Eagles Screwed Up This FB Thing

I generally don't like to post this kind of thing heading into a big game, but a couple times already this season I've held off on writing predictions that quickly came to pass in the games.  So I'm getting this on the record.

I watched at least some part of every game in the league yesterday.  Literally.  With the Eagles not on, I turned on the game mix channel, pulled my chair within five feet of the television, and watched a league's worth of football.  Then I started to get a headache.

But anyway, I was struck yesterday by the number of plays made leaguewide by fullbacks.  Turns out those guys are actually kind of useful to an offense.  I know.  Who knew?

I was also struck by just how big fullbacks -- real fullbacks -- are.  These guys go 245 pounds.  And when they block a linebacker, they don't have to try to get tricky by taking him low or screening him out, they just knock the guy on his can. 

Yet the Eagles, who have one of the top three running backs in the league, clearly think fullbacks are fungible, staffing the position with a rotating collection of low draft picks, rookie free agents and practice squadders. 

Oh, and a "converted" halfback. 

Now, I realize the Eagles don't run that often with a fullback lead blocking anyway.  But still, for the times you do it every game -- especially down by the goal line, where having the extra man is pretty critical -- why not have a real fullback available to call on?

Remember back to 2003, when the Eagles had the three-headed monster?  Was it necessarily a coincidence that that was the year the Eagles had their best fullback of the Andy Reid era?

This is going to come back to the bite the Eagles at some point this year.  And there's no way Tony Hunt is the starting FB next year.

- - - - - -

Final note:  I don't think the argument that the Eagles tried to address the fullback position this offseason holds much water.  The guys they brought in (and then mostly cut) were a practice squadder, a rookie free agent, a career special teamer, a converted DT and a sometimes H-back.  Pretty sure they could have found someone with a bit more experience out there.

Comments

[BFH]

Hey Derek -- I think it's a little premature to declare this experiment a failure.

Yes, the idea to experiment might have been born out of necessity (our "real" fullbacks sucked), but wait and see how the short yardage and red zone offense pans out over a longer period of time.

[Hobbit]

We had a chance to get a "real" fullback in last year's draft (the kid from West Virginia). The Eagles, and most fans, didn't consider that position all that important for us, so we took another DT instead. IMHO you need top players at each of the 11 starting offensive (and defensive) positions...we'll eventually pay the price for overlooking that need and trying to fill the position with someone not ideal for it.

[Jamie]

When the Eagles go FB at the goal line they have used Klecko. I like the formation flexibility you get with Hunt as the FB in 2 back sets. It gives you a credible running thread if you split out Westbrook or Booker as a WR and keep Hunt in the backfield as a single back.

[Derek]

I'm emphatically not saying they should have ditched Tony Hunt. But he's not a fullback.

[Coatesvillain]

I still can't help but feel that they were resigned to cutting Tony Hunt. He performed well and they had to find a spot for him and it just happened that FB was our weak spot. Best case scenario is Hunt turns into a Greg Jones type but it took years for Jones to become the player he is.

I'm forced to side with Derek here because I remember I was gungho for the Klecko at FB project and I see how wrong I was.

I really wonder why Josh Parry was never brought back. I still think it's weird that they traded him the one year he looked competent in run blocking.

[Michael]

Ummm... does Dan Klecko getting a false start on 1st and Goal at the 1 count as "coming back to bite"? He was moving forward at the snap -- because he's a DT who doesn't know the rules.