Fowler out for Bama, what does that mean for LSU?

Most competent fullbacks can get 4-6 yards on a surprise handoff in the I formation. Saying he's got to be adept at running is very different. Adept runners are a Kenny Hilliard or Jacob Hester or Stanley Havili types who were very, very good runners who could be tailbacks playing fullback at times.

They were threats to run no matter where you lined them up.

JC Copeland was a defensive lineman who has developed into a pretty competent runner now at fullback.

He can actually gain some yards running the ball. He's made LSU's I formation more effective as a result.

However, last year when he was lead blocking in the I formation and was no threat to run the ball. He had 2 carries for 0 yards.. I think LSU's I formation didn't suffer and was still a success.

You said, "For a true I form to have any success, you have to have a fullback that is a running threat as well."

Not true.

LSU proved that last year.

Not sure why that's a sticking point with you. What you said was inaccurate. No need to contend it wasn't. You clarified a point about Jalston's loss hindering Alabama's offensive flexibility which makes a lot of sense, but the notion you have to be a running threat at fullback for the I to work is just silly. You don't. Your offense is just far more effective when that happens to be the case. Hence JC working hard to improve as a runner.

Peyton Hillis was a fantastic fullback at Arkansas. Was a multi-dimensional threat and very underutilized but he terrorized LSU a few times.

 

Ain't that the truth. For the '07 game I had to ask some Arkansas fans sitting nearby who the guy was. Had never heard of him but after that day, will never forget him.

 

Hillis You know the pretty badass running back in the NFL now when he wants to be? (he's from the town I live in so >.>)

 

Hillis. That's it. I knew his first name but I still have a bit of a mental hangup when things linked to UT and that era come to mind.

True I form and success.

It's just a matter of how I look at this and how you look at the same thing.

This may be a feeble analogy, but here goes. Let's assume you have a good QB with one WR that's just lighting the board up. But, you have two other WR's that aren't accomplishing anything. Do that make the passing game a success? I'd say no. The reason why I'd say that is if it isn't accomplishing everything it should it's not successful. It's getting the job done in one aspect, but it's still incomplete if some of the parts aren't accomplishing anything.

The adage, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" comes to mind.

No big deal here. We just look at it differently.

Some people think balanced offenses mean equal runs to equal passes. Some think it's equal yards gained by both facets of the offense. I can't say one is right and the other is wrong. I know what I think, but that doesn't mean those that disagree with me are wrong.

It's just a different viewpoint.

 

Yep. Every time I hear his name mentioned on an NFL broadcast, I break out into cold sweats & feel the sudden urge to vomit.

 

I gotcha.