From the reporting over Spring ball - I got the impression that the fullback might not be as prominent as with the Chryst offense. In fact, I think it was Cheney who said something like "If you're going to play a fullback - he better be a good one". Of course -- the use of a FB varies on down & distance, etc - but until the season starts we won't know if we're still a power running team or trending more toward the pass.
I thought Jaymar Parrish was "a good one" last year. At 270ish - he was effective at isolating on LBs, kicking out DEs and even trapping inside DLs. A 270 FB leading a 245 RB can be an awsome comination weapon. Not sure we saw enough of a sample to judge Parrish as a receiving threat.
Seemed like the Spring practice focused on more 3 WR sets. Maybe it was just what the coaches wanted to emphasize at the time. What are Board thoughts on the trade-off between trending toward an unproven 3rd WR vs. a veteran FB/RB combo?
I thought Jaymar Parrish was "a good one" last year. At 270ish - he was effective at isolating on LBs, kicking out DEs and even trapping inside DLs. A 270 FB leading a 245 RB can be an awsome comination weapon. Not sure we saw enough of a sample to judge Parrish as a receiving threat.
Seemed like the Spring practice focused on more 3 WR sets. Maybe it was just what the coaches wanted to emphasize at the time. What are Board thoughts on the trade-off between trending toward an unproven 3rd WR vs. a veteran FB/RB combo?
