PDA

View Full Version : Taylor to get reps at FB


Porky
07-25-2008, 04:26 PM
Hmmmm. Okay, not so sure about that one. Discuss.

dalemurphy
07-25-2008, 04:27 PM
Hmmmm. Okay, not so sure about that one. Discuss.

The staff is trying to figure out how to keep 4 running backs on the 53 man roster- If Taylor can be the backup FB, then that problem is solved.

Hervoyel
07-25-2008, 04:31 PM
The staff is trying to figure out how to keep 4 running backs on the 53 man roster- If Taylor can be the backup FB, then that problem is solved.

And I'm betting that Darius Walker is out of a job regardless.

nunusguy
07-25-2008, 04:32 PM
I dunno, just what if any are Taylor's qualifications to play FB except that he has relatively good size for a running back ?

Señor Stan
07-25-2008, 04:32 PM
I dunno, just what if any are Taylor's qualifications to play FB except that he has relatively good size for a running back ?

Qualification #1 - He is not Jameel Cook.

dalemurphy
07-25-2008, 04:37 PM
And I'm betting that Darius Walker is out of a job regardless.

He's still P.S eligible. Though, it's likely that he'll be claimed off waivers.

Walker has a shot to make the team... if one of the other backs suffers a serious injury (not unlikely), then he would likely make the team.

Porky
07-25-2008, 04:41 PM
Sorry, I just don't see Taylor as a FB. But, that's just me.

mariokickssacks
07-25-2008, 04:52 PM
Taylor was beginning to get reps at FB last year before his injury. I couldn't find the direct quotes from kubiak, but I do remember him saying he liked Taylor's prospects at FB. He said he was coming along nicely in his blitz recognition, and has the size necessary for the position. He also has decent hands so he could be used in the passing game from the FB position. Of course, the injury derailed his progress, but the plan was to have him on the roster as a FB/HB hybrid last year, so this is nothing new. I hope he can make it as backup FB, because i'd really like to see what he could do should the need arise for him to get significant work.

painekiller
07-25-2008, 04:52 PM
He would be an emergency FB only. If Leach was to get hurt the team then would be able to still use the complete playbook, not just a part of it. By the next game a real FB would be on board.

Assumption made: Leach is the only true FB, Cook gets cut due to a numbers game.

Also IIRC the Broncos usually run with a back that is both a FB and a RB, sometimes he is more of a FB, and sometimes he is more of a RB.

GuerillaBlack
07-25-2008, 04:55 PM
Good. He can be a good FB for us and still play RB if we need him to.

TexanSam
07-25-2008, 04:56 PM
I think I'd rather have Taylor at FB even though he is inexperienced over a Jameel Cook who has been unimpressive the last two seasons

nunusguy
07-25-2008, 05:02 PM
He would be an emergency FB only. If Leach was to get hurt the team then would be able to still use the complete playbook, not just a part of it. By the next game a real FB would be on board.

That makes sense.
And the previous poster indicated he thought Taylor was a descent receiver,
which of course is something Kubiak expects from his FBs.
But surely he's still got to have some abilitys as a blocker, both as lead for the tailback and in some passing situations ?

pappy
07-25-2008, 05:02 PM
The staff is trying to figure out how to keep 4 running backs on the 53 man roster- If Taylor can be the backup FB, then that problem is solved.

I expect if taylor is going to be a fullback he will be all that is needed ! That is my opinion because a back of any kind who is not a ball carrier is a dead weight . Besides if this team is running the zone blocking scheme then it is often a single back set with four wide outs or double tight ends . A fullback of vonta's sort is more suited to the power scheme .

Lucky
07-25-2008, 05:25 PM
Besides if this team is running the zone blocking scheme then it is often a single back set with four wide outs or double tight ends . A fullback of vonta's sort is more suited to the power scheme .
I can't think of many WCOs where FB wasn't an important position. Howard "The Human Plow" Griffith was used extensively during the Terrell Davis years in Denver. And while double tight end sets will be used, I doubt the Texans run much out of 4 wide sets.

I can see the Texans going with more double TEs if Duane Brown has problems picking up outside blitzes. And I could envision Joel Dreessen in a H-back role, where he lines up at FB and goes into motion to the weakside. But, I can't see Gibbs, Kubiak, and Shanahan turning the FB position into "dead weight".

Maddict5
07-25-2008, 05:29 PM
I think I'd rather have Taylor at FB even though he is inexperienced over a Jameel Cook who has been unimpressive the last two seasons

hes a good ST'er though... giving him a big edge over taylor and everybody else as backup fb

Rex King
07-25-2008, 05:30 PM
He would be an emergency FB only. If Leach was to get hurt the team then would be able to still use the complete playbook, not just a part of it. By the next game a real FB would be on board.

Assumption made: Leach is the only true FB, Cook gets cut due to a numbers game.

Also IIRC the Broncos usually run with a back that is both a FB and a RB, sometimes he is more of a FB, and sometimes he is more of a RB.

I think that has to be kept in mind. Cook isn't your prototypical lead blocker either, but he was signed because they though he would fit the Denver style of offense. When they went to or were forced to emphasize the power game more, Leach was a far more effective option. Like the Jonathon Wells experiment before him, I wouldn't expect Taylor to lead block much. But I could see him occasionally lining up with Slaton in a two-back set, like McCallister and Mr. Kardashian.

Cutting Abbate was another indication to me they're only going to carry one "true" FB.

ChampionTexan
07-25-2008, 06:04 PM
The staff is trying to figure out how to keep 4 running backs on the 53 man roster- If Taylor can be the backup FB, then that problem is solved.

Ding Ding Ding - we have a winner!

gary
07-25-2008, 06:23 PM
If the Texans were to cut Cook and I hope that they do but if Taylor or Leach gets hurt that only leaves them with one FB and Taylor has not been a FB where Cook has been. Doesn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong.

pappy
07-25-2008, 06:42 PM
I can't think of many WCOs where FB wasn't an important position. Howard "The Human Plow" Griffith was used extensively during the Terrell Davis years in Denver. And while double tight end sets will be used, I doubt the Texans run much out of 4 wide sets.

I can see the Texans going with more double TEs if Duane Brown has problems picking up outside blitzes. And I could envision Joel Dreessen in a H-back role, where he lines up at FB and goes into motion to the weakside. But, I can't see Gibbs, Kubiak, and Shanahan turning the FB position into "dead weight".

So how many times did vonta carry the ball last year ? One maybe two carries ? If so then the other team is never going to play a fullback as a threat and that makes them useless as no back is simply going to follow a fullback today (and did not last year). A fullback to be useful needs to be a short yardage back something vonta has not been used for hence he is dead weight . that is and will stay my :twocents:

ObsiWan
07-25-2008, 06:54 PM
So how many times did vonta carry the ball last year ? One maybe two carries ? If so then the other team is never going to play a fullback as a threat and that makes them useless as no back is simply going to follow a fullback today (and did not last year). A fullback to be useful needs to be a short yardage back something vonta has not been used for hence he is dead weight . that is and will stay my :twocents:

You were right about his carries: two all last year (one for a TD). But he caught 25 passes (108 yds, 2 TDs).
So unless young Shanny changes the offense, our FB is used for blocking and a couple of swing/outlet passes each game. And I wouldn't mind seeing Taylor catching those just because Taylor has more speed. Leach always looked for someone to run over.

The Pencil Neck
07-25-2008, 07:12 PM
If the Texans were to cut Cook and I hope that they do but if Taylor or Leach gets hurt that only leaves them with one FB and Taylor has not been a FB where Cook has been. Doesn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong.

That's the danger in the decision. Do you gamble on improving your running from the FB spot? Or do you keep your second best FB?

PHAROAH
07-25-2008, 07:18 PM
I think that Chris Taylor would cause matchup problems as a fullback out of the backfield.

gary
07-25-2008, 07:24 PM
That's the danger in the decision. Do you gamble on improving your running from the FB spot? Or do you keep your second best FB?:thinking: :thinking: :thinking:

gary
07-25-2008, 07:26 PM
I think that Chris Taylor would cause matchup problems as a fullback out of the backfield.If he gets hurt?

alphajoker
07-25-2008, 07:26 PM
It's all about competition. We're set with Vonta as the #1 FB but if Taylor beats out Cook, our depth at FB and RB will be that much greater.

GuerillaBlack
07-25-2008, 07:30 PM
That's the danger in the decision. Do you gamble on improving your running from the FB spot? Or do you keep your second best FB?

Wait, isn't this what we have now? Just two FBs? What's wrong with cutting one, and moving Taylor to FB? Basically the same thing, except Taylor>>Cook.

gary
07-25-2008, 07:35 PM
Taylor has not played FB.

ReliantTexan
07-25-2008, 08:00 PM
If he gets hurt?
Well, if a player gets hurt they either miss a few games or if it's severe enough they get put on IR, could be wrong though.:specnatz:

beerlover
07-25-2008, 08:07 PM
Cook has a larger sample size of NFL work than Taylor, but both remain engimas because of injurys. I'd have to give the edge still to Cook because of his blocking skills, if that means saving Schaub from being exposed just a couple times he's probably worth it.

seriously they're both back-ups, not going to break the bank, provide depth in case of injurys so which ever one wins out in training camp is fine with me.

gary
07-25-2008, 08:10 PM
Well, if a player gets hurt they either miss a few games or if it's severe enough they get put on IR, could be wrong though.:specnatz:If Leach gets hurt we are going to be left with someone who has not played FB.

GuerillaBlack
07-25-2008, 08:13 PM
If Leach gets hurt we are going to be left with someone who has not played FB.

He'll learn. I've played football, and FB is not too much of a difference from RB. Of course the NFL level will be different, but the players also know positions better.

ReliantTexan
07-25-2008, 08:18 PM
If Leach gets hurt we are going to be left with someone who has not played FB.I know, I was just messin with ya. But I think Taylor could turn out to be an adequate FB if he had to.

gary
07-25-2008, 08:19 PM
Cook is not that great so I hope he does learn.

The Pencil Neck
07-25-2008, 08:55 PM
Wait, isn't this what we have now? Just two FBs? What's wrong with cutting one, and moving Taylor to FB? Basically the same thing, except Taylor>>Cook.


Cook is actually a RB, too. Just not a very good one. The question now is:

1) Can Taylor stay healthy?
2) Can Taylor block and can he do it as well as Cook?
3) Can Taylor read defenses and can he do it as well as Cook?

If he can, then Taylor could be our version of Mike Anderson.

And... of course... Mike Anderson is out there without a team right now, too.

gary
07-25-2008, 09:05 PM
We will see he could do all of this as the season goes along.

dalemurphy
07-25-2008, 09:07 PM
If Leach gets hurt we are going to be left with someone who has not played FB.



Well, there are all kinds of things you can do without a FB. Single back sets, using a TE as an H-Back. Also, it's much easier to pick up a servicable FB in the middle of the season than it is to go get a tailback.

gary
07-25-2008, 09:23 PM
I wasn't even thinking of those two things.

painekiller
07-25-2008, 10:05 PM
I expect if taylor is going to be a fullback he will be all that is needed ! That is my opinion because a back of any kind who is not a ball carrier is a dead weight . Besides if this team is running the zone blocking scheme then it is often a single back set with four wide outs or double tight ends . A fullback of vonta's sort is more suited to the power scheme .

You are correct in most zone schemes. But that is one of the Gibbs nuances, he uses a FB with the ZBS.

BTW WCO have always depended on the FB, Roger Craig was a FB for Wendell Tyler. Then remember Tom Rathman. They are the reason the playbook is so big. One year the team would feature the FB and then they would ignore him for a few years. Kept team guessing.

steelbtexan
07-26-2008, 12:01 AM
Taylor= Griffith

Pass catching FB who can run the ball a little. He can learn his blocking assignments.

leebigeztx
07-27-2008, 10:40 AM
In that Denver type system, they like the hybrid type fullback. Look no further than Mike Anderson. 1500 yd rusher one season, back to fb the next, then back to 1200 yds. Its a way to keep your best fb players.

CloakNNNdagger
07-27-2008, 12:51 PM
In the Gibbs system, the FB is almost like a 6th OL, whose primary function is forging the running lane for the RB or pass protecting. The pass catching is secondary. Vonta Leach, as would be expected, is stronger than any of our RB, and is expected to dish out punishment. As such he will be sustaining constant repetitive trauma (much more than the average RB) and must be extremely DURABLE. Does this define Chris Taylor?..........or any other RB on the roster???? I don't believe so.

pappy
07-27-2008, 02:57 PM
In the Gibbs system, the FB is almost like a 6th OL, whose primary function is forging the running lane for the RB or pass protecting. The pass catching is secondary. Vonta Leach, as would be expected, is stronger than any of our RB, and is expected to dish out punishment. As such he will be sustaining constant repetitive trauma (much more than the average RB) and must be extremely DURABLE. Does this define Chris Taylor?..........or any other RB on the roster???? I don't believe so.

This is a misnomer as he in fact does not run in the same lane as the running back but instead goes through the line to block a linebacker . If he did run the ball instead in short yardage situations he would in fact be Sustaining some trauma but since he is only a blocker he does not . Mostly he is just not paid much attention by defenses except for the linebacker that has to avoid him .

gary
07-27-2008, 03:07 PM
I just want him to block the LB and keep him out of the back field and make the catch if he gets called on.

CloakNNNdagger
07-27-2008, 06:33 PM
This is a misnomer as he in fact does not run in the same lane as the running back but instead goes through the line to block a linebacker . If he did run the ball instead in short yardage situations he would in fact be Sustaining some trauma but since he is only a blocker he does not . Mostly he is just not paid much attention by defenses except for the linebacker that has to avoid him .

ONLY a blocker?..........that's where you sustain the real trauma.........1st line of head-on collision(s). Many teams have gone to the pseudo hybrid FB, but if you look at the top RBs, you'll find that big solid "plow" FB paving the way.

And those collisions being with a lowly LB? Keep in mind that Taylor weighs 220 pounds.............now, I'd direct your attention as a comparison to the size of our own LBs (http://houstontexans.com/team/roster.html).

BTW, West Virginia's Owen Schmitt was the bruiser at 6’3 and 248 pounds that paved the way for three consecutive 1,000 yard seasons for Steve Slaton.

pappy
07-27-2008, 07:55 PM
ONLY a blocker?..........that's where you sustain the real trauma.........1st line of head-on collision(s). Many teams have gone to the pseudo hybrid FB, but if you look at the top RBs, you'll find that big solid "plow" FB paving the way.

And those collisions being with a lowly LB? Keep in mind that Taylor weighs 220 pounds.............now, I'd direct your attention as a comparison to the size of our own LBs (http://houstontexans.com/team/roster.html).

BTW, West Virginia's Owen Schmitt was the bruiser at 6’3 and 248 pounds that paved the way for three consecutive 1,000 yard seasons for Steve Slaton.

Our linebackers are 220 to 260 lbs and they will not be sitting there to be hit . Owen Schmitt plowed nothing but ran for his own yardage . If Vonta ran half as much as schmitt we would not be having this discussion .

HJam72
07-27-2008, 08:02 PM
In the Gibbs system, the FB is almost like a 6th OL, whose primary function is forging the running lane for the RB or pass protecting. The pass catching is secondary. Vonta Leach, as would be expected, is stronger than any of our RB, and is expected to dish out punishment. As such he will be sustaining constant repetitive trauma (much more than the average RB) and must be extremely DURABLE. Does this define Chris Taylor?..........or any other RB on the roster???? I don't believe so.

How is that different from a FB in the power blocking scheme? Seems to me the difference is that the FB in the ZBS has no idea where the RB behind him is going to decide to go, whereas the FB in the PBS (PBS, ha-ha) is generally (but maybe not always) running right through the lane where the RB is headed. I sometimes wonder why a FB is even used in the ZBS, although Leach seems to be awefully good at it. Generally, it seems that an extra TE would be more appropriate for the ZBS.

HJam72
07-28-2008, 04:40 AM
Nevermind my last post. I was just glancing over the posts and didn't realize you'd already pretty much conceded that and moved on to the medical stuff.

Rex King
07-28-2008, 04:32 PM
How is that different from a FB in the power blocking scheme? Seems to me the difference is that the FB in the ZBS has no idea where the RB behind him is going to decide to go, whereas the FB in the PBS (PBS, ha-ha) is generally (but maybe not always) running right through the lane where the RB is headed. I sometimes wonder why a FB is even used in the ZBS, although Leach seems to be awefully good at it. Generally, it seems that an extra TE would be more appropriate for the ZBS.

I'm no expert, but as opposed to the FB in a power scheme taking on the MLB head on, the FB in a ZBS is more often responsible for cutting off backside pursuit, taking on the OLB at an angle. The collisions for a FB in the ZBS are thus less violent and allow them to be smaller and more athletic. Denver with Gibbs had Mike Anderson, Reuben Droughns, and Cecil Sapp, all at 230 or less. At one point or another, all of them were the preferred starting FB and a backup TB. They also used an H-back who had FB/TE responsibilities. Doing a little more research, they did carry a bigger FB, usually around the 240 range, but was typically the backup. Extrapolating, Cook and Taylor actually fit more the profile of the type of FB/RB previously preferred by Gibbs than Leach.

Ole Miss Texan
07-28-2008, 05:57 PM
Denver with Gibbs had Mike Anderson, Reuben Droughns, and Cecil Sapp, all at 230 or less. At one point or another, all of them were the preferred starting FB and a backup TB.

The same 6th round pick, 1,500 yard, 15 TD Offensive Rookie of the Year Mike Anderson!!? Come on Gibbs... for old times sake- do it again in Houston!

CloakNNNdagger
07-28-2008, 07:01 PM
The same 6th round pick, 1,500 yard, 15 TD Offensive Rookie of the Year Mike Anderson!!? Come on Gibbs... for old times sake- do it again in Houston!

Anderson had the reputation from the gitgo as a power runner. I don't think that we can make that jump to Taylor. After Anderson's 1st year, he certainly had his share of injuries and prolonged down time. If Gibbs can get Taylor to Anderson's strength of play, I'll certainly embrace it.

Eight Gov
07-29-2008, 03:35 AM
It's a shame what happened to Taylor today. I don't think it'll effect our record but it sucks to see someone go down like that

HOU-TEX
07-29-2008, 09:04 AM
It's a shame what happened to Taylor today. I don't think it'll effect our record but it sucks to see someone go down like that

What are you talking about?

Polo
07-29-2008, 09:05 AM
He doesn't know

HOU-TEX
07-29-2008, 09:06 AM
He doesn't know

LOL! I've now noticed that. :spit:

Ole Miss Texan
07-29-2008, 09:58 AM
It's a shame what happened to Taylor today. I don't think it'll effect our record but it sucks to see someone go down like that

What are you talking about?

He doesn't know

LOL! I've now noticed that. :spit:

:panic: What...what?...what!... what's going on!?

HOU-TEX
07-29-2008, 10:01 AM
:panic: What...what?...what!... what's going on!?

:shrug:

Thorn
07-29-2008, 10:10 AM
I don't see anything in the Chronicle about him other than the usual BS.

So, what's up with this stuff about Taylor?

Specnatz
07-29-2008, 10:14 AM
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s6/buckwild35/Random/bull****smellslike.jpg

HOU-TEX
07-29-2008, 10:14 AM
I don't see anything in the Chronicle about him other than the usual BS.

So, what's up with this stuff about Taylor?

Nothing. Eight Gov must be having a flashback to last season.

From what I've seen, Taylor has been impressive so far. :cool:

:texflag:

Polo
07-29-2008, 10:21 AM
Looks like he wrote that post at about four in the morning...


Soothsayer ?

CloakNNNdagger
07-29-2008, 02:43 PM
From this morning's Chronicle: (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/5912145.html)

Running back Chris Taylor is also playing fullback. His versatility will make him more valuable when the team is arriving at its final 53-man roster. Fullback Vonta Leach has been helping Taylor with the transition.

“Fullback is a whole lot different position,” Leach said, comparing his position to running back.

CloakNNNdagger
07-29-2008, 02:48 PM
:panic: What...what?...what!... what's going on!?


If anything (if we're not dealing with a troll), he must be mistaking Taylor for Chaun Thompson (if he's not a drunk troll).

CloakNNNdagger
07-30-2008, 06:59 AM
“Fullback is a whole lot different position,” Leach said, comparing his position to running back. “Things happen a whole lot faster at fullback, so I’m just trying to teach him the steps and what to look for and how to read it.”

As lead blockers, fullbacks have to relish hitting defensive players. “That, you really can’t teach,” Leach said. “You’ve got to tell him to just hit somebody. You can’t really teach that. You’ve got to have that ‘I don’t care’ attitude.” [LINK] (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/5914753.html)

As Leach clearly points out (and he is certainly talking now from a Gibbs FB view point), as an RB you're looking to avoid hard hits, as a FB you're looking to make hard hits.

Ole Miss Texan
07-30-2008, 11:26 AM
“Fullback is a whole lot different position,” Leach said, comparing his position to running back. “Things happen a whole lot faster at fullback, so I’m just trying to teach him the steps and what to look for and how to read it.”

As lead blockers, fullbacks have to relish hitting defensive players. “That, you really can’t teach,” Leach said. “You’ve got to tell him to just hit somebody. You can’t really teach that. You’ve got to have that ‘I don’t care’ attitude.” [LINK] (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/5914753.html)

As Leach clearly points out (and he is certainly talking now from a Gibbs FB view point), as an RB you're looking to avoid hard hits, as a FB you're looking to make hard hits.

That's true... I love those fullbacks that don't care about scoring TD's or getting lots of noterity but just LOVE to go out and pancake some LB's. Few RB's are willing to do that unless you mini-superman named Maurice Jones-Drew who completely levels Shawn Merriman.

I think the hardest thing for RB's transitioning over is for them to get over the fact that they probably won't become the next great RB, sign a huge contract and score lots of points. Fullbacks get little attention but are a huge part of helping the RB succeed. IF they can get over that and be pumped to help the team- they can learn to love to hit. Once you get a few big hits/blocks in, it can spark something and the realize how fun it is.

I also like to hear that about offensive linemen. So many of them- their favorite part is being able to get to the 2nd level and completely demolish a LB in run blocking. Those guys get to really just manhandle some smaller guys for a change and its fun.

Vinny
07-30-2008, 11:46 AM
Most conventional fullbacks are closer to Guards than they are running backs except in the wco where fullbacks are closer to TE's since they move around alot and have more responsibility in catching short passes. Guys like Moran Norris and Lo Neil are just Guards without the mass.

Specnatz
07-30-2008, 12:27 PM
Most conventional fullbacks are closer to Guards than they are running backs except in the wco where fullbacks are closer to TE's since they move around alot and have more responsibility in catching short passes. Guys like Moran Norris and Lo Neil are just Guards without the mass.

Exactly and in wco you need guys like Tom Rathman, can deal the punishment but also can catch the ball out on the flat and take it up the field.

76Texan
07-30-2008, 12:55 PM
Exactly and in wco you need guys like Tom Rathman, can deal the punishment but also can catch the ball out on the flat and take it up the field.

I think when Cook was in there last year, we normally gave him the ball one way or another, and not asking him to be a blocker much. Did I remember coorrectly?

They can do the same with Taylor.

barrett
07-30-2008, 03:30 PM
I'm wondering (quietly, mind you) if Vonta will have any issues with a change in his duties. I saw a quote from him yesterday I think it was, talking about the fact that previously he was asked to do more of the mauling kind of FB thing but that Gibbs has given him a more interpretive role where he's reading the defense even more. I don't expect any issues but I am just wondering.