Think I found my Fullback: CHAD DIEHL, Clemson

Scouting report: http://www.fanaticalfootballfiend.com/3/post/2011/9/chad-diehl-scouting-reports.html

Pro day report: http://www.orangeandwhite.com/news/2012/mar/09/chad-diehl-states-his-case-brandon-thompson-shines/

Highlights:
[youtube:3n6txg0i]esLBElzLCY4[/youtube:3n6txg0i]

He is a real fullback, in the "old" mold. Concussed during first practice at Senior Bowl and so he didn't play that week. 6'3", 260 lbs. 4.9 40 yard dash, 28 reps, 31" vertical. Can "get it done" when it comes to running and receiving, but isn't a real threat. Blocking specialist. Perfect!

Tangent: When it comes to this position, "versitile" is code for "part-time blocker." Anyway, who wants a fullback that is decent at blocking and almost as good as a running back at catching and running? That's like having a kicker who is a decent kicker and almost as good at throwing as your quarterback. WHO CARES? I'd rather have a great kicker who couldn't throw a spiral if his life depended on it. If our game depends on our kicker throwing, or our fullback outrunning a cornerback, we have bigger problems.

As a bonus, he can also be a blocking TE if we feel like having him there (I wouldn't waste a fullback on the line) and is supposedly big on special teams. Said to be a real good, hard working guy. I think that goes far in a fullback. Said to be perhaps a little stiff, but he looks fluid enough to me to do what he needs to do.

Looking like a late round prospect or FA. I would absolutely take him in the 7th, and maybe the 6th if his stock rises. But I haven't done that much research on it yet. Anybody got any other ideas? NO CAREY DAVIS TYPES. REAL BLOCKERS ONLY!

 

No other ideas, if we get a FB, I think it's him or bust. He was the only FB I researched as of yet that I would actively acquire. I think Emil Igwenagu could be an upgrade over Johnson, but like you said, if we go FB why not just get a real FB? Diehl is it. I'd rather spend a 6th or 7th round pick on him than on someone who won't see the field for 3 years, if ever. Diehl will get PT starting Day 1.

And love the highlight reel. If you don't know where Chad Diehl is on the field, just look for the guys flying five yards in the air backwards.

 

The more I think about it, most 5th round picks don't work out. If this guy is really the top of the line out there and is projected to go in the 6th or 7th, I would go as high as a 5th to make sure we get him.

A lot of people will think a 5th on a fullback would be like a 5th on a punter or long snapper, but I couldn't disagree more. If you look at the number of times per game we use a designated lead blocker (can't bring myself to call Johnson a fullback), it's like, MOST of our runs. Almost all of them. Who wouldn't spend a 5th round pick to improve MOST of our runs? That's like 40% of our offense! To me it's no different than drafting a guard that comes out on most passing plays.

I guess the other reason not to do it is because you can supposedly find these guys on the street... but we haven't had one since 2006, so...

 

nice film on him, but my only concern is if mendy isn't back, we don't have the kind of RB's to make him as effective. our RB's are not very good at cutting off of blocks by a guy like him. mendy would be the only one i could see as capable of it with his quickness, which now may be in jepordy. that may have to be addressed with a new guy also. then we would have something. he definately has some pop to his blocks. i think DJ could be replaced with a orange cone actually. LOL

 

There was a post about him a couple of months ago... Would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

As long as we have any running back following a lead block, that lead blocker needs to be good. Right now that is not the case with our team. If our FB can make a good block and our RB can't get there in time, that's the RB's problem, and I'm not worried about our RBs. They aren't usually running full speed when approaching the LOS anyway. All they really need to have is more speed than the fullback, and they are all faster than DJ and this guy. All have decent short-area quickness, including Redman, Dwyer, and Batch.

Besides, the plan is to keep a good FB for a long time. In 6, 8, or 10 years, any number of running backs could be through here and benefit from his blocking.

 

I mentioned him awhile ago. I could see using a 5th-7th on him. But honestly after watching the film he put together on himself, I'm a little disappointed. While I give him credit for some great blocks, he tends to put so much effort into the first block that he falls down so he's only good for 1 block. maybe that's me being nit picky? I'd still like to see him get a shot.

 

I think that's fair. People talk about OL getting to the next level, so why not FB. That being said with a talented RB like Mendenhall, one good block should get you 5-ish yards at least, and anything after that is icing on the cake.

 

i just meant watching him on that tape that the backs made a quick cut off his earhole shot blocks. red,dwyer,clay are not quick cut guys where mendy could be a better fit with him. if the knee doesn't hamper that ability. most of the backs on that tape cut away from the pursuit of the rest of the defense after his block is all i'm saying. our guys are strait line demons right now. memo would be a good fit behind this guy. he's got quick cutting ability with a burst of speed. i could see DJ gone.

 

Haha, yes! One block is plenty! How can we expect him to plant or even shield more than one guy on a play? And one block is more than we get from Johnson, who blocks anywhere from 0-1 guys per play, probably averaging around 0.35. And this guy's blocks are powerful enough to not just stop them, but move them out of the hole. That's big, to create space. Johnson never does that. When he's successful at all, it's in simply getting between the RB and the defender. He never drives them out of a hole.

However, I do think this guy's tendency to go for the kill will cause him to miss some blocks (2:45 in the video looks a lot like DJ -- not sure why he put it on the highlight reel). He needs to settle down a bit and keep his feet better. But then again, this is a highlight reel where he is blowing people away. He didn't put together his most technically sound blocks, he put together his most visually impressive blocks. So maybe he's better than he looks here.

 

i caught that too, snack/58, about him leaving his feet. he nails them but does go for the one time kill shot then to the ground most of the time. pretty good pop though.

 

Man, how did the Steelers let Hynoski out of the state of Pennsylvania????

 

I don't know. I heard they looked at him. Probably some BS philosophy about the position being outdated. Tomlin needs to get off that bandwagon and get back to football.

 

I'm sure that can be coached up, if he doesn't do it already. Most of those blocks don't look so great on highlight reels.

 

Saw some old highlights of Willie Parker and Dan Kreider's blocking didn't look much different from Chad Diehl's. Different level, of course, and Dan Kreider's collegiate highlight reel may be phenomenal, but the two looked very similar. Kreider appeared less explosive but more sustained. Being that he sustained the blocks didn't matter as FWP was well beyond gone after the initial block by Kreider. I suspect Mendy would be similar with Diehl in front of him.

 

You prefer the kind of "fullback" that is not much of a threat at blocking ("See if you can shield that guy from ruining this entire play, will you? I know it's not your thing, but stick your head in there") over the kind that blows people up? One kind helps our running game immensely, the other does nothing for it. If often betrays the RB as often as it helps it, by missing crucial blocks at the point of attack (see the SB fumble, or the Seattle goal line stand week 2). The only advantage to your H-back type is that they can theoretically catch/run a little better. Maybe even a lot better, if you're very lucky. So let me ask you... do you really think that is more important? We're talking about a guy who will be the lead blocker on 20 plays per game. How many balls will be thrown his way? 1 per game? 10 per season? Carey Davis was absolutely a better runner and receiver than Dan Kreider. He was the "do it all" guy. But how often did it matter? Never! How often did we wish he could block like a real fullback? Every game, many times per game. And a guy like Kreider is about as low as it gets when it comes to catching and open field running. He would catch it if it was thrown to him, and he could run like a regular person, but he wasn't about to fake anyone out and rarely broke a tackle. Most times guys just dove at his knees and he fell on top of them. So how many catches/runs would he get per season? Just a few, right? How many for Davis, or a guy like Davis in our scheme? Just a few, right? Maybe a few more? So the question is, on how many of those Carey Davis touches did Davis' superior skills come into play and affect the game? It's not like he's Barry Sanders. He's not even close to as good as a running back, just like most H-backs. Maybe he can get a few extra yards on a couple of plays.

If you are a blocking fullback in the mold of Dan Kreider, you may in fact need to go out for several passes per game. You might even get up to a dozen or so thrown to you each season. So yes, you need to be able to catch the ball, and run with it. However, the notion that you need to be as good at that as a running back is just silly. If we're tossing it to our fullback, it's because everyone else is covered. He needs to catch it and get what he can. Even one broken tackle is a bonus. The notion that an athletic fullback affects a team's coverage more than a blocking fullback at all, let alone enough to warrant sacrificing the running game is silly. Who covers a Carey Davis type out of the backfield? One linebacker. Who covers a Dan Kreider type out of the backfield? One linebacker. In order for it to be more than one guy or a different position like a safety, it has to be freaking Reggie Bush or Darren Sproles or Ray Rice. No H-back or athletic fullback warrants any coverage different than what would be used on a tackle eligible. If we put Casey Hampton out there, they'd still have to cover him. Know why? Because even Casey Hampton would get a ton of yards if they left him open. Who covers a slow, immobile quarterback when he lines up on the sideline in the wildcat? A cornerback. Seem like a waste of defense to you?? Perhaps, but they can't well leave him uncovered or they'd have a touchdown on their hands!

The difference between a Kreider and a Davis when it comes to ball skills and athleticism and running ability may be large. But the effect that difference has in a game is squat. The difference between a Kreider and a Davis when it comes to lead blocking may be large, and it carries a significant impact on most running plays throughout the season. A stronger running game is not squat. In fact, a more dangerous running game has a serious effect on the passing game. It makes safeties play closer to the line of scrimmage and it makes play action more effective. That is a hell of a lot better than maybe a few extra yards on maybe a few dumpoffs in a season. A fullback like Kreider is better for every reason.

Note, I'm not saying it's a bad thing when a fullback is good at catching and running. It's not. But the truth is, most fullbacks who excel at that are not nearly as good (if they are good at all) at lead blocking. Like I said in another post, a fullback who can block okay and catch pretty well is like a kicker who can kick okay and throw pretty well. I'll take the kicker who is amazing at kicking and can't throw the ball more than 5 yards. Sacrificing lead blocking from a fullback for anything is foolish. NO team will leave a fullback open and uncovered just because he's "not much of a threat" with the ball in his hands. He's a human being, so he's still a threat and they know it.

 

kreider put on about 20lbs.of muscle here, from year one and his college days. year two here he really started laying the wood. i hope mendy has that change of direction still after the knee injury. that type of back would really work well with this type of FB in the middle of the field. now down on the goaline redman or dwyer or clay could just run up his back and get into the endzone without having to make a cut. 10-15 times a year on 3rd and shorts and goaline situations would make this guy worth it. for all they threw to DJ, he could even catch a few.

 

i hate to say it snack but it looks like the steelers have found their guy. another johnson. they signed him right after wvu's pro day.

 

Jesus Christ.

A WR turned TE.

If we signed him to play TE, I won't complain. If we signed him to play fullback, we might as well have signed me. I just watched his highlight reel. Seems like a great pickup if you're looking for a pass catching tight end. Yes he's athletic, yes he can catch, but so can 5 trillion other guys. If you want a FULLBACK, you have to get a FULLBACK. Jesus, on his HIGHLIGHT REEL most of the blocks were just okay! He looked more like a receiver out there, just getting in the way of the guys! I only counted one, maybe two real solid lead blocks. There was one in there that wasn't even adequate! And it's on his highlight reel??

I just learned the guy's name, so I don't know much about him. For all I know, he did all kinds of lead blocking at his pro day and that's what caught Tomlin's attention. But from what I can see and read, not only does it look like that isn't this guy's thing, it looks like he doesn't even pretend it is! He's a ball handler!

If he's competition for Saunders, who will miss 4 games, and they intend to use him as a 2nd tight end, then I'm all for it. If he's competition for Johnson, and they intend to use him as our lead blocker, kill me.

 

Your first sentence misconstrues what I said, so let me try to make it even more clear. I did not simply say that I would prefer a guy who blocks poorly over a guy who blocks well. I said that I prefer a guy who is less of a bulldozer, WHO IS ALSO A THREAT TO CATCH AND RUN over a guy who is a 1 trick pony type of fullback who is nothing more than a battering ram lead blocker AND IS NOT A THREAT TO CATCH/RUN. I'd LOVE to have a fullback who can do it all, but if that guy isn't available to us, then I want the guy who is going to be useful for more than just run blocking. I just wanted to get that out of the way. I also did say that he needed to be effective as a blocker, not some schmuck who just lets his RB get blown up (such as Davis). So, you misconstrued what I said in that way as well.

As for the substance - I stand by my opinion. This is 2012. it's a QB driven league, and the rules favor that. A running game is good weapon to have, but you need a good passing game to win championships. There's a reason why every championship team this past decade has a franchise QB. I don't want to have a non-weapon on the field as an eligible receiver on anything other a short yardage play. That's my view, and if you look around the league, you'll see that it's shared by a lot of the most successful offensive minds in the business.[/quote:2jk9vkiq]
Are all running plays short yardage plays? Because we use a fullback on almost every running play, all over the field.

My point is that if you take Kreider as an example -- he is a "one trick pony." He was an outstanding blocker. He was "not a threat" as a runner or receiver. That means he wasn't as good at running/catching as other running backs or even fullbacks. But it doesn't mean he couldn't run and catch. It's not like he was in a wheelchair. He could still go out in the flat or stand in the middle, catch the ball, and run forward and hit somebody. And because of that, defenses are still required to guard him. It's not like he isn't eligible, and must stay in to block. He can still run out there, and he'll either soak up a defender doing it, just like a more "versitile" guy, or he'll be wide open and get a first down, just like a more "versitile" guy. But even an athletic fullback (I don't know, Brian Leonard?) won't make the first guy miss every time, or most times, or even half the time. Most times they'll still go down right when the first guy comes. And most times, even if they do get by that guy, the rest of the cavalry is right behind. So the Leonard type might get you a few more yards here and there on catches, but how many yards is that, really? I'll be generous and say an average of 3 or 4 yards every reception. Now think about the Steelers and think about how many that will be. At the absolute most we're talking about 25 catches per year, and possibly far less. After all, we already have guys much better as runners than an athletic fullback figures to be. And how many catches did Mendenhall, Redman, Moore have? Saunders/Johnson? So maybe the more athletic guy breaks a tackle here and there and nets us an extra 100 yards and two TDs for the season. Hooray! Now put in that one trick battering ram. We just lost 100 yards and two TDs. But watch our running game take off. If he's really an expert at lead blocking, and can really blow guys out of the hole, we're talking about not just more yards on average for every running play, but also more long runs and fewer runs stuffed in the backfield. Also better red zone efficiency and goal line. It opens everything up. It goes without saying that if you have a great lead blocker you have a much better chance of scoring. But don't forget if you have a scary backfield with Kreider/Bettis or Diehl/Redman, teams will have to respect it and it will open up play action. Moreover, speaking of threats, teams will key in on your fullback if he is a threat as a blocker. When Kreider wasn't knocking people out, he was running the wrong way and taking two linebackers with him. Having someone like that will get you a hell of a lot more than a handful more YAC here and there. Especially when you consider what our team has (speedy playmakers abound) and what it needs (better running game, better blocking, more TDs and fewer FGs in the red zone).

I know you're not saying you don't want a guy who can block. You're saying you want a guy who can do it all. But you are also saying you'd sacrifice blocking before "skills," and that is where I get off. We won't gain a thing from "skills" from our fullback. We will lose a ton if we sacrifice blocking, as evidenced by years 2007-2011.

 

i think that's their thinking. they don't want a FB. from what i read he did TE and rb/fb drills at the pro day. tomlin took him aside and told him "don't tell other teams anything but we are going to sign you" and they did.

 

i think that's their thinking. they don't want a FB. from what i read he did TE and rb/fb drills at the pro day. tomlin took him aside and told him "don't tell other teams anything but we are going to sign you" and they did. [/quote:3fv89ujm]
I can't speak to how they'll use this guy, because it hasn't happened yet, and if they want to use him in a cool WR/TE/Aaron Hernandez role, that's awesome. But what I won't be able to stand is if they continue to say they don't want or have no use for a FB, and then continue to use a lead blocker that can't block (or do anything else) on every running play. IF YOU USE A LEAD BLOCKER AT ALL, YOU NEED A FULLBACK. IF YOU USE ONE CONSTANTLY LIKE THE STEELERS DO, YOU DEFINITELY NEED A FULLBACK.

The fact is that ever since Kreider left, our fullback usaged has remained high! Only the quality of our blocking has gone down. Way down. Like from "amazing" all the way to "terrible." And what has it gained us? How much has having more athletic guys in the backfield helped? I can't think of anything, let alone enough to warrant sabotaging our own running attack.