Yesterday I had posted that Philadelphia can waive goodbye to Tony Hunt, and that moving him to fullback was a bad idea for the Eagles and Hunt. It would seem that I am in the minority on this one. People think that moving Hunt to fullback is a great idea, and they have a number of reasons for it. I didn't really explain why I think that it is a bad idea. Today I will explain the reasoning behing my position on the matter.
Before going any further I believe that it is necessary to elaborate on the fullback position in the Eagles offense. It's a thankless and brutal position. To quote Bloghead "Fullback is an entirely different beast." former Eagle Jon RitchieTheir primary responsibility is pass protection. Then run blocking. On rare occasions they might be called upon to catch a pass out of the back field or run it up the gut.
Here are some reasons why moving Tony Hunt to fullback is a bad idea. He is going to have to put on more weight. Pass protection is a very physical aspect of the game, and takes a very serious tole on the body. Being that his primary role as a fullback would be to pick up blitzers, he would need to bulk up in order to withstand the physical demands of constant blocking. Then there's the possibility that he would lose some speed and agility due to his increased weight.
If the Eagles plan is to have Hunt replace Buckhalter in the coming years, then sign him to the practice squad. His ability is not going to be utilized at the fullback position. When was the last time you saw a fullback take a handoff, and the cut back across the field, and then outrun the defense for a 51 yard touchdown? This is would appear to be an attempt keeping him on the team. They like what he has done on Special teams, but we don't keep 4 running backs, so they are giving him a chance to make the team at another position. No one so far has been a clear choice at the position. In summation Tony Hunt's talent would be severly under utilized as a fullback, and possibly eliminated by the need increase in size.
Sources:
Tony Hunt isn't surprised!
Klecko is no longer a fullback
Posts
2 comments:
Not being an Eagles fan, obviously I'm not as close to the sitch as you, my friend. But as far as I can tell, being a Fullback on the Eagles is the equivalent of being Jim Sorgi or Matt Cassel. Actually, even less relevant than those two. Again, I don't know, but approximately how many times do you think the Eagles would ever put a Fullback in even to block?
Isn't this a west coast offense? When Westbrook isn't running the ball (where they don't even need a blocker) or catching it out of the backfield, isn't HE blocking?
The West Coast Offense does incorporate a lot of 2 back formations.However, I imagine that you will see mostly Westbrook and Booker when you see those formations used.
Post a Comment