play of the guys in front of him. Regardless of the chemistry (or lack thereof) between Murray and Vickers, our horrendous offensive line prevented Vickers from doing his job. That's why there wasn't any change in the running game. The o-line didn't do it's job well enough to allow Vickers to do his. Even as bad as the o-line was in 2011, they did their jobs better than the unit in 2012.
Why is this so hard for people to grasp? The problem isn't on Vickers. It's on the o-line, Garrett's inability to adjust his scheme to compensate for it, and his total abandonment of the running game in general. That mix of failures makes it impossible for a RB and FB to develop any chemistry whatsoever. Because their production is dependent on the production of the guys in front of them. |
Unless people are willing to acknowledge that having a completely different and vastly inferior offensive line in 2012 compared to 2011's poor o-line, no one will be looking at the real root cause of the problem. They'll place their blame in the wrong area. Because it's not on the FB. It's on the o-line, and the coach not adjusting his scheme.
_________________
Co-Founder: DCRA - No McQuistan, No Super Bowl
| The_Slamman wrote: | | It's like we are in a win now mentality with lose now personnel. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaddHatter
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 41475
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| plan9misfit wrote: | | I'd still keep a FB on the roster because they do things that TEs don't typically do. If the running game is important to this team, then dumping a FB and thinking that an extra TE can pick up the slack is not terribly responsible. |
I think an athletic guard could do it though
_________________
Ware Stat Tracker: 27 Pressures, 9 Hits, 10 sacks, 4 FF, 7 TFL (thru 8 games) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GeneralDissaray
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 4468
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 11:47 am Post subject: Re: The FB Position - Vickers |
|
|
|
| Texas_OutLaw7 wrote: | As many of you know, I love the ground and pound offense. Give me 3 yards and a cloud of dust any day of the week and I am thrilled. Unfortunately, we don't have that type of offense which I like (and most hate).
We have seen a FB have true impact on this offense in recent days.
So the question is twofold.
1. Do you want, with our new offense, to keep a FB?
2. Is Vickers worth his contact to retain?
Ultimately I am asking if you have been satisfied with Vickers to keep him. |
Only problems with Vickers I have are because of Garrett, not him. Garrett gives up on the running game quick, when it isn't successful early. I could be wrong, but did we ever throw the ball with Vickers in the game? I swear every time he came out the defense moved 10 in the box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
plan9misfit
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 18011
Location: RIP: B2TB, T14, & S.A. We miss you.
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| MaddHatter wrote: | | plan9misfit wrote: | | I'd still keep a FB on the roster because they do things that TEs don't typically do. If the running game is important to this team, then dumping a FB and thinking that an extra TE can pick up the slack is not terribly responsible. |
I think an athletic guard could do it though |
I don't disagree, but we don't have an athletic OG who can step in and play for either of the bums we currently have, so we're left to use our devices as we have them.
_________________
Co-Founder: DCRA - No McQuistan, No Super Bowl
| The_Slamman wrote: | | It's like we are in a win now mentality with lose now personnel. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaddHatter
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 41475
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
You dont think Arkin could do it?
_________________
Ware Stat Tracker: 27 Pressures, 9 Hits, 10 sacks, 4 FF, 7 TFL (thru 8 games) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matts4313
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 30416
Location: Cowboys Forum ROH Class of 12
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Plan - From a personnel stand point - do you honestly think we downgraded?
I understand from a PERFORMANCE stand point. I agree that our OL play last season was abysmal. But I dont agree that its because we downgraded the talent. I think we upgraded (marginally) the talent.
The OL had not gelled, and never really did due to all the injuries. It seemed like every game, 1 or 2 of the 5 guys had a horrible outing. At least they equal opportunity sucked; they kind of rotated through and all had their fair share of terrible.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
htfryar
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 8264
Location: Hot Springs, Arkansas
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
We have at least a half dozen other threads discussing the o-line. Let's keep this one on topic, the FB position.
_________________
| Jack Nicholson wrote: |
Beer, it's the best damn drink in the world. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
