Jimmy Dixon in Europe

T

TechRex

Guest
RB Jimmy Dixon (Hamburg Sea Devils) Rushed 12 times for 53 yds. (4.4 avg.) with a long of 12 in Hamburg’s loss vs. Amsterdam.
 
I miss real fullbacks like that, were they actually got to touch the ball a few times during the game.
 
Heck, I'll go even farther. I miss fullbacks who gained 500-1000 yards in a season.....along with blocking and catching passes. A terrific weapon.
 
I like Fullbacks in short yardage and to slip out into the flat some, but a fullback's job is as a read/lead blocker that clips the last DL or LB to turn 3-4 yard gains into TDs.
 
JoeCakeEater: Thats the new definition of a fullback. That is not the definition that Jim Taylor, Larry Csonka, Rocky Blier, William Andrews, and John Riggins....to name a few....played the position by.
 
Don't know that I'd classify Riggins or Andrews as FBs though. They really were the featured backs for their teams. Taylor and Csonka were really the classic FB you're talking about. I don't know that I'd worry much about Bleir in that context.
 
N.C. Riggins and Andrews were classified as fullbacks during their day. Bleir gained a 1000 yards one year(14 game season) in the middle 70's as a fullback.
 
My point is they were the main back, not what you'd normally think of a FB as. In fact, Riggins best years as Wash were in a one back set. I can't even remember who the other backs for the Falcons were, but Andrews was the main threat out of the backfield.

But your main point I agree with. I'd love to see us use the FB more than just as a blocker. When the Fridage was around our FBs always got some carries as well as caught the ball out of the backfield.
 
[ QUOTE ]
N.C. Riggins and Andrews were classified as fullbacks during their day. Bleir gained a 1000 yards one year(14 game season) in the middle 70's as a fullback.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct SLJ. I will agree with NC that Riggins ran out of a one back set. Ocassionally the Skins would bring out Joe Washington in 3rd down scenarios or in a two back set with riggo up front.

The same one back set Riggins ran out of as a FB, was the same one back set Ernest Byner ran out of as a RB 7 years later. My point being that back in those days, if you were over 230 lbs as a RB, then you were called a FB even if you ran plays as a RB.

I'm a big Skins fan.
 
[ QUOTE ]
JoeCakeEater: Thats the new definition of a fullback. That is not the definition that Jim Taylor, Larry Csonka, Rocky Blier, William Andrews, and John Riggins....to name a few....played the position by.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wholeheartedly agree, SLJ!

Just exactly what is wrong with bringing the FB back into the offense as a WEAPON? (the answer is NOTHING AT ALL).
Not to mention the TE for crying out loud!

My only guess is that the coaching strategy has to do with percentages and high percentage plays. If you're letting a computer do all the work (or an 'efficiency expert') then they might call a more 'conservative' game featuring the star players rather than a more aggressive approach utilizing every possible advantage and tactic.

TECH desperately needs a much more aggressive offensive scheme to go with our already competitive defense. Bringing the FB and TE back to figure in the offense would be an accomplishable task imo.

But, of course, we already knew that.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugher.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
My point is they were the main back, not what you'd normally think of a FB as. In fact, Riggins best years as Wash were in a one back set. I can't even remember who the other backs for the Falcons were, but Andrews was the main threat out of the backfield.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe #21. Lynn Cain, maybe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top