Are fullbacks becoming not a thing anymore?

[Dean-Tennessee]

IN doing the renaming of the CPU team players, I am seeing that college FB teams don't seem to recruit or carry FBs anymore. All of their RBs are more like HBs. Many PNFL teams no longer carry any FBs on their active roster.

Are they fading out of existance in real life football? Do we need to create FBs in future PCFL recruiting classes?

Please discuss.

[Justin-Texas]

Does nothing to address Dean’s concern, but I wish that FBPRO would sub in a TE for a FB if there is not one available. That would be more realistic, considering the NCAA and NFL’s current approach.

I don’t see a FB on real life Texas’s depth chart. PCFL Texas has one rostered but only time will tell how often he’s active.

[Dean-Tennessee]

I agree with that. It would make sense if a TE subbed for the FB1 in the absence of a FB2 and not one of the HBs especially not the HB1.

I found ZERO FBs on the teams I did renaming for in doing the CPU teams, or in doing my teams. None of those teams in real life carry any FBs. I think they ask TEs to play that role now and their RBs are all what FBPro98 calls HBs. In fact, they were all listed by On3, and the other site I used, as simply RBs.

[Dean-Tennessee]

If FBs are obsolete, do we phase them out, starting with the next recruiting class, and just replace them with HBs, rated as regular HBs?

[Justin-Texas]

I think as long as the PNFL has FBs, the PCFL should include them, since we are using the PNFL play pool.

If anyone wants to advocate for replacing the PNFL FB with a TE, I would wish them luck, and support their efforts. But, I have concerns that would be perceived as too major of a change at this time.

[PCFLCommish]

The change vs stagnation issue has come up again with the PNFL Forum discussion about GLP lobs again. As I see it, resisting change = stagnation. Nothing ever stays the same, we either embrace change or get left behind. The PNFL has endured because it has adapted, not stayed the same.

[Matt-Arkansas]

I would say keep them, but maybe just do a limited run. This way if someone joins and decides they want to run a five FB offense, they have that option.

[Steve-UCLA]

UCLA RB Anthony Adkins is definitely a FB. Plenty of articles pointing out how well he blocked for Army as a fullback before transferring to UCLA. Likely does the same at UCLA along with some power running. I think FBs exist in college football, but college football just wants to call every running back an RB in published depth charts online so as not to limit their options at the pro level. Keep them.

[PCFLCommish]

Going forward, each class of recruits will include 8 FBs, so there will be 32 created every 4 seasons, which is enough for all teams to carry 1 FB and some teams to carry 2 of them.

[Mitchell_Ducks]

I agree with Matt. Two factors impact the use of FBs in game. 1 The HBs are so strong already, 2 the HB's EN is so high.

If the HB's weren't as high at ST & EN, You would be inclined to play design for a FB to make use of his ST, and have them in to give the HB a breather.