Dixon to Fullback....

[Gold Rush]

Any thoughts on this ?

It seems to me that over the past several years, we've used the Fullback mainly to block ( I recognize that could change this year)....

I'm sure Dixon will make a great fullback, but if he is the great running back (with those skills), does this seems the best use of his talents ? We have several tight-ends in the mix; I wonder why we didn't move one of them to FB ? Not complaining, I just hate to not be using his running back skills, maybe as out third RB (next year being # 1 or 2 )...

SO, I guess we can assume the other RBs have stepped it up considerably - leaving Dixon behind at RB ? Wonder if next year he'll move back to RB when we have graduation losses ?

I guess he seemed to me, to be a potential stud RB, now at FB , where he won't get that many carries; mainly a blocking back.....Just wondering about this...Maybe he'll play both when we get some of the other FBs back and healthy...

 

[CP-Jacket]

I think it is a good sign. They will have more speed and more options for confusion on the field. It should help spread the defense and create more opportunities for success. Historically, when Tech has had outstanding running teams it was not with the classic smash mouth type runners. Speed and multiple backs that can go both inside and outside from any position is a good thing.

 

[jacket1515]

I think it really helps to also have a pass-catching threat at the fullback position.

 

[ahsoisee]

I have long recognized your title of BellySeries. I started following Tech in the late 40s and was estatic in the early 50s when we ran the Belly Series.

I well remember the deceptive backfield of Hardeman, Turner, Teas, and Brigman. Bill Brigman may have been the best quarterback to play at Tech as far as being a magician with the ball. Not only was it hard for the opposing teams to know which of our backs had the ball, our own fans, nor the announcers knew which back had it many times.

There is a lot written in Dodd's Luck about how deceptive the running game had become at Tech during that era.

 

[ahsoisee]

Personally, I hope it is an indication the fullback will be running the ball more and blocking less.

You can either try to block every defender, or block some and fool some. It takes a good back only a quick step to get into an open hole.

My personal preference is for the fullback to carry the ball often to help keep the defense honest. It is easier for the defense to key on one runner rather than two.

In Tech's gloried history, we have been more effective when we have had all the backs touching the ball often. During the early fifties, it was not uncommon to see the defense tackling one runner while another was headed for the goal line with the football.

Dodd and Frank Broyles were masters of deception, and this deception was very effective in the 50s. When you are limited to the athletes you can recruit, your best bet is deception and finesse.

If the overall athletic abilities of your recruits are a notch behind the schools with less stringent academics, you are not smart to try to use the fullback as a blocking back. Since we have smarter athletes, we should use that advantage by using more deception.

It has been rumored Gailey loves option football. Personally, I don't like to see a running team with no passing, but it is a fact the less talented teams get more mileage out of the option than any other offense. Deception covers up a lot deficiencies due to lack of talent.

 

[bellyseries]

"Deception covers up a lot deficiencies due to lack of talent."

Yes, it does, and it's really a killer when you DO have talent, as we did in the '50s and do now.
That's why I have the handle I do.