Mongo3451 Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 I've always thought turning an undersized or speedy offensive lineman into a fullback was an interesting idea, but have rarely seen it done. Anyway, did we get our guy in the 7th round??? Read the writeup. http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/profiles/lance-louis?id=237676 Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 I've always thought turning an undersized or speedy offensive lineman into a fullback was an interesting idea, but have rarely seen it done. Anyway, did we get our guy in the 7th round??? Read the writeup. http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/profiles/lance-louis?id=237676 Thoughts? iIMHO THIS GUY CAN PLAY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BALL LIKE THAT GUY WE HAD A FEW YEARS AGO FRIEDMAN WHO PLAYED GUARD AND DT IN THE SMAE GAME. BUT AT 6'2 300LBS HE WOULD MAKE A GOOD FBOR BLOCKING TE IN OUR RUN FIRST SYSTEM. SORRY MY SHIFT KEY IS STUCK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 It's an interesting thought. Most fullbacks aren't as tall as Louis is, but then there are guys like Madison Hedgecock (6'3" 266 lbs.) on the Giants. Louis compares pretty favorably to a guy like Hedgecock, from a physical standpoint. They had comparable bench results, Hedgecock putting up 29 reps to Louis' 30. Hedgecock actually ran a slower 40 than Louis (4.87 to Louis' 4.76,) and he was almost 40 pounds lighter than Louis is. Also, the 10-yard split (the first 10 yards of the player's 40) is often considered a more accurate measure of playing speed than the 40. Hedgecock's 10-yard split at the Combine was a 1.73. Louis' was a 1.62. The broad jump and vertical jump, which measure explosiveness, also go to Louis. I should point out, though, that all Louis' times would be at the bottom end of the spectrum for fullbacks at this year's combine. Only 2 of the fullbacks at the Combine this year ran slower 40s than Louis, and none of them had slower 10-yard splits. Tony Fiammetta, for example, ran the 40 in 4.58 with a 1.53 10-yard split. Looking back at Hedgecock's Combine numbers and his performance in the league, it's clear that he's not a rushing threat. He's had 3 carries in 5 years as a pro player. Louis isn't going to be a combo fullback like Fiammetta or like Leonard Weaver; he's not going to carry the ball, but he could be effective as a pure blocking fullback in a power-running system like the Giants run. My one concern is that, as fast as Louis is, he'd need to get faster to be more than an in-line short-yardage blocker. Apparently he's a very effective second-level blocker as a lineman, but unless I'm wrong, his assignment is usually going to be a linebacker or defensive lineman. A fullback is going to occasionally have to pick up defensive backs, and I would guess, at 303 pounds, that Louis would need to shed some weight and increase his agility to do that effectively. His bio says that he added 35-40 pounds in a year and change; maybe he can drop some of that weight back off. If he can go back down to the 270-280 range and get quicker without losing strength, I think he might have a chance at fullback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Reports out of the minicamp were that Louis was not as fast and quick while playing that the numbers would indicate. He ran at left guard and left tackle. So maybe this guy can use his athleticism to become a left tackle. He is intriguing to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Reports out of the minicamp were that Louis was not as fast and quick while playing that the numbers would indicate. He ran at left guard and left tackle. So maybe this guy can use his athleticism to become a left tackle. He is intriguing to say the least. Thats what I'm talkin' 'bout. We need to develop O-linemen and I thought I saw one report say he had athleticism similar to recent HOF lineman Randal McDanial. I say make him a versatile back up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted May 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 It's an interesting thought. Most fullbacks aren't as tall as Louis is, but then there are guys like Madison Hedgecock (6'3" 266 lbs.) on the Giants. Louis compares pretty favorably to a guy like Hedgecock, from a physical standpoint. They had comparable bench results, Hedgecock putting up 29 reps to Louis' 30. Hedgecock actually ran a slower 40 than Louis (4.87 to Louis' 4.76,) and he was almost 40 pounds lighter than Louis is. Also, the 10-yard split (the first 10 yards of the player's 40) is often considered a more accurate measure of playing speed than the 40. Hedgecock's 10-yard split at the Combine was a 1.73. Louis' was a 1.62. The broad jump and vertical jump, which measure explosiveness, also go to Louis. I should point out, though, that all Louis' times would be at the bottom end of the spectrum for fullbacks at this year's combine. Only 2 of the fullbacks at the Combine this year ran slower 40s than Louis, and none of them had slower 10-yard splits. Tony Fiammetta, for example, ran the 40 in 4.58 with a 1.53 10-yard split. Looking back at Hedgecock's Combine numbers and his performance in the league, it's clear that he's not a rushing threat. He's had 3 carries in 5 years as a pro player. Louis isn't going to be a combo fullback like Fiammetta or like Leonard Weaver; he's not going to carry the ball, but he could be effective as a pure blocking fullback in a power-running system like the Giants run. My one concern is that, as fast as Louis is, he'd need to get faster to be more than an in-line short-yardage blocker. Apparently he's a very effective second-level blocker as a lineman, but unless I'm wrong, his assignment is usually going to be a linebacker or defensive lineman. A fullback is going to occasionally have to pick up defensive backs, and I would guess, at 303 pounds, that Louis would need to shed some weight and increase his agility to do that effectively. His bio says that he added 35-40 pounds in a year and change; maybe he can drop some of that weight back off. If he can go back down to the 270-280 range and get quicker without losing strength, I think he might have a chance at fullback. Thanks for the analysis. It seems like he's close on skillset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoofHearted Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Reports out of the minicamp were that Louis was not as fast and quick while playing that the numbers would indicate. Make that report, singular, as in one report from Vaughn McClure, whom I loathe. Really though, him moving to FB isn't gonna happen. At least not beyond some possible goaline formations or down the road if worst comes to worst and he doesn't pan out on OL. Personally, I hope they give the guy one position to learn on the OL, and let him actually get some time to stick there. He's played three different positions in three seasons and was reportedly pretty good at all of them, which makes me wonder how well he would do when actually given the chance to get extended time at one spot. I want a new FB as much as the next guy, but when you look at where the guys biggest upside is, FB is probably plan E. I think some here will be pretty surprised by Ta'ufo'ou in PS, because he can thump while lead blocking. It might be a blessing that Cal's offense only uses their FB in that one role, because had he consistently displayed another skill out of that backfield he could easily been a late rounder competing with guys like Vakapuna or Williams(he's twice the lead blocker either of them is). I honestly don't care about running from the FB, and though I want the guy to be able to catch out of the backfield, lead blocking is far and away my #1 priority, and he is well-versed in that area of his job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Make that report, singular, as in one report from Vaughn McClure, whom I loathe. Really though, him moving to FB isn't gonna happen. At least not beyond some possible goaline formations or down the road if worst comes to worst and he doesn't pan out on OL. Personally, I hope they give the guy one position to learn on the OL, and let him actually get some time to stick there. He's played three different positions in three seasons and was reportedly pretty good at all of them, which makes me wonder how well he would do when actually given the chance to get extended time at one spot. I want a new FB as much as the next guy, but when you look at where the guys biggest upside is, FB is probably plan E. I think some here will be pretty surprised by Ta'ufo'ou in PS, because he can thump while lead blocking. It might be a blessing that Cal's offense only uses their FB in that one role, because had he consistently displayed another skill out of that backfield he could easily been a late rounder competing with guys like Vakapuna or Williams(he's twice the lead blocker either of them is). I honestly don't care about running from the FB, and though I want the guy to be able to catch out of the backfield, lead blocking is far and away my #1 priority, and he is well-versed in that area of his job. And Biggs said "Guard Lance Louis does not look like a tight end at 303 pounds. He's an athletic guard, not an oversized tight end, so he's just right wearing No. 60." So change that back to reports, tough guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoofHearted Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 And Biggs said "Guard Lance Louis does not look like a tight end at 303 pounds. He's an athletic guard, not an oversized tight end, so he's just right wearing No. 60." So change that back to reports, tough guy. "He's an athletic guard." No, it was one report. Anyone who expected otherwise was not being level-headed (typical of Vaughn "I need a fact checker big time" McClure). A 300 pound guy running a 4.8 is a great thing, but rational thinking says the guy played the last two seasons on the OL for a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 "He's an athletic guard." No, it was one report. Anyone who expected otherwise was not being level-headed (typical of Vaughn "I need a fact checker big time" McClure). A 300 pound guy running a 4.8 is a great thing, but rational thinking says the guy played the last two seasons on the OL for a reason. Which would go along with the thinking that he does not play as fast or quick enough to run at fullback and tight end...... which is what I said that the "reports" said in the first place. Looks like your nemisis McClure was RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH THE HUMANITY Seriously though man. Both the blogs reported the same thing in different words. Louis is not athletic enough to play TE/FB which is why he is at LG/LT. I get that you "loathe" McClure, although I do find it creepy that you actually care that much about him to "loathe" him. I could really care less about McClure and Biggs other than the info on their blogs. They happen to be two of the only people I could get rookie minicamp info from, and they both pretty much said the same things. If you want to disect the words, then be my guest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 I thought all along we would be looking at him as a future OG. At the same time, I do still wonder if we might not also consider him at the blocking TE role, which the staff indicated was an area we wanted to upgrade. When they say he isn't athletic enough to play TE, I wonder if that includes "blocking TE". I would not expect him to be athletic enough to play the role of a TE and running routes, but a blocking TE is little more than an extra OL on the field, and if he is considered an "athletic OG" I wonder if he could not handle such a duty. Further, I wonder if working him in such a role would not also fit in his development as a OG, as the two roles would have similarities. Which would go along with the thinking that he does not play as fast or quick enough to run at fullback and tight end...... which is what I said that the "reports" said in the first place. Looks like your nemisis McClure was RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH THE HUMANITY Seriously though man. Both the blogs reported the same thing in different words. Louis is not athletic enough to play TE/FB which is why he is at LG/LT. I get that you "loathe" McClure, although I do find it creepy that you actually care that much about him to "loathe" him. I could really care less about McClure and Biggs other than the info on their blogs. They happen to be two of the only people I could get rookie minicamp info from, and they both pretty much said the same things. If you want to disect the words, then be my guest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Let's be honest before we get too far along... Odds are they guy won't make the team. But it's fun to speculate! I thought all along we would be looking at him as a future OG. At the same time, I do still wonder if we might not also consider him at the blocking TE role, which the staff indicated was an area we wanted to upgrade. When they say he isn't athletic enough to play TE, I wonder if that includes "blocking TE". I would not expect him to be athletic enough to play the role of a TE and running routes, but a blocking TE is little more than an extra OL on the field, and if he is considered an "athletic OG" I wonder if he could not handle such a duty. Further, I wonder if working him in such a role would not also fit in his development as a OG, as the two roles would have similarities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 I thought all along we would be looking at him as a future OG. At the same time, I do still wonder if we might not also consider him at the blocking TE role, which the staff indicated was an area we wanted to upgrade. When they say he isn't athletic enough to play TE, I wonder if that includes "blocking TE". I would not expect him to be athletic enough to play the role of a TE and running routes, but a blocking TE is little more than an extra OL on the field, and if he is considered an "athletic OG" I wonder if he could not handle such a duty. Further, I wonder if working him in such a role would not also fit in his development as a OG, as the two roles would have similarities. What I was intrigued with was that they were working him at LT. I think that a guy with that sort of athletic ability at LT would be a good project over there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Make the team? Likely not. But I would say there is a pretty decent chance he can make the practice squad, and from there, may be no more than one injury away from the 53 man roster. Let's be honest before we get too far along... Odds are they guy won't make the team. But it's fun to speculate! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted May 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Let's be honest before we get too far along... Odds are they guy won't make the team. But it's fun to speculate! Thanks for the dose of realism Madlith. What's next?: are you going to inform us that Cutler is NOT, Jesus in cleats. Buzzkill!! LOL Honestly, practice squad looks like a pretty good for all of our draft picks that don't make the roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Yeah, but then where would I find the room for Rice! Make the team? Likely not. But I would say there is a pretty decent chance he can make the practice squad, and from there, may be no more than one injury away from the 53 man roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 I only offer realism for draft picks 7 and lower! While Cutler isn't jesus, he sure reminds me a whole lot of a Johnny Unitas! And let's not forget that Gilbert is just a poor man's mix of Hampton and Dent! I agree... Thanks for the dose of realism Madlith. What's next?: are you going to inform us that Cutler is NOT, Jesus in cleats. Buzzkill!! LOL Honestly, practice squad looks like a pretty good for all of our draft picks that don't make the roster. 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.