That would depend on a couple of things, FF. Many teams never give the FB the ball, which is a shame. If our OC is like that, that would be relegating Crox to just blocking, which would eliminate the threat we all desire.
Also, what the staff may be looking at is that quite often, the "running back by committee" strategy just doesn't work. I really don't know why. Rushing attacks tend to work better with one workhorse "featured back." It's counterintuitive, but there's a lot to be said for it.
I do agree that the I is a great formation. Many "modern" OCs like the many variants of the single back offense, either the double tight, double flank ace formation or the more wide-open all-passing formations as they force the defense to spread. But if the defense guesses right on run, there's zero blocking outside of the line (and in rare cases, the QB) as the receivers are running off the coverage. Having the fullback allows for blocking on plays going to the tailback, and running the fullback provides a sturdier platform for short yardage that doesn't require an extra blocker, making the TB available for faking. In addition, if one runs a counter play, that brings in a misdirection idea based on the old fashioned belly series. Plus, as the I is balanced, the defense really has no clue where the play is going unless the flanker is shifted into the slot. One could easily run left and right and also pass left and right, though slotting the flanker kinda says you're passing to the slot side unless you're a team that likes throwing to the Y (which I REALLY like to do).
I like how you're thinking, WH. I wonder if the coaches are missing this....
