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.[/QUOTE]
The problem with the last statement is that if where a player lines up is proprietary to their position then the fullback position you are arguing about at the moment would never have been called fullback in the first place. The alignment is not the same in the single wing as it is in the t and so on so forth.