You might want to re think that question. We have a FB, Tyler Clutts and he was the lead blocker on Thomas' one yard plunge TD.
It could have helped, but it wasn't going to solve the situation on its own. Miami should have worked I think quite a bit more on the run game from a practice standpoint this off-season.
Maybe I am wrong but it seemed to me that we ran the ball better when Tannehill was under center than when we were in the shotgun or "pistol" formation. We seemed to run a lot of running plays that ran parallel to the line of scrimmage than straight behind a block.
Those 5-6 yard passes are the new running game. They just need to figure out a way to get the RBs involved. According to PFF Tannehill was 17-24 when getting rid of the ball in 2.5 seconds or less and 7-14 with a TD, 4 sacks and a pick if he held on to the ball longer. Crazy stat.
Agree. Clay seemed to be a good target. Replaced the running game.Same with Gibson. I guess you have throw it 40 times these days. But we have to run the football. Glaring weakness. Tannehill was good in the second half.
Maybe I should have said it better. The original question was would we run better if we HAD a FB? My point is we do have one. The question might have been more on point, imo, if it had been, "should we involve the FB more in the running game?" My answer then would have been, probably not, because it might have telegraphed our play selection too much. Besides if putting Klutts on the field takes Gibson or Clay or someone like that off the field, then I think that is a step backwards.
Didn't we try that already? [video=youtube;HpiMUKfSKIQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpiMUKfSKIQ[/video]
He did make a nice one-handed grab on a touchdown pass, though! Not that I think his signing would have helped us much. I do not think that.
