Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

How Often did Olsen line up as a Fullback?


Eazy-E

Recommended Posts

I can’t think of any but I could be wrong

I know Dickson is our best blocking TE but he is also filling in as our TE 1. Moving him into the backfield as a FB even on passing plays just seems dumb. Manhertz is just all around trash I’m not even sure why he’s on the roster. Just bring in a pure blocking TE to replace him.

Everytime we move Dickson to fullback I feel like it’s a dead give away to the defense. Offense to predictable/end rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Eazy-E said:

I can’t think of any but I could be wrong

I know Dickson is our best blocking TE but he is also filling in as our TE 1. Moving him into the backfield as a FB even on passing plays just seems dumb. Manhertz is just all around trash I’m not even sure why he’s on the roster. Just bring in a pure blocking TE to replace him.

Everytime we move Dickson to fullback I feel like it’s a dead give away to the defense. Offense to predictable/end rant.

They know its a run when Manhertz or Dickson are in their lining up to block but if we started using both of them in the passing game Defenses want be able to stack the box on run with threat of receiving TE off the run formation. 

Stop doing 1st down and run up the middle and instead hit them with slants / drags by TE  or even PA with Cam rolling out

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sanjay_rajput said:

They know its a run when Manhertz or Dickson are in their lining up to block but if we started using both of them in the passing game Defenses want be able to stack the box on run with threat of receiving TE off the run formation. 

Stop doing 1st down and run up the middle and instead hit them with slants / drags by TE  or even PA with Cam rolling out

 

I understand your love with two TE sets but running it when both of your available TEs are terrible is a bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I was excited with the potential of Armah. His versatility would not indicate what we would do. His potential to run block, pass block, run or catch could keep him on the field nearly every down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...