madlithuanian Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 While not the top tire list of needs, I think he'd be a good addition and an improvement over McKie. Not sure it even matters as he played most games and it seems JA's only looking for guys with only 1 start in FA... Sorry, couldn't resist the dig! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 While not the top tire list of needs, I think he'd be a good addition and an improvement over McKie. Not sure it even matters as he played most games and it seems JA's only looking for guys with only 1 start in FA... Sorry, couldn't resist the dig! Nice guy but I would rather add Weaver from the Seahawks ihe can block, catch and run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 I would too! But, I think Karney would be an improvement at least. Nice guy but I would rather add Weaver from the Seahawks ihe can block, catch and run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Honestly, I would love to get a FB that can't run, as it would likely mean taking that damn FB dive out of the playbook. As for receiving, its nice, but just not that important to me. For me, I just want a FB that can freaking block. Give me a guy who can actually knock a defender OUT of the hole, rather than simply help clog it. Give me a blocker who, when our QB drops back to pass, can actually pickup the blitz and knock the guy backward, rather than simply try and get in the way. I want a FB w/ the mentality of a tackler, who tries to inflict pain everytime he locks up w/ the defender. I am tired of these finese blockers are can do a little of everything, but nothing well. Nice guy but I would rather add Weaver from the Seahawks ihe can block, catch and run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Sold! Who is that guy? Honestly, I would love to get a FB that can't run, as it would likely mean taking that damn FB dive out of the playbook. As for receiving, its nice, but just not that important to me. For me, I just want a FB that can freaking block. Give me a guy who can actually knock a defender OUT of the hole, rather than simply help clog it. Give me a blocker who, when our QB drops back to pass, can actually pickup the blitz and knock the guy backward, rather than simply try and get in the way. I want a FB w/ the mentality of a tackler, who tries to inflict pain everytime he locks up w/ the defender. I am tired of these finese blockers are can do a little of everything, but nothing well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Honestly, not a clue. I really think the pure blocking FB is sort of going away anyway, and thus we don't even see many coming out of college. Sold! Who is that guy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Would it be insane to look at an OL that's maybe a littler skinnier/faster than the average and convert him? Or maybe even look at a blocking TE...maybe even a guy like Davis? Sounds medden-esque, but doesn't an OL's (or TE with the addition of pass catching ability) past at OL pretty much give him a leg up? It's a guy that pushes forward to block for the run and drops back to protect the QB...he's just more out on an island than on the line... Honestly, not a clue. I really think the pure blocking FB is sort of going away anyway, and thus we don't even see many coming out of college. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Initially, I wanted to love the idea. Then I thought about it a bit and have some questions. How many OL in college are really so light that they could play FB? It's one thing, for example, when you have a college DE who may need to play LB in the NFL because you do see 240-250lb DEs in college. However, how many college OL are even under 280? Also, if you did find an OL that was in fact light enough, he would need some level of quickness. There really is no point in having a FB if he can run. If it was only about the initial block, then you could just use a 6 OL you have on the depth chart, but a FB need to be capable of blocking at the next level. While the OL take care of the DL, the FB needs to get to the next level and take out the LB. I am just not sure you are going to find many college OL who are light enough, and yet w/ the speed, to block at the 2nd level. TE could be another story. Heck, toward the end of last season, I saw us lining up Olsen as a FB. The only problem I can see here is height. Usually, your TEs are going to be 6'4, 6'5 or more. At least these days, most TEs seem to be up there. I don't think you usually want your FB to be so tall, as it is much harder to get down and block in-line. Otherwise I might even suggest looking at Kellen Davis, but Davis is 6'7, and I just question how well he could in-line block. I love the outside the box thinking, but I am just not sure how many OL or TEs are out there who would be solid FBs. Let's be honest just for a moment though. My wanting to add a pure, bruising, blocking FS is about as likely to happen as our adding a 350lb run stuffing DT. I would love to see both, but our coaches do not like either. Would it be insane to look at an OL that's maybe a littler skinnier/faster than the average and convert him? Or maybe even look at a blocking TE...maybe even a guy like Davis? Sounds medden-esque, but doesn't an OL's (or TE with the addition of pass catching ability) past at OL pretty much give him a leg up? It's a guy that pushes forward to block for the run and drops back to protect the QB...he's just more out on an island than on the line... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Yeah, I hear you on the height issue...and slownees of the general OL. Although, if you could find a shorter TE...maybe it's worth tinkering with? Normally, that guy wouldn't probably even be drafted...but you take him as a FB project! It is fun to ponder these things though! If we all didn't share the same "If I Ran the Circus" DNA, we wouldn't be here! Initially, I wanted to love the idea. Then I thought about it a bit and have some questions. How many OL in college are really so light that they could play FB? It's one thing, for example, when you have a college DE who may need to play LB in the NFL because you do see 240-250lb DEs in college. However, how many college OL are even under 280? Also, if you did find an OL that was in fact light enough, he would need some level of quickness. There really is no point in having a FB if he can run. If it was only about the initial block, then you could just use a 6 OL you have on the depth chart, but a FB need to be capable of blocking at the next level. While the OL take care of the DL, the FB needs to get to the next level and take out the LB. I am just not sure you are going to find many college OL who are light enough, and yet w/ the speed, to block at the 2nd level. TE could be another story. Heck, toward the end of last season, I saw us lining up Olsen as a FB. The only problem I can see here is height. Usually, your TEs are going to be 6'4, 6'5 or more. At least these days, most TEs seem to be up there. I don't think you usually want your FB to be so tall, as it is much harder to get down and block in-line. Otherwise I might even suggest looking at Kellen Davis, but Davis is 6'7, and I just question how well he could in-line block. I love the outside the box thinking, but I am just not sure how many OL or TEs are out there who would be solid FBs. Let's be honest just for a moment though. My wanting to add a pure, bruising, blocking FS is about as likely to happen as our adding a 350lb run stuffing DT. I would love to see both, but our coaches do not like either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Would it be insane to look at an OL that's maybe a littler skinnier/faster than the average and convert him? Or maybe even look at a blocking TE...maybe even a guy like Davis? Sounds medden-esque, but doesn't an OL's (or TE with the addition of pass catching ability) past at OL pretty much give him a leg up? It's a guy that pushes forward to block for the run and drops back to protect the QB...he's just more out on an island than on the line... The Lions essentially tried to do this with Jon Bradley - it didn't work out well. A 300-pound blocking FB sounds great on paper, but he's slow as hell. If I were going to convert anybody to a blocking FB, I'd go for a linebacker or defensive end, probably one who's too short to project to the pros. I think there's a reason that when most teams have to move the fullback to tailback, like for a jumbo package, they put in a linebacker as his lead blocker. Look at Worrell Williams from Cal ( ) - he's fast, he's got an ideal build for FB (5'11" 240 lbs., ridiculous lower body strength) and that dude can throw a hit. I'm not saying he won't make it as a linebacker, but he could make a good fullback if somebody wanted to convert him. EDIT: To bring it back to the OP, I'd love it if the Bears picked up Karney. He wouldn't cost a ton (and Angelo's not likely to make any big money FA signings, from the look of it) but he'd offer a significant upgrade to the Bears' running game without taking up a draft pick. I've never thought Jason McKie was better than average as a blocker, and he's not Leonard Weaver, he just doesn't offer enough as a ballcarrier or receiver to make him irreplaceable. In a perfect world, I'd rather have Weaver, sure, but he'll cost more and there'll be competition. Failing that, I'd rather have a guy like Karney who's awesome at one thing than a guy like McKie who's mediocre at several. Think about what Forte could do with an upgraded right side of the line and a real lead blocking fullback to open lanes for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Thanks for that info! Yeah, I'd like a bonafide legit good FB! I don't think McKie is that... The Lions essentially tried to do this with Jon Bradley - it didn't work out well. A 300-pound blocking FB sounds great on paper, but he's slow as hell. If I were going to convert anybody to a blocking FB, I'd go for a linebacker or defensive end, probably one who's too short to project to the pros. I think there's a reason that when most teams have to move the fullback to tailback, like for a jumbo package, they put in a linebacker as his lead blocker. Look at Worrell Williams from Cal ( ) - he's fast, he's got an ideal build for FB (5'11" 240 lbs., ridiculous lower body strength) and that dude can throw a hit. I'm not saying he won't make it as a linebacker, but he could make a good fullback if somebody wanted to convert him. EDIT: To bring it back to the OP, I'd love it if the Bears picked up Karney. He wouldn't cost a ton (and Angelo's not likely to make any big money FA signings, from the look of it) but he'd offer a significant upgrade to the Bears' running game without taking up a draft pick. I've never thought Jason McKie was better than average as a blocker, and he's not Leonard Weaver, he just doesn't offer enough as a ballcarrier or receiver to make him irreplaceable. In a perfect world, I'd rather have Weaver, sure, but he'll cost more and there'll be competition. Failing that, I'd rather have a guy like Karney who's awesome at one thing than a guy like McKie who's mediocre at several. Think about what Forte could do with an upgraded right side of the line and a real lead blocking fullback to open lanes for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.