Vikings Message Board.Com

Adrian needs a good FB. Having 2 means they'll stay fresh and continue to open holes for AD to exploit.

I think it's brilliant.

Felton was impressive in the Probowl a couple years ago and scored a handful of times. Norv's playbook is thick.... I smell Gimmick plays

Mothman wrote: 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a contemporary NFL offense and that the mere intent to use one confirms that the offense the Vikings are building is "outdated and outmoded"?

Mainly I'm going off what Zimmer said about a "fullback offense", or at least my interpretation of those words. I guess if one is inclined to run such an offense, then by definition there must be lots of roster spots for fullback-types. Facetiousness-aside, I read that statement to mean the offense is oriented around running the ball and thus values non-OL offensive players whose primary skill may be their ability to block (versus their ability to run or catch).

Is there room for that in the modern NFL? Maybe, but the trend that Zimmer himself notes suggests that room is shrinking.

Mothman wrote: 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?

Didn't say it couldn't and didn't mean to be dismissive of it. Zimmer and Turner could be the ones to show the league the error of it's ways and reinvigorate the prospects of fullbacks and blocking tight ends within the college ranks. I doubt it, but it could happen.

Also, to your point about the Pats, note that they also field one of the best QBs to ever play the game, and in their case I'd argue that provides them luxuries that teams fielding the Matt Cassels of the NFL can't afford as readily. Someone else made a point that the Saints keep 2 FBs as well, but likewise, they have Drew Brees at QB and he and his receivers, not the running game, have to be the focus for defenses. Their blocking FBs can plausibly surprise defenses. An offense predicated on power running that doesn't field a credible downfield and mid-range passing attack, not so much.

Like I said before, there is a reason these roles are going the way of the samurai at both the college and pro levels of football...

bigskyeric wrote:Adrian needs a good FB. Having 2 means they'll stay fresh and continue to open holes for AD to exploit.

I think it's brilliant.

Felton was impressive in the Probowl a couple years ago and scored a handful of times. Norv's playbook is thick.... I smell Gimmick plays

You don't want FBs for them. You want AD, CP and McKinnon on the field at the same time for the gimmick stuff. I don't think Line could outrun Loadholt.

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?

Turner and Zimmer might just be admitting that these are the cards they were dealt heading into this season more than this is the particular offensive philosophy they intend to continue beyond this season. Zimmer's statement could be taken to mean that the more I read it.

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.

How many carries are there to go around on this team? Line will be super lucky to get 5 touches, and his abilities as a runner may be solid, but worth a roster spot?

This discussion reminds me of what I thought when the Vikes traded up in the 2nd to nab Toby Gerhart. Same type of mismanagement and resource misallocation and it played out that way. Gerhart did help them a bit, but he never justified nearly the price they paid for him, and unsurprisingly, he's not with the team anymore.

Keeping 2 blocking FB's isn't the end of the world, and after looking at it more closely, it's likely Zimmer and Turner are just accepting the reality of what Spielman gave them to work with on offense this year. For better or for worse, this offense will continue to operate through AD and the running game. If that is what Zimmer is talking about, then let's just hope he has an idea of how to get the Vikings back on track with the rest of the modern football world here in the very near future.

If Zimmer thinks he can buck the trend, however, and he plans to implement a contrarian approach ala Brad Childress, it's going to be a LONG next few seasons for all of us.

VikingLord wrote:Mainly I'm going off what Zimmer said about a "fullback offense", or at least my interpretation of those words. I guess if one is inclined to run such an offense, then by definition there must be lots of roster spots for fullback-types. Facetiousness-aside, I read that statement to mean the offense is oriented around running the ball and thus values non-OL offensive players whose primary skill may be their ability to block (versus their ability to run or catch).

Is there room for that in the modern NFL? Maybe, but the trend that Zimmer himself notes suggests that room is shrinking.

I don't think it suggests room is shrinking, merely that modern college football is producing fewer fullbacks. There is clearly room for successful modern offenses to use a FB. Some of the more successful offenses in the league use one. Based on Turner's history, it seems safe to say that the running game will be an important part of the offense (as it should be) but that doesn't necessarily mean it will lack balance.

Didn't say it couldn't and didn't mean to be dismissive of it. Zimmer and Turner could be the ones to show the league the error of it's ways and reinvigorate the prospects of fullbacks and blocking tight ends within the college ranks. I doubt it, but it could happen.

Also, to your point about the Pats, note that they also field one of the best QBs to ever play the game, and in their case I'd argue that provides them luxuries that teams fielding the Matt Cassels of the NFL can't afford as readily. Someone else made a point that the Saints keep 2 FBs as well, but likewise, they have Drew Brees at QB and he and his receivers, not the running game, have to be the focus for defenses. Their blocking FBs can plausibly surprise defenses. An offense predicated on power running that doesn't field a credible downfield and mid-range passing attack, not so much.

A power-running team just won the Super Bowl and utilizing a fullback in the offense hardly precludes having a credible downfield and mid-range passing attack. I don't think the Patriots are surprising defenses with a fullback. They've been one of the more prolific running teams in football for a couple of years now and it's all on film.

Like I said before, there is a reason these roles are going the way of the samurai at both the college and pro levels of football...

Are you suggesting that reason is because utilizing a fullback is simply no longer a viable strategy?

College football is quite different from the pros and while trends at that level influence the the talent and experience available to pro teams in the draft, those trends don't necessarily project to the pros. Turner's offense doesn't need to reinvigorate the prospects of fullbacks and blocking tight ends within the college ranks, it just needs to be effective and productive. There's more than one way to do that at the NFL level, where, despite all the focus on passing and QB performance, a strong running game remains a useful, and valuable, asset.

VikingLord wrote:This discussion reminds me of what I thought when the Vikes traded up in the 2nd to nab Toby Gerhart. Same type of mismanagement and resource misallocation and it played out that way. Gerhart did help them a bit, but he never justified nearly the price they paid for him, and unsurprisingly, he's not with the team anymore.

Line didn't cost them a draft choice and who is he keeping off the team that would represent a significantly better allocation of resources?

Keeping 2 blocking FB's isn't the end of the world, and after looking at it more closely, it's likely Zimmer and Turner are just accepting the reality of what Spielman gave them to work with on offense this year.

I doubt that. We've seen significant turnover on the roster this offseason. If Zimmer had wanted to move away from utilizing the FB position, it seems likely that path was available to him. Turner has used FBs in his offenses pretty extensively over the years and let's face it: at this point, when a team brings in Turner as their OC, they're probably not looking for cutting edge offensive innovation. Instead, they're probably looking to draw upon his wealth of experience and the track record of proven production from his offenses.

For better or for worse, this offense will continue to operate through AD and the running game.

I don't think there's any doubt that AD and the running game will continue to be an important part of the offense but that doesn't mean it will operate with the passing game playing second fiddle, which seems to be what you're implying.

If that is what Zimmer is talking about, then let's just hope he has an idea of how to get the Vikings back on track with the rest of the modern football world here in the very near future.

If Zimmer thinks he can buck the trend, however, and he plans to implement a contrarian approach ala Brad Childress, it's going to be a LONG next few seasons for all of us.

Let's acknowledge another trend: the trend toward championship-caliber teams in the NFL making strong use of their running game. The Seahawks were second in the league in rushing attempts last year and 4th in rushing yards. SF was one spot ahead of them at #3. Denver averaged more rushing attempts per game last season than the Vikings and so did New England.

Seattle and SF were both among the top 5 teams in the league in rushing in 2012 as well. New England was 7th, Baltimore 11th.

Over the last two seasons, the Falcons are the only team to play in one of the conference championship games and not rank in the upper third of the league in rushing.

In 2011, the Ravens and 49ers were both in the top 10 in rushing. The eventual Super Bowl winner, the Giants, was ranked dead last in the league in rushing during the regular season but it's worth noting that they committed heavily to their running game that postseason, averaging over 28 carries and 116 yards per game.

An offense that makes extensive use of the running game is not contrarian in today's NFL. Heck, Chip Kelly's offense is viewed as one of the more progressive in the league and the Eagles ran the ball a lot last year. Some of the most successful teams in the "modern football world" place a great deal of emphasis on their running game and utilizing a fullback as part of that plan is hardly looking back to the stone age.

Seems as though there are a few out there that think that they know more about football than the Viking's coaches. What a shocker

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

This is true, but this has been under the management of Musgrave (yawn) and Chili handcuffing Bevel. Now they have an OC who has had a lot of success (as an OC, Mr. Peter Principle).

When AD rushes for 2500 yards this year and the Vikes win the super bowl, then you will agree

Purple bruise wrote:Seems as though there are a few out there that think that they know more about football than the Viking's coaches. What a shocker

NFL Head Coach - "non-OL offensive players whose primary skill is blocking are getting rarer and rarer by the day cause colleges just don't produce those types of players anymore and haven't been for quite some time. If my team runs a fullback offense, well, we just got to find 'em and grab 'em".

Internet Message Board Poster notes that logically extending the above tacitly admits such an offense, especially at the pro level, might be a bit outdated.

Internet Message Board Poster is subsequently awarded the highest honor that can be awarded on an Internet Message Board - the Honor of Knowing More Than a Vikings Coach.

You can do better than that Purple...

Mothman wrote:An offense that makes extensive use of the running game is not contrarian in today's NFL. Heck, Chip Kelly's offense is viewed as one of the more progressive in the league and the Eagles ran the ball a lot last year. Some of the most successful teams in the "modern football world" place a great deal of emphasis on their running game and utilizing a fullback as part of that plan is hardly looking back to the stone age.

You posted a lot more in your responses to my statements than the above, but I thought the above encapsulated the gist of it and so I'll respond to that.

The thing that all of the offenses you mentioned had in common is that all of them took advantage of their passing games to set up their running games. They did run a lot and were effective at it, but all of them fielded QB's and passing games that were effective in the mid and deep ranges of the field.

I'm not claiming that running in the pros is outdated or outmoded. What seems to be outdated is sinking roster spots into offensive players outside the offensive line whose primary skill is blocking. If anything, your examples of teams that enjoyed success running the ball proves those types of players aren't necessary to field effective running games anymore, which in turn explains why so few of those types of players are coming out of college programs these days. They aren't necessary any longer.

That the Vikings are investing in those types of players could indicate one of two things - either they're forced to play the hand Spielman dealt them given they lack the passing credentials of those other teams you mention, or, god forbid, they think Childress might have been on to something.

VikingLord wrote:What seems to be outdated is sinking roster spots into offensive players outside the offensive line whose primary skill is blocking.

I don't know that this is the case for Line, who had more all purpose yards than Eric Dickerson. He's obviously no Dickerson but you can't argue with the numbers, it's hard to put up figures like that being a primary blocker. Also, he had 150+ tackles and 8 forced fumbles so he's probably decent on special teams too.

VikingLord wrote:You posted a lot more in your responses to my statements than the above, but I thought the above encapsulated the gist of it and so I'll respond to that.

The thing that all of the offenses you mentioned had in common is that all of them took advantage of their passing games to set up their running games. They did run a lot and were effective at it, but all of them fielded QB's and passing games that were effective in the mid and deep ranges of the field.

Is there any reason at all to think the Vikings don't intend to do likewise?

i'm not claiming that running in the pros is outdated or outmoded. What seems to be outdated is sinking roster spots into offensive players outside the offensive line whose primary skill is blocking.

Based on what? Most, if not all, NFL teams still have players that fit that description.

If anything, your examples of teams that enjoyed success running the ball proves those types of players aren't necessary to field effective running games anymore, which in turn explains why so few of those types of players are coming out of college programs these days. They aren't necessary any longer.

You've lost me. How on earth do the examples I provided prove that "offensive players outside the offensive line whose primary skill is blocking" are no longer necessary? Baltimore, Seattle, New England, SF and, if Im not mistaken, the Giants all used fullbacks in those seasons and I'm pretty sure they all still have players (ie: non-OL blockers) like that on their rosters.

That the Vikings are investing in those types of players could indicate one of two things - either they're forced to play the hand Spielman dealt them given they lack the passing credentials of those other teams you mention, or, god forbid, they think Childress might have been on to something.

... or they simply disagree with the personal philosophy of "modern football" you're espousing because those certainly aren't the only two possible explanations for keeping Felton and Line on the roster. Take a look back at Norv Turner's offenses over the past few decades and look at how he's used fullbacks and the value they've had for him at times or just consider the value Felton provided blocking for Peterson in 2012. Do you really think that can't still have value 2 seasons later, that his position is obsolete?

The defending Super Bowl champions used a fullback last year and they're using one this year too. I guess they don't agree that keeping a player like that on the roster is mismanagement and resource misallocation.

FB is still a viable position in the NFL. There's ample evidence to support it.

If the running game is built around a lot of fullback blocking, then it just makes sense to back up that position with a real fullback. Norv probably knows what he's doing.

soflavike wrote:If the running game is built around a lot of fullback blocking, then it just makes sense to back up that position with a real fullback. Norv probably knows what he's doing.

That was my point