Mike Alstott

albionmoonlight · 03-26-2019, 07:37 PM

Mike Alstott was a . . .

kcchief19 · 03-26-2019, 08:21 PM

I almost want to vote Trout because he was as both. But I’m going to vote fullback because he was one in both the historic and modern definitions. By today’s NFL terminology, he would be a big tailback.

Radii · 03-26-2019, 10:04 PM

Definitely a fullback to me, just an incredibly dynamic one. He was too good a blocker to not call him a fullback IMO.

PilotMan · 03-26-2019, 10:57 PM

I got him as a fullback, who could play tailback on 3rd down, and catch a ball. Certainly very talented, and a hard bruiser of a player.

CU Tiger · 03-27-2019, 10:24 AM

He was the definition of a full back in a west coast offense.
He was Tom Rathman, only better.

His position doesnt exist in the NFL today like Defensive Guards.

Vince, Pt. II · 03-27-2019, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

He was Tom Rathman, only better.

My initial reaction to this is extreme scepticism... but I am hugely biased and have no data to back up this scepticism.

CU Tiger · 03-27-2019, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

My initial reaction to this is extreme scepticism... but I am hugely biased and have no data to back up this scepticism.

Better may not be the right word. Faster, shiftier, more athletic...not that anyone was going to confuse him with a scat back.

I guess Im saying I think Alstott could find a place in todays NFL Im not sure Rathman could.

larrymcg421 · 03-27-2019, 03:23 PM

I mean the best you could argue for Rathman is that San Fran didn't use him the same way TB used Alstott. Alstott was a much more productive runner and their receiving stats are very similar.

View Poll Results: Mike Alstott was a
Fullback	48	82.76%
Big Tailback	8	13.79%
Trout	2	3.45%
Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll

03-26-2019, 10:57 PM	#4
PilotMan Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Seven miles up	I got him as a fullback, who could play tailback on 3rd down, and catch a ball. Certainly very talented, and a hard bruiser of a player. __________________ He's just like if Snow White was competitive, horny, and capable of beating the shit out of anyone that called her Pops. Like Steam? Join the FOFC Steam group here: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/FOFConSteam

03-27-2019, 03:23 PM	#8
larrymcg421 Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Georgia	I mean the best you could argue for Rathman is that San Fran didn't use him the same way TB used Alstott. Alstott was a much more productive runner and their receiving stats are very similar. __________________ Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner

03-26-2019, 08:21 PM	#2
kcchief19 Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Kansas City, MO	I almost want to vote Trout because he was as both. But I’m going to vote fullback because he was one in both the historic and modern definitions. By today’s NFL terminology, he would be a big tailback.

03-26-2019, 10:04 PM	#3
Radii Head Coach Join Date: Jul 2001	Definitely a fullback to me, just an incredibly dynamic one. He was too good a blocker to not call him a fullback IMO.

03-27-2019, 10:24 AM	#5
CU Tiger Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Backwoods, SC	He was the definition of a full back in a west coast offense. He was Tom Rathman, only better. His position doesnt exist in the NFL today like Defensive Guards.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)