Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Watch Out For Cowboys UDFA Tim Benford

The Curious Case of the Georgia Bulldogs' Incredible Disappearing Fullbacks

When you get right down to it, I like 50-yard field goals, rock-ribbed defensive stops for no gain, and running it between the tackles out of the I formation. Consequently, I like fullbacks, which is one of the reasons I like Mark Richt.

During Coach Richt’s tenure in the Classic City, after all, we have seen some of the finest fullbacks ever to suit up for the Georgia Bulldogs. Verron Haynes. J.T. Wall. Jeremy Thomas. Brannan Southerland. Shaun Chapas. Mention one of these damn good ‘Dawgs while standing in the presence of a handful of Georgia fans, and I can just about guarantee that one of them will rock back slightly on his heels and utter gutturally the nomenclature of the fullback in question as a show of respect, knowing nothing more needs to be said.

Just as the mark of a hot actress is the inability of the average American male to pronounce her surname without emphasizing how hot she is (e.g., Salma Hi-yak, Tia Carayr, Kristin Kreeeughk), so too is the mark of a good fullback the inability of the average fan to refer to the player other than reverently, identifying him resonantly while speaking deeply from the diaphragm. That’s how we honor fullbacks for not acting harried on short-yardage carries; we say their names, say their names. Accordingly, I feel moved to inquire, what in the world has happened to Georgia at the fullback spot?

Star-divide

Don’t get me wrong; I am in no way disrespecting the young men listed on the Red and Black roster as fullbacks---senior Bruce Figgins; sophomores Alexander Ogletree, Dustin Royston, and Drew Wilson; and freshmen Merritt Hall and Greg Mulkey---but I have some questions concerning the use that has been made of them as ballcarriers in 2011.

First, though, a bit of context is in order. Consider the good use Coach Richt’s clubs previously made of the fullback as a ballcarrier:

Year Player Att. Yds. TD
2001 Verron Haynes 26 132 3
2002 J.T. Wall 30 149 3
2003 Jeremy Thomas 24 62 2
2004 Jeremy Thomas 7 11 0
2005 Brannan Southerland 18 25 3
2006 Brannan Southerland 46 120 8
2007 Brannan Southerland 17 24 5
2008 Shaun Chapas 7 25 0
2009 Shaun Chapas 7 45 1
2010 Shaun Chapas 15 44 2

Note: In 2001, Haynes started four games at fullback and four games at tailback. The above statistics reflect only Haynes’s numbers from the first six games of the 2001 season, and do not include his numbers beginning with his first start at running back in the seventh game of the season.

Under Coach Richt, the Bulldog fullbacks rarely have had high yards-per-carry averages, but their production has been significant; the few yards they have tallied have generated a disproportionate degree of first downs and touchdowns. These numbers generally have been in decline in recent years, but this is not due to a lack of talent at the position, as Shaun Chapas was a seventh-round draft pick of the Dallas Cowboys, for whom he started for the first time in their December 4 game against the Arizona Cardinals.

In spite of the overall downward trend, however, this has been the worst year yet for fullback production. Between them, the Bulldogs’ half-dozen fullbacks have combined for just two total carries in 2011. Through 13 games, the Classic City Canines’ fullbacks between them have five fewer rushing attempts than they have pass receptions.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Zander Ogletree, who has appeared in all 13 games yet started only one, has toted the rock twice this autumn, once each in the season’s last two games, against the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets and the LSU Tigers. Ogletree collected 24 yards in the process. No other Georgia fullback has taken a handoff this fall. Bruce Figgins, despite starting eight games, has seven catches for 96 yards and one score, but he has no rushing attempts, nor do the other four Bulldogs listed at the position.

In 2011, no Red and Black fullback has scored a touchdown on a running play.

In 2011, no Red and Black fullback has been credited with a carry between the hedges.

Has that ever happened before? (Bear in mind that, over the course of the last four seasons, Fred Munzenmaier had a combined 28 carries for 68 yards and four touchdowns, despite starting only four games during that span.) Unless Figgins, Ogletree, or one of their coevals finds the end zone in the Outback Bowl, 2011 will be just the second year of the Mark Richt era, and the first since 2004, in which no Georgia fullback scores a rushing touchdown.

Strictly speaking, of course, there were four games this year in which there was no starting fullback for Georgia, as the ‘Dawgs opened in three-wide receiver sets against the Boise St. Broncos, the Mississippi St. Bulldogs, and the Florida Gators, and in a two-tight end set against the aforementioned Louisiana State Bayou Bengals. Even so, though, that seems like a serious underutilization of a position the Athenians employed to such good effect during the decade preceding this season.

Consider, for instance, the frequency with which fullbacks previously got the ball on third- or fourth-and-short, a maneuver which resulted in a first down agreeably often. Indeed, both fullback carries this season were in that situation: Ogletree ran the ball on third and two in the third quarter of the Georgia Tech game and on third and one in the second quarter of the SEC Championship Game, and he moved the chains both times. How many times did we see that happen in the first ten years of the Mark Richt era?

Perhaps the Georgia coaching staff thought it unnecessary to use the fullback in this manner, and perhaps the Georgia coach staff was right; after all, the Bulldogs’ third- and fourth-down conversion percentages both increased between 2010 and 2011. Last year, the Red and Black moved the chains 40.5 per cent of the time on third down (66 of 163) and 53.3 per cent of the time on fourth down (8 of 15). This year, the Classic City Canines picked up the requisite yardage on 43.5 per cent of their third-down plays (87 of 200) and on 57.9 per cent of their fourth-down attempts (11 of 19). (Please note that the ‘Dawgs went for it on fourth down more frequently in 2011 than in 2010; maybe Coach Richt is attentive to constructive criticisms.)

While the conversion percentages were up, though, Georgia only barely finished in the top half of the league in rushing offense this autumn, despite fielding SEC freshman of the year Isaiah Crowell. The Bulldogs’ 172.7 yards per game on the ground were good enough only for fifth-best in the SEC, and, had the Red and Black managed just 5.2 fewer rushing yards per contest, they’d have finished eighth in the conference in that category. A few fullback carries might have improved those figures.

Such speculation aside, however, the trend remains clear. Barring an unthinkable breakout game by Zander Ogletree against the Michigan St. Spartans, 2011 will be the fifth straight season in which no Georgia fullback accrues more than 17 carries or more than 45 yards. Unless Ogletree gets the campaign’s third carry and nets at least six feet of forward progress in Tampa, this will be the third autumn in the last five years in which the leading ground-gainer among Bulldog fullbacks amasses no more than 25 rushing yards. Likewise, this appears destined to be the fourth straight autumn in which the Red and Black’s top fullback finishes with no more than five touchdowns, and it seems likely to be the third straight in which the team’s leading blocking back ends up with no more than one rushing score to his credit.

What, then, are we to conclude? Is the fullback simply an anachronism who has no place in the revamped up-tempo Bulldog offense of 2011? Does the play-calling simply reflect the personnel present in the Classic City in the current day, given the talents of Aaron Murray and the multitude of pass-catching weapons (including Bruce Figgins) at Mike Bobo’s disposal? Is the need to use the fullback as a blocker rather than a ballcarrier reflective of the thinness of the offensive line and the inexperience of the tailback rotation, or is a potentially worthwhile element of the arsenal going unused? Let me know below.

Go ‘Dawgs!

Comment 43 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I mean no disrespect to our current fullbacks...

…but I miss Brannan Southerland. When he was around, third-and-short or anything within 2 yards of the goal line was a gimme.

Part of the difference may be that we just aren’t in third-and-short situations all that often. According to cfbstats.com, we only had 53 attempts on third-and-short in 13 games this year. That’s really only 4 attempts per game. I’m sure it won’t surprise anyone that Coach Bobo the Balanced opted to run about 54.7% of the time. That means that we only had 29 rushing attempts on third-and-short. Since we had the Intravenous, who’s just huge, and SEC Freshman of the Year Isaiah Crowell in the line-up, it probably isn’t too much of a surprise that the fullbacks didn’t get many touches.

(For what it’s worth, we actually converted slightly more often on third-and-short when we passed than when we ran. Make of that what you will.)

One of the authors at DawgSports.com
I am the 99% of Americans who love college football

by Spears on Dec 16, 2011 12:24 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

dios mio.

For the last sentence – you would have to take out cupcakes and the games we basically had no RBs.

Editor, "Dawgsports"

"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker

by tankertoad on Dec 16, 2011 12:32 PM EST up reply actions  

The FB I miss...

is Mack Strong. Most underrated FB of the last 20 years, college or pro. Plus, he has the best name of any FB, ever. Mack Strong.

http://sportsandgrits.com/

by Mr. Sanchez on Dec 16, 2011 3:22 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Southerland was great! I think Richard Samuel would be great.

I know Mark Richt said that he would only consider it if Richard asked or pleaded with him, but could you imagine Samuel and Crowell or Marshall back there at the same time? Give a quick handoff to Samuel on 1st or 2nd down when the D isn’t expecting it. It might go for 50 yards.

Use him like Tech uses their B back.

He could also drop back into the RB spot. He doesn’t have to be full time fullback. He is a smart young man and can do both. With his size, it might increase his NFL opportunity.

Finally, Mike Bobo, please give Bruce Figgins one carry in the Bowl game. Reward him for his hard work and sacrifice. Show him some love and loyalty. PLEASE!

by DawgNation on Dec 20, 2011 10:44 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

not to threadjack this thing before it gets started

But I find it interesting that fullbacks are a lost position in all-whatever teams. Fullbacks aren’t really considered RBs anymore (in a pro style offense) and the mythical two back All-American backfield usually has two tailbacks. I just find it interesting.

On that note, when we compile the all time great QBs for UGA, do when include Sinkwhich and Trippi. Techinically they were tailbacks in that system. Or are they a part of our great tailback legacy?

by Mark Mandingo on Dec 16, 2011 12:30 PM EST via mobile reply actions  

Correct me if I'm mistaken...

… but Sinkwich and Trippi played the halfback/tailback position in the Single Wing offense. The single-wing is a lot like we think of the wildcat formation today… the ball is snapped directly to the ball-carrier.

So, in Sinkwich and Trippi’s day, the ball was usually snapped directly to the HB, and the QB position was actually more of a blocking back… sort of like having two fullbacks in the backfield to block.

As a result, it’s appropriate to list Sinkwich and Trippi and halfbacks or tailbacks, even though they did receive the snap and pass the ball some during their careers.

Editor, Dawg Sports.

Go Dawgs!

by vineyarddawg on Dec 16, 2011 1:31 PM EST up reply actions  

it all depends on the point of view

They were tailbacks in that system because that was the single wing definition of a tailback. Technically, a shotgun QB is a tailback in the 1942 sense. Both actually had slightly more (very slightly) passing yards in college than rushing yards. So in today’s terms, which are they really? I don’t have an answer, I just think its an interesting debate. How do you define a QB? I’m pretty sure in the single wing that the QB was still the signal caller. Is that the difference?

by Mark Mandingo on Dec 16, 2011 2:34 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Tailbacks are called tailbacks because of their position on the field.

If you see this Wikipedia-provided picture of a single-wing formation:

(Note that the Center is close to the left of the picture, and not in the actual center of the formation. The tailback is lined up almost directly behind center.)

The tailback is the offensive back that is furthest away from the ball… at the “tail end” of the formation. The quarterback is so-named because he was, historically, a quarter of the way as far back as the tailback.

But if you want to go all football-history about it, the earliest formations and terminology had the quarterback lining up a quarter of the way back, halfbacks (typically two) lining up half the way back, and fullbacks lined up all the way at the back of the offensive formation.

Then, when switching over to defense (everybody played both ways in those days, and substitutions were not allowed on every play), everybody played their corresponding position on defense. The offensive linemen became defensive linemen, the fullback became your defensive back/safety, and the quarterback and halfbacks became linebackers.

Then, as still happens today, when formations changed, some teams changed the name of the positions to fit their actual role on the field. Hence, “tailback” instead of “halfback” in the Single-Wing and variant offenses.

Editor, Dawg Sports.

Go Dawgs!

by vineyarddawg on Dec 16, 2011 4:56 PM EST up reply actions  

right

I’m not arguing the fact that they were tailbacks in their system. I guess what I’m saying is that by most of today’s definition of a QB (except signal calling), they fit the bill better than the actual QB of a single wing formation. If you were to go back, grab Wally Butts out of pre Rauch UGA football, and bring him to 2007, he’d say Tebow is a tailback. But by today’s definition are they more QBs or TBs and what makes it so.

by Mark Mandingo on Dec 16, 2011 5:08 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Well, sure...

… but only because terminology shifts along with changes in the game over the years.

The tailback was generally the offensive captain on the field and he directly received most of the snaps, so in that sense he was a lot like what we would today call a quarterback. But his position back then was called tailback.

Rather than confuse the masses who don’t really care about those kind of differences, most football historians choose to use the same terminology that was used in the historical period in which the player was playing. So, by that convention, Sinkwich and Trippi would be called tailbacks.

It’s not incorrect to also refer to them as “Single-wing quarterbacks,” though, if you’re using modern terminology to refer to that offense.

Editor, Dawg Sports.

Go Dawgs!

by vineyarddawg on Dec 16, 2011 5:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Not to complicate matters further, . . .

. . . but, following the loss of Georgia’s entire 1942 national championship team to the armed forces for World War II, the Bulldogs were left with freshmen too young to be drafted and upperclassmen declared 4-F and physically unfit to serve for the 1943 season.

It was during the war years that Wally Butts switched to the T-formation, which is what the Bulldogs were running when Charley Trippi returned from the military in the middle of the 1945 season. (Georgia lost the first two games after Trippi’s return while he learned the new offense; after those back-to-back losses, the Bulldogs began what remains to this day the longest winning streak in Red and Black football history.)

Manager, Dawg Sports, SB Nation's Georgia Bulldogs weblog.
Go 'Dawgs!

by T Kyle King on Dec 17, 2011 3:00 PM EST up reply actions  

If you have a FB, it seems you need to give him the ball 2 or 3 times a game.

Just to make the Defense worry that he might have the quick hand-off. That might cause a little more hesitation on the D, and give the speedy RBs a better opportunity.

GO DAWGS!!

by DawgNation on Dec 20, 2011 11:12 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I think this is a good point. If you have a FB, yet never, ever use him, then it doesnt really have much of a point, does it?

It goes back to real play action. If you are under center power I, the idea is I can hand off to one of the two backs, I can run a draw, I can throw to a TE, an out, a slant or a deep ball. Lots of plays from the same look. But Bobo doesnt do that. We pretty much know its CT up the middle from an under center I. The concept of running 20 plays from the same look is critical. And you can’t throw a play action pass when you never had a run in the first place, which we saw a lot of this year. May as well throw out the play action action and stay spread the whole time.

Editor, "Dawgsports"

"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker

by tankertoad on Dec 20, 2011 11:30 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

FBs are losing their place because

they are limited. They are good blockers, and good dump off threats for a QB when others are covered, but they limit you offensively. In a spread, they have no place, and more and more colleges are going to those offenses. But even in pro style or pro sets, they are getting replaced by a 2nd TE. They can give you the power blocking threat of a FB, and the dump off option in the passing game, but also provide a vertical threat that defenses must respect if you have the right 2 TEs.

I’ve known football with a fullback my whole life, but over the last year or two, I’ve much preferred the system without a FB, and using a 2nd TE or H-Back in their sted. Just the mismatches you can create by having say an Orson Charles and Jay Rome on the field at the same time. It’s why I really, really, really wanted to land Nick O’Leary in addition to Rome last year. The headaches those two could cause opposing defensive coordinators for 3-4 years, who would be unlikely to have anyone capable of covering one, let alone both, was mouth watering to me. I’m a huge, huge fan of the 2 TE look and foregoing FBs.

http://sportsandgrits.com/

by Mr. Sanchez on Dec 16, 2011 3:26 PM EST up reply actions   2 recs

I don't disagree

I just think its funny to see two tailbacks on an All-American offense when most often two back sets are a TB and a FB. I’m not saying they should change it, its just odd that we still think of the world in a true 2 running back (running, ball in hand) sense.

by Mark Mandingo on Dec 16, 2011 3:54 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Voting for an All American FB, who wins?

It’s hard to judge a blocking back. That’s why All American, All-SEC, etc teams have two leading rushers and no blocking back.

http://sportsandgrits.com/

by Mr. Sanchez on Dec 16, 2011 4:01 PM EST up reply actions  

well the modern day FB

is more of a receiver than a runner, but my point was that the All American team is running an offense that very few people run. Of course its because ball carriers are more glamourous. But its still not a good representation of today’s offense. I’m not saying they should change it, I’m just wasting time here.

by Mark Mandingo on Dec 16, 2011 5:13 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

"Two and three TE sets are the wave of the future."

(Attributable to every offensive coach I can think of over the last 2-3 years.)

You’re right on the money that coaches are replacing FBs with TEs, and even more right on that the move provides far more threats for defenses to fret.

One of the authors at DawgSports.com
I am the 99% of Americans who love college football

by Spears on Dec 16, 2011 4:04 PM EST up reply actions  

With the increase in those athletes offensively

the 6’4+, 240+, agile, fast, with good hands, it only makes sense to create greater use of the talent available.

http://sportsandgrits.com/

by Mr. Sanchez on Dec 16, 2011 4:16 PM EST up reply actions  

P-44 Haynes is run out of the I formation...

… and a TE in motion would get getting a lot more attention than a FB slipping through the middle, as would a HB, who linebackers and defensive backs are always watching as a matter of habit. The FB position is perfect for a misdirection play like P-44 Haynes, because the whole idea is for him to slip unnoticed through the middle of the line for a wide-open pass.

Editor, Dawg Sports.

Go Dawgs!

by vineyarddawg on Dec 16, 2011 5:28 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Either way, it's dependent on the opposition buying the play action

which can be an Hback shuffling back, a straight FB, etc.

http://sportsandgrits.com/

by Mr. Sanchez on Dec 16, 2011 6:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Everyone knows me to well to know my thoughts,

This decline is in direct correlation of Bobo’s incline as OC. We wasted Figgins. Complete was of talent. You can add in TE in this post as well. So much talent wasted. You have FB stats for carries and yards, but it’s worse – there are so many times when our FBs could have been used to crush the corner to get speed to the outside and we rarely did that as well.

If you talk about FBs or TEs, you are talking about why I can’t stand Bobo as our OC. He didnt play with this talent, doesn’t know how to coach that talent, and doesnt know how to design plays for that talent. The ’Tree Trap that worked so well? Yea, there was some good blocking for sure. It was a good hole. It also caught them off guard, and was a great play. Therefore, we will never call it again. And never used it early in the season.

I am done. If I get involved in this post I will get too upset. So many weapons, so many ways to use them.

Editor, "Dawgsports"

"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker

by tankertoad on Dec 16, 2011 12:40 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

Figgins is a natural TE though...

I think there may be a reason we saw him used as a passing threat and never a ball carrier. My thoughts on him “wasted” are more in line with my 2 TE comments above, and how we never lined him up as a 2nd TE/H-Back to attack the field vertically. He was a pretty good TE and showed the ability to do that early in his career.

We agree there on Bobo though. For a man who played under the late great Wayne McDuffie, and the excessively TE happy Jim Donnan (who had some amazing TE often used in pairs, Jevaris Johnson, Jermaine Wiggins, Randy McMichael, Larry Brown, among others), I’ve been very disappointed in his overall creativity and his usage of the very talented TEs we’ve had.

http://sportsandgrits.com/

by Mr. Sanchez on Dec 16, 2011 3:31 PM EST up reply actions  

not your father's dawgs

Back in the day, we cursed Dooley’s three yards and a cloud of dust tendencies. I think today’s Dogs are infinitely more fun to watch.

Wide-open, pass-first offense can be thrilling, no doubt about it, but on the rare occasion that a bulked-up fullback flat-out runs over an opposing lineman, it ’s a thing of beauty. A well-executed block is almost as satisfying.

I was excited when Figgins made the move to fullback, and puzzled like everyone else that he wasn’t better utilized. Likely was because, as Spears alludes, R. Samuels gave us a fullback like presence until he went down.

I could definitely see Z. Ogletree developing into a more significant weapon. Does he have good hands? It would be nice to see him catch some of those safety valve passes that Southerland executed to such success.

by memphisdawg on Dec 16, 2011 1:12 PM EST reply actions  

Pretty Much Agree

with what you say, except that I actually may have as much fun watching a FB bulldoze over the line for a couple of tough, critical yards as seeing an AJ Green make an acrobat catch for 30. Depends on the situation.

To answer TKK’s last question above, I think we needed the FB to block this year because of the thin O Line but I think that also led to a mindset, or a habit, that caused us to underutilize the FB.

I do hope this tendency is rectified in 2012. I love me some FB and TE grinding it out and wearing them down. And it takes some pressure off the TB. You ask Herschel Walker whether he enjoyed playing alongside Womack and Stewart and if that made a difference for him. Or ask Moreno and Brown if they appreciated having a horse like Southerland as their trenchmate. I’ll bet whatever you want that they’ll sing their buddies’ praises—if they don’t, then they’d have to be as clueless as a QB who fights with his Center.

Anyway…I am decidedly NOT in the “Bobo is a bum” camp, but I do not fathom the habit of handing the ball off to a 5’7" TB, no matter how fast, to attempt to run between tackles for a short yard gain when a beast like Figgins is available, and I hope this changes in 2012.

by Chickasaw on Dec 16, 2011 2:49 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

There is more than one way to skin a cat

Brannan Southerland is my favorite fullback of the Richt era.

UGA scoring offense per season going back as far as I could find (Bobo play calling years bold):

2002: 32.1
2003: 26.5
2004: 27.9
2005: 29.5
2006: 25.2
2007: 32.6
2008: 31.5
2009: 28.9
2010: 32.1
2011: 32.2

The lowest scoring year since 2002 also correlates with the best production by a fullback listed in the chart above. It should also be noted that in recent years as the fullback position has been lessend, Georgia has still found ways to score points.

It should also be pointed out that the every season of the Bobo years of calling the plays has yielded more points per game than Richt years (except 2009…I’m looking at YOU Joe Cox). And at the time, I was against Richt giving up the playcalling duties.

I don’t disagree with your post Kyle. I miss UGA and Bobo incorporating the fullbacks in the offense more. 3rd and short or 3rd and goal used to be a gimmie; now it seems those yardsand situations are hard to convert. I went nuts when Zander Ogletree busted that long run against Tech because that is something we haven’t seen in a long time.

But the Dawgs are still scoring points-more points actually-and that is really the only thing that matters.

www.grittree.wordpress.com

by Corbindawg on Dec 16, 2011 4:11 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

Scoring average doesnt account for intangibles - like going up 17-0 against Auburn and then going to 3 and outs.

It’s also a stat that has Stafford in it (look at 2007, highest average).

You got to throw out cupcakes and blow outs for this data to even start being comparable.

Editor, "Dawgsports"

"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker

by tankertoad on Dec 16, 2011 4:31 PM EST up reply actions  

There are maddening moments

but the overall body of work is strong.

And we played cupcakes and weak teams before the Georgia Tech game in 2006.

www.grittree.wordpress.com

by Corbindawg on Dec 16, 2011 5:05 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

How did I thread jack? I made a point that even though the fullback has been marginalized offensive production has still been strong. Sorry to drag this out over three comments but my phone typing isn’t quick enough to keep pace…

www.grittree.wordpress.com

by Corbindawg on Dec 16, 2011 5:27 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

I am not accusing you, I am stopping myself.

Editor, "Dawgsports"

"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker

by tankertoad on Dec 16, 2011 5:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Fair enough.

www.grittree.wordpress.com

by Corbindawg on Dec 16, 2011 5:30 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

And the 2010-2011 numbers without Stafford and Knowshon are comparable. And so what if there has been more talent on the offense the last few years? He has had better talent and the stats show scored more points scored.

www.grittree.wordpress.com

by Corbindawg on Dec 16, 2011 5:23 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Good points, Corbindawg.

I would, however, add a caveat. Although, obviously, scoring points is the primary purpose of an offense, it is not the sole purpose of an offense. There are times when the best thing an offense can do is run the ball, move the chains, and drain clock. Previously, our utilization of the fullback served that purpose. I question whether we use the fullback equally well now, and I worry that, if we become overly pass-dependent, we will wind up like the Mike Leach-era Texas Tech teams, which simply lacked the ability to grind out yards and eat up clock. We wouldn’t want to see a return to the Eric Zeier years of throwing the ball all over the place but always either scoring quickly or going three-and-out quickly, and, consequently, leaving our defense on the field for too long.

Manager, Dawg Sports, SB Nation's Georgia Bulldogs weblog.
Go 'Dawgs!

by T Kyle King on Dec 17, 2011 3:06 PM EST up reply actions  

My 2 cents

I grew up admiring FBs and TEs. I remember the 49ers of the late 80s with Tom Rathman and Brent Jones. They were such great weapons. Then, in the early 90s the Cowboys had Moose Johnson and Jay Novacek. So teams that can successfully employ these positions always get more respect from me (deservedly so or not).

Regarding this year’s situation and the current trend in football… it does seem at the collegiate level, spreads are making FBs less useful and necessary (especially if your QB is a FB- zing!). And at the pro-level, there are more H-Backs being used than pure FBs.

With the players we had this year, Figgins – more of a H-Back type because of his size and previous playing history and Ogletree – young, slightly undersized guy, it isn’t that surprising that carries went down in the position. But I still think that the position could have been utilized better. There was a pass play (ask the Senator, he posted about it a few times) that we ran with Figgins several times and it was successful every time except 1-2 times (because of a drop). I don’t think we went to that well enough times. Second, with our troubles at RB (TB or whatever you want to call it), I am surprised we didn’t give a few more carries to Ogletree, but maybe they focused on getting his blocking up to par instead of his rushing because of OL issues. But I think probably the biggest reason we saw less out of the FB position is the emergence of the WRs and the strength of our TE group. With King’s experience, Mitchell’s burst and Bennett’s reliability + Charles’ mismatches, I think Bobo and probably Richt felt we put a stronger skill set on the field not using the FB as much. And if they wanted a little more muscle to run the ball, they could sub one of the WRs for a TE.

Finally, I think one place where Kyle kinda missed the mark in his initial post is that with FBs (especially UGA’s FBs), total yards might be a better measure. I don’t care if they get the yards running or receiving as long as they get the necessary yardage. Chapas’ rushing numbers don’t look impressive, but I think his strength was blocking and receiving. Likewise, Southerland also was an effective receiver out of the backfield.

by fotodog on Dec 16, 2011 9:06 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

One more thing...

My dad, a Bama grad, believes they lost to LSU, not because of missed FGs, but because there wasn’t a FB to block for Richardson. He contends that more than once, Bama had the ball in the redzone, only to get pushed back into long FG situations. He feels that everything was put on Richardson’s shoulders and if he would have had a little help (blocking), then first downs and TDs would have followed. I am not saying he is right, because I haven’t seen the whole game, but that is his opinion.

by fotodog on Dec 16, 2011 9:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Good points, fotodog.

Personally, I’ve never understood why you would ever run a tailback between the tackles without the fullback out in front to play the Bandit to the ballcarrier’s Snowman.

Manager, Dawg Sports, SB Nation's Georgia Bulldogs weblog.
Go 'Dawgs!

by T Kyle King on Dec 17, 2011 3:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation community devoted to the Georgia Bulldogs.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Hey-why-so-serious_small
Film Biography Reviews
Small
Another Misrepresented swamp dwelling critter
Small
Out Of Conference Football Scheduling
Beard_47_series_wins_and_42_points_in_2007_small
What Do You Think of the Dawg Sports YouTube Channel?
Small
Hudson Swafford gives the Dawgs...
Der_arch_small
Why Lacrosse Should be UGA's Next Varsity Sport
Small
1983 Sugar Bowl Dixie Beer
Beard_47_series_wins_and_42_points_in_2007_small
2012 NFL Draft Saturday Open Comment Thread
Killface_small
NFL Draft Open Thread, day 2
Stafford_at_the_blackout_small
Why being in the SEC IS the tradition that Georgia should honor most

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Beard_47_series_wins_and_42_points_in_2007_small T Kyle King

017oa_small MaconDawg

Editors

Redstage_small DavetheDawg

Whistling_past_small NCT

434477_small vineyarddawg

Layfield_logo_small RedCrake

Hey-why-so-serious_small tankertoad

Podunkdawg_as_a_child_small podunkdawg

Dawggone_small Ludakit

Authors

28488_443996218101_804558101_5903592_3665419_n_small Spears

Small hailtogeorgia

Killface_small Mr. Sanchez

50questions-accountant_small The Quincy Carter of Accountants