Vikings Message Board.Com

o why are the Vikings bucking the trend by keeping both Jerome Felton and Zach Line on team?

“Well, we think they’re both good players. Fullbacks are hard to find if something happens,” head coach Mike Zimmer said. “You don’t want to lose good football players if they’re young guys, too.”

And why is a good one so hard to find, beyond the obviously lack of appeal that comes when asking someone to run headfirst into 260-pound linebackers and 210-pound safeties with little fanfare?

“In college, no one has them anymore. They don’t have any fullbacks in college football,” Zimmer said. “So typically you’re taking a tight end — if they have those. There’s hardly any blocking tight ends anymore. So you’re taking them and making them fullbacks or taking linebackers and making them fullbacks. When you find one, if you have a fullback offense, you keep them.”

http://blog.startribune.com/sports/acce ... rd-to-find

That makes sense to me!

Thanks for the info.

Smart.

Sounds like Line is the succession plan for Felton. That's a good point about there not being many FB's in college anymore, even Line played in a spread offense. I would assume for FB's you would probably have to look at the Big 10 and maybe schools like Stanford.

“In college, no one has them anymore... There’s hardly any blocking tight ends anymore... When you find one, if you have a fullback offense, you keep them"

Arg...

Maybe there is a good reason why colleges don't produce players outside the offensive line whose primary contribution is their ability to block.

This implies the Vikings are still going to try to buck what is a sea-change trend. Zimmer's own observations of what is happening at the college level just confirm that the offensive style he's building around is outdated and outmoded. Going further, the style results in mis-allocation of resources as 2 roster spots are burned to support that outdated approach.

Kind of reminds me of the movie "The Last Samurai", especially the end...

VikingLord wrote:Arg...

Maybe there is a good reason why colleges don't produce players outside the offensive line whose primary contribution is their ability to block.

This implies the Vikings are still going to try to block what is a sea-change trend. Zimmer's own observations of what is happening at the college level just confirm that the offensive style he's building around is outdated and outmoded. Going further, the style results in mis-allocation of resources as 2 roster spots are burned to support that outdated approach.

Are you saying there's no room for a fullback in a contemporary NFL offense and that the mere intent to use one confirms that the offense the Vikings are building is "outdated and outmoded"?

Why can't an offense which utilizes a fullback can't be viable and extremely productive? The Patriots had one of the top offenses in the league last year and they had a fullback. Keeping Felton and Line is only a mis-allocation of resources if they're not used effectively. Why be so dismissive of the offense when you haven't even seen it in a meaningful game yet?

Not everyone needs to go the route Chip Kelly is going in Philadelphia and remember, while a fullback's primary contribution is to block, it doesn't need to be a his only contribution. TEs spend a lot of their time blocking too but FB's, like TEs, are eligible receivers and ball-carriers.

Maybe the Vikes should just call Felton and Line h-backs.

VikingLord wrote: Arg...

Maybe there is a good reason why colleges don't produce players outside the offensive line whose primary contribution is their ability to block.

This implies the Vikings are still going to try to block what is a sea-change trend. Zimmer's own observations of what is happening at the college level just confirm that the offensive style he's building around is outdated and outmoded. Going further, the style results in mis-allocation of resources as 2 roster spots are burned to support that outdated approach.

Kind of reminds me of the movie "The Last Samurai", especially the end...

Not sure I agree with the idea that Norv's offense is outdated (primarily because we haven't seen it yet since preseason is all vanilla). I do however very much agree that allocating two roster spots to the FB position is questionable. Does anybody really think that Zach Line wouldn't have cleared waivers?

Just for kicks I looked at the depth charts for all 32 teams (from Ourlads as of Sept 4th). Only 7 teams do not have a FB on their depth chart. Of the 25 teams with FBs, only 4 have more than one (Lions, Vikings, Saints and Raiders). Interesting that the Saints with their high powered offense are carrying 2 FBs.

Of course you can't tell from reading depth charts how much playing time some of these guys that are listed as FBs can expect to see. You know someone like Mike Tolbert for the Panthers will see a lot of snaps but most of the other players listed at FB are no names and might be on the roster for the occasional short yardage play or STs contributions.

I'm skeptical on whether you can take someone like MarQueis Gray or Zach Line and turn them into effective blockers. Neither guy had hardly any experience blocking in college. Not only do you need to teach technique (from a nearly blank slate) but you also have to have guys that have the desire to do the dirty work that is a big part of being a FB, H-back or in-line blocking TE. Of course there are guys like Mike Tice who was a QB at Maryland and then carved-out a nice career in the NFL as a blocking TE.

Pseudo Everything wrote:Not sure I agree with the idea that Norv's offense is outdated (primarily because we haven't seen it yet since preseason is all vanilla). I do however very much agree that allocating two roster spots to the FB position is questionable. Does anybody really think that Zach Line wouldn't have cleared waivers?

Even if he did, he could still have been signed off the practice squad. they obviously value him enough as a football player that they didn't want to risk losing him.

I'm skeptical on whether you can take someone like MarQueis Gray or Zach Line and turn them into effective blockers. Neither guy had hardly any experience blocking in college. Not only do you need to teach technique (from a nearly blank slate) but you also have to have guys that have the desire to do the dirty work that is a big part of being a FB, H-back or in-line blocking TE. Of course there are guys like Mike Tice who was a QB at Maryland and then carved-out a nice career in the NFL as a blocking TE.

Line seems like he's willing to put in that work.

Mothman wrote: Even if he did, he could still have been signed off the practice squad. they obviously value him enough as a football player that they didn't want to risk losing him.
Line seems like he's willing to put in that work.

I don't get what everyone's got their knickers in a stitch about; Line is a super versatile player and put up huge numbers carrying the ball at SMU. I suspect Norv may have plans to get the ball in his hands from time to time.

Texas Vike wrote:I don't get what everyone's got their knickers in a stitch about; Line is a super versatile player and put up huge numbers carrying the ball at SMU. I suspect Norv may have plans to get the ball in his hands from time to time.

I'm thinking the same thing and I don't understand the consternation over keeping Line either. He seems like a player that could easily prove worth keeping.

Texas Vike wrote:I don't get what everyone's got their knickers in a stitch about; Line is a super versatile player and put up huge numbers carrying the ball at SMU. I suspect Norv may have plans to get the ball in his hands from time to time.

I see Line as one dimensional and here's why. At the combine he measured in 6'0", weighed 232 lbs and ran a 4.77 40. He's got one position and that's FB and mostly as a blocker because he's not really a power back for short yardage situations. He's certainly not a TE and he's not a RB either. His lack of speed also makes me question is value on STs (generally you want guys his size to be fast to the ball in coverage and preferably a defensive player who is good at tackling). I realize he piled up a lot of yards at SMU but that was Conference USA. There's a reason he went un-drafted.

I've explained why I don't see him as versatile; tell me why you think he is.

One of the nice things about having an offense that is contrary to the crowd is that nobody will really be practiced in stopping you.

I've said this before on this board, but I kind of like the idea of bucking the trend in the NFL.

Think about it, defenses are getting smaller and faster to stop passing games of Aaron Rodgers and Chip Kelley.

Vikes come in with 2 TE, 2 FBs, a good offensive line, and of course AD.......against a defense designed to stop a Chip Kelly college spread offense.....why shouldn't the Vikings be able to run it down their throats. Then use play action to a wide open Patterson or Jennings.....

why shouldn't the Vikings be able to run it down their throats.

Isn't that what they've been trying to do with their 90s big ten offenses of the last decade?

So are the other NFL owners also hording the fullbacks too?