Archer: Cowboys must figure out fullback's value

Carp

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
15,127
IRVING, Texas – What to do with the fullback on the final roster will be among the Dallas Cowboys ’ toughest decisions.

The "who" right now is easy; the job would go to veteran Tyler Clutts. But it is far from a given that the Cowboys will keep a fullback heading into the regular season.

Clutts joined the Cowboys in the final four games of last season and DeMarco Murray had 424 yards in that span, although not all of it came behind the fullback. But to keep a fullback, the Cowboys might have to carry just three tailbacks or go lighter somewhere else on defense.

“When you talk about the fullback, you talk about the second tight, you talk about the third receiver – those guys that are starters on your team in particular personnel groups,” coach Jason Garrett said. “You’re always kind of counting plays with those guys, you’re evaluating what their special teams role is and you’re evaluating simply their effectiveness and their value to your offense. You want to be a physical football team; having a fullback matters. You want to be a physical football team. That second back in the backfield sometimes provides that oomph that you’re looking for.”

Clutts averaged about 12 plays a game last season. There aren't a lot of short-yardage and goal-line plays to go around in a season, but if the Cowboys want to run more and kill the clock late in games, keeping a fullback could make some sense. Murray said he has no preference as to whether he runs in a one-back or two-back set.

“Typically in the NFL you might have 10, 12, 15 – at the most – goal-line plays over the course of a season,” Garrett said. “And you take every play as if it’s the last play you’ll ever play, but having said that, those goal-line plays matter. Having a guy in there who can do the job for you there and also in some short-yardage situations, that’s an important part of having success on offense.

“So we’ve done it different ways. Different teams have done it different ways, issuing the third tight end. Sometimes you use a defensive lineman or an offensive lineman to help those personnel groups out. But if you have a fullback who is worthy, you can throw him the ball, he can lead-block, he can do some other things and can contribute on special teams. All of a sudden you count up those plays and the importance of those plays and he becomes a valuable commodity.”
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
I had rather keep a 6th WR than a FB.
 

Rev

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
19,336
Just don't line up some scrub linebacker back there if you find that you need one. Take those formations completely out or keep a fullback.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,759
If we don't keep a FB, they will get a schlub 4th TE.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Just don't line up some scrub linebacker back there if you find that you need one. Take those formations completely out or keep a fullback.
I understand wanting a lead blocker in the backfield once in a great while but not very often. In those moments I'd almost rather take a reserve lineman and put him back there to block.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,933
I had rather keep a 6th WR than a FB.
I wouldn't. The 6th WR would be inactive every week. If the FB was decent enough to kept on the roster, he would be active and at least contribute. But I seriously doubt we'll keep one. I would rather keep Clutts, (or whatever his name is) over some scrub LB that will play the part occasionally.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
I might keep a 4th RB before a FB. Don't see the need for 6 WRs though. Don't think we have the depth there.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,933
I might keep a 4th RB before a FB.
I look at that the same way as the 6th WR. I wouldn't do it. That guy will be inactive every week barring injury. I'd keep the FB. Partly because I'd love to see a FB working in tandem with our new and improved OL. But alas, the 'commitment' to the running game is probably just a pipe dream bullshit story considering this coaching staff.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,759
I might keep a 4th RB before a FB. Don't see the need for 6 WRs though. Don't think we have the depth there.
Of course we do. People are suggesting we should cut Beasley or Harris to hang onto all world Jamar Newsome.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
Of course we do. People are suggesting we should cut Beasley or Harris to hang onto all world Jamar Newsome.
I would almost be more compelled to hang on to Street than Newsome.
 

jsmith6919

Honored Member - RIP
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
28,407
I look at that the same way as the 6th WR. I wouldn't do it. That guy will be inactive every week barring injury. I'd keep the FB. Partly because I'd love to see a FB working in tandem with our new and improved OL. But alas, the 'commitment' to the running game is probably just a pipe dream bullshit story considering this coaching staff.
I'd keep a fb too because otherwise history suggests it'll only take one time getting stuffed for this staff to go 5 wide on short yardage every game
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
I might keep a 4th RB before a FB. Don't see the need for 6 WRs though. Don't think we have the depth there.
I actually think we have some talent at WR but it doesn't matter. Even if we keep a sixth guy he will never see the field. Eventually he will get cut and pay off for some other team. Fact is we have a lot of young talent at WR and no matter how much some of the guys develop they will be sitting behind a more talented young WR.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Hey stop taking people out of context.
That's not totally out of context. I said I would cut Beasley to keep Newsome but I didn't say anything about cutting Harris. I said I would take Newsome over Harris.
 
Top Bottom