wilbur58z Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20040805/ai_n11815749/print Thought I'd post this since there have been questions concerning whether or not Saunders uses the H-back position (ie how he will use Cooley). The article linked to above is from 2004 and concerns the Chiefs 2nd round pick that year - Kris Wilson, a TE from Pittsburgh - and how he was going to fit into Saunders offense. It sounds like the exact role Cooley (drafted that same year, only in the 3rd round) plays here in Washington. Since he was drafted, Wilson evidently has had injury problems and has barely seen the field. But it goes to show Saunders probably appreciates what someone like Cooley can do and will probably use him just like Gibbs did. Also, when you look at Kansas City's offense, they had a Pro Bowl fullback in Tony Richardson, Gonzalez as the receiving tight end, Jason Dunn as the mammoth blocking tight end, and Wilson as (or was going to be) the H-back. I think that translates to this here in DC: Sellers at FB, Fauria as the receiving tight end, Johnson as the blocking tight end (in two TE packages), and Cooley remains at H-back. I know some will question having Fauria play the Gonzalez role, but I don't think the tight end will be the emphasis in DC when it comes to the passing game. I think it will instead be on the receivers and Cooley for us, positions our offense is vastly superior to Kansas City at. So I think we'll basically have Fauria stay back and block more in order to provide protection for Brunell, who's trying to get the ball to the receivers and Cooley. Which may be needed because our offensive line has to prove it can play to the level of Kansas City's. The Chiefs have had one of the best, if not *the* best, lines in the NFL the past few years. Our line may need more help... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Nice find! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWinzit Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Great article find. I had forgotten about Houliahanin SD's system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 I think the problem here has been that too many people insist on trying to put lablels on certain players: Is this guy a tight end or an H-back? or Is this guy a blocking tight end or a receiving tight end? or even Is this guy a slot-receiver? or a possession receiver? or a "#1" or "#2" receiver? I cracks me up because most of these are fan and media-based terms. They have VERY LITTLE to do with how coaches execute their offenses. Coaches think in terms of packages and matchups. Joe Gibbs never had a "#1" receiver. Neither has Al Saunders. Of course, someone had to lead the team in receptions, or yards, or TDs, but it had little to do with playcalling. The slot is an area on the field, not a position. All tight ends block. Coaches like Gibbs and Saunders are always looking for ways to exploit defenses. That's going to determine who's on the field and where the ball is going. As far as how Saunders and Gibbs (and their offense WILL be a collaborative effort) will use Chris Cooley, they certainly will use packages where Cooley, Fauria, and Sellers on the field at the same time. There will be packages where none of them are on the field. There will be packages where Cooley lines up as a traditional tight end. Some where he's in motion. Some where's he's in the backfield. And some where he's split out wide. But I can guarantee that Cooley will be a focal point. I just don't understand the need for labels. They simply don't correspond much to what's going to happen on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
More Complete Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 I remember a press conference Vermiel had after the skins Cheifs game where he was giving Gibbs props... saying that they have very similar offenses and that he used an offense similar with what Gibbs was doing in the early 90s. He mentioned the H-Back as one of the things he uses that came from Gibbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 a movable fullback, who can line up as a receiver = h-back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsn24 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Cooley is a ballar, nice article. I wasnt too worried though as cooley can do whatever and i know saunder will use him well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailYeah Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Interesting find. Thanks for the post. But just to keep things fresh, I'll play Devil's advocate: why do you think Saunders passed up on drafting Cooley? I'm sure the GM made the final decision but still...what do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chronicdesi Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Yeah thats definately a good article, but I agree with GURU. Most coaches don't think in terms of positions but more or less matchups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterPinstripe Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 I think the problem here has been that too many people insist on trying to put lablels on certain players: Is this guy a tight end or an H-back? or Is this guy a blocking tight end or a receiving tight end? or even Is this guy a slot-receiver? or a possession receiver? or a "#1" or "#2" receiver?I cracks me up because most of these are fan and media-based terms. They have VERY LITTLE to do with how coaches execute their offenses. Coaches think in terms of packages and matchups. Joe Gibbs never had a "#1" receiver. Neither has Al Saunders. Of course, someone had to lead the team in receptions, or yards, or TDs, but it had little to do with playcalling. The slot is an area on the field, not a position. All tight ends block. Coaches like Gibbs and Saunders are always looking for ways to exploit defenses. That's going to determine who's on the field and where the ball is going. As far as how Saunders and Gibbs (and their offense WILL be a collaborative effort) will use Chris Cooley, they certainly will use packages where Cooley, Fauria, and Sellers on the field at the same time. There will be packages where none of them are on the field. There will be packages where Cooley lines up as a traditional tight end. Some where he's in motion. Some where's he's in the backfield. And some where he's split out wide. But I can guarantee that Cooley will be a focal point. I just don't understand the need for labels. They simply don't correspond much to what's going to happen on the field. :applause: Well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FBChick Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Interesting find. Thanks for the post.But just to keep things fresh, I'll play Devil's advocate: why do you think Saunders passed up on drafting Cooley? I'm sure the GM made the final decision but still...what do you guys think? At the time it could be possible that Wilson looked to be the better player, which allowed Cooley to fall where he did. But after two years.. it really doesn't matter because it is fact that Cooley has far out produced then Wilson (Injury or not). He was definately the better pick up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPstretch Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 our offense will have so many different looks it will be so hard for defenses to scheme against us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdlives Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Interesting find. Thanks for the post.But just to keep things fresh, I'll play Devil's advocate: why do you think Saunders passed up on drafting Cooley? I'm sure the GM made the final decision but still...what do you guys think? I dont think Saunders as the OC had enough influence over the draft as some might think. Th Chiefs work with a traditional General Manager and then head coach may have some say. OC is towards the bottom of the list. Just because they didn't draft him doesn't mean they didn't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 But just to keep things fresh, I'll play Devil's advocate: why do you think Saunders passed up on drafting Cooley? I'm sure the GM made the final decision but still...what do you guys think? I betcha anything that the Skins were looking at Kris Wilson, as well, and if they had the choice between Wilson and Cooley, they might have chosen Wilson. Wilson is more athletic and faster than Cooley, and probably projected as more of a weapon down the seams than Cooley. The Chiefs, I'm sure, were looking at Wilson as an eventual successor to Tony Gonzales, too. Again, that athleticism was a factor in that decision. Of course, in hindsight, Cooley has proved more athletic than origanally given credit for and, more importantly, has proven very durable. The guy's a weapon whom Saunders will enjoy employing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwsleep Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Great post, Wilbur. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiJo Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 a movable fullback, who can line up as a receiver = h-back Don't confound us with facts Bubba! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoDannyBoy Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Good post and a great read. Thanks on a slow news day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philal0102 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 yessssss.... i love cooley... i cant WAIT for this season to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.