Serious Question re: Our "Fullback"

[stylee]

Names come from rugby.
Quarterback was quarter depth. Then halfback was half depth, then 3/4 back then fullback who was all the way back.

American football kept the quarterback name which is correct. Then early on what used to be the halfback, is now called the fullback which morphed into a larger individual whose primary job was to run straight ahead. In the 1940s and 50s the fullback was a straight ahead runner barrelling through the line. Like laskey. So by this term he is a fullback.

As football modernized, that position evolved as the running game changed and the passing game became dominant. Now the fullback, still the same position is a blocker first and way second a pass catcher but rarely a runner. In todays game, what the fullback does is not what he used to do. But the aligned position is still the fullback. He can still run straight ahead etc.

.

Please explain when something is too old to be relevant. 1940s/1950s is the right spot, but not the 1930s? Does this change in the next few decades, as the 1950s are now further in the past?

I'm asking directly about "quarterback": is that position determined by alignment, function, or convention?
Why should we use "quarterback" to refer to function and "fullback" to refer to alignment?

You're contradicting yourself and you know it.

 

[1939hotmagic]

As a mere fan, not a former player nor a coach, it always seemed to me that the B-back would be better identified as a tailback (not as a fullback, since that position generally entails more blocking for others rather than being the primary runner), and the A-backs better identified as slotbacks, but -- I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I'm fairly confident that Tech coaches make it abundantly clear to potential recruits what is expected of them.

 

[33jacket]

Please explain when something is too old to be relevant. 1940s/1950s is the right spot, but not the 1930s? Does this change in the next few decades, as the 1950s are now further in the past?

I'm asking directly about "quarterback": is that position determined by alignment, function, or convention?
Why should we use "quarterback" to refer to function and "fullback" to refer to alignment?

You're contradicting yourself and you know it.

not at all. Quarterback in football today lines up behind center...either in gun or not. If he is aligned elsewhere he simply isn't the QB for that play...not sure why that is contradicting. He can still be a QB on the roster...but isn't for that play...

Just as a if a TE starts out next to tackle, but motions to the FB position. He is a TE by trade, but now is keyed as a FB in that play...the read is that of a FB not TE....

If a guy lines up in a X or Z...he is playing the spot of a WR. Regardless of who it is on the roster
If a guy is in the Y, even if a TE, he is keyed as a slot guy...its a matchup game at that point

 

[33jacket]

As a mere fan, not a former player nor a coach, it always seemed to me that the B-back would be better identified as a tailback, and the A-backs better identified as slotbacks, but -- I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I'm fairly confident that Tech coaches make it abundantly clear to potential recruits what is expected of them.

paul all his career called them fullbacks and slotbacks...then at navy called them AB's and fullbacks then at GT BB and AB

 

[stylee]

A question I've had: Is there a reason the BBack has his hand down? I understand the depth aspect of the position but would there be a discernible difference if the BBack was standing? Does anyone know if any flexbone variants have attempted this?

Same reason that you instinctively put at least one hand on the ground if you've got to run fast: lower center of gravity allows for faster takeoffs, as you can use gravity to your advantage to build momentum.

We like to get into the hole quicker, so that we can get our guys into the second level faster. It primarily helps, though, in making the defensive end decide more quickly - he can't "slow play" it.

A lot of option teams run this stuff with stand-up backs. They even run the veer. You can see this from the shotgun.
When you do it like this, though, you've got to bend the back's path closer to the center and away from the defensive end (to make him travel farther to stop the dive and negate the problem of the slower dive). I did it like this when I coached a shotgun option team. It can work. I don't like it from under center.

When I went to a pistol flexbone, I experimented with the BB standing up. I hated it.

 

[33jacket]

As a mere fan, not a former player nor a coach, it always seemed to me that the B-back would be better identified as a tailback, and the A-backs better identified as slotbacks, but -- I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I'm fairly confident that Tech coaches make it abundantly clear to potential recruits what is expected of them.

because at the FB spot, a few yards from LOS you need momentum and the proper mesh angle...almost impossible to do standing up. The speed doesn't hit, the read is uncomfortable it doesn't work; the whole point is a very quick powerful hit and low launch angle

 

[ibeattetris]

Sure you can have a guy that normally plays RB take a snap...but guess what, for that play he is the QB. He took the snap. The defense keys him as a QB. You can call him what you want.

I'm not sure about college (which I know is what our conversation pertains), but I think this would be incorrect in the NFL with the special rules regarding a QB. I don't know if NCAA makes the same distinctions as the NFL does.

 

[stylee]

not at all. Quarterback in football today lines up behind center.

..either in gun or not. If he is aligned elsewhere he simply isn't the QB for that play...not sure why that is contradicting. He can still be a QB on the roster...but isn't for that play...

So it is his position behind center that determines that he's quarterback - the "quarterback" term itself is vestigial, but the definition is still dependent on alignment?
Let's explore this:

X..............LT...LG..C..RG...RT.......................Y
........A..............................................B............
..........................Q.......Q.................................


This alignment has two QBs, lined up on either side of the center, in the shotgun. Are neither QBs for that play?
This isn't idle speculation either, it's a formation I've seen used in HS football.

Fundamentally, you don't understand how language actually works. The word "fullback" doesn't mean anything, it's a sign and refers to whatever people actually use it to refer to. Words don't have meanings, people have meanings.

We can (possibly) proactively positively affect our perception by asking announcers to ditch a word with negative connotations vis a vis our offense. You're saying "no, that's ACTUALLY what fullback means, regardless of what anyone says." And your justification is "that's what fullback means in the modern era" - so you tacitly admit to a semantic shift, occurring sometime in the 1940s or 1950s, but don't think there can or should be additional semantic shifts.

In a word, that's absurd.

 

[AE 87]

So it is his position behind center that determines that he's quarterback - the "quarterback" term itself is vestigial, but the definition is still dependent on alignment?
Let's explore this:

X..............LT...LG..C..RG...RT.......................Y
........A..............................................B............
..........................Q.......Q.................................


This alignment has two QBs, lined up on either side of the center, in the shotgun. Are neither QBs for that play?
This isn't idle speculation either, it's a formation I've seen used in HS football.

Fundamentally, you don't understand how language actually works. The word "fullback" doesn't mean anything, it's a sign and refers to whatever people actually use it to refer to. Words don't have meanings, people have meanings.

We can (possibly) proactively positively affect our perception by asking announcers to ditch a word with negative connotations vis a vis our offense. You're saying "no, that's ACTUALLY what fullback means, regardless of what anyone says." And your justification is "that's what fullback means in the modern era" - so you tacitly admit to a semantic shift, occurring sometime in the 1940s or 1950s, but don't think there can or should be additional semantic shifts.

In a word, that's absurd.

This is very well said. However, semantic shifts are still communal and apart from legal action difficult to force. The relevant linguistic community still sees a "fullback" because of hand on ground, wishbone, etc and resists the new word Bback which will not communicate easily to audience. If we started using tailback and slot back, we might have more luck.

 

[lastoption]

because at the FB spot, a few yards from LOS you need momentum and the proper mesh angle...almost impossible to do standing up. The speed doesn't hit, the read is uncomfortable it doesn't work; the whole point is a very quick powerful hit and low launch angle

Also as just a fan with no technical expertise I always thought the b-back as fullback concept was simply based on the idea that in the most base play out of the system the a-back motions at snap into what would be the tailback position in a traditional I-formation alignment and therefore at snap you effectively have a traditional fullback tailback alignment with the play side a-back acting as a half back lead blocker.

 

[IronJacket7]

It matters in recruiting.

Oh? Can you elaborate on it?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

So it is his position behind center that determines that he's quarterback - the "quarterback" term itself is vestigial, but the definition is still dependent on alignment?
Let's explore this:

X..............LT...LG..C..RG...RT.......................Y
........A..............................................B............
..........................Q.......Q.................................


This alignment has two QBs, lined up on either side of the center, in the shotgun. Are neither QBs for that play?
This isn't idle speculation either, it's a formation I've seen used in HS football.

Fundamentally, you don't understand how language actually works. The word "fullback" doesn't mean anything, it's a sign and refers to whatever people actually use it to refer to. Words don't have meanings, people have meanings.

We can (possibly) proactively positively affect our perception by asking announcers to ditch a word with negative connotations vis a vis our offense. You're saying "no, that's ACTUALLY what fullback means, regardless of what anyone says." And your justification is "that's what fullback means in the modern era" - so you tacitly admit to a semantic shift, occurring sometime in the 1940s or 1950s, but don't think there can or should be additional semantic shifts.

In a word, that's absurd.

On the first bold sentence: I think words have meanings, but humans prescribe those meanings to the words. The meanings are not always the same person to person and can change over time. Some words have more than one meaning, even ones that are spelled exactly the same. Context determines meaning in those cases.

On the second bold sentence: I agree. CPJ abandoned the term "full back" and I assume for a calculated reason.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Oh? Can you elaborate on it?

I'm with you in that it doesn't matter to me personally what we call the position. However, it matters to recruits who are turned off by the connotations of the word, that a fullback is primarily a blocker.

Getting away from semantics for a minute, I also think an actual truth about the position hurts recruiting. That is the fact that Bbacks, or fullbacks, in our offense take a lot of punishment regardless of getting the ball. Dwyer hated it.

 

[1939hotmagic]

Just a bit of history for folks who might be interested: In the days in which the single-wing was the predominant offense, not only was the quarterback "a quarter of the way back" in the backfield (per previous posts), and not under center, the quarterback often (not always, but often) was more of a "blocking back" -- what many fans often think of as a "fullback" today -- than other offensive backfield players. However, as the T formation rose to prominence in the mid-40s, with the quarterback under center and almost always the first player to receive the snap and to direct the offense, the popular understanding changed re the quarterback position and the duties expected from players in that position. Even as the T formation was revised -- the split T, the "Fly T," the wing-T, for example -- and later the I formation came along, then the veer/wishbone, etc., the quarterback 99+% of the time received the snap, and seldom if ever had blocking duties.

 

[33jacket]

So it is his position behind center that determines that he's quarterback - the "quarterback" term itself is vestigial, but the definition is still dependent on alignment?
Let's explore this:

X..............LT...LG..C..RG...RT.......................Y
........A..............................................B............
..........................Q.......Q.................................


This alignment has two QBs, lined up on either side of the center, in the shotgun. Are neither QBs for that play?
This isn't idle speculation either, it's a formation I've seen used in HS football.

Fundamentally, you don't understand how language actually works. The word "fullback" doesn't mean anything, it's a sign and refers to whatever people actually use it to refer to. Words don't have meanings, people have meanings.

We can (possibly) proactively positively affect our perception by asking announcers to ditch a word with negative connotations vis a vis our offense. You're saying "no, that's ACTUALLY what fullback means, regardless of what anyone says." And your justification is "that's what fullback means in the modern era" - so you tacitly admit to a semantic shift, occurring sometime in the 1940s or 1950s, but don't think there can or should be additional semantic shifts.

In a word, that's absurd.

No that is not what I am saying at all. I am not saying that is WHAT FULLBACK means regardless of what anyone says at all. I am saying our BB is a FB by alignment/setup in THAT formation. And a FB can run the ball a ton, or not, we use him to run the ball a ton. The NFL doesn't. Because of how a NFL FB is used it it becomes assimilated with a non-run position. But that doesn't mean if he runs alot he isn't a FB...its unfortunate people take it that way though. He is still a FB in a option, a run heavy featured FB.

As far as you alignment..we can all find borderline fringe freaky things that challenge the standard. Classic GT argument is they find that fringe. The reality is, you know this, one guy will have a tape tendency to get that snap, the D will assign him the QB read and the other the HB read and you move on...by alignment yes one would have to be a QB. Typically they shade, its not rocket science. This is getting way to fringe for the pursposes of what the discussion was about. The discussion was about OUR FB in OUR offense not being called a FB but a BB. My point is in our offense he is in a FB position, he is by nature a FB not in the NFL sense, in the option offense sense for sure, but still lined up as a FB...that is featured.

 

[stylee]

My point is in our offense he is in a FB position, he is by nature a FB...that is featured.

And my point is that there is nothing that makes one "by nature a FB." Words mean what people mean by words.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

You guys want to split some hairs, too?

 

[33jacket]

i am done with this thread...now...lol

I actually think we are saying more similarly than disagreeing

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

The main problem here isn't the alignment definition or scheme definition for our backs. The main problem here is dumbass ESPN talking headsa who primarily choose to talk out their asses instead of provide informed analysis etc.

What we label the Bback, either fullback, tailback, or running back.....has no affect on the intelligence or professionalism of the talking heads. But I agree we can attempt to force feed some of this a bit and should to help with general perceptions and thus recruiting.

 

[stylee]

i am done with this thread...now...lol

I actually think we are saying more similarly than disagreeing

Probably. That usually means that soon I'll be arguing for your initial position and vice versa.