I am going to try and watch the last game focusing on Hilliard. I always question what people are watching when they say Conner has been awful because he graded out as the 5th best blocking fb in the league last year with a better grade than Tony Richardson the year before. He didn't grade well as a blocker in his two games this year though, but neither did Hilliard. I'm referring to PFF grading which I realize some people don't like. I need to see with my own eyes.
Conner is a good FB. The biggest change in the run game wasn't the FB it was the fact that Greene realized he is allowed to run in different directions and not just straight. He was leaving tons of yards on the field and that changed sunday.
in a short answer, yes. I think moving forward Reuland can be a nice multifacted player for us. Good blocker and decent at pass catching out of the backfeild/TE wise. The problem for him is Josh Baker comes back next year for the same spot. Could be a good campo battle. Hilliard has looked ok, but nothing great. All in all the difference between him and conner is not that much.
if anyones looking for a really good prototypical blocking fullback that doesn't get a lot of recognition, check out Henry Hynoski on the Giants. Guys a monster, and in my opinion, much better than John Connor in both blocking and pass catching ability. He's also from the area where i go to school, i see him bro'in it up at the bar all the time on weekends.
And he also has one of the best nicknames in the league -- The Hinoceros. Much better than that lame Terminator nickname. How about Tyrannasaurus Lex?