Running with or without a FB?

Ive thought about this quite a bit when trying different plays and working on them, do you prefer to run with or without the FB? With the FB you get another guy pushing directly in front of the runner but do you think it holds the runner up from getting to "the hole"? Or do you prefer to run another TE and design your runs to "bounce" outside? I think having a FB on the field gives you another option for things like the FB trap and a quick hitter down at the goal line since he doesnt have as far to go. It seems like there are pros and cons and its a matter of personal opinion so whats yours?

[wolverine]

i ussaly use an fb....and when i run a wishbone offense ( i do collego)..the fb is a BIG part of the blocking scheme...see my post on wishbone on my chat board at
http://nmefl.proboards54.com/index.cgi

the fb can help you get a wedge on the line and be an blocking back for extra power...brian

[NEW CASTLE HiTMEN]

In my opinion, the more players running free in electric football the better. I use both systems of two TE's and 1 back and one TE and two backs. Depending on the situation.

[Michigan Joe]

These are my thoughts....

With an O-line wedge style blocking scheme, I believe the con to the I-formation tailback dive is the potential slowness to the hole and protection against fast outside loopers. I believe the pro of the I-formation fullback is the ability to pick up the linebacker to spring the tailback for longer runs. If the loopers are picked up, a slower developing I-formation handoff to the tailback also seems to allow things to open up in front of him. For short yardage the fullback in the I-formation still has the stacked power, but unless the wedge blocking is superb, the ability of the linebacker to tackle the FB is there (but this may be okay, especially in short yardage).

Now with a more zone-like blocking style from the O-line (less wedge and drive blocking replaced by more rotational or lateral blocking motions ) I believe the fullback would have a nice ability to do some good solid lead blocking on D-lineman that might be unaccounted for by the O-line or to create gaps by trap blocking on D-lineman that were open to rush up the field.

I believe picking a blocking scheme greatly depends on the width of the board you are playing on. I really like the bigger board (bigger than 620) to open things up. We don't get too many functional playing topics like this, I personally like these topics.
Joe

[RavennaAl]

I guess it would all depend on how the defense is set up. I usually like to have an extra blocker whenever possible. Here's a classic case:

The Third Reichs defensive end was lined up outside of the Bozos tackle, Question Mark. 2 Cents, the running back, helped with the block along with the tight end, Target while Question Mark went upfield and took out the Reichs safety. Meanwhile, Pisces, the wide reciever, held up the cornerback just long enough for More or Less to hit the hole. Without 2 Cents helping Target out, the Reichs end would have nailed More or Less for little to no gain. I believe this play went for a TD as the Reich was completely overmatched in the game.

[artlax]

Just like in real football - What is the defensive alignment/tendencies? Are the backs strong or quick? With quick you might try to run the stretch (wide) from the strong formation with FB or H back acting to kick-out outside (DE) or push the DT and corner of the LOS off. I would agree that width of field is a special variable in EF.

[Coach K-LO]

here it is......

[Anthony D Burgess]

Nice Pictures, but as you can see in each picture that the field is small, the beses take up about 5 yards, and there is little room to run to the out side. Even though the blocking is good up front there is little space due to the design of the field. It's like playing football, 11 on 11 on a basketball court.

All that you said is true, but is but a aftet thought when you look at the field size.How much better your running game will be if played on a properly sized field for these figures to run on.

Hey, would you put on cloths that are to small ? No you would look very funny , the same goes for the size of the field we play on.

[RavennaAl]

True, most of us play on 620 or smaller boards. If scale sized boards were available for under $100, I'm sure most of us wold own them. Unfortunately, the current price of $350 or more makes them out of reach for everyone, especially me.

[Anthony D Burgess]

No one understands better than I do, but if you were to think about it for a moment. You get out of this hobby what you put into it. Think about how much gas you buy $, hotel $, air fair $, food $ and fee to play in some tournaments $, . If you add it all up you will have enought to pay for a scale size board.

Some guys spend $350.00 or more on figures, bases, and decals inside 6 months. How much is this hobby worth to you, it all is a reflection on you and how much this hobby means to you.

Originally Posted by RavennaAl

True, most of us play on 620 or smaller boards. If scale sized boards were available for under $100, I'm sure most of us wold own them. Unfortunately, the current price of $350 or more makes them out of reach for everyone, especially me.