Don't see what's so abnormal. Lacy will be the FB.

Kuhn is a "hybrid" type FB anyway. It's becoming an obsolete position.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

I'm not talking about the I Formation; I mean Lacy Fullback as in Jim Taylor/Larry Csonka Fullback - split backs. Is that what you are talking about too?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

I keep hearing say put Lacy at FB... Why put a non-blocker at blocking position?

And yeah I know Lacy has hype for good pass blocking... but that's compared to the college level where most don't block at all. He still has to learn more to be a good blocker at the NFL level.

Originally Posted by: beast 

I keep hearing say put Lacy at FB... Why put a non-blocker at blocking position?

And yeah I know Lacy has hype for good pass blocking... but that's compared to the college level where most don't block at all. He still has to learn more to be a good blocker at the NFL level.

Originally Posted by: beast 

It would be an all out WASTE to use Lacy as an I Formation fullback. I hope nobody is remotely even considering that. For those too young to remember, however, there was a time long ago when 2 RBs, one called a fullback, one called a halfback, but essentially playing the same role, lined up split behind the QB. In my non-professional but also not humble opinion, you had infinitely more possible variations that way; you had better positioning for pass blocking than with the I; and you had better position for screens and swing passes, even deeper patterns for the RBs than with the I. The only thing you need is for the RBs to block as well for each other as what a one dimensional fullback would do in the I.

I honestly don't know what teams see in the damn I formation anyway.

Z2C, please print this out and use your massive prestige and press credentials to hand it personally to Mike McCarthy hahahahaha.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

It would be an all out WASTE to use Lacy as an I Formation fullback. I hope nobody is remotely even considering that. For those too young to remember, however, there was a time long ago when 2 RBs, one called a fullback, one called a halfback, but essentially playing the same role, lined up split behind the QB. In my non-professional but also not humble opinion, you had infinitely more possible variations that way; you had better positioning for pass blocking than with the I; and you had better position for screens and swing passes, even deeper patterns for the RBs than with the I. The only thing you need is for the RBs to block as well for each other as what a one dimensional fullback would do in the I.

I honestly don't know what teams see in the damn I formation anyway.

Z2C, please print this out and use your massive prestige and press credentials to hand it personally to Mike McCarthy hahahahaha.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

MacArthur Lane/John Brockington ftw! (I am a little young for Hornung/Taylor). This is true but I can tell you in those days both backs were expected to know how to throw a block on a LB to spring the other. No one had to be a great blocker but had to be willing to get in there. As I understand it both of these guys are good at picking up blitzes so Idon't see why they would have an issue with that. What I would think more likely in such a formation is one going tothe flat and the other pass blocking, or similar movement on a draw play.

Think of a defense trying to plan a third and three with Lacy and Frnaklin in the backfied, Jones and Nelson wide and Finley in the slot. Run or pass?

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884