What ? No sign Leach thread yet?

Not always but they're few and far betweens.

 

My opinions might not mesh with some, but if he will agree to a reasonable contract, I think this one is a no brainer. He is arguably the best fullback in the game today, and would instantly make our run game better. He is a great blocker and knows his role in an offense.

Maybe Will Johnson will turn into something. So, keep him. Cut DJ. He brings pretty much NOTHING to the team. And, IIRC, doesn't Leech also play special teams (I swear I remember that, but I might be mistaken)? When you can get a player of Leech's caliber for cheap you do it. Besides, I'm sure he has a few nuggets of knowledge about the Ravens offense that Lebeau can glean from him for gameplanning purposes.

Line him up in front of Bell or Redman in the I at goaline and I'd almost guarantee a 85% success rate. I think he's that good.

So, what do they do with Will Johnson? Keep him in on passing downs, or as a tight end. If he's as versatile as people say he is they'll find a role for him.

 

I'm mostly in agreement with you, because I think that people overvalue a fullback's importance as a receiver/ball handler, and undervalue their importance as a lead blocker. I've said many a time here that we shouldn't be so lax about the lead block. If it's the block that's right at the point of attack, isn't it the most important block? Or close to it at least? And how many times do we ask that block be made each year? Hundreds? And often at crucial situations, like 3rd/4th and short and at the goal line, right? I don't get why so many people are willing to sacrifice quality on hundreds of blocks right at the point of attack on running plays where the difference is 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, or 50 yards, and a number of touchdowns and first downs, in order to gain a little more speed/fluidity on the 15 times a year the FB touches the ball. And remember, if your big shot versatile FB Johnson gets 30 touches next year, that doesn't mean you gained 30 touches by ditching the Leach/Kreider type. You only gained the difference between what Johnson got, and what Leach/Kreider would have gotten you. Which isn't as much as people tend to think.

I just stumbled across this old post by a very, very wise man, in response to an article about Ben saying we don't need a fullback:

**************************************************

Ben's a great quarterback, but an idiot. He always has been and now that he's on the wrong side of 30 I think it's safe to say he always will be. Pittsburgh uses a fullback, named David Johnson. Ben's clearly satisfied with Johnson's lead blocking. But what drives me so nuts about all of these morons -- yes, morons -- is that they are not getting ANYTHING in return for sacrificing critical blocking, and they can't even put those two things together. The writer of the article articulates this moronic sentiment perfectly:

"I would much rather have a second pass catching tight end on the fiend instead [of a fullback], especially if he can serve as an H-back in certain formations."

So if Ben and Mr. Dave Bryan don't want a true fullback, then they must also be satisfied with all the other aspects of Johnson's game, like running with the ball, catching, getting open. OH WAIT. Johnson doesn't take handoffs at all, he drops almost as many balls as he catches, and he has no running skills to speak of. Not only is he not in the mold of Dan Kreider. He's also not in the mold of Aaron Hernandez, or Richie Anderson, or anyone else that had any skill whatsoever. And it was the same story with Carey Davis before him. These guys couldn't do anything well, but they did everything at the same level and so people thought they were "balanced." Dan Kreider was not a big threat with the ball in his hands, and he was a monstrous blocker. So the difference between his skills was obvious. Johnson can't do any of it, but people perceive him to be a "do it all" kind of guy. But be honest with yourselves. Picture David Johnson running a little route into the flat. Do you really think he could do more with that play than Dan Kreider could have? I think he's more likely to drop the pass, and not any more likely to break a tackle, and not any more likely to run faster. But even if you think he might gain an extra yard or two on every reception, is that really worth having crappy lead blocking for your RBs? Make no mistake, we use a FB all the time. All game long! It's not just here and there, Johnson is in there constantly. And he misses blocks constantly. And the blocks he doesn't miss could be described as "just getting enough." It is a detriment to the team and plain as day to the running backs getting tackled at the line of scrimmage.

For the record, here are some numbers comparing the "true fullback" Kreider and the "versitile H-backs" Johnson and Davis:

Player.....................Yards per Rush..............Yards per Reception.............Yards from Scrimmage/Game

Kreider*..........................4.6............. .................7.9.............................. .........5.4
Johnson**........................N/A..............................8.1................ ......................3.1
Davis***..........................3.8............. ..................4.5............................. ..........5.2

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...K/KreiDa00.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...J/JohnDa05.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...D/DaviCa00.htm

*Players with one asterisk were considered a one trick ponies that was not a threat with the ball in his hands (very true, when compared to starting running backs and receivers). They were also considered an enormous boost to the ground game, because they essentially eliminated one defender on every running play.

**Players with two or more asterisks are infamous for being consistently bad lead blockers from the fullback position, where they primarily played. They have also single-handedly cost their team points time and time again with their woefully inept and often horribly timed whiffs. However, they are also famous for being far superior in the passing game and far superior "threats" to defenses, as proven by the numbers provided.

***Carey Davis was so versitile, he also returned kicks for us, where he averaged 17 yards per return. Somehow, he did NOT make the Pro Bowl that year as a return specialist. But that's because it's rigged.

I'm not trying to make the argument that Dan Kreider was a big threat to do something with the ball. But people do not understand what "threat" means. Any capable, non-handicapped human being with any amount of high school football experience is a threat on the field. Think I'm full of it? Well, would you leave one uncovered on a pass route? Of course not. There is a floor, a "bottoming out" if you will, of threat level. When Neil O'Donnell went out for a pass because Kordell was in at QB, someone covered Neil. They had to, right? They can't just leave him open in the end zone or it'd be a touchdown. It's the same with Kreider vs. Johnson vs. Davis. Unless one of them has enough talent to raise his threat level above that of a normal fullback or tight end up to the level near starting running back, he is at the very bottom of the threat totem poll. Obviously Carey Davis is more threatening than Neil O'Donnell with the ball in his hands. By a mile. But what's the difference on the football field? If it takes the same number of defenders to cover him (one) and tackle him (one), it makes no difference. When it comes to lead blocking, which is what all three of these men did 90% of the time, what's the difference between them? Night and day. But who needs a running game anyway, in today's passing league? We can do without 45% of our offense, right?

**************************************************

I stand by all of that. Now, with Will Johnson it's a little different because not only is he a capable runner/receiver, but he's not a terrible blocker either. I haven't examined his blocking with a microscope like I did the other guys, but I know he was a big improvement. I also haven't examined Leach's blocking, and am kind of just going by reputation here.

I also think you're not quite giving Will Johnson enough credit. He's not just some random UDFA you can pick up again. He's a good, successful UDFA. I don't know what the success rate for those guys is, but I bet it's not good. He's not in the same boat as Davis/D. Johnson. So losing him would hurt if we didn't have a good replacement. That said, if Leach would be a significant upgrade at lead blocking, then he would be a significant upgrade to the team. Yeah, we might lose a few yards on a couple flares and wheels here and there, but we'd obviously gain more on runs all throughout the year, and be more successful in key situations. And as I covered in my old post above, you don't have to be a weapon like W. Johnson in order to catch flares and dumpoffs, run for a bit and get tackled. Kreider's numbers prove that.

Money's also an issue. I wonder if Leach would take a "Screw you guys for cutting me, I'm going to the Steelers" discount.

 

Come on, this is just pure homerism. Leach has been far and away the best fullback in the league since Lorenzo Neal retired, and has been selected to 3 straight all-pro teams.

 

I will agree with Mac`s standard reply lately, in cases like this, because it makes sense, and he`s convinced me, after I have given it some thought...
It is better to grow the youth of our team.
Will Johnson, may not be the absolute destroyer at blocking, like Leach is, but, he WILL be here longer, and help us farther down the road, and it ain`t like his blocking sucks.
Now, if we could have our cake, and eat it to, I tend to agree with the previous poster who said we could sign Leach for a couple years, and temporarily move Johnson to a tight end role, or something.
Actually, that makes sense, considering it`s not a given that Heath will be available at the beginning of the year, or that he will be the same once he does come back.
A little insurance with Johnson, wouldn`t be a bad thing, and you still have him here to resume at fullback, when Leach is gone.
Now if it makes financial sense, I have no idea...
GO STEELERS!

 

Why is it every time a player is cut it's because they must be terrible? James Farrior and Ryan Clark weren't wanted on their former teams either and I'd say they turned out okay.

I'll give you younger and cheaper for Will Johnson... but you're vastly under rating Leach for the sake of your argument. If your argument is we're okay at FB for less money then that's fine... but to act like Leach wouldn't be a huge upgrade is just plain wrong. Johnson can't hold Leach's jock at this point.

 

Leach is a fullback though, not an inside linebacker or safety. I don't see any reason he could start for another 5 years. Anyway, we just don't know yet about Johnson. He's got room to improve, but it's not a given that his blocking will get better. Davis's never did. DJ's never did. Hell, I'm not sure if Kreider's never did, because it was awesome from the get-go. Will's obviously a better player than those first two so there's a better chance he'll improve, but it's not a given. Also, your list of attributes sort of painted the picture that Johnson would be as effective as Leach on running plays. We don't know that either, and I don't like to take people's word for stuff, but if the world is to be believed, Leach is a fantastic lead blocker and Johnson is decent with room to improve.

Honestly, I would be open to keeping them both. I believe lead blocking should account for 90% of weight when deciding between fullbacks. But I also love Will and don't want to lose him. There are always a couple of hats on gameday that go to some crappy player that only plays special teams and is a 3rd stringer and we all know would suck butt if they ever saw the field. Will can definitely play special teams and function as an emergency RB. Leach can play special teams and, as I pointed out in my old post, can still be as or nearly as effective as a runner/receiver, despite his lesser athleticism. I think we can find a spot hiding among the RBs or CBs or something.

Still, my opinion is all dependant on Leach being healthy, in shape, a guy Haley would use, and willingness to play special teams. And money.

 

Call em free agent groupies

 

You assume way too much. You assume that Johnson's going to be this all pro (which Leach already is) despite very little to support that. You also assume Leach has suddenly lost all ability to play in the past 4 months, despite being the best fullback in the league last season.

 

Well, my point is that speed is not an issue and I don't think he has much of an injury history, if any. It's not like being a WR, RB, or CB, where guys tend to drop off because they lose a step. And I'm not aware of any dropoff in his play so far.

This is all moot because we're not signing Leach, but I do hope you're right about Johnson! Come on Will, you can do it!

 

Come on guys, ya'll gotta see things in totallity and not is sections. First off look at the roster, its only 53 men strong and when it comes to RBs we'll keep 4 plus a FB. NO WAY we can keep both W. Johnson and sign Leach. Out of the 4 RBs we'll keep is Bell/LaRod/... the final two will be determined in camp out of three RBs- Redman/Batch/Dwyer.

We'll keep a FB and right now it's a battle between W. Johnson & D. Johnson. I agree with snack in that its a battle just to call it a a battle. If Wil stays healthy its his job.

This thing about keeping Wil on the roster as a TE if we sign Leach-- again no, look at the TE roster, we'll keep three and right now it's Miller,Spaeth and Paulson. What if Miller is on the PUP at the start of the season you say? Then we'll go with Jamie McCoy, neither Johnson will be a TE and our roster.

Now that we concluded it must be either W. Johnson or V. Leach then we must again look at the big picture, the team in totallity which includes present and future signings because there is a cap that must be contended with and properly managed.

If we keep W. Johnson it provides money to also resign/extend a couple players. Who/ Not sure but look at who is in their final year. DL Hood & Keisel.. WR Sanders . OL Pouncey. DBs C. Allen and Clark. LB Worilds. This list is off the top of my head and I'm sure I missed some if others would like to add them it would be great.

If we sign Leach we don't resign/extend key player and we loose Wil Johnson forever. Leach will be gone in a couple years,keeping our Cap tight and a young talented player is gone because he has enough on film some-one will sign him and he isn't PS eligible anymore-he started too many games last year.

So is it worth losing these extensions and wil Johnson to sign Leach for a couple years? Leach is a FB!!! Not a game changer DB or WR. He helps the team but so does Johnson. In fact W. Johnson has been praise for his lead blocking and its been said he only needs to improve on sustaining his blocks longer. Something that meshes with our new blocking scheme and something he's committed to.

He worked three part-time jobs while still training and pursueing his dream of playing in the NFL. A few months later he made it and even scored a TD. He's HUNGRY. He's DRIVEN. He's COMMITTED. He's TALENTED. HE's Young and can be here for 8yrs easy. He's CHEAP. Remember, the FB is always open in the flat and when plays break down as they will do he'll be that option for Ben and will move the chains,hopefully keeping Ben upright more often if he(Ben) recognizes the FB being open.

Like Blastfurnace said, I'll take W. Johnson over Leach everyday and twice on Sunday. Its a no-brainer and not homerism. Leach may be a better blocking FB but what Johnson does to this team vs what Leach does to this team cannot be overshadowed by a pancake block.

Cajun-

Edit: I forgot, Redman and dwyer are both on 1 yr deals and are UFA next year. We can't afford Leach even though we are currently almost 5 mil under the cap.