I'm going to repeat myself because i am so certain i am right.

Priest will be a great leader on the team (aka not LJ)

Priest will actually block on passing situations (Not LJ)


Priest fills up the gaps in LJ's ability.

Oh and Priest needs at least one more jump 50 ft. above the line to score a TD play before he retires!

ROFL

he surely can't hurt


i think he will do better at setting up blocks provided there is a block to set up.

I doubt he will pout either ...... if for no other reason that to stick to LJ. :D

So, no delay of games for spiking the ball? I'm all for that.

Check Kevin Mack and Ernest Byner under Marty Schottenheimer in Cleveland.

Luv,

You really did ask a very good question. In the 70's, two running threats in the backfield was very common.

Typically, the idea was for the halfback to be the primary pass catcher and outside runner, while the fullback got the tough yards.

Examples of this type of backfield were the Miami Dolphins with Larry Csonka and Mercury Morris, Pittsburgh with Rocky Bleier and Franco Harris, and Jim Taylor and Paul Hornung. (The early 80's 49ers had such a backfield with Roger Craig and Wendell Tyler).

As conditioning techniques improved, you began to see a series of backs who were both big and fast. With a supply of runners who were effective both inside and outside, you began to see offenses concentrate on putting the ball in the hands of their best runner no matter the situation. Teams began to look for "uber backs" like Herschel Walker, Eric Dickerson, Earl Campbell or Chuck Muncie, who then pretty much carried the ball on the majority of running plays.

Also, teams began to use 3 and 4 wr sets in specific situations. These 3 wr formations would have less versatility if you didn't have a back that could be effective both inside and outside.

Consequently, fullback became limited to a lead blocker role on many teams. "Versatile" fullbacks became blockers who could also catch the ball. Formations changed as well. In the 70's, split back fromations with both backs the same distance behind the qb was the most common arrangement. As teams began to use one back for most running plays, they went to the "I" formation, with the fullback lined up in front of the runningback.

IN fact, terminology has changed. Used to be the outside runner/gamebreaker type was the "halfback" while the inside runner was the "fullback". Now the primary runner is generally called the "running back" while the lead blocker is the "fullback". "Halfback" isn't used that much now.

Now, when you ask if the old system had some wrinkles that are lost today, you are very correct. Misdirection plays used to be very common, where you faked to one back then gave the ball to the other back. Today, "misdirection" usually means the running back and lineman making one step one direction, then going in the other direction.

Today's offenses have tried to bring back some elements of the old misdirection plays by constantly faking the reverse to WRs. (Then finally giving it to him to catch the D flowing the wrong way).

The thing is, to run an effective two back offense, both backs must be willing and able to block effectively. Yet, with so many college backs coming up as "I" backs, most primary runners aren't effective in the lead blocking role. (LJ is not).

Now, most people forget that Priest played FULLBACK in college after his first knee injury, because Ricky WIlliams took priest's job as the primary runner. (which also explains why Priest wasn't drafted. No NFL team was really interested in a 213lb lead blocker with a knee injury). Bottom line, you are unlikely to see the chiefs use this formation b/c LJ doesn't lead block well.