The fullback position

[Slater]

Not an expert yet on the NFL although I watch pretty faithfully. Regarding the position of fullback, it seems as though this almost exclusively used as a blocker, with the occasional carry. Even heard a couple folks say that the position is becoming obsolete/unnecessary. Any thoughts/corrections?

[Brendan]

i think its unnecesary but mack strong helped shawn alexander get the mvp so fullbacks can be usefull

[redsfan39]

I don't think the position is obsolete at all. Take a look at the Redskin's Chris Cooley for an idea on the usefulness of a FB. He blocks decent, and can catch well. A majority of HB run plays rely on the FB to block the linebacker, otherwise the HB will get caught in the backfield. I don't see a change in the basic FB position to come unless the rules are changed.

[OB33]

With the advent of 3,4, and even 5 wide receiver sets, along with runningbacks who are now both strong and fast, the fullback position has been in decline in recent years. With that said, I don't think that the FB position is obsolete or unnecessary. Even in a spread, high-octane offense fullbacks can take punishment off the half back while giving him bigger holes to run through and when fully utilized, the fullback can have the same effect on a game that any tight end has (IE: Larry Centers, Tony Richardson, Chris Cooley, Mack Strong, Mike Alstott). I don't think we'll ever return to the era of split back formations using the halfback and the fullback as a two-headed rushing attack anytime soon, but I do think fullbacks can still be statistically productive as coming out of the backfield as an extra receiving option, espescially in goaline situations (See Mike Sellers).

[NJTank]

Yeah Fullbacks are needed for that 1 yard shortyardage play and to open holes for the Halfback.

[HatManTC]

could you imagine how effective Barry Sanders would have been if he ever had a FB. most of his career he was used in single back sets. not till later did he get a fb.

[BBTV]

Depends on the offensive philosophy of the team. The Eagles, for example, use the fullback for pass protection and flat receiver. No carries, very little lead blocking, very little iso on the linebackers.

Football, possibly moreso than most sports, goes in cycles. The position itsself is not obsolete, but the traditional definition of it is currently not common, especially with the number of teams that have adopted variations of the west-coast offense in the past 15 years. However, you can already see that the league is starting to move away from that philosophy, and the Steelers SB win (legit or not) will only help that. The traditional fullback may again have a place in the NFL, but maybe not for 10 years.

[Discrim]

the Redskins use an H-back*, though, so they don't count. the fullback position itself won't die out, but at the same time you won't see any Jim Browns anytime soon.

depends on the team, as has been said...the Cardinals used to use Larry Centers primarily as a pass catching threat, Mike Alstott runs more often than most fullbacks, William Henderson primarily blocks and catches, Mack Strong mainly blocks for that Alexander guy and gets some short yardage carries...and extending to the Arena, with litle exception, those guys only run inside the 5.

*H-back: in a nutshell, a tight end put in the backfield.

[The Nation]

Fullbacks are important based on the offensive philosophy of the team, and also the type of Running Backs teams have. Guys like Larry Johnson, Jamal Lewis, two very patient runners need fullbacks.

[FiddySicks]

IMO, the Buccaneers wouldnt have had any shot if it wasnt for Mike Alstott. Sure he doesnt play a mostly traditional role as a fullback, but he still rams those 1 yard first down runs like a dream.