He obv doesn't want to come as Fullback. Has major RB offers.
I'm not talking about a blocking only FB. I'm talking an Alonzo Highsmith, Stephen McGuire, Franco Harris, Jim Brown, Larry Csonka. Guys that could dominate games from the FB position by running the ball. Fullback does not mean fulltime blocker for the HB. I'm telling you all now, Curry could be brought in as a FB to do SOME blocking for HBs, but to also run the **** ball. He would give us a weapon the other teams would HAVE to account for. For the life of me, I don't know why that's seen as such a bad thing. The bad thing is taking a position like FB and turning it into a non-productive position.
No one has run the FB regularly since 1975.
Just saying, if you have a FB that can get 10 carries a game, not just be a blocker, it will help the O. Why put a guy out there that everyone knows is no threat to run it? I'm sick of seeing a FB motion left, then the run to the left is stopped because everyone knew where the lead blocker was going. If you have a FB that is not just a blocker.... Whatever. Tired of beating this dead horse. Not long ago the TE position was a block first, production never position. When teams figured out they could create mismatches from the position, they started catching far more passes. I can see a guy like Curry bringing production to a dead position, and that would help the HBs because the FB would have to be viewed as more than just a blocker. The more weapons you put on the field, the more the D has to struggle to stop. You get the D worrying about every position, it makes it easier for every position.
