Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/bucky_brooks/05/29/2007.trends/1.html]SI.com - Writers - Inn-O-vation (cont.) - Tuesday May 29, 2007 1:17PM[/url]
So I was reading a SI.com article and I came across this quote:

[QUOTE]Washington's Chris Cooley is the perfect example of the modern H-back. He has the speed and athleticism to be a major threat in the passing game, but is also powerful enough to be an effective lead blocker on running plays. He allows the to present several different looks out of their base personnel group. [/QUOTE]

I thought that under Saunders' system Cooley was used more like your typical tight end. I can't remember ever seeing him used as a fullback/lead blocker for running plays, which this guy seems to suggest he does.
Cooley seems like he should be considered a pure TE now because he is more likely to either line up next to the OT, go in motion, or line up in the slot.

So is this guy just behind the times or is Cooley still considered an H-back? (I know it doesn't really matter what he's considered as long as he's making plays, but there isn't much to talk about so I'm grasping at straws here)

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

He officially became a TE last year when Saunders came in. Saunders' offense doesn't use the H-Back position.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

That's what I thought, so this guy is just uninformed.

Well, I guess we can close this thread down now.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

SHUT IT DOWN

See you in 3 months

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

blast! I might as well quit my job because there is no way I could make it through a single day, much less 3 months, without wasting at least 3/4 of the work day on this site.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Yeah, I too read that Saunders doesn't use an H-back. But what really differentiates a TE from a H-Back? I could swear I saw Chris Cooley lined up in the backfield on a few occasions last season and then either lead-block for an RB or go run a route. Maybe he is used as a H-back on a few plays, but is primarily lined up off-tackle as a TE?

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

I thought the same thing. I know I've seen him line up in the backfield only to shift out of it later. Weird.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

From the all knowing wikipedia

An H-Back, also known as F-Back, is an offensive position in American football. The position is a hybrid of a fullback and a tight end. The position was made notable in the NFL by the Washington Redskins under head coach Joe Gibbs who ran a two tight end system. The position was named F-Back when used later in Norv Turner's offensive system.

In the Redskins offensive system, the H-back is asked to block, pass protect, and run receiving routes from multiple sets. This compares to the standard tight end which was used primarily as an extra blocker on Washington offensive line. The H-back can line up in the backfield, on the line, or is put into motion. Due to the complexity of the position, a thorough knowledge of the offense is desirable in an H-back. The position, indeed the entire two tight end offense, was created by Gibbs as a direct response to Lawrence Taylor, the New York Giants dominant linebacker.[1][2] As Gibbs stated, "[w]e had to try in some way have a special game plan just for Lawrence Taylor. Now you didn't do that very often in this league but I think he's one person that we learned the lesson the hard way. We lost ball games."[1]

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

I would think that the main difference between what Cooley is doing now vs. what he did in Gibbs' offense is his level of responsibilities. I'd guess that under Gibbs he needed to understand a lot more about the entire offense in general, where under Saunders his role is probably more focused and simplified.

He seems to line up in different spots a lot but I think that has more to do with creating match-ups and motion is a way to detect what the defense is doing at times too.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

I am so tired of Chris Cooley not getting the respect that he deserves. Every year you look up and his top 5 (TE) in yards, receptions, and TD's. Two years ago he should have gone to the pro bowl and didn't because he was listed as a fullback. We all know that Cooley is a Tight End not a fullback or H-back. Sellers is the H-Back. Forget about what this clown says.

Bottom line Cooley needs more respect then he deserves. His whole career with the Redskins he has been there most consistent receiver and definitely the number two option for the QB. Anyone disagree?

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Sellers is actually the FB

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

I was looking at this last year when he was changed to officially a TE and it entered my mind with the Reggie Bush thing where he wanted to wear a non-RB number. Cooley being a TE now cannot wear 47 according to NFL rules. I dont care, have his jersey, but I was surprised not to see the change of numbers given the opportunity to sell more jerseys.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Last year sellers played H-Back. He participated in the passing game as well as lead blocking. The true essence of an H-Back.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=mmil12;314246]Last year sellers played H-Back. He participated in the passing game as well as lead blocking. The true essence of an H-Back.[/quote]

A FB can also be involved with the passing game.

Saunders' offense doesn't use a true H-Back.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/09/AR2006080902108.html]Playing Saunders's Name Game[/url]

On the surface, the change is merely new terminology, made for the sake of simplicity. The Washington Redskins, under new associate head coach Al Saunders, no longer employ H-backs, but, the staff says, those previously deemed an H-back will now carry virtually the same responsibilities as either a tight end or fullback.

For the two most prominent former H-backs on the roster, however, Chris Cooley (now a tight end) and Mike Sellers (now a fullback), the move will result in several new wrinkles. The Redskins beefed up at wide receiver in the offseason and already had a star running back, but Saunders is just as intrigued by the possibilities presented by Cooley and Sellers, whose skills can create confounding matchup problems for opposing defenses.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=mmil12;314235]I am so tired of Chris Cooley not getting the respect that he deserves. Every year you look up and his top 5 (TE) in yards, receptions, and TD's. Two years ago he should have gone to the pro bowl and didn't because he was listed as a fullback. We all know that Cooley is a Tight End not a fullback or H-back. Sellers is the H-Back. Forget about what this clown says.

Bottom line Cooley needs more respect then he deserves. His whole career with the Redskins he has been there most consistent receiver and definitely the number two option for the QB. Anyone disagree?[/quote]

I'd rather him not get that respect so that it won't reflect in his price tag when we resign him. :ibiggthump

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Good point with the salary cap. If I was him a would get pissed after a while being looked over by Alge Crumpler (who drops alot of passes), Jason Witten, and Jeremey Shockey. Lets agree Cooley is as good as Crumpler and better/more consistent then Witten and Shockey. It's just not right.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Shockey has been on his way down for a while now. Witten is good, but not as good as Cooley. Crumpler gets the stats because he is Vick's ONLY reliable target. Honestly, I think long and hard and really I can only see Gonzo as a better overall TE than Cooley.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Shockey is very overrated because of his mouth and because of where he played in college.

I like Crumpler, the guy is a load and can move.

Witten is very good, perhaps a bit overrated because of the star on his helmet but he's a player regardless.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;314266]Shockey has been on his way down for a while now. Witten is good, but not as good as Cooley. Crumpler gets the stats because he is Vick's ONLY reliable target. Honestly, I think long and hard and really I can only see Gonzo as a better overall TE than Cooley.[/quote]

Gonzo and Gates are the top 2

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Honestly, I wouldn't put Gates over Cooley as the best OVERALL TE. Gates is a great receiver, but not the best blocker or after the catch.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Gonzo, Gates, Crumpler and Cooley should go to the pro bowl every year! There is no doubt in my mind.

On another note, this just goes to show why we shouldn't trade away our second round draft picks. After all thats where we got Betts and Cooley! To great players for us.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=mmil12;314275]Gonzo, Gates, Crumpler and Cooley should go to the pro bowl every year! There is no doubt in my mind.

On another note, this just goes to show why we shouldn't trade away our second round draft picks. After all thats where we got Betts and Cooley! To great players for us.[/quote]

Actually, we got Cooley in the 3rd round

[URL]http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-draft.htm[/URL]

But yeah, point taken about trading picks away.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Your right, my mistake. I just hope that Loyd plays well to open him and Moss up some more. If not, he needs to get benched for ARE who showed signs toward the end of last year!

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Cooley is the man. And yes he's a blocking ,catching,running and of course hard hitting TE, TD machine.

He will get his due respect this year at contract time.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;314251]A FB can also be involved with the passing game.

Saunders' offense doesn't use a true H-Back.[/quote]


Sellers is the Fullback and Cooley is the H-Back.

Under Gibbs before Al Cooley was more of a TE than ever. He used to line up at the line of scrimmage much more often.

Under Al Cooley is split out flexed more and seems to me that its just what an H-back is. Not a Fullback, Not a TE, Not a receiver.....H-BACK!!!

Sorry AL, you use an H-BACK!!

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=JDALY27;314297]Sellers is the Fullback and Cooley is the H-Back.

Under Gibbs before Al Cooley was more of a TE than ever. He used to line up at the line of scrimmage much more often.

Under Al Cooley is split out flexed more and seems to me that its just what an H-back is. Not a Fullback, Not a TE, Not a receiver.....H-BACK!!!

Sorry AL, you use an H-BACK!![/quote]

I guess that will be news to Saunders.

:doh:

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=JDALY27;314297]Sellers is the Fullback and Cooley is the H-Back.

Under Gibbs before Al Cooley was more of a TE than ever. He used to line up at the line of scrimmage much more often.

Under Al Cooley is split out flexed more and seems to me that its just what an H-back is. Not a Fullback, Not a TE, Not a receiver.....H-BACK!!!

Sorry AL, you use an H-BACK!![/quote]

Glad you just schooled Al.......he's a TE

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=skinsfan_nn;314300]Glad you just schooled Al.......he's a TE[/quote]

He's a Joe Gibbs H-back. That's what he was drafted for and that's what he is. AL Saunders can call him whatever he wants......

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=JDALY27;314323]He's a Joe Gibbs H-back. That's what he was drafted for and that's what he is. AL Saunders can call him whatever he wants......[/quote]


Well daly let me tell you something. I was very lucky to play golf with CC 2 weeks ago.

HIS EXACT WORDS AND I QUOTE, "THE SKINS WANT TO PAY ME LIKE AN AVERAGE TIGHT END"!

Now that's NOT Joe or Al words. THAT WAS CC EXACT WORDS!

SO IS HE STILL AN H-BACK IN YOUR MIND.....?

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=skinsfan_nn;314329]Well daly let me tell you something. I was very lucky to play golf with CC 2 weeks ago.

HIS EXACT WORDS AND I QUOTE, "THE SKINS WANT TO PAY ME LIKE AN AVERAGE TIGHT END"!

Now that's NOT Joe or Al words. THAT WAS CC EXACT WORDS!

SO IS HE STILL AN H-BACK IN YOUR MIND.....?[/quote]

John Daly's response: Yes

Just b/c the skins want to pay him like an average TE, does that have to make him one? What other points of reference would they have to go off of if they wanted to pay him like an H-back?

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

That is normal negotiation between players and team. Teams always try and low ball players at first. In the long run, the skins know they can't afford to let Cooley walk. He is too talented, too young, and just too much of a CORE REDSKINS.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

You have Chris Cooley, as a golden plated circle peg, and a square hole that is the TE position. While Al Saunders was able to squeeze Cooley into that square hole with minimal effort, he wore some of that gold plated awesomeness off in the process.

In all seriousness, I think this article is just pointing out that if you needed a historical absolute prototype for the perfect HB, look no farther than 47. I don't think he's saying Cooley is being used as an H.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;314362]You have Chris Cooley, as a golden plated circle peg, and a square hole that is the TE position. While Al Saunders was able to squeeze Cooley into that square hole with minimal effort, he wore some of that gold plated awesomeness off in the process.

In all seriousness, I think this article is just pointing out that if you needed a historical absolute prototype for the perfect HB, look no farther than 47. I don't think he's saying Cooley is being used as an H.[/quote]

Well if that's not what he's saying than read post 26? Tell me what that means to you?

Cooley in this system is a textbook TE.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Maybe Cooley could be best described as a hybrid, or "slash" a rare combimation of HB/FB/TE. He has served in various capacities since being with the team, to label him as one or the other would be a slight to his true skills.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

He's a freaking TE, end of story.

Where's the grumpy version of Schneed when you need him?

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=PoundIt;314240]I was looking at this last year when he was changed to officially a TE and it entered my mind with the Reggie Bush thing where he wanted to wear a non-RB number. Cooley being a TE now cannot wear 47 according to NFL rules. I dont care, have his jersey, but I was surprised not to see the change of numbers given the opportunity to sell more jerseys.[/quote]
TE's are allowed to wear numbers in the teens, 40s, and 80s. Dallas Clark is number 44.

And I don't know why people are saying Cooley is a H-Back and not a Tight End. He says he's a TE and so do the coaches. Nobody ever called Tony Gonzalez a H-Back even though he was used the same way as Cooley in the same system.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;314180]He officially became a TE last year when Saunders came in. Saunders' offense doesn't use the H-Back position.[/quote]


He is a tight end and i am glad he finally became one

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

How much do you think cooley is going to demand when he hits the market. Let say we wrap him up with a 5 year contract.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

He is a unique player. He has the size of a tight end, the route running and hands of a wide-receiver, and he runs like John Riggins. I do think that his role changed last year,though. He spent much less time around the line of scrimmage. I think they should use him in as many ways as they can.