Toren Young = Fullback?

[Hawkfnntn]

Champ Davis was kind of a move TE/FB type. I remember him scoring a big TD up in Wisconsin.
If Young can get to about 235ish to 240 that's big enough. He's like 5'11 I believe and that doesn't matter he's tall enough. Just a matter of does he want to/have the mentality and is it something the coaches want. Maybe they have 2 guys in the hopper already working for it they like. I have no clue.

 

[IowaTeddy]

I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who thought about those plays we used week one. I thought it was kind of an interesting look and it disappeared from the playbook.

Also we had a two runningback set in the shotgun that we didn’t see much of after that.

I mentioned a couple schematic things in a thread yesterday we can look at going forward for next year. We have weapons we just need to use them. I think BF does okay with schemes, he just isn’t the greatest in game play caller yet.

I agree. And to answer the OP's question: Toren Young as a "conventional FB"? - absolutely not. Young as a "2nd RB"? - absolutely yes.

Two thoughts:
1) For whatever reason... if we're not going to use a "mobile" quarterback, how can we produce more of a consistent rushing threat? Can we feature two true running backs out of shotgun sets? Can we continue to get speedy receivers involved in lateral run players, like Tracy and Smith-Marsette? As for the mobile quarterback part, we've had three awesome years of Nate Stanley. IMO, he is a good athlete, but he lacks the quickness of a modern running quarterback. And we might be looking at another 2-3 years of Spencer Petras,who seems to be in a similar category of mobility as Stanley?

2) How effective is Iowa when featuring a true (old school) fullback? What is the opportunity cost of having a fullback out there? Deep down in my soul, I dream of Iowa running base I-formation offense with the classic run sets (Iso, power, trap, counter)... and attacking downfield with play action passes, TE seam/crossing routes, and deep posts / layered WR concepts. This foundation "Pro" offense is built around the fullback in many ways. Personally, I love seeing Iowa in the I formation. With ~100 roster spots, I think Iowa can and will afford to have 1-2 of these old school fullbacks on the roster at any given time. But if we're going to take the next step forward offensively, how much does that involve a one-dimensional fullback?

 

[NikeHawk21]

I agree. And to answer the OP's question: Toren Young as a "conventional FB"? - absolutely not. Young as a "2nd RB"? - absolutely yes.

Two thoughts:
1) For whatever reason... if we're not going to use a "mobile" quarterback, how can we produce more of a consistent rushing threat? Can we feature two true running backs out of shotgun sets? Can we continue to get speedy receivers involved in lateral run players, like Tracy and Smith-Marsette? As for the mobile quarterback part, we've had three awesome years of Nate Stanley. IMO, he is a good athlete, but he lacks the quickness of a modern running quarterback. And we might be looking at another 2-3 years of Spencer Petras,who seems to be in a similar category of mobility as Stanley?

2) How effective is Iowa when featuring a true (old school) fullback? What is the opportunity cost of having a fullback out there? Deep down in my soul, I dream of Iowa running base I-formation offense with the classic run sets (Iso, power, trap, counter)... and attacking downfield with play action passes, TE seam/crossing routes, and deep posts / layered WR concepts. This foundation "Pro" offense is built around the fullback in many ways. Personally, I love seeing Iowa in the I formation. With ~100 roster spots, I think Iowa can and will afford to have 1-2 of these old school fullbacks on the roster at any given time. But if we're going to take the next step forward offensively, how much does that involve a one-dimensional fullback?

Great post.

Yes I can see Toren in the offset I formation. Where he can block, take a short yardage handoff, or he can sneak out of the backfield to catch.

Also agree, give me so much more jet sweep and end around action. Those plays worked so well this year. Heck any misdirection seemed to work because teams sell out and overpursue to crush our zone blocking runs.

 

[CP87]

Great post.

Yes I can see Toren in the offset I formation. Where he can block, take a short yardage handoff, or he can sneak out of the backfield to catch.

Also agree, give me so much more jet sweep and end around action. Those plays worked so well this year. Heck any misdirection seemed to work because teams sell out and overpursue to crush our zone blocking runs.

I know St. Louis was killing it last year with a zone-blocking scheme coupled to a ton of reverse- and jet-motion action. I would like to see more of that.