Will Johnson's Role Should Affect TE Depth Chart

[GBMelBlount]

As we’ve talked about before, the Pittsburgh Steelers have moved fullback Will Johnson to the tight ends group in a move that brought a glimmer to the eye of former team offensive coordinator Bruce Arians. They did so in an effort to give the soft-handed “h-back”, as he called himself yesterday, more opportunities on the field.

In previous installments of training camp, Johnson would be working with the running backs, which would have been more advantageous to him in Arians’ old offense. But with the increased usage of the no huddle under Todd Haley, it proved to be difficult last season to get him opportunities, and it showed in his stats compared to his rookie year.

So this season, he’s working with the likes of Heath Miller, Matt Spaeth, and David Paulson, learning to block and run routes as a tight end, which is typically as an in-line blocker rather than as a lead out of the backfield.

As I wrote yesterday, of course, the idea isn’t entirely foreign to the third-year man, but it is something that he has only done on a limited basis. There were instances last season, for example, during which Johnson lined up in-line as a blocker, or motioned out of the backfield as a receiver.

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2014/07...+Depot+Blog%29

[tube517]

I thought W.Johnson was originally a TE when he became a Steeler but was put in the fake "FB" position. FB vs TE in the Steeler playbook isn't really THAT much of a difference since Arians didn't like FBs and carried 8 million TEs on the roster.

[steelreserve]

That's great, so now rather than have him be good at one position, we can have him be ineffective at two. I've always hated the idea of the H-back. It's where they stick people who aren't good enough to be a real TE, and can't (or don't want to) be a "true" fullback. Nobody ever plays it well, the one exception being Delanie Walker when he was with the 49ers. Have you ever seen an H-back come in and gone "Wow, that guy really changed the game - I'm glad HE'S on the field!" No, you end up with a fullback who's below-average at blocking and a TE who's uncomfortable running routes and catching passes. All it does is water down two positions and then the guy leaves as a low-dollar free agent after a couple years and you aren't interested in keeping him. You want a fullback, have one guy be the fullback and you can chuck a pass his way once in a while if you want. You want a tight end, you already have about 10 of them. H-back is stupid and a waste of a roster spot.

Seriously, so much emphasis is put on "being on the field for a higher percentage of snaps" these days that it's stupid. That's how we got things like the fake fullback and the fake nose tackle, neither of which actually work. Seriously, just get a big fat guy to play nose tackle and be OK with him only playing 2 out of 3 downs. Get a big slow white guy to play FB, and be OK with him only being on the field half the time. What did you think, dumbass, you could have all 53 guys on the field at once? Is that the goal? You're worried about the one roster spot, teach your backup center how to be a long snapper. Christ almighty, this is dumb.

[KeiselPower99]

He was essentially a H-back in college since WVU were a running team at that time. Honestly isnt a big position change.