What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Why aren't aging tailback converted to fullback? (1 Viewer)

Csonka4life

Footballguy
I remember seeing a few switches late in a players career ie John Cappaletti, Mosi Tattupu and others. Watching the bus today he looks like he should be playing an Alstott type role at this point. If he became the lead blocker or a continued his short yardage roll he could play another 2 or 3 years in my opinion........

 

coolnerd

Footballguy
He already is primarily a short yardage back with a few carries here and there. Very much a similar role to Mike Alstot. At the Bettis' age he does not play more because of the pounding not his talent. Playing fullback would increase the number of hits on his body and make him less effective at his primary role.

 
He already is primarily a short yardage back with a few carries here and there. Very much a similar role to Mike Alstot. At the Bettis' age he does not play more because of the pounding not his talent. Playing fullback would increase the number of hits on his body and make him less effective at his primary role.
Agreed and that answers this post. Nothing more to see here move along.
 

crazyhorse

Footballguy
He already is primarily a short yardage back with a few carries here and there. Very much a similar role to Mike Alstot. At the Bettis' age he does not play more because of the pounding not his talent. Playing fullback would increase the number of hits on his body and make him less effective at his primary role.
Good points about Bettis.Also, there is a lot more to playing FB than some may think. You can't just take a big RB and tell him to play FB and expect him to be good at it.

 

SSOG

Moderator
First off, most RBs are entirely unsuited to play FB- especially the really good RBs. Their blocking isn't up to snuff, and they aren't powerful enough. You can't use Jerome Bettis as an example, either, because Jerome Bettis actually WAS a fullback, but he got switched to RB. There are other RBs who would probably make decent FBs- Mike Anderson (obviously), Rudi Johnson, Corey Dillon, etc. Guys who are big, strong, and good in blitz pickup.There are other RBs, too, who are quality blockers who wouldn't make good FBs, simply because they're undersized. Clinton Portis comes to mind here.Second, Fullbacks are very cheap. They make the veteran minimum, or close to it. Most good RBs, when nearing the end of their careers, wouldn't want to work for the veteran minimum, and would opt to retire instead.Third, a lot of teams like looking towards the future. They'd prefer to have younger guys to vets with only a year or two left in them, because they can groom and develop them and have them around for years to come.

 

Keysersoze666

Footballguy
I remember seeing a few switches late in a players career ie John Cappaletti, Mosi Tattupu and others. Watching the bus today he looks like he should be playing an Alstott type role at this point. If he became the lead blocker or a continued his short yardage roll he could play another 2 or 3 years in my opinion........
This question show a basic MISunderstanding of the how the current NFL has operated in the past 15 years. If it's a fishing trip then then the fish aren't biting. If it's not a TRIP. then revisit the basic skills and size requirements of the two positions you are comparing.IF you are a featue back (ala Bettis) you have taken WAY TOO much punishment in your career to "extend" it by BLOCKING and therefore taking MORE punishment. If you were a good "Blocker" and not a good enough runner then this is an illegitimate question. Next.

 

Mungo Burrows

Footballguy
In a similar vein...In baseball, why aren't aging center fielders converted to Catcher when they start to lose a step? There's much less running required at Catcher.

 

P Boy

Footballguy
The reason a tailback is a tailback: He's the best person on the team at running the football (ATL excepted, where they use their best RB as a mediocre QB).The reason a fullback is a fullback: He's a great blocker with some capability of running and/or catching the football.Different skill set.

 

Horses Mouth

Footballguy
He already is primarily a short yardage back with a few carries here and there. Very much a similar role to Mike Alstot. At the Bettis' age he does not play more because of the pounding not his talent. Playing fullback would increase the number of hits on his body and make him less effective at his primary role.
Agreed and that answers this post. Nothing more to see here move along.
:lol: who are you? the stamp of approval guy for thread responses? :lol:
 

nygiants56

Footballguy
I remember seeing a few switches late in a players career ie John Cappaletti, Mosi Tattupu and others. Watching the bus today he looks like he should be playing an Alstott type role at this point. If he became the lead blocker or a continued his short yardage roll he could play another 2 or 3 years in my opinion........
:tumbleweed:
 

Synthesizer

Footballguy
First, I doubt that any aging tailbacks would be any good at being a lead blocking fullback. You really think Bettis or CuMart are going to fly through the hole and blast a linebacker just to open a running lane for someone else? No.Although the short yardage specialist role has worked with Bettis, it's failed with quite a few other aging guys..... D.Levens, E.George, A.Thomas, R.Watters, etc. Coaches usually want their backup RBs to be able to play special teams and that's not usually a good role for a beat up 35 year old RB.

 

Mungo Burrows

Footballguy
Aging centerfielders become left fielders or DH's.........
Exactly...they do NOT move to positions where they will take more of a physical beating, and that requires a very different set of skills.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

stevec

Footballguy
However, the question regarding Bettis specifically would be valid. He has shown at one tiem to have the skills to play FB. Blocking is more improvable than things like speed or vision, as since it's more a learned skill, it should be more retainable as well also.I specifically think Anderson will hang around as a FB at the end of his career - he's simply a RB, not a HB or a FB.

 

The_Hunchback

Footballguy
He already is primarily a short yardage back with a few carries here and there. Very much a similar role to Mike Alstot. At the Bettis' age he does not play more because of the pounding not his talent. Playing  fullback would increase the number of hits on his body and make him less effective at his primary role.
Agreed and that answers this post. Nothing more to see here move along.
:lol: who are you? the stamp of approval guy for thread responses? :lol:
True though isn't it?
 

TommyGilmore

Footballguy
Good tailbacks have no incentive to switch positions. They made their money and their legacies are already preserved.

However, mediocre tailbacks do have incentive to switch positions -- and you do still see it on occasion. In fact, Reuben Droughns converted to FB in Denver when his first attempts at RB failed. And wasn't Brad Hoover originally a tailback before converting to FB and extending his career?

Other mediocre RBs have extended their careers by becoming specialty backs -- Moe Williams comes to mind.

 

Csonka4life

Footballguy
Many mediocre white tailbacks have been switched over(it's almost like a trend). I remember Cleveland giving up on Vardell and switching him over and Vardell became what Bettis or Alstott are now. Also Hoover was way down the depth charts of the Panthers and had a few break out games when Biakabatuka was injured then they offered him the starting fullback job and he gained about 25 pounds of fat. Merrill Hodge did the same thing for Pittsburgh. Funny Hodge switched with Barry Foster who was heavier and faster, he must have been the only starting fullback in the 90's who weighed less than the tailback......... :excited:

 
T

trader jake

Guest
they don't like to block? :shrug: (or collect paychecks for the minimum)

 

Keysersoze666

Footballguy
"Many mediocre white tailbacks have been switched over(it's almost like a trend). "DUH, a guy who can't BE a Tailback might get shifted to fullback to GET a CHECK. Your initial post said LATE in their careers, which no longer happens because of the specialization in the league. The only guys who ever fit this mold any more are the Davenports of the world who have enough zip to show "promise" at tailback yet have trouble controlling their weight and may seem more suited at fullback. However they rarely have the attitude it takes to be a fullback in the modern NFL which is one of the most selfless, out-of-the-spotlight positions on the field.

 

ren hoek

Footballguy
Well, I've never played football before, so forgive me in advance for speculating here..

But isn't the act of blocking much less physically punishing than the act of being tackled? Linebackers aren't looking to lay the wood to the fullback, they're looking to knock the piss out of the guy carrying the ball. Right?

Furthermore, I would think that the position of fullback requires much less athleticism, or "jukeability" (or even "the iso-motion") if you will, so if a running back's knees were to start failing him, the loss in speed and ability to cut would not hurt his ability to play as a fullback.

If those are the case, then I can see Bettis' career being prolonged through next year or maybe even two, although I don't see why he'd want to do that.

 

Csonka4life

Footballguy
Actually it's physics and you are right. But a fullback or a tailback who lead blocks on a play can also get caught with helmets in the thighs or sides.....

 

coolnerd

Footballguy
Well, I've never played football before, so forgive me in advance for speculating here..

But isn't the act of blocking much less physically punishing than the act of being tackled? Linebackers aren't looking to lay the wood to the fullback, they're looking to knock the piss out of the guy carrying the ball. Right?

Furthermore, I would think that the position of fullback requires much less athleticism, or "jukeability" (or even "the iso-motion") if you will, so if a running back's knees were to start failing him, the loss in speed and ability to cut would not hurt his ability to play as a fullback.

If those are the case, then I can see Bettis' career being prolonged through next year or maybe even two, although I don't see why he'd want to do that.
You are right in term of the "act," but with Bettis speciifcally and normally with older RBs the "number" is the concern.
 

WhoDat

Footballguy
But isn't the act of blocking much less physically punishing than the act of being tackled? Linebackers aren't looking to lay the wood to the fullback, they're looking to knock the piss out of the guy carrying the ball. Right?
In the case of a true, run blocking and leading FB this is not true. A true FB being one that is constantly providing a lead block for a TB or HB and taking direct shots from the usual suspects of LB and SS on every...single...play. Those blocks are not blocks in the sense of what you find between an offensive and defensive lineman. A FB taking out a LB is a full speed collision that is no different from the impact of a tackle. I would venture to say it is probably as violent, if not more so, than a tackle. The FB is meeting the LB or SS with the intent of laying him on his ###. The FB gets a healthy running start. Depending on the depth the LB is playing, he too has a head start. O and D lineman are starting from stances. HUGE difference. The FB is clearing the running lane. The LB or SS, depending on the defense and positional responsibilities, is either to take out the FB or shed the block. If the purpose is to take out the FB in an effort to expose the TB or HB, then you have a dramatic head on accident between the FB and LB and or SS. At that point the goal of the LB is no different than the FB. Put the FB on his ### and clog the running lane. The pounding a FB takes is severe and there is no way a TB and or HB with 8 plus years of touches and carries could move into that position.
 

Englishteacher

Footballguy
I can't wait 'til a few years down the line Westbrook starts blocking.
hey, don't forget, James Mungro blocks for the Colts at FB and he only weighs 190. Rock Cartwright is a FB for the Skins and he's only 5-7.
 

Englishteacher

Footballguy
A couple more guys are coming to mind. How about Greg Jones? He started his career in Jax as a FB although he played RB at FSU. When Freddy has been injured, he's played TB as the lead guy.I bet Eddie George could have been a FB the last couple years of his career and actually been more effective than he was at TB. The guy was an excellent blocker as a TB and could catch the ball. He was big and physical. And, a team player.Similarly, I bet Marshall Faulk could play FB now. Let him get an offseason in to lift some weights and learn a system and he'd be good. He was always a good blocker and OBVIOUSLY can catch the football. Maybe he wouldn't be an Alstott type bruiser FB but not every system calls for a gigantic FB.I think we're also forgetting a guy who played FB for a LONG time in the NFL, Larry Centers. Not an enormous guy at all and owns the record for passes caught by a FB.

 

stevec

Footballguy
I think the Eagles would be well served by trying to get Faulk. He's basically the guy who led the way for the role Westbrook plays now. He could be another combo RB/WR to lessen the load on Westbrook some, and to help the problem out wide.

 

Englishteacher

Footballguy
I think the Eagles would be well served by trying to get Faulk. He's basically the guy who led the way for the role Westbrook plays now. He could be another combo RB/WR to lessen the load on Westbrook some, and to help the problem out wide.
That's a real interesting idea. Faulk in Philly. Marshall's probably going to finish his career in STL but the fit would be very nice.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top