southseasbear;727749 said:

---

Pete Carroll didn't seem to have a problem converting LenDale White to FB to allow him to play in the backfield alongside Reggie Bush.

---

Um, LenDale White never played fullback at USC...

southseasbear;727749 said:

---

Pete Carroll didn't seem to have a problem converting LenDale White to FB to allow him to play in the backfield alongside Reggie Bush.

---

LOL. Ummm.....David Kirtman. It is always interesting how people try to claim knowledge when they are just guessing. Bush and White rotated as RBs, with White the bruiser and Bush the speed back.

Calumnus

CJ Anderson in 2010, 4.8 ypc where??

Bigelow in 2010, 4.2 ypc where??

MB, CDJ had 5 carries for 39 yards in garbage time against Presbyterian. He did not have any carries of significance in 2011.

Sources close to the team say he cannot read running lanes and ends up on the backs of his offensive linemen.

edg64;727763 said:

---

Calumnus

CJ Anderson in 2010, 4.8 ypc where??

Bigelow in 2010, 4.2 ypc where??

---

My bad, I meant 2011 (the most recent season), which should have been apparent from the context, but I fixed it. Thanks. Numbers come from the official website.

CalBarn;727740 said:

---

And here's another real shocker for you.....backs are even allowed to catch passes
past the line of scrimmage!!!

---

Now you're just f-ing with me.

CalBarn;727740 said:

---

And here's another real shocker for you.....backs are even allowed to catch passes
past the line of scrimmage!!!

---

What? Since when?!
:facepalm

Around the UTAH game ZM started coming out before team warmups with Arroyo to work on some things. One of the things he worked on the most was getting the shotgun snap, bouncing on his toes while looking downfield, and then throwing to a receiver/trainer out in the flat. I never saw us do this in a game. Typically, the receivers were downfield on pass routes and if there was an outlet/safety-valve/check down receiver/back he was not thrown to. I have no idea why this facet of a diversified offense is not part of the Tedford plan.

82gradDLSdad;727908 said:

---

Around the UTAH game ZM started coming out before team warmups with Arroyo to work on some things. One of the things he worked on the most was getting the shotgun snap, bouncing on his toes while looking downfield, and then throwing to a receiver/trainer out in the flat. I never saw us do this in a game. Typically, the receivers were downfield on pass routes and if there was an outlet/safety-valve/check down receiver/back he was not thrown to. I have no idea why this facet of a diversified offense is not part of the Tedford plan.

---

Maynard doesn't throw to RBs because he's not related to any of them.

:rollinglaugh:

heartofthebear;727918 said:

---

Maynard doesn't throw to RBs because he's not related to any of them.

---

:rollinglaugh:

heartofthebear;727918 said:

---

Maynard doesn't throw to RBs because he's not related to any of them.

---

Low blow warning!! :chainsaw:nono::bawl:

I bet he would rather win than just that.... :axe :bear::gobears:

Okay, guys, sure, some levity is called for here. After all, we're too old to cry about this anymore. That said, wasn't it this very Covaughn DeBoskie-Johnson who caught some third down passes BEYOND THE LINE OF SCRIMMAGE for first downs this past season?

People were even posting that, after a while, when he came in on third down, everybody knew we were going to throw to him...

LessMilesMoreTedford;727748 said:

---

It's not easy to teach running backs fullback skills on the job. Running backs want to run, not block. They'll pass pro because it's what they need them to be, but blocking for a running back requires a whole new mindset. To teach them to be run blockers on the fly is a tough challenge with the stringent practice hours the NCAA puts in place.

---

First-I don't think it is THAT tough to teach them how to run block, but more importantly, that is not the primary way I would want to use them anyway. That is my whole point. I would want them to be inside runners and down field receivers (more the way Walsh used FBs) rather than run blockers.

Sofele is most effective without a lead blocker anyway. It let's his small stature be an asset--he can hide behind the line and the defense doesn't know where he is. A lead fullback just signals to the defense where the running play is going. He is very effective on the pitch outside or on the cutback.

Thus, I would want the FB to be a first option running inside (where Sofele is less effective) as a counter to Sofele outside to keep defenses honest. On plays where we do go outside, the FB still goes up the middle giving Sofele the option to cut back and follow. Importantly, there is nothing in the FB's initial movement to signal which way the play is going. That should open up space for Sofele outside.

On plays where we fake the pitch right or fake the hand-off up the middle and Maynard rolls left, the FB still goes up the middle, but then becomes a receiver, either turning left and dragging underneath for the throw from Maynard, or given the speed of our new FBs (running backs like CDJ), streak straight ahead with a great chance of getting wide open behind the secondary (who will be following Maynard and the receivers left) up the middle for a TD. Again, the initial movement of the FB does nothing to signal to the defense what the play is.

Little dink passes here and there = major yardage. Looking forward to good O-Line play this year, which will improve Everything IMO.

calbear93;727760 said:

---

LOL. Ummm.....David Kirtman. It is always interesting how people try to claim knowledge when they are just guessing. Bush and White rotated as RBs, with White the bruiser and Bush the speed back.

---

But USC did use to do that with Marcus Allen, Charles White and others and I always thought it was a solid idea. Got him PT, toughened him up, and taught him to read the running lanes, etc.

heartofthebear;727918 said:

---

Maynard doesn't throw to RBs because he's not related to any of them.

---

I LOL'd. :rollinglaugh:

ManBear;727752 said:

---

Um, LenDale White never played fullback at USC...

---

calbear93;727760 said:

---

LOL. Ummm.....David Kirtman. It is always interesting how people try to claim knowledge when they are just guessing. Bush and White rotated as RBs, with White the bruiser and Bush the speed back.

---

I could be mistaken but seem to recall that White (primarily Bush's backup) was inserted in some plays as FB so that both talented runners could be on the field.

Nevertheless, as biely medved noted,there is a Trojan tradition of having new RBs pay their dues as FB before being made TB including Rickey Bell and Marcus Allen.

http://www.paulmorantz.com/sports/greatest-trojans/

but it sure speaks to the greatness and culture of the SC tailback position back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. A guy who is fast enough to be your tailback and gifted enough to be a heisman winner is also big enough and tough enough to spend a few years (or year) as your fullback blocking the toughest guys on the other team. To get guys talented enough to excel at both positions says something. To get guys to actually commit to doing this says something about how badly they wanted to be the SC tailback. I don't see the SC tailback position having that kind of allure these days and I can't see a kid with offers from all over the place as a tailback going to SC and blocking for a few years. Marcus Allen and Ricky Bell were pretty special but so were Paul Jones (who did this for Cal) and Marshawn Lynch (who easily could have done this) and Chuck Muncie (who easily could have done this).

If a tailback is big enough I actually like this 'road' to being the starter. Come in and block and show how tough you are. Then we'll let you carry the ball.

82gradDLSdad;728203 said:

---

but so were Paul Jones (who did this for Cal) and Marshawn Lynch (who easily could have done this) and Chuck Muncie (who easily could have done this).

If a tailback is big enough I actually like this 'road' to being the starter. Come in and block and show how tough you are. Then we'll let you carry the ball.

---

Tom Newton spent 1975 as fullback to Chuck Muncie before taking over tailback in 1976. I remember "Nasty Newt" breaking an 80-yarder to the house against Colorado in '75.

Didn't Roger Craig also do a year of fullback for the 49ers early in his career?

SanMateoBear;728326 said:

---

Tom Newton spent 1975 as fullback to Chuck Muncie before taking over tailback in 1976. I remember "Nasty Newt" breaking an 80-yarder to the house against Colorado in '75.

Didn't Roger Craig also do a year of fullback for the 49ers early in his career?

---

Bill Walsh on the fullback position: LINK

Quote:

---

Then there is the other type of fullback. Kind of a halfback playing fullback, like Roger Craig did for the 49ers. In this case, you have to fashion your offense as to what this fullback's skills or talents may be. The 49ers' greatest team, in 1984, had Craig at fullback and Wendell Tyler at halfback. So this type of athlete is a skilled player. His blocking has to be adequate, just meet minimal standards.

Still, he can be the focal point of the offensive firepower because from his position he can be a receiver, ball-carrier go anywhere, as Roger Craig did. He can be a 1,000- yard ball carrier. With this type of athlete, you have to gear your line blocking combinations to accommodate a non-blocking fullback. This limits what you can do in certain ways, but it expands it offensively when he has the ball.

---

SanMateoBear;728326 said:

---

Tom Newton spent 1975 as fullback to Chuck Muncie before taking over tailback in 1976. I remember "Nasty Newt" breaking an 80-yarder to the house against Colorado in '75.

Didn't Roger Craig also do a year of fullback for the 49ers early in his career?

---

First Tom Newton went from fullback to tailback and then Paul Jones did it. I thought Tom and Paul split the FB duties in 1975 and then Jones took over in 1976 but a look at the 1976 stats shows Newton as the leading rusher and then Jones as the leading rusher in 1977. Anyway, must have been the thing to do back in the day;play a bigger, tougher RB as a FB early in his career and then move him to HB/TB in his later years. Maybe we just don't recruit bigger backs anymore to play TB. It's all about speed.

SanMateoBear;728326 said:

---

Tom Newton spent 1975 as fullback to Chuck Muncie before taking over tailback in 1976. I remember "Nasty Newt" breaking an 80-yarder to the house against Colorado in '75.

Didn't Roger Craig also do a year of fullback for the 49ers early in his career?

---

I don't see us using a FB in the same way that Walsh did. When our offense is working properly, we are a physical running team with potential big passing plays. Our FB ideally would be a physical blocker taking out a linebacker or a safety to clear a lane for our running back. This is a thankless job with very few opportunities to carry (more opportunities to catch on play action plays). You need a FB that wants to punish the linebackers and take pride in unleashing the TB. Think of Ta'ufo'ou and what he did for Best or what Manderino did for Arrington and Lynch. You can't just turn a guy who is looking to rush for yards into someone who is looking to take out linebackers for the other guy. It's not just size, but it is also thinking like a extra OL and wanting to hit the defender.

calbear93;728431 said:

---

I don't see us using a FB in the same way that Walsh did. When our offense is working properly, we are a physical running team with potential big passing plays. Our FB ideally would be a physical blocker taking out a linebacker or a safety to clear a lane for our running back. This is a thankless job with very few opportunities to carry (more opportunities to catch on play action plays). You need a FB that wants to punish the linebackers and take pride in unleashing the TB. Think of Ta'ufo'ou and what he did for Best or what Manderino did for Arrington and Lynch. You can't just turn a guy who is looking to rush for yards into someone who is looking to take out linebackers for the other guy. It's not just size, but it is also thinking like a extra OL and wanting to hit the defender.

---

Read the piece I linked to Walsh's comments--he describes that FB too and there is no argument that has been the way we have used FBs in the past (though not enough in the passing game which is supposed to be key to a pro-style offense). That is my point. It is true we don't use our FBs the way Walsh did, but I think we SHOULD. "When our offense is working properly"? When was that last true against a top defense? Sure we can line up our FB and run straight behind him when we play teams that are physically inferior to us, but when we play teams that are our equal or physically superior, they just eat that up. There is a reason we are the only team in the conference other than WSU that has not beat USC over the last 8 years.

The other big point was Walsh was willing to adapt to what he had available. He had two good backs in Craig and Tyler, so he used them both and had his best team. That was over 25 years ago. It is not a wild new concept. Using the FB only for run blocking is 1950s thinking. The game has progressed. Many teams don't use one at all. Most importantly, if you have one in the game they are one of only 5 eligible receivers. if you NEVER throw to them you make it that much easier to defend your other receivers or it frees up a player to blitz. What does that do to the passing game? It is playing with one arm tied behind your back. If you ALWAYS run behind them it makes it that much easier for the defense to know where the play is going and converge on the point of attack. If you always do that on first down, how many third and longs will you get yourself into? What will that do to the passing game?

Sofele is really at his best without a lead blocker. We could use a tough inside runner as a counter, but in the same back field so we aren't signaling the play based on substitution. We are going to be very inexperienced at WR and even TE. It might be good to have a "FB" who is a good receiver (with some speed) and can run inside (with some speed).

calumnus;728450 said:

---

Read the piece I linked to Walsh's comments--he describes that FB too and there is no argument that has been the way we have used FBs in the past (though not enough in the passing game which is supposed to be key to a pro-style offense). That is my point. It is true we don't use our FBs the way Walsh did, but I think we SHOULD. "When our offense is working properly"? When was that last true against a top defense? Sure we can line up our FB and run straight behind him when we play teams that are physically inferior to us, but when we play teams that are our equal or physically superior, they just eat that up. There is a reason we are the only team in the conference other than WSU that has not beat USC over the last 8 years.

The other big point was Walsh was willing to adapt to what he had available. He had two good backs in Craig and Tyler, so he used them both and had his best team. That was over 25 years ago. It is not a wild new concept. Using the FB only for run blocking is 1950s thinking. The game has progressed. Many teams don't use one at all. Most importantly, if you have one in the game they are one of only 5 eligible receivers. if you NEVER throw to them you make it that much easier to defend your other receivers or it frees up a player to blitz. What does that do to the passing game? It is playing with one arm tied behind your back. If you ALWAYS run behind them it makes it that much easier for the defense to know where the play is going and converge on the point of attack. If you always do that on first down, how many third and longs will you get yourself into? What will that do to the passing game?

Sofele is really at his best without a lead blocker. We could use a tough inside runner as a counter, but in the same back field so we aren't signaling the play based on substitution. We are going to be very inexperienced at WR and even TE. It might be good to have a "FB" who is a good receiver (with some speed) and can run inside (with some speed).

---

You are not going to get any arguments from me that we haven't been adapting to our talent. Oregon initially used the offense they run because their Oline was small and they had small but fast players that would do best in open space. We were successful when we had a dominating O-line with a powerful FB, but we tried running the same offense when we had smaller o-line and no dominating fullback or TEs.

The only problem is that Walsh's system basically treated the short passing game, including to fullbacks and running backs, as their running game. You can do that if you have an accurate QB. The reason we have struggled is that we didn't have the linemen, FB, TE for a power game (which can still be very successful now and not just in the 50s- this is what Harbaugh ran for Stanford) and we didn't have an accurate QB for a WCO or quick passing game. Honestly, I would love for us to get the personnel to have the type of power game that we had early in Tedford's career here. It was great seeing our O-line just dominate the defense as the game progressed and, when the safeties and LBs cheated to provide run support, for us to go for the big passing strikes. I am hoping that Coach M can give us that swagger again.

calbear93;728486 said:

---

You are not going to get any arguments from me that we haven't been adapting to our talent. Oregon initially used the offense they run because their Oline was small and they had small but fast players that would do best in open space. We were successful when we had a dominating O-line with a powerful FB, but we tried running the same offense when we had smaller o-line and no dominating fullback or TEs.

The only problem is that Walsh's system basically treated the short passing game, including to fullbacks and running backs, as their running game. You can do that if you have an accurate QB. The reason we have struggled is that we didn't have the linemen, FB, TE for a power game (which can still be very successful now and not just in the 50s- this is what Harbaugh ran for Stanford) and we didn't have an accurate QB for a WCO or quick passing game. Honestly, I would love for us to get the personnel to have the type of power game that we had early in Tedford's career here. It was great seeing our O-line just dominate the defense as the game progressed and, when the safeties and LBs cheated to provide run support, for us to go for the big passing strikes. I am hoping that Coach M can give us that swagger again.

---

That was more true of his earlier teams with Rathman as the main back--that 1984 Niner team with both Craig and Tyler in the backfield had 2,465 yards rushing.