Who Needs a Fullback? The Philadelphia Eagles, at the Very Least

Take a good, long look at the Baltimore Ravens' star fullback.

It seems that in this day and age, the era of the West Coast and spread offenses, the time of the Mike Martz-type coaches, that fullbacks just don't seem to exist anymore.

Sure you can find one somewhere on some teams rosters, typically those plodding, run-based offenses such as the Ravens and the Steelers. But honestly, when was the last time you took the time to realize exactly how important that fullback is to the team?

Just a short while ago, I took a look over some of the newest articles on Bleacher Report and noticed a very interesting article on former Seahawk fullback, Leonard Weaver. Cody's article was truly enlightening, to say the least.

It was so good that it actually helped me smash through the case of writer's block that I had been struggling with over the last couple of weeks. How many people even know who Leonard Weaver is?

Exactly.

This is exactly why I am writing this article, in hopes that I can help justify and bring much needed respect to this oft-forgotten position.

Prior to the current time-line of the NFL, fullbacks were not even close to what they are today. Their primary role was to run for yards, exactly the opposite of their role in today's offenses.

Not a short-yardage back, these were sledgehammers who were asked to do everything on the field except catching pass. Nowadays, they rarely gain many yards but are instead asked to do everything else.

In today's NFL, fullbacks are primarily asked to pass-block and run-block, giving QBs precious seconds in the pocket and paving running lanes for the star halfbacks behind them.

Because of this they have almost become forgotten in a game where fans track fantasy statistics and are always looking for the big play.

How shameful.

Out of all of the teams that are currently a part of the NFL, the Philadelphia Eagles are as guilty as anyone of forgetting the true value of a great fullback.

Why would you take a huge gamble on converting a lineman into a fullback when even a relatively young, decent fullback can be signed for next to nothing anytime of the year?

Just imagine how many adequate fullbacks are currently available, including those unsigned rookie or near-rookie free agents out of college that are hungry to prove how valuable they can be.

How many times could the Eagles have used a true fullback last year? Or ever? How many times could Mr. Westbrook have used some running room inside of the 20-yard line?

Let's just take a look at the Eagles' six losses last season. The three games that really stand out to me are the one against the Bears and both times facing the Redskins.

Against Chicago, it is pretty obvious to just about anyone who watched the game that Philadelphia was in dire need of a short-yardage option. They were given a golden opportunity from the Chicago one-yard line late in the game, needing to score a touchdown, and were stopped four straight times, regardless of which halfback was put in.

Why, oh why, was Dan Klecko the fullback?!

Honestly, was there any reason besides saving some roster space that the Eagles didn't just sign any, and I mean ANY, free-agent fullback to at least give the speedy yet diminutive Brian Westbrook a chance at getting into the end zone?

In both games against Washington, the Philadelphia Eagles could not manage to control the clock when it was absolutely necessary. In the first encounter, the Eagles were ahead, 14-0, early in the first half.

Without the ability to run the ball though, they slowly but steadily wore out their defense by not being able to gain a first down for almost the entire first half.

The second time these teams faced, the game was a low-scoring grinding defensive battle, ending with the Redskins defeating the Eagles again, 10-3. The only TD scored the entire game was courtesy of a McNabb fumble, which once again points directly at the ineffective running game as the single largest reason they lost the game.

In all three of these situations, as well as pretty much every other loss last season, the Eagles suffered from the short-yardage domino effect.

Without the ability to gain the necessary yard or two, either due to poor blocking or having a converted lineman as your fullback, drives stall out repeatedly and teams find themselves having to settle for field goals instead of touchdowns.

More importantly, late in the game or nursing a slim lead, the Eagles found themselves unable to take time off of the clock. Simply put, passes are dropped and become predictable without an effective run game, causing time to stop and giving the other team the precious seconds necessary to mount an effective comeback.

Imagine for a second that Lorenzo Neal had been signed by Philadelphia last offseason, instead of Baltimore. Both teams got to the conference championship game last season, even with Philly's obvious deficiencies.

Given a complete fullback, one with years of experience like Lorenzo Neal, I personally believe that Philadelphia would have been able to slow down Arizona just enough to get the Eagles into the Super Bowl.

Maybe a little far-fetched? Perhaps, but I just take a look at the Baltimore Raven's team that got to the AFC championship game last year with both a rookie head coach and starting QB and you can see that the possibilities are endless.

In other words, hey Coach Reid? Next season, now that you've got Leonard Weaver, can you please never forget that as long as your going to start Westbrook, your gonna have to put a plow in front of him once in a while.

Otherwise, how much do you think it would cost to trade for Adrian Peterson or LT?

[Michael has been writing articles for and about the NFL, ACC Football and NCAA Basketball for almost two seasons. He bleeds green, white, purple and black, and wonders why he's sent to the hospital so often. Contact: [e-mail]]