Nate Byham As Our WCO Fullback?

Originally posted by FLYPxSYDE:

Originally posted by frenchtoast:
I completely agree that Sopoaga should be used at FB inside the 5 yard line. Contrary to what the haters say about Soap, he had an excellent year. He is death against the run and the role of DE in Manusky's defense was not to rush the passer but to stop the run. He did that and still had 2 sacks (Franklin went through the season without a single sack).

In high school, Soap played FB at 285 lbs. He is an outstanding rugby player and can dunk a basketball which gives a clue as to his athletic ability. He is used to handling the ball. Finally, Soap is also the fastest defensive lineman off the ball. I know MacDonald fans will disagree but Tomsula timed all of the defensive linemen and Soap proved to be the fastest. He will be exciting at FB in the Red Zone.

As to Byham at FB, no way. Did the guy who started this topic EVER see the great Niner WCO in action? Roger Craig was the ideal FB. Big, fast, great blocker and excellent hands. Byham couldn't carry his jock. Dixon has promise and could be coached to be an excellent WCO FB.

Boy, it 's good to have a REAL coach and to be able to look toward next season with REAL confidence.

That could work too, I remember Soap saying he wanted to be on offense more. Why not as a full time FB if we can find a stud DT or DE in the draft?

That would be so much fun to watch.....a d-lineman getting a chance to put the boom down on some linebackers.

how bout we draft a FB or sign one and not change any more peoples positions on this team.

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by Need4Speed:

Originally posted by frenchtoast:


Did the guy who started this topic EVER see the great Niner WCO in action? Roger Craig was the ideal FB. Big, fast, great blocker and excellent hands. Byham couldn't carry his jock. Dixon has promise and could be coached to be an excellent WCO FB.

Boy, it 's good to have a REAL coach and to be able to look toward next season with REAL confidence.

What?

Look Holmes Roger was an okay fullback not a great one like Rathman. Roger was an amazing halfback. Roger was the first halfback that ran and received for 1000 yards in a season and should be in the hall of Fame. As a halfback or running back he did not set any kind of example as a Fullback.

Before you post again do me a favor and read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Craig_(American_football)

Then watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6lLg2CFqkQ

after that you can post thoughts about Roger Craig again.

Umm... Craig made the Pro Bowl as a fullback.

He made the Pro Bowl because he was a FB that was used offensively. But he was nothing near the blocker that Rath was. Truly he was by far better as a Half back and is being considered as a Hall of Famer there not because he was a RB playing FB.

Originally posted by Need4Speed:


He made the Pro Bowl because he was a FB that was used offensively. But he was nothing near the blocker that Rath was. Truly he was by far better as a Half back and is being considered as a Hall of Famer there not because he was a RB playing FB.

My point is that there are different types of fullbacks. Some are great lead blockers and others are not.

Your post was extremely rude and also factually incorrect.

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by Need4Speed:


He made the Pro Bowl because he was a FB that was used offensively. But he was nothing near the blocker that Rath was. Truly he was by far better as a Half back and is being considered as a Hall of Famer there not because he was a RB playing FB.

My point is that there are different types of fullbacks. Some are great lead blockers and others are not.

Your post was extremely rude and also factually incorrect.

Man I'm sorry I wasn't trying to hurt anyones feelings. I just saw him as a second tailback when he played fullback I mean he nearly went 1000x2 as a FB.

I get what your saying..... IMO though the combo of a great lead blocker that could catch, was much better than a great receiver, runner that could block alright.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
He's a great H-back, but we should look to add a speedier factor in a RB/FB hybrid like Stanley Havili. Ideally, I'd want a Larry Centers type of FB.

It's (RB/FB hybrids) becoming a strong trend in this league with the success we've seen in players such as Jacob Hester, Mike Tolbert, Brian Leonard, John Kuhn, LeRon McClain, Peyton Hillis (he started as a fullback), Ernest Graham, (even Michael Robinson to an extent) and many others.

I think a rotation of Byham and a guy like Havili would work tremendously.

Jason Snelling is another guy. I am pretty sure he started out as the fullback but when Turner and Norwood got hurt a year ago, Snelling came in and was their running back. He is a good pass catcher too.

Originally posted by 49ersRednGold:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
He's a great H-back, but we should look to add a speedier factor in a RB/FB hybrid like Stanley Havili. Ideally, I'd want a Larry Centers type of FB.

It's (RB/FB hybrids) becoming a strong trend in this league with the success we've seen in players such as Jacob Hester, Mike Tolbert, Brian Leonard, John Kuhn, LeRon McClain, Peyton Hillis (he started as a fullback), Ernest Graham, (even Michael Robinson to an extent) and many others.

I think a rotation of Byham and a guy like Havili would work tremendously.

Jason Snelling is another guy. I am pretty sure he started out as the fullback but when Turner and Norwood got hurt a year ago, Snelling came in and was their running back. He is a good pass catcher too.

All of these people are not FB's though. THey are former FB's that are being used as running backs.

These are not guys running as a lead backer like Alstot did. This are backs who are getting a chance to run and having a second back who now is the FB block for them. Or they are running a single back.

So are you guys thinking you want a big back like these hybrid backs or you talking about an actual Fullback who's primary role is blocking but is a passing option out of the backfield?

I mean blocking and occasion dumb off a guy like Bynam is fine. He has the knack for lead blocking IMO which is the primary need, his ball skills are fine. he is not going to win alot of foot races but Rathman didn't either.

Originally posted by Need4Speed:

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by Need4Speed:


He made the Pro Bowl because he was a FB that was used offensively. But he was nothing near the blocker that Rath was. Truly he was by far better as a Half back and is being considered as a Hall of Famer there not because he was a RB playing FB.

My point is that there are different types of fullbacks. Some are great lead blockers and others are not.

Your post was extremely rude and also factually incorrect.

Man I'm sorry I wasn't trying to hurt anyones feelings. I just saw him as a second tailback when he played fullback I mean he nearly went 1000x2 as a FB.

I get what your saying..... IMO though the combo of a great lead blocker that could catch, was much better than a great receiver, runner that could block alright.

No big deal. Just try to keep conversation civil.

Yeah, I get your point, too. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't need to worry about our fullback not being able to lead block. Jim Harbaugh used a blocking fullback at Stanford and we do happen to have the best WCO fullback of all time coaching our running backs.

You still need your fullback to be a running threat, IMO. Not the #1 priority, but it gives your offense another dimension and a weapon that the defensive coordinator and defenders have to account for. This is all in a perfect world of course.

As long as the fullback can do more than Moran Norris.

fullbacks are being phased out of today's game. We can get by just fine with d. walker lining up in the backfield once in a while as a TE/WR/H-back/fullback. For goalline situations, you can throw ice in there as well.

Originally posted by Need4Speed:

Originally posted by 49ersRednGold:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
He's a great H-back, but we should look to add a speedier factor in a RB/FB hybrid like Stanley Havili. Ideally, I'd want a Larry Centers type of FB.

It's (RB/FB hybrids) becoming a strong trend in this league with the success we've seen in players such as Jacob Hester, Mike Tolbert, Brian Leonard, John Kuhn, LeRon McClain, Peyton Hillis (he started as a fullback), Ernest Graham, (even Michael Robinson to an extent) and many others.

I think a rotation of Byham and a guy like Havili would work tremendously.

Jason Snelling is another guy. I am pretty sure he started out as the fullback but when Turner and Norwood got hurt a year ago, Snelling came in and was their running back. He is a good pass catcher too.

All of these people are not FB's though. THey are former FB's that are being used as running backs.

These are not guys running as a lead backer like Alstot did. This are backs who are getting a chance to run and having a second back who now is the FB block for them. Or they are running a single back.

So are you guys thinking you want a big back like these hybrid backs or you talking about an actual Fullback who's primary role is blocking but is a passing option out of the backfield?

I mean blocking and occasion dumb off a guy like Bynam is fine. He has the knack for lead blocking IMO which is the primary need, his ball skills are fine. he is not going to win alot of foot races but Rathman didn't either.

The fullback position is nearly extinct in the modern NFL. There are only a few teams that use them regularly. Most teams opt for a big running back that can block and catch because it gives the team more options within that personnel package. Also, it saves a roster spot... bonus, right?

Nate Byham isn't really a fullback. As has been mentioned, he's an "H-back", which is a hybrid tight end position created by Joe Gibbs for his two tight end sets (IIRC). Norv Turner calls the position "F-back", but it's the same thing. The H-back lines up off the tackle, in the backfield, or in the slot traditionally. You'll see them line up wide, but they are usually motioned back into the slot or tight end position.

All of our tight ends are actually H-backs. Over the past several seasons we have used a variety of formations and a lot of motion with our tight ends. Both Vernon Davis and Delanie Walker are capable of lining up at wide receiver and running plays from that position. Delanie Walker was a wide receiver in college when we drafted him. Nate Byham does not have the speed or quickness for this, but like I mentioned, he is an H-back and does line up there, but normally motions back inside as a blocker. All three line up at tight end and in the backfield at times.

So, basically what I'm saying is that all of our tight ends can do what you want from the fullback position... plus a lot more. The thing they lack is the ability to run the ball. So, considering the fact that we are going to need another running back on the roster anyway, why not add one that can lead block and catch? Either that or just have Rathman teach Dixon to lead block and add a "scat back" for a change of pace.

Lots of options and I have no idea what Harbaugh will want to do. Hell, the guy lined up in formations with seven linemen at Stanford. Hmm... Joe Staley was a tight end in college that transitioned to tackle. He's probably slower than when we drafted him, but he did run a 4.7 40 at his Pro Day. Hehe... tackle eligible....

Damn, it's going to be a long offseason.

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by Need4Speed:

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by Need4Speed:


He made the Pro Bowl because he was a FB that was used offensively. But he was nothing near the blocker that Rath was. Truly he was by far better as a Half back and is being considered as a Hall of Famer there not because he was a RB playing FB.

My point is that there are different types of fullbacks. Some are great lead blockers and others are not.

Your post was extremely rude and also factually incorrect.

Man I'm sorry I wasn't trying to hurt anyones feelings. I just saw him as a second tailback when he played fullback I mean he nearly went 1000x2 as a FB.

I get what your saying..... IMO though the combo of a great lead blocker that could catch, was much better than a great receiver, runner that could block alright.

No big deal. Just try to keep conversation civil.

Yeah, I get your point, too. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't need to worry about our fullback not being able to lead block. Jim Harbaugh used a blocking fullback at Stanford and we do happen to have the best WCO fullback of all time coaching our running backs.

You still need your fullback to be a running threat, IMO. Not the #1 priority, but it gives your offense another dimension and a weapon that the defensive coordinator and defenders have to account for. This is all in a perfect world of course.

As long as the fullback can do more than Moran Norris.

Yeah this is the meat of our difference, priorty of skills in a Fullback.

If I get you right your saying
1. Blocking
2. Receiving
3. Running

But can't be so good at #1 that we ignore #2 and #3. I could go that way I do love the added dimension of a FB who can run a bit. You think Dixon could do that, He doesn't seem run that tough IMO but he definitely has some skills?

Originally posted by Need4Speed:

Yeah this is the meat of our difference, priorty of skills in a Fullback.

If I get you right your saying
1. Blocking
2. Receiving
3. Running

But can't be so good at #1 that we ignore #2 and #3. I could go that way I do love the added dimension of a FB who can run a bit. You think Dixon could do that, He doesn't seem run that tough IMO but he definitely has some skills?

Well, it all depends on the offensive coordinator and personnel.

The Falcons use Ovie Mughelli as a blocking fullback, but also use Jason Snelling as both a halfback and WCO style fullback. They are built around the run.

The Eagles don't use a fullback at all, IIRC. They use Owen Schmitt as an h-back. They are built around the pass.

What I was pointing out is that a traditional WCO fullback should possess all three of the listed skills. The order of importance is dependent on the offensive scheme... or the scheme is built around the strengths of the player. The WCO has many variations and it's not as simple as it once was.

I don't know for sure about Dixon right now. I know he can run with power, but he thinks too much, IMO. He's trying too hard to make things happen, so he hesitates while trying to find a running lane. He's a rookie, so only time will tell if he'll learn. From what I've seen, he is a good receiver. I haven't seen much, though. The biggest question would be whether or not he can learn to lead block. I honestly have no idea. He's a project at this point, so we'll just have to wait and see what Harbaugh wants to do with him.

Really, I just wanted to point out the difference between an h-back and a WCO fullback.

Moran Norris is neither. He's strictly a lead blocker... and not a really good one, IMO.

This is going to be a long offseason. I have no idea what Harbaugh is going to do with this offense. The suspense... it is killing me.

Originally posted by Need4Speed:

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by Need4Speed:

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by Need4Speed:


He made the Pro Bowl because he was a FB that was used offensively. But he was nothing near the blocker that Rath was. Truly he was by far better as a Half back and is being considered as a Hall of Famer there not because he was a RB playing FB.

My point is that there are different types of fullbacks. Some are great lead blockers and others are not.

Your post was extremely rude and also factually incorrect.

Man I'm sorry I wasn't trying to hurt anyones feelings. I just saw him as a second tailback when he played fullback I mean he nearly went 1000x2 as a FB.

I get what your saying..... IMO though the combo of a great lead blocker that could catch, was much better than a great receiver, runner that could block alright.

No big deal. Just try to keep conversation civil.

Yeah, I get your point, too. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't need to worry about our fullback not being able to lead block. Jim Harbaugh used a blocking fullback at Stanford and we do happen to have the best WCO fullback of all time coaching our running backs.

You still need your fullback to be a running threat, IMO. Not the #1 priority, but it gives your offense another dimension and a weapon that the defensive coordinator and defenders have to account for. This is all in a perfect world of course.

As long as the fullback can do more than Moran Norris.

Yeah this is the meat of our difference, priorty of skills in a Fullback.

If I get you right your saying
1. Blocking
2. Receiving
3. Running

But can't be so good at #1 that we ignore #2 and #3. I could go that way I do love the added dimension of a FB who can run a bit. You think Dixon could do that, He doesn't seem run that tough IMO but he definitely has some skills?

From the articles from one of the beat writers during the year, I forget which writer, he broke down the formations and success of the play. To comment on the priority of the skills of a Fullback, our run game actually had a lot of success whenever Byham set in at FB or as one of the TE's. I have a feeling Harbaugh will look for a "better" FB due to his philosophical thinking of the importance of that position but I also think he will find what he's looking for in Byham if Byham is given a fair chance to show what he can do.

We have new position coaches at almost every position, so this means there may be a lot more changes at some positions that we think if their evaluation differs from what our former coaches thought of the personnel.