Favorite True Fullback of all time

[Wild Card]

Originally posted by Pariah
I forgot about the Czonk. Change my vote from Suhey to Czonka.

Pariah:

Good call. Wanna know how many players, from the so-called modern era, are in the Hall of Fame as *fullbacks*?

Six. Here they are, alphabetically: Jim Brown (1957-65); Larry Csonka (1968-79); John Henry Johnson (1954-66); Marion Motley (1946-53, '55); Joe Perry (1948-63); and Jim Taylor (1958-67).

In the quarter-century since Zonk hung 'em up, no other fullback's been inducted. I suspect none ever will. The position, as those men played it, hardly exists anymore. Today's fullbacks are primarily blockers and receivers; none takes over a game the way that a Jim Brown or Larry Csonka did.

Brown routinely finishes high on All-Time Player lists, regardless of position, and I've heard impassioned cases made for both Brown and Marion Motley as best-ever FB. I'm biased. Csonka's the only one of them I ever saw play in person, and I swear I could hear him hit defenders from the stands. Played hard, played hurt, dominated defenses who knew he was coming.

Best "true" fullback I've ever seen. Or ever will.

WC

 

[jf-08]

Here is a list of all the modern era running backs in the hall:

Marcus Allen (RB) 1982-1997
Jim Brown (FB) 1957-1965
Earl Campbell (RB) 1978-1985
Larry Csonka (FB) 1968-1979
Eric Dickerson (RB) 1983-1993
Tony Dorsett (RB) 1977-1988
Frank Gifford (HB-FL) 1952-1960, 1962-1964
Franco Harris (RB) 1972-1984
Paul Hornung (HB) 1957-1966
John Henry Johnson (FB) 1954-1966
Leroy Kelly (RB) 1964-1973
Ollie Matson (HB) 1952, 1954-1966
Hugh McElhenny (HB) 1952-1964
Lenny Moore (HB) 1956-1967
Marion Motley (FB) 1946-1953, 1955
Walter Payton (RB) 1975-1987
Joe Perry (FB) 1948-1963
John Riggins (RB) 1971-1979, 1981-1985
Gale Sayers (HB) 1965-1971
O. J. Simpson (RB) 1969-1979
Jim Taylor (FB) 1958-1967
Charley Trippi (HB) 1947-1955
Doak Walker (HB) 1950-1955

 

[Wild Card]

Originally posted by Snakester
Csonka and Riggins are my two favorites.

Snakester:

Riggo had a fullback's size and attitude, for sure. When he went into the Hall of Fame, though, it was as a running back, not a FB.

Great back, regardless.

WC

 

[jf-08]

Originally posted by jkf296
Here is a list of all the modern era running backs in the hall:

I was actually surprised that there were only this many modern RBs in the HOF.

 

[SECTION 11]

Is the half back even an NFL position any more?
Should it be?

I'm completely serious when I say that NFL defenses with their undersized ends and insistence on speed over size are setting themselves up for an old school rushing clinic by a team with a deep stable of running backs, a huge fullback and a monstrous offensive line. You know, some team like....... the CARDINALS!?!?!
Four yards and a cloud of dust.

 

[Wild Card]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
Is the half back even an NFL position any more?
Should it be?

S11:

I don't think that the "true halfback" exists anymore, either. The HBs I remember were fast, outside runners, elusive in the open field, good receivers, sometime kick/ punt returners.

The Don Coryell-era Cards had a great one in Pro Bowler Terry Metcalf. My '70s Dolphin teams had Jim Kiick and Mercury Morris. FB Jim Taylor from Lombardi's Packers is paired with HB Paul Hornung in the HOF. And so on.

Seems to me that the modern running back is expected to have both the power to go inside and the speed/ moves to take it outside (leaving most fullbacks to block and catch the occasional pass). Some of the HBs/FBs in the HOF could've filled a RB role, some couldn't.

Should HB be a position in today's game? You'd need to ask someone better versed in offensive and defensive theory for a definitive answer. There are probably good reasons that the game evolved away from that position, though.

That said, I've always thought that Barry Sanders was the archetypal halfback, playing in the wrong era.

WC

 

[maddogkf]

My favorite:

Mark van Eeghen...probalby my favorite player of all time

You must be registered for see images

 

[WisconsinCard]

Originally posted by maddogkf
My favorite:

Mark van Eeghen...probalby my favorite player of all time

You must be registered for see images

And the guy he learned from was Pete Banaszak.

 

[JeffGollin]

By your definition: Ron Wolfley.

In terms of what fullbacks used to be: Jim Brown hands down.

 

[Wild Card]

Originally posted by JeffGollin
In terms of what fullbacks used to be: Jim Brown hands down.

Jeff:

I'd make the argument that Jim Brown was a fullback in name only. In both physical skills and playing style, Brown was the prototype for today's RB position. Devastating between the tackles, elusive in the open, amazing blend of speed, size and strength. He could run past you, around you, or through you, on any given play.

If he were playing today, Brown would be running out of a one-back set. He wouldn't be blocking for *anyone*.

WC

 

[john h]

Jim Brown for sure with some considerations for Franco Harris and Larry Cyzonka (?spelling). Cards Pat Harder was very good in his day and the Eagles big fullback from the 50's which jeff will remember his name.

 

[Wild Card]

Originally posted by john h
Jim Brown for sure with some considerations for Franco Harris and Larry Cyzonka (?spelling). Cards Pat Harder was very good in his day and the Eagles big fullback from the 50's which jeff will remember his name.

John:

It's Csonka. Zonk for short.

Harris is in the Hall of Fame as a running back, not a FB. Rocky Bleier was the fullback in that famous Steeler backfield.

If it's Steve Van Buren you're referring to, that Eagles great went into the HOF as a halfback. Brilliant, if relatively brief (1944-51) career.

WC

 

[john h]

Originally posted by Wild Card
John:

It's Csonka. Zonk for short.

Harris is in the Hall of Fame as a running back, not a FB. Rocky Bleier was the fullback in that famous Steeler backfield.

If it's Steve Van Buren you're referring to, that Eagles great went into the HOF as a halfback. Brilliant, if relatively brief (1944-51) career.

WC

Steve Van Buren is the guy I was thinking about and I had no idea he went in as a half back. Thanks. How about Tank Younger? Anyone remember him?

 

[Bobcat]

Alex Webster of the 1950's-1960's Gaints. Maybe the best was Jim Brown; but as he said he was not being paid to block!!!

Allan

 

[ChiCard]

Earl Campbell hands down. But I'll say this. For those who didn't see him play, in '75 & '76 there was none better then Jim Ottis. When he and Donnie Anderson, along with Terry Metcalf lined up, the running and motion among them was a thing of beauty.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Originally posted by SunCityCarl
That's right Wiz!! He made the pro bowl didn't he? He was insane on special teams!

Ron "23 Concussions!" Wolfley!!!

Hey he GAVE THIS TEAM 25 concussions. That is a man earning his money. 25!?! That has to be a joke. He'd be dead or at least close to it. THat is the player that should be making millions of dollars.

 

[Wild Card]

Originally posted by ChiCard
Earl Campbell hands down. But I'll say this. For those who didn't see him play, in '75 & '76 there was none better then Jim Ottis. When he and Donnie Anderson, along with Terry Metcalf lined up, the running and motion among them was a thing of beauty.

ChiCard:

Earl Campbell was a running back, not a fullback. HOF player, but wrong position.

FB Jim Otis was an important part of the Coryell-era Cards' offense, granted. As a runner, though, he was a plugger. One-time Pro Bowler, a single 1,000+ season, and a career average of 3.9 ypc (career-best of 4.3 in 1973). Good player, but hardly one of the all-time greats.

WC

 

[JeffGollin]

My quote - By your definition: Ron Wolfley. In terms of what fullbacks used to be: Jim Brown hands down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your response - I'd make the argument that Jim Brown was a fullback in name only....If he were playing today, Brown would be running out of a one-back set. He wouldn't be blocking for *anyone*.
Please re-read my (above) comment. We don't disagree. I'd go with Wolfley according to today's standards.

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by Wild Card
JKF296:

"True fullbacks" do more than block and catch little dump-off passes out of the backfield. They run between the tackles, over and over, beating linemen and LBs into submission. The best ones are still running hard in the fourth quarter, when the defenders aren't tackling so well anymore.

During Miami's three consecutive Super Bowl years (1971-73), Larry Csonka averaged 5.4, 5.2, and 4.6 ypc, gaining 1,000+ each year in 14-game seasons. (In those three Super Bowls, he averaged 6.3 ypc.) *Nobody* stopped this guy.

In his career, Csonka fumbled 21 times in almost 2,000 carries. He didn't stop himself, either.

I still wonder what his career numbers would look like, if Csonka hadn't followed the money to the short-lived WFL in 1974. He remains the best fullback I've ever seen.

WC

Sorry guys I dont consider Csonka a "true" FB either!

FB dont carry the load they block for the TB a majority of the time!

Csonka was a RB/TB!

 

[Wild Card]

Originally posted by Shane H
Sorry guys I dont consider Csonka a "true" FB either! FB dont carry the load they block for the TB a majority of the time! Csonka was a RB/TB!

Shane:

Better call the Hall of Fame. Tell 'em they've got Larry Csonka classified wrong. (Be sure and let us know what their reaction is.)

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. At one time, fullbacks were as likely to carry the ball as the halfback. Typically, FBs got the tough yards up the middle, and HBs tried to go wide and break long gains. As I've said elsewhere, Csonka was among the *last* of the "true fullbacks."

One of the HBs Csonka was paired with, Mercury Morris, was a three-time Pro Bowler (1971-73), who averaged 5.5, 5.3, and 6.4 ypc during those seasons--in 1972, he and Csonka *both* reached 1,000 yds--and finished with a career average of 5.1 ypc. The other, Jim Kiick, went to the Pro Bowl in 1968-69, and was better known for his receiving, averaging 39 receptions at 11 yards-per from 1968-71.

Csonka wasn't just one of the greatest fullbacks to ever play in the NFL. He helped make the halfbacks he played with Pro Bowlers, too.

WC

 

[Pariah]

Don't you think it's curious that fullbacks don't set up the furthest away from the line in the backfield, but rather the halfback does? I've always wondered if at some point in the history of the game those positions in the formation were switched. Seems to me the "half"back would line up just behind the QB and the "full"back would line up furthest away.

Anyone know if this was the case in the 20's or some time in the past?

 

[Tangodnzr]

In the original straight "T" formation 2 halfbacks lined up evenly with the fullback, one on each side. I played it in high school in the 60's.

Then came the Slotted-T and the beginning of the modern day 3rd "wide receiver" when one of the halfbacks started lining up closer to the line of scrimmage and usually just off the tackle.

From there, all sorts of modifications have been implemented.

 

[JeffGollin]

In the original straight "T" formation 2 halfbacks lined up evenly with the fullback, one on each side....Then came the Slotted-T and the beginning of the modern day 3rd "wide receiver"
The next trend was the Pro Set - which came in three basic flavors: (1) traditional 2 backs split wide behind and on either side of the QB (commonly called the "red" formation) (2) the "near" formation with the 2-backs split less wide and the HB lined up behind the QB and the FB lined up next to him to the strong side and the "far" formation, with the FB lined up behind the QB and the HB lined up next to the FB on his weak side.

The Cards currently operate out of multiple sets consisting of (a) the straight "I" with QB, FB and TB lined up in a straight line, (b) the offset (or broken) "I" (with the FB positioned slightly to the left or right of where he'd be in the straight I, (c) the "red" split-back formation (used a lot by west coast teams and employed mainly as passing formation - particularly on teams that don't like to use the shotgun a lot), (d) various one-back (Ace) sets - some better suited for running/some for passing and (e) the so-called "empty backfield with no deep RB's and multiple receivers.

And then there are all the variables - "Heavy" (2 big back/2 TE) formations, 3, 4, 5 receivers, "bunching" 3 receivers together on one side and then having them take off in all kinds of strange "pick" patterns, the use of the H-Back in place of the fullback, and (my favorite) the Ace formation with the receiver in motion to make the the enemy respect the possibilty of a reverse play wide.

Note - I still wish we'd see a return of the single wing. (The Vikes used it against us in the playoffs with Palmer taking the direct snap deep - and it worked).

 

[Tangodnzr]

Great post Jeff.

I actually played wingback and tailback on a single wing team in Jr. High School. I liked it. The shotgun is basically a derivation of it. With the quarterback being the tailback of the single wing, however the tailback was utilized much more as a runner too.
The wingback was a cool positon. Opportunities to carry the ball, mostly on reverse type actions, and receiving.

Which brings up another point.

I keep reading some posts where people keep advocating the Cards go to a 3-4 on defense.

Taking into account your comments re: the evolution of modern day sets....it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see that most teams use sets that are all sorts of hybrids. There is not "one" set "west coast" offense. etc. etc.

The same is true for defense. The better teams are not tending to run a pure 4-3 OR 3-4. Versatility is becoming more and more a key factor, especially in the NFC West. Just like the days of the "pure straight T" are gone, so are the "pure" 4-3 or 3-4 defenses. Just like the offense, everything is hybrid, maybe a basic 4-3 on one play and 3-4 the next two....etc, etc, etc.

 

[SECTION 11]

How about the double wing?

Double Wing is a very flexible formation that Osborne added in 1997. Because the formation includes four wide receivers (two split ends and two wingbacks), the double wing forces defenses to respect it as a passing formation. The Huskers, though, use it primarily as an option formation. The WBs are aligned very tight to the formation (outside hip of the tackles), giving this one-back set the same option threat of a three-back wishbone. Air Force uses this as its primary set for its triple option wing-bone, the same offense Eric Crouch ran at Millard North.

Osborne ran Double Wing with an I-back as the single back. Solich did also until midway through 1999 when he started using a fullback instead. I have theorized that Nebraska ran some triple option from this set vs. Texas A&M in 99. (complete insanity. Theorizing the triple option out of the double wing)