The Kansas City Chiefs and the FB postion: Yards up the middle in 2011

by Kuhmmish on Jul 28, 2011 8:50 AM CDT

Who Will Lead the Way for our HB's in 2011

I must start out with a Congrats to our Chiefs on the Breaston pickup, nice to see some action in the FA market for a change. Ok now let's get on topic...

The Chiefs seem set to enter camp with two fullbacks on the roster, our part-time starter Mike Cox (shared a time with Castille and The Deep Freeze), and Rookie 7th rd pick Shane Bannon (smell the ivy). I don't think any of us are sold on Mike Cox as a punisher up the middle and or rushing/receiving threat after the past 3 seasons. Sounds like to me Bannon has every opportunity to take the job if he's up to task. Or, do we see a free agent signing like Le'ron Mcclain or Vontae Leach, heck even Heath Evans is available on the FA farmers market. To me, a talented fullback is a luxury to have has an NFL HB or QB, blocking rushing, pass catching all vital things we could improve on. Now this brings me to this question, "Do the Chiefs need a pro bowl caliber Fullback to do what they do"? We'll my first thought on this when all the Mcclain talk was buzzing around was "No", due to the fact we use so many dual TE and spread sets on offense we rarely see a FB on the field. The thought of spending big cap bucks on a position we simply don't utilize much just seemed a little bit extravagant. As for where i stand now, I'm actually thinking we do.

via www.ravensgab.com

Le'Ron Mcclain Free Agent Fullback

The 2011 season is going to be a true test for our Division Champion Chiefs team, top NFL competition week after week awaits us in the upcoming season. The quality of defense's we are going to face is daunting to say the least. (ok enough build up get on with the take). In 2010 the Chiefs flat struggled against bigger more physical defensive fronts. Our interior line would be shoved backwards and subsequently the play blown up behind the line of scrimmage. The visions of the Croyle San Diego game last year keep haunting my mind. Seeing replays of Chargers Defensive Tackle Antonio Garay dominate Weigman and fold him up like origami are burnt into memory banks foreva eva (eva, eva). Now enter a Pro Bowl Fullback into the mix, things could be vastly different. Our run scheme grows leaps and bounds against those defenses, and our ability to bash it out on 4th and 1 actually becomes a reality. Something i truly think the Chiefs need to consider this offseason. Our current fullback situation is largely a question mark. On one hand you have a guy in Cox entering his 4th season and has yet to really cut the mustard as a starter, then on the other hand you have an unknown 7th rd pick in Bannon who is green as they come. Do you trust either one to keep Casey Hampton, BJ Raji, Vince Wilfork, Antonio Garay, and Richard Seymour off Cassel and our HB's? In 2010 the Chiefs ran the ball 194 times for 843 yds straight up the gutt, this is the largest chunk of the Chiefs Rushing yds in 2010 (Left 528yds, Right 286yds). ** Note: i didn't include the sideline yardage since i'm aiming at what happens at the LOS*** Now how many of those 194 atempts where those Thomas Jones LJ esque 2yds and a cloud of dust plays, I'd guess the majority. So i ask you, how importantly do you view a beast in the backfield clearing the way? Does this change our run philosphy against teams with larger lines, meaning less singleback and dual TE's and more true I-form grind it out formations?

via static.nfl.com

Vontae Leach Free Agent Fullback

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

McClain might play some FB for us but probably a 1a RB most of the time

by HIT34MAN on Jul 28, 2011 9:14 AM CDT reply actions

A thumper who can catch the ball, yes. A pro bowler? maybe not a need as I see it.

I would rather see the dollars spent on an OT who can improve the pass pro. IMO that is not going to happen for BRich or RyanO so we need the upgrade there. But this kid Shane has a thumper reputation so let’s see if he can hack it in camp. Cox got the job as a rook, so why not this kid?

by dubld on Jul 28, 2011 9:47 AM CDT reply actions

Good Topic

I don’t know anymore than anyone else, but short yardage and stacked lines is not our forte. We are NOT a power running football team, like the Raiders are. I think HIV said this best.

Our Zone Blocking scheme relies more on finesse and double teams, so I guess that I’m not seeing Leach or McClain as huge needs for our offense. Don’t get me wrong, those two guys are players who I’d love to have on the roster.

Also, I’d like to point out that Cox is an excellent blocker. I don’t think you give him enough credit. We don’t expect him to have alot of carries or catch alot of passes, but when we need someone to blow up a LB in the running lane, Cox is our man. Also, we don’t know what we have with Bannon.

by Chief_Elmo on Jul 28, 2011 9:48 AM CDT reply actions

I'd add that Cox looks pretty sure-handed on-the-move, and has a pretty good upfield move.

I factor in how much time the offense has kept the ball alive and forced the D to expand, before Cassel is dumping off the ball. If the D doesn’t expand much, by the time you dump it to the FB, he’s in a less favorable position, and I don’t see McClain or Bannon instantly performing miracles, if the other 10 guys aren’t any better. But I’ll say that McClain was one guy I genuinely feared getting the ball in the flat.

So Baldwin and Bowe need to get more vertical stretch out of defenses than KC got last year from the WRs. Protections need to be better. Cassel needs to be more in tune with his ’backs and they with him.

would of ≠ would've

by hmills110 on Jul 28, 2011 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions

Spot on

A brutal FB does KC no good without a revamped line. They will attack 3rd and 4th & short like the Pats, spead out and hit somebody. They have the receivers for it now.

by Linc15 on Jul 28, 2011 6:11 PM CDT up reply actions

I think Bannon and/or FA adds some real whallop to FB.

I think Haley likes the play where there’s a FB in there, and the TE drops back beside him pre-snap. Gives, in effect, two FBs to slam into the line. Enough receiving threat out of the FB and TE, and it’s a formation that can create the power play up the gut, with a 7-on-4 or 7-on-5 at the point of attack. Added benefit is it makes for one helluva play fake, when the ILBs HAVE to come up to counter that threat, which can open up that short-to-intermediate middle for the very guys the ILBs are coming up to oppose in the run, but find themselves running the wrong direction against that FB/TE looking for the soft spot in the middle zone.

would of ≠ would've

by hmills110 on Jul 28, 2011 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions

Nuthin' wrong with rambling run-on sentences. sniff

would of ≠ would've

by hmills110 on Jul 28, 2011 6:42 PM CDT up reply actions

Me thinks we are of like minds on "Extra Back"....

Haley seems to like to use the “extra Back” (whether it is TE as an HBack, 2nd RB in a 2-back set or FB) as a chess piece to draw Defense off balance, use as extra blocker, slam into line ahead of JC, use to give look of a run to set up Play Action. All are good uses of an extra back and none really require a “ProBowl” talent to get job done. IMO a quality player here is a luxury.

"You talkin' to me? You TALKIN' to me ?" - Travis Bickle

by CatChief on Jul 28, 2011 7:12 PM CDT up reply actions

I would much rather see the dollars spent on an up grade at OT.

We need OTs who can stand alone without a lot of help and keep Cassel’s uniform clean.

"You talkin' to me? You TALKIN' to me ?" - Travis Bickle

by CatChief on Jul 28, 2011 7:14 PM CDT up reply actions

Options count

My initial inclination was to agree with you but CatChief makes a good point. Offence is all about screwing with the defence and a big back that provides more options has a greater impact than a tackel that is marginally better.

Tackel wise, I would love to see Harris from Denver. He justfits better than the other tackels out there. Keep in mind what the Chiefs want to do is keep the defence of ballance. You don’t want a road grader RT if that’s your plan. Also, would rather have a pass-protect specialist to back up either side. Believe Harris is the best option out there. I do not want O’Cal back. His feet are to slow for the 2011 KC offence.

by Linc15 on Jul 28, 2011 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions

That's the way most folks see it, Linc15.

My (minority) opinion is that I’d rather have a GOOD FB behind a GREAT OT than have a GREAT FB behind a poor OT.

The trouble with splitting hairs on good-versus-great at OT is that it takes a great one to make a difference, and a good one really isn’t much good. A good OT is like a dog who comes on command SOME of the time. If you can’t count on him coming and heeling ALL the time, you must ALWAYS keep him tethered. In the OT sense, if you SOMEtimes need to give him help, then you pretty much can’t count on him EVER.

would of ≠ would've

by hmills110 on Jul 30, 2011 2:37 AM CDT up reply actions

I believe that the Chiefs seen an opportunity in the draft to upgrade the FB position,

with Bannon, or they could of rolled the dice and hoping another team would’nt draft him. It could quite possibilly be Bannons job to lose.

by gregorychief on Jul 28, 2011 10:22 AM CDT reply actions

I think you almost have to get McClain if he's available

He’s a very good thumper / blocker, but beyond that he has good hands on short routes and is also a solid and reliable up the gut sort of runner when called on.

Charles isn’t made for those runs.

Jones really isn’t either. He’s more of an off-tackle guy. Straight up the gut isn’t really his forte either, he’s just a better fit than charles for that.

McClain is a guy who can drag a tackler after getting hit for that extra yard or two to move the chains. We sorely lacked that ability last year.

Look how great Tolbert was for SD. That’s something we could really use.

Chiefs - back in the playoffs in 2011.

by TRSChief on Jul 28, 2011 11:16 AM CDT reply actions

I agree...

McClain nearly had a 1000 yard season when the Ravens were actually giving him the ball averaging 4 yards a carry. McClain kills two birds with one stone by being that lead blocker and power back. Not to mention fullbacks don’t get paid that much so we should be able to do this easy. I’m thinking 3 million a year would get it done.

by Crown Chief on Jul 28, 2011 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions

what about McClain blocking for TJ?

isn’t that what FB’s traditionally do?

Winner: 2009 Nostradamus of Arrowhead Pride Award
"I shall conquer untruth by truth" - Mahatma Gandhi
"It's always easier to sell 'em some shit than it is to give 'em the truth" - Shel Silverstein, The Perfect High
hi, Mo! 5 minutes!!!

by upamtn on Jul 28, 2011 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions

Certainly didn't rule that out at all.

Just tossing it out there that Haley wanted TJ to shed a bit more weight. And again, with the Bears and the Jets his forte was running off-tackle more than HB Dives up the gut.

With McClain we’d have a guy who can pave the way for TJ / Charles, or be relied upon to muscle out some yards himself. More options is always better.

Chiefs - back in the playoffs in 2011.

by TRSChief on Jul 28, 2011 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions

I think Jackie Battle was our "drag people for an extra yard or two" talent, although he wasn't used much.

The deal with him is his all-around play. He looks like a guy who wants the ball, but maybe isn’t so good helping others when he doesn’t get it.

would of ≠ would've

by hmills110 on Jul 28, 2011 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions

Only room for one

I agree but this years offence looks to be built differently. (Sorry to repeat myself) I think KC will attack short yardage like the Pats now and there will only be roster space for one big back. Probably one who can play HB or FB. How about Tolbert from San Diego? Those guys with big bellies are hard to wrap up and also make a perfect change-of-pace for Charles.

Which big back(s) do you expect to see this year?

by Linc15 on Jul 28, 2011 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions

Pioli really likes those 'tweener guys with crossover abilities.

You can carry quite a few without paying any of ‘em huge money, and you just emphasize the part of their game that gives the best mismatch, or emphasize the particular ’tweener who enjoys the mismatch you’re looking for in your gameplan.

I’m trying to remember Tolbert as a blocker. Can’t, really. Definitely a beast with the ball, but that big-bellied guy MUST be a beastly blocker and solid pass-catcher. All-around play is critical. Being a great runner is great, but winning football requires the whole package more than greatness at any one thing, and, to me, running threats from that big boy is more a situational and play-mix thing. You get positive yards out of your big man largely due to the surprise value. And even if you’re close to optimum success with the guy, his YPC may never impress, until you look at the percentage of 1st downs.

Re-watching the SFO game, again, and McCluster is lookin’ like a money player. Nice catch and run by Castille, when McCluster plays decoy the other direction after a big McCluster play the previous down. That play right there is why I like what Castille brings to an otherwise complete team.

would of ≠ would've

by hmills110 on Jul 28, 2011 6:59 PM CDT up reply actions

You started with "Chiefs don't run that way," and I was going to say "Well, they DIDN'T, but..." ...

… and then later on, you start saying “Maybe they SHOULD run more pro set.” So you pretty much covered my “but,” which doesn’t mean what it sounds like, if read aloud.

Based on what I saw last year, I can see Haley wanting to head in that direction, but maybe couldn’t last year, because they didn’t quite have the right personnel.

Personally, I like the 2-back offenses, because you threaten to overload either side of the field, and, as people have pointed out with Wiegs-versus-Garay, that small, quick C that you love most of the time can get run over by a fair number off monster defensive tackles. Add an extra 260 pounds, with a head of steam on, to that equation, it’s 300-some pounds against 500-some pounds. That 260-pounder looks pretty good helping against the bull rush on passing plays.

would of ≠ would've

by hmills110 on Jul 28, 2011 2:48 PM CDT reply actions