*We're So (Full) Back, a look at an underutilized archetype in the ISFL.

**Gadget**

A forward, I didn’t want to commit too much time to this article about what I thought to be a meme position going into this. As I soon learned the fullback is anything but a meme, and If I had more time I would have loved to go deeper into the history of the position. Maybe I’ll pump out a part two with the history of the Fullback to see how it’s role has changed and how it got the stigma of a joke slot.

When writing up my section of media for this post, I noticed something peculiar. The Austin Copperheads seemed to be outperforming their TPE in most metrics for every preseason testing I had seen. In the writeup I drew the conclusion that it’s because their TPE was so focused on one specific thing, running the football. In it I briefly mentioned that having a dedicated fullback was key to the success of Austin, opening up the playbook in ways otherwise inaccessible. This was initially a line not given much thought but it did spark some curiosity in me, so I decided to glance at all of the currently active FBs in the ISFL.

There are two fullbacks playing in the ISFL. A third is waiting on the DSFL. The two were Leandre Diarra on CTC and Sean Aldrich on AUS, with Worsethan Blaze lurking on HON’s reserves. Looking at the results of these teams from the season prior (S45 at the time of writing) Honolulu won their division, Austin won it all, and The Crash had the number one offense in the division averaging 29.3 PPG. They came 2nd in points per game only to Honolulu, who put up 30.2 PPG. Austin was in 3rd place with about 28.5 PPG. The only team to even approach these numbers were the Sailfish, who were only back by about a touchdown.

Now obviously, this data doesn’t mean that having a fullback instantly turbocharges your offense, HON wasn’t even rostering theirs instead. What instead I believe to be happening is that the offensive scheme where the fullback is the most valuable is also the one that happens to be the currently most successful. Looking at a roster sheet, the FB is called for in 2 formations, I-formation/Pro Set, and Jumbo. Of the seven available play styles, I-formation and Jumbo are most heavily used in 1 particular one, Smashmouth. If you crack open a sim file and look at the set strats you’ll see something that looks like this: 1st down Pass 65+%, pass until short yardage, then in short yardage situations running the ball is cranked up to the maximum. Smashmouth excels at setting up these short yard situations, often featuring 4-5 yard passes over the middle, and ensures running backs get a lot of touches.

Another common factor of these high flying offenses is the existence of a productive RB (Or in HON’s case 2 RBs). This production is no mistake. HON’s split backfield got a combined 1525 yards, but the numbers get really eye popping once the full back is in play. Howard Coward alone got 1273 yards, his 2nd season over 1000, and his first with fullback support. Tacking on Jeff Newman’s 300 yards on the dot, and the fullback’s 42 yards the RB room got a combined 1615 yards. Additionally Coward caught about 400 yards in the air, good for a 1600 yard season. Ayame was good for approximately 2000 last season with the CTC. The only non QB with more yards was Frank Dux on NYS, who had possibly the greatest season by a RB since I’ve joined the league.

(Edited in side note, slate DM'd me saying he wasn't on CTC this season. I blame this on @UptownCord Part 2's now gotta happen to correct this all. )

Clearly something more than just a passing connection between the RB’s production and the presence of a FB exists. To dig a little deeper, I interviewed the GMs of The Crash, @lordcoolcats and @negs. They offered more insight in a brief 15 minute chat then I could ever have provided on my own. When I asked what a fullback provides from the perspective of an ISFL GM, LordCoolCats responded with “Quite literally entirely new playbooks. Not only do we have the top RB in the league who is in desperate need of support, but we also have a scramble QB who will benefit just as much if not more so” Negs then added “I think in most 1 back/high volume rush offenses FB makes a huge difference. There are 2 playbooks with a FB and 2 others where they have the opportunity to block at TE which when ur running smashmouth is probably 80% of playcalls, I wish they were more prevalant cause outside of last season, CTC has been one of if not the highest rush volume offense and based on my testing i wouldve given a lot to have a FB the past 5 seasons it wouldve made our run game that much better” Negs also added that he would even go so far as to consider asking a user to swap to FB saying “ur not getting many stats outside of pancakes with not much rushing/catching involvement and that the stats show up more in the overall offense efficiency and RB1 yards per carry”

So then what about the user experience of a FB? If they’re so crucial to success why don’t we see them in the same light as offensive linemen? Is it really that bad? To answer this I asked @slate why he elected to have his player function as a FB as opposed to something like a blocking tight end or even offensive lineman. He said he simply likes the position, however there were a few quirks he listed out that helped as a potential draw.

“Pro bowl / all-pro slots are less competitive as FB is its own category whereas blocking TE have to compete with other types of TE.

FBs can very easily buy their premier trait (BlockingFB) in the DSFL and I think that's cool.

With the recent rules change being able to double archetype swap to a "real" RB arch and back was pretty cool to be able to entirely shift my role within the team and still go back to FB for my twilight years.”

BlockingFB being available in the DSFL really interested me, and thankfully instead of having to interview both a DSFL GM and FB, I could kill two birds with one stone and shot @g2019 a message. Immediately I wanted to know about the trait’s potential application and was somewhat surprised when G responded “I still think it's more beneficial to wait for traits until later in your career…” He then added “I was also in the unique element of needing to try to immediately build towards more of a ball carrying build for Norfolk, as they lost their main HB to inactivity. It really made me an in-betweener...not a great blocker, not a great ball carrier, somewhere in the middle lol.” This interested me as FB was a position you could be considered productive with in the ISFL even on the lowest of low TPE, when asked if FB is worse in the DSFL as opposed to the ISFL G said “I think that's probably a fair assessment. It's tough to fit in with that arch, especially since it starts so brutally low on some very important attributes, like speed.” he also added “ DSFL doesn't really have the luxury of trying to fit in a true FB when they are scrambling to replace skill positions.”

So what does this all mean? I’ve rambled on for about 3 pages at the time of writing this part, and I haven’t said much of any meaning yet. I think the big conclusion to be drawn is that while fullbacks are currently viewed as a meme archetype, they actually correlate to an extremely strong running game, and are a crucial position in getting a leg up on opposing defenses as both another blocker and in the locker room whenever the big guy gets a touchdown. Maybe it’s a result of an inefficiency at the DSFL level leading to a lack of FB bodies in the ISFL, maybe people just don’t wanna play a position without stats, but more teams should look at rostering a Fullback in the league.