PDA

View Full Version : So, is Tomlin a liar?


thumper
02-16-2011, 03:45 PM
When he first became head coach, there was a story
about the posters in his office. His most prominently-placed
picture was of a power rushing, goal line play
up the middle.

Tomlin said he liked it best because it illustrated what he
thinks football, and Steeler football, is all about.

All that being said, why would he keep an OC who doesn't
even feel the need for a FB? That is totally crap.

Power football is usually accompanied with a FB, and if not,
you usually at least have a FB on the roster if you believe in
power football. So why is Arians still OC?

His philosophies do not mesh with Pgh or Tomlin - or at least
what Tomlin SAYS any how.

StainlessStill
02-16-2011, 03:55 PM
What the Steelers are doing is trying to fit in the mold of the new NFL without completley going to an air it out attack. The Steelers have a great running game and a workhorse in Mendenhall that they utilize to his strength.

Just like Hines or anyone else in the organization will tell you: No matter what, we will never be a Colts or Patriots offense. Will we throw the ball MORE than the past? Yes, keeping up with the times but we will continue to pound the rock regardless of if it's working or not.

Arians supplanted a system to where he could allow his offense to grow to open up. In Arians defense, he has had to deal with some freak injuries to not only his QB (s) but to his offensive line as well. Mix that in with losing Santonio Holmes and grooming only a second year player (Wallace) and 2 rookies (Brown, Sanders) and there you have continuity issues.

We are still a running team. We'd like to be a power run team but judging by the way we' drafted the past couple years, the fullback is no longer needed in how we do things, atleast in Arians's eyes.

To Arians defense, he hasn't had MUCH to work with due to injuries to his o-line, which I'm SURE plays with his head in situational mis-haps.

Tomlin is keeping Arians for continuity purpose's only. Hopefully next year we can keep and offensive line healthy mixed in with more groomed young WR's and hopefully we finally take off in Arians's system.

It's bound to happen and it HAS shown glimpses. We'll see if it happens, I'm not giving up on Arians just yet even though signs are there for the whole fanbase to cut his throat.

tony hipchest
02-16-2011, 03:56 PM
it doesnt rhyme. :noidea:

kirklandrules
02-16-2011, 04:10 PM
We are still a running team.

Really? I'm not sure I know what the Steelers offensive identity is. One thing is pretty clear, Arians doesn't attack an opponent's weakness. Which makes sense because we see game planning that seem to fall right into the opponent's strengths, totally disregard weather and obviously doesn't consider field position.

But I will agree that Arians did have the deck stacked against him this year with all of crap that went down (QB issues, injuries, inexperienced WRs) and yet they still made the SB.

FanSince72
02-16-2011, 05:25 PM
The thing about "identities" that bugs me is that it runs very close to the old "imposing your will" mantra that was popular for a long time.

But teams to day are becoming more adaptable and if a team holds to just one identity, it is going to run into situations where that identity doesn't fit against certain teams and that's where we are now.

I read an interesting story this past season about how Belichick prepared for playing Chicago.

He said that he knew it was going to be snowing and that the field would be slick. He also knew that the prevailing philosophy in snowy conditions is to run the ball most of the time.

What he did instead was to bring a passing game to Chicago. The way he schemed it was to almost always have two receivers run out-routes. This naturally brings the Cornerbacks to the edge of the field but because of the slippery conditions, it would also have the Safeties favoring the sidelines so that they could guard against a Cornerback slipping and the receiver racing up the sidelines.

What this did was to leave the middle wide open and Brady dinked and dunked Chicago to death over the middle and they ended up winning big -- all with a mostly passing attack in crummy conditions.

What impressed me about that was the fact that Belichick didn't buy into any "identity" nonsense about how to play in snow and he not only decided to pass, but he designed a specific way in which to do it JUST for that one day in Chicago. If it hadn't snowed and the field was dry, he would have brought something else to the table.

The point here is that Belichick didn't play with an identity in mind, he played with winning in mind and did whatever he had to do and took on whatever identity was necessary to do it. There have also been games in which Belichick has had well over 35 or 40 running plays despite having a top-shelf QB because on that day, running was what he needed to do.

But when he decides to run or pass, he doesn't just call more running plays or more passing plays but he rather sits down and designs entire schemes based on his opponents strengths and weaknesses to the point of designing specific types of running or passing plays just for that opponent.

Identities work in a general sense and a team obviously has to "be" something most of the time. But identities can also lock a team into a mindset where they try to make a single thing work all of the time despite having trouble with it against teams that are built to stop whatever it is they're trying to do.

I believe that successful teams going forward are going to be those that can adapt to changing situations whether in game-planning or even within the game itself, rather than those who simply try to bring some "identity" with them and expect that to work no matter what.

MaineSteelerFan
02-16-2011, 05:29 PM
When he first became head coach, there was a story
about the posters in his office. His most prominently-placed
picture was of a power rushing, goal line play
up the middle.

Tomlin said he liked it best because it illustrated what he
thinks football, and Steeler football, is all about.

All that being said, why would he keep an OC who doesn't
even feel the need for a FB? That is totally crap.

Power football is usually accompanied with a FB, and if not,
you usually at least have a FB on the roster if you believe in
power football. So why is Arians still OC?

His philosophies do not mesh with Pgh or Tomlin - or at least
what Tomlin SAYS any how.

No he has just evolved, this is not the 70's anymore - today NFL is a passing NFL.

thumper
02-16-2011, 06:07 PM
No he has just evolved, this is not the 70's anymore - today NFL is a passing NFL.

There is still room and value in having a thumping FB.
Others have brought up the fact that they refuse to have
a FB on the roster, but use a TE as a FB, but doing a poor
job of it. Why have Johnson on the roster instead of a real,
true FB who slobberknockers people? It's not like Johnson
is __ also __ offering catching ability. As a matter of fact,
most FBs are probably better pass catchers than is Johnson,
so what is the point of having a blocking TE serving as a FB
who is neither good at rush blocking OR any good at catching?
WTF is the purpose of that? Give me a young Kreider in the backfield
over what they are trying to do with TEs any day. It's just not smart -
the manner in which they are scheming this shit.

thumper
02-16-2011, 06:17 PM
The thing about "identities" that bugs me is that it runs very close to the old "imposing your will" mantra that was popular for a long time.

But teams to day are becoming more adaptable and if a team holds to just one identity, it is going to run into situations where that identity doesn't fit against certain teams and that's where we are now.

I read an interesting story this past season about how Belichick prepared for playing Chicago.

He said that he knew it was going to be snowing and that the field would be slick. He also knew that the prevailing philosophy in snowy conditions is to run the ball most of the time.

What he did instead was to bring a passing game to Chicago. The way he schemed it was to almost always have two receivers run out-routes. This naturally brings the Cornerbacks to the edge of the field but because of the slippery conditions, it would also have the Safeties favoring the sidelines so that they could guard against a Cornerback slipping and the receiver racing up the sidelines.

What this did was to leave the middle wide open and Brady dinked and dunked Chicago to death over the middle and they ended up winning big -- all with a mostly passing attack in crummy conditions.

What impressed me about that was the fact that Belichick didn't buy into any "identity" nonsense about how to play in snow and he not only decided to pass, but he designed a specific way in which to do it JUST for that one day in Chicago. If it hadn't snowed and the field was dry, he would have brought something else to the table.

The point here is that Belichick didn't play with an identity in mind, he played with winning in mind and did whatever he had to do and took on whatever identity was necessary to do it. There have also been games in which Belichick has had well over 35 or 40 running plays despite having a top-shelf QB because on that day, running was what he needed to do.

But when he decides to run or pass, he doesn't just call more running plays or more passing plays but he rather sits down and designs entire schemes based on his opponents strengths and weaknesses to the point of designing specific types of running or passing plays just for that opponent.

Identities work in a general sense and a team obviously has to "be" something most of the time. But identities can also lock a team into a mindset where they try to make a single thing work all of the time despite having trouble with it against teams that are built to stop whatever it is they're trying to do.

I believe that successful teams going forward are going to be those that can adapt to changing situations whether in game-planning or even within the game itself, rather than those who simply try to bring some "identity" with them and expect that to work no matter what.

I totally get what you are saying about Belichick and how he never cares about
an "identity" (other than winning) and just does what's smart as far as
game planning goes. My point isn't that Pgh should have a FB because it
would be closer to their identity; I only care that they had one b.c it made SENSE
and would lead to more winning. I really don't get what the value is in using a TE
who isn't that good at rush blocking __ or __ pass catching to be used in
the way a FB would be used. Give me a real gad damn FB if you do feel the
need for rush blocking out of the backfield.

That doesn't mean - at all - that having a FB means your team will be antiquated
and not use the current rules to pass the ball. The fact that they use Johnson
as a FB in many plays proves that they do value the extra blocker. SO GIVE US ONE.
Let's not forget it was Johnson's missed block that helped lead to the game-losing
fumble of Mendy - he blew it.

MattsMe
02-16-2011, 06:49 PM
Is this a poetry thread?

LW56
02-16-2011, 07:51 PM
it doesnt rhyme. :noidea:

Here ya go:

When he first became head coach there was a story,
about the posters in his office depicting Steeler glory.
His most prominently-placed picture was of a power rushing goal line play,
up the middle amongst the fray.

Tomlin said he liked it best because without a doubt, is what he
thinks football, and Steeler football, is all about.

All that being said,
why would he keep an OC who doesn't give head,
or feel the need, to have a FB that defenses would dread?
It's not because of the salary cap. That is totally crap.

Power football is usually accompanied with a FB and if not,
you usually at least have a FB that has a roster spot.
If you believe in power football thats nasty and mean,
why is Arians still OC of this team?

His philosophies do not mesh with Pgh or Tomlin before or now - or at least with
what Tomlin SAYS anyhow.

JEFF4i
02-16-2011, 07:55 PM
What? If you were a better coach, you'd have been hired by now.

No, I'm not saying you can't comment, but seriously dude, you're being unreasonable. I want a strong FB too, but show me one power running team? Anyone? Anyone?

Steven Jackson and Turner are two close ones, with teams who NEEDED a QB and aerial attack. That being BRadford and Ryan respectively. Alas, don't forget Redman, he has power. But HYBRID is the main thing now a days, on both sides of the ball.

Two Superbowls in 4 years of coach and you bitch?

bornaSteelersfan
02-16-2011, 08:07 PM
"There's not a fullback on the roster," Bruce Arians declared three days before the Steelers opened the 2009 season. "There's a running back who plays fullback, a tight end who plays fullback. I don't have a fullback. There's no fullback in my offense, there's never going to be one."



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10122/1054921-66.stm#ixzz1EApuExr2

Since we have Arians another year, don't expect there to be an actual FB (ala Rocky Bleier or Merril Hoge).

JEFF4i
02-16-2011, 08:56 PM
And if they draft one, is he a liar? And if we get someone who is talented at both FB and TE, but plays TE, does it matter?

fer522
02-16-2011, 09:04 PM
Here ya go:

When he first became head coach there was a story,
about the posters in his office depicting Steeler glory.
His most prominently-placed picture was of a power rushing goal line play,
up the middle amongst the fray.

Tomlin said he liked it best because without a doubt, is what he
thinks football, and Steeler football, is all about.

All that being said,
why would he keep an OC who doesn't give head,
or feel the need, to have a FB that defenses would dread?
It's not because of the salary cap. That is totally crap.

Power football is usually accompanied with a FB and if not,
you usually at least have a FB that has a roster spot.
If you believe in power football thats nasty and mean,
why is Arians still OC of this team?

His philosophies do not mesh with Pgh or Tomlin before or now - or at least with
what Tomlin SAYS anyhow.


:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::k ick::kick::kick:

SH-Rock
02-16-2011, 09:23 PM
Here ya go:

When he first became head coach there was a story,
about the posters in his office depicting Steeler glory.
His most prominently-placed picture was of a power rushing goal line play,
up the middle amongst the fray.

Tomlin said he liked it best because without a doubt, is what he
thinks football, and Steeler football, is all about.

All that being said,
why would he keep an OC who doesn't give head,
or feel the need, to have a FB that defenses would dread?
It's not because of the salary cap. That is totally crap.

Power football is usually accompanied with a FB and if not,
you usually at least have a FB that has a roster spot.
If you believe in power football thats nasty and mean,
why is Arians still OC of this team?

His philosophies do not mesh with Pgh or Tomlin before or now - or at least with
what Tomlin SAYS anyhow.
You win the Internetz

StainlessStill
02-16-2011, 11:52 PM
Really? I'm not sure I know what the Steelers offensive identity is. One thing is pretty clear, Arians doesn't attack an opponent's weakness. Which makes sense because we see game planning that seem to fall right into the opponent's strengths, totally disregard weather and obviously doesn't consider field position.

But I will agree that Arians did have the deck stacked against him this year with all of crap that went down (QB issues, injuries, inexperienced WRs) and yet they still made the SB.

The Steelers lack identity because they are trying to transition but we STILL do pound the rock more-so than the passing ratio in many cases. When Ben was out, the Steelers were one of the teams atop the league in rushing. Common sense tells you that with Ben now in the lineup as our healthy franchise and entering his 7th season in the league and in his PRIME, to expand the offense around him and make him go downfield more often but still stick true to the run game.

We just have to find that happy medium that works. Arians system isn't flawed, it's his situational garbage. It's fixable.

BGSU A Dub
02-17-2011, 12:45 AM
Doesn't a good running game need a great line? and a great running game need a phenomenal line? Do we have either one of these? Hmmm?

I mean 50 other threads on this board say we have 5 scoops of cottage cheese for an offensive line.

Rick5895
02-17-2011, 04:41 AM
Doesn't a good running game need a great line? and a great running game need a phenomenal line? Do we have either one of these? Hmmm?

I mean 50 other threads on this board say we have 5 scoops of cottage cheese for an offensive line.

Right on! Our running game will improve when we have more consistancy on our O Line. The days of the big slober knocking fullback are gone in the NFL. A hybrid type is a bit fit in mot offenses, including ours. Redman can fill that role if neccesary. I think Johnson does a decent enough job (although he misses the odd block) Keeping a FB on the roster for the sake of having 1 reduces the options available. In short yardage we usually have been bringing in a back up OL to hit the point of attack, that works well. If we can get a FB who can do more than just block and be a glorified guard go get one, but those players are very hard to come by and usually cost more than they would be worth.
I would be interested to see what we can do offensively with a healthy OL and improvement at the right guard position. My guess is we could be a very good O, even with brucey calling the plays.

BGSU A Dub
02-17-2011, 04:55 AM
Well a lot of teams are also utilizing the athleticism of their defensive players, and why not? Those dlinemen and linebackers are big angry guys. Could you imagine running the ball behind Casey Hampton? I know he doesn't move the fastest but how could he not create momentum if not a hole?

StainlessStill
02-17-2011, 06:24 AM
Doesn't a good running game need a great line? and a great running game need a phenomenal line? Do we have either one of these? Hmmm?

I mean 50 other threads on this board say we have 5 scoops of cottage cheese for an offensive line.

The offensive line deserves more credit being that not one line rotation stuck all year, let alone 5 or 6 of them if your name wasn't Flozell Adams and Pouncey and even they missed time here and there. The O-line did exceptionally well this year, esp pass-blocking. Ben's sack numbers were way down on his average. If we can stay healthy enough during the coarse of the season then I don't see why this group couldn't have an even better year next season (if there is one:noidea:)

BGSU A Dub
02-17-2011, 06:42 AM
The offensive line deserves more credit being that not one line rotation stuck all year, let alone 5 or 6 of them if your name wasn't Flozell Adams and Pouncey and even they missed time here and there. The O-line did exceptionally well this year, esp pass-blocking. Ben's sack numbers were way down on his average. If we can stay healthy enough during the coarse of the season then I don't see why this group couldn't have an even better year next season (if there is one:noidea:)

Don't get me wrong, I was not being critical of the line- it's other jokesters on here. I think we have a fine running game, one that other teams respect. I mean he averaged 3.9 yards a run (and if you're doing your math at home, 3 runs at 3.9 yards a carry is 11.7 yards (aka 1st down) [note: I know average doesn't mean he runs that every time]. He ran for over 70 yards 9 times (3 of them being when Ben was out and the 4th week of Ben's absense it was 69 yards). Injuries plagued this O-line but when they were fresh in the beginning of the season, Mendy put up big yards (including that run in OT vs. the Falcons).

LW56
02-17-2011, 08:23 AM
it doesnt rhyme. :noidea:

Here ya go:

When he first became head coach there was a story,
about the posters in his office depicting Steeler glory.
His most prominently-placed picture was of a power rushing goal line play,
up the middle amongst the fray.

Tomlin said he liked it best because without a doubt, is what he
thinks football, and Steeler football, is all about.

All that being said,
why would he keep an OC who doesn't give head,
or feel the need, to have a FB that defenses would dread?
It's not because of the salary cap. That is totally crap.

Power football is usually accompanied with a FB and if not,
you usually at least have a FB that has a roster spot.
If you believe in power football thats nasty and mean,
why is Arians still OC of this team?

His philosophies do not mesh with Pgh or Tomlin before or now - or at least with
what Tomlin SAYS anyhow.

You win the Internetz

Al?
Thanks, but the only one that can award me the internetz is the guy who invented it!:chuckle:

kirklandrules
02-17-2011, 10:09 AM
Since we have Arians another year, don't expect there to be an actual FB (ala Rocky Bleier or Merril Hoge).

I'm not looking for a Bleier or Hoge. I'm looking for a Lester, Witman, Kreider. I want someone who has experience blowing up defenders at the point of attack. Not converted TEs who tend to miss two defenders on one play in the Super Bowl.

I do have to say that I love seeing Legursky playing FB on goalline plays. That works for me.

kirklandrules
02-17-2011, 10:20 AM
And if they draft one, is he a liar? No, he's evolving his style and learning on the job. Takes a big man to admit something else might work better than the original plan. That is why Lebeau is in the HOF and Arians will have to pay admission to walk through.

And if we get someone who is talented at both FB and TE, but plays TE, does it matter? Not if they can bury defenders with crushing blocks (eg: like Kreider used to bury Ray Lewis). I don't care what job title you give the player as long as the job gets done. I will admit that David Johnson has done a better job as a lead blocker this year, but he still needs improvement to ensure consistent short yardage running.

thumper
02-17-2011, 02:30 PM
And if they draft one, is he a liar? And if we get someone who is talented at both FB and TE, but plays TE, does it matter?

That player does not exist. TEs are tall. Tall = shit at rush blocking
out of the backfield. It's not even close. A real FB is 6' tops, built
stocky. That is a real blocking FB, not some TE trying to be one.
Kreider was 5-11, 250 lbs. Now __ that's __ a true FB.

thumper
02-17-2011, 02:33 PM
No, he's evolving his style and learning on the job. Takes a big man to admit something else might work better than the original plan. That is why Lebeau is in the HOF and Arians will have to pay admission to walk through.

Not if they can bury defenders with crushing blocks (eg: like Kreider used to bury Ray Lewis). I don't care what job title you give the player as long as the job gets done. I will admit that David Johnson has done a better job as a lead blocker this year, but he still needs improvement to ensure consistent short yardage running.

A TE will NEVER be as good as a blocker as a legit FB. They
are too tall. Legit FB are rarely over 6' - Kreider used to abuse
Ray Lewis and he was 5-11", 250 lbs. Arians arrogant refusal
to have a FB on the roster is total bull shit.

tony hipchest
02-17-2011, 02:50 PM
Now __ that's __ a true FB.

:confused: fill in the blanks??? :noidea:

Kreider used to abuse
Ray Lewis and he was 5-11", 250 lbs.

thats just a myth, legend, and fan lore.

sure there is a highlight or 2 of kreider pancaking lewis, but the ravens routinely held ALL teams leading rushers to under a 100 yards, including the heralded dan, and the steam rolling bus.

Dino 6 Rings
02-17-2011, 02:56 PM
That player does not exist. TEs are tall. Tall = shit at rush blocking
out of the backfield. It's not even close. A real FB is 6' tops, built
stocky. That is a real blocking FB, not some TE trying to be one.
Kreider was 5-11, 250 lbs. Now __ that's __ a true FB.

Hynoski, from PITT

6'2" 260 position = FULLBACK

thumper
02-17-2011, 03:27 PM
Hynoski, from PITT

6'2" 260 position = FULLBACK

So Hynoski is a proven lead blocker in the NFL?

thumper
02-17-2011, 03:51 PM
You mean this guy? LOLhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IULHyDZDIvA

thumper
02-17-2011, 03:53 PM
:confused: fill in the blanks??? :noidea:



thats just a myth, legend, and fan lore.

sure there is a highlight or 2 of kreider pancaking lewis, but the ravens routinely held ALL teams leading rushers to under a 100 yards, including the heralded dan, and the steam rolling bus.

No myth about it. They ran more effectively with a real lead block
FB than they did without one. Oh, but wait, you would prefer
we use some dorky TE who misses blocks that leads to
Super Bowl losses from fumbles instead? Way to go.

Dino 6 Rings
02-17-2011, 04:57 PM
No myth about it. They ran more effectively with a real lead block
FB than they did without one. Oh, but wait, you would prefer
we use some dorky TE who misses blocks that leads to
Super Bowl losses from fumbles instead? Way to go.


Hynoski was the lead blocker for Lewis and McCoy. You might know McCoy, he's the starter for the Eagles now. Lewis was the guy that broke McCoy's records his freshman year. Lead Blocker. Hynoski.

He can also catch out of the backfield. So you get the TE Aspect of the short routes with good hands and the lead blocking.

But you go on and put the name of the "proven blocker" you want out there. Please do. I'd be interested in seeing who it is you think we should Buy off the open market to be the FB you want in the formation.

thumper
02-17-2011, 05:23 PM
Hynoski was the lead blocker for Lewis and McCoy. You might know McCoy, he's the starter for the Eagles now. Lewis was the guy that broke McCoy's records his freshman year. Lead Blocker. Hynoski.

He can also catch out of the backfield. So you get the TE Aspect of the short routes with good hands and the lead blocking.

But you go on and put the name of the "proven blocker" you want out there. Please do. I'd be interested in seeing who it is you think we should Buy off the open market to be the FB you want in the formation.

No need to go FA market. The draft has plenty of good
FB for lead blocking every year.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1244502 --super versatile player. Can be had in the 4th round. He can even play ILB if we need him to.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1680826 - Sherman is the bruiser who can be had in the 7th round or as an undrafted free agent.

There are plenty of good FB prospects who can be had late in the draft
or as undrafted free agents.

I would prefer they go for a legit lead blocker, who LOVES to do
that job and is great at it, than a tweener FB who is more
interested in carrying the ball.

Dino 6 Rings
02-17-2011, 05:28 PM
No need to go FA market. The draft has plenty of good
FB for lead blocking every year.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1244502 --super versatile player. Can be had in the 4th round. He can even play ILB if we need him to.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1680826 - Sherman is the bruiser who can be had in the 7th round or as an undrafted free agent.

There are plenty of good FB prospects who can be had late in the draft
or as undrafted free agents.

I would prefer they go for a legit lead blocker, who LOVES to do
that job and is great at it, than a tweener FB who is more
interested in carrying the ball.

great thoughts, I like wear your head is at with the FB want.

but I had to give others a peak at my guy.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1243179

thumper
02-17-2011, 06:36 PM
great thoughts, I like wear your head is at with the FB want.

but I had to give others a peak at my guy.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1243179

I have nothing against your guy, as long as he relishes laying
out dudes with blocking and can do so with his taller frame.
I am not saying he can't - just want to make sure that is the
case. Block as a lead blocker is about two things and pretty
much two things only:

1.) WANT
2.) LEVERAGE

His 6-2 frame might give him a little less leverage than
I'd like, but if he was the WANT and gets low enough
when he hits, maybe he could be good. I just don't want
to sacrifice the punishing blocking just because the
kid can catch and run a little bit. Looking at his bio, I fear
he may be too into being a ball carrier and not enough
wanting to be the guy delivering slobberknockers. I want
a lead blocker who wants to destroy LBs and cherishes
that as much as anything. Is Hynoski that guy? He was
the 6th all-time leading rusher in high school so at that
level he was not that guy.

Anyone know if this guy LOVES to deliver slobberknockers
or not?

BengalDestroyer
02-19-2011, 01:41 PM
David Johnson is a big boy, and versatile. I don't see what everyone's complaining about (as far as not having a FB, would it be different if Johnsons # was 35?) We still play power football, even when were passing - think about it...

thumper
02-19-2011, 02:06 PM
David Johnson is a big boy, and versatile. I don't see what everyone's complaining about (as far as not having a FB, would it be different if Johnsons # was 35?) We still play power football, even when were passing - think about it...

Here is what I believe most are "complaining about." Johnson is
an "ok" lead blocker, but no one is going to mistake him for a true
FB when it comes to lead blocking - he doesn't have the leverage.
He is a good blocker, in terms of blocking on the edge as a TE,
but providing lead blocking out of the backfield is a different animal.

Now, that being said, Arians has stated that he prefers H-backs
instead of FB because H-backs are more likely to offer better
pass catching skills. Only problem with that is that Johnson sucks
so bad at catching, that a FB would be just as good at catching (it
would take much) while providing superior lead blocking.

That is what my problem with using Johnson as opposed to
a true FB is: Offers weaker blocking while not offering better
receiving. Then why use him as opposed to a real FB? Makes
no logic.