Thread: Paxton starts again

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I would argue Denver could use an extra defensive tackle over fullback, and could be more creative offensively, both in schematic design and player evaluation (i.e., an H-back, capable of playing tight end on the line, fullback and running every pass route in the playbook).

How bout some DL's instead of some of the 10 useless WR's?

Originally Posted by Jaded

How bout some DL's instead of some of the 10 useless WR's?

I think Mo would say you can cut the worthless WR's and the (in his opinion) worthless FB.

I don't know if the FB is worthless. I've not been persuaded either way.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

Perhaps. The title FB suggests a pigeonhole that constrains playcalling and scheme. That is my main concern with 2016 offense, that is, template-based inflexibility. But strip the FB label, let it be a 60+% snap skill player that contributes above average expected points without hogtying range of possible playcalls, I see no problem.

we'll refer to andy as a three-quatersback from now on. . . solved!

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

I think Mo would say you can cut the worthless WR's and the (in his opinion) worthless FB.

I don't know if the FB is worthless. I've not been persuaded either way.

America loves FB's, does that persuade you?