Serious Question re: Our "Fullback"

[stylee]

Can our sports information department not send something to the ESPN talking heads before the game stating something to the effect of:

Our B-Back is not a "fullback." His primary job is not to be an additional blocker placed in the backfield to provide flexibility for run blocking schemes. Rather, his function is nearly identical to that of the a tailback/halfback in every other offense: he takes the bulk of the carries, he is reading blocks on every play, and he is counted on as the centerpiece of the offense. He is the first option in the triple option. He is generally the best running back on the team. The surface similarities to a traditional "fullback" don't go much deeper - yes, he lines up in a 3-point stance, but no, he is not doing so to gain better leverage in run blocking. Rather, we want him through the hole and into the second level quicker. We want him to be a home-run hitter, not a 3-yards and a cloud of dust type. Please don't refer to him as a fullback.

?

"Fullback" implies a slow, lumbering, boring, blocker to a lot of people. Why do we let announcers negatively affect our recruiting like that? The 3-point stance hurts us, but it hurts us even more when it's combined with "the fullback here..."

Maybe we already do this and the talking heads just don't care? If not, let's get it started.

 

[ATL1]

The position titles "aback"/"bback" throws people off and coupled with the unorthodox alignment ....

My position is that just call the "bback" the RB and the "abacks" slot receivers, it just makes it easier for everyone.

 

[bat_082994]

Well, as long as our "fullbacks" are among our leading rushers, I don't think it'll be too much of an issue

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The position titles "aback"/"bback" throws people off and coupled with the unorthodox alignment ....

My position is that just call the "bback" the RB and the "abacks" slot receivers, it just makes it easier for everyone.

RB and "Slot-backs," since THEY will argue that we don't throw the ball so how can we call them receivers.

 

[DCSS]

The term "flexbone" makes one think of "wishbone" which evolved from the "T". Standard nomenclature was Fullback and Halfbacks.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

It's a sad commentary on today's youth where perception trumps reality. These kids know what our Bback is and does. I'm sure when we recruit them it's the first thing we say. I'm sure we show them Adrian Peterson and Jon Dwyer taking it to the house again and again. None of that is more powerful than what they see through the public perception lens. You are right on the money in your observation. But it's not just the tv commentary that's pushing it, so is our competition.

Laskey is a pretty good fit at the position, but his lack of home runs perpetuates the myth. What I found surprisingly refreshing was MLD's take on Laskey after the Miami game:

"The offense looked really good last night and laskey was the main cause, he runs really hard and hits holes the right way , I can see myself trying to match the way he runs and add on to that game"

A) He's not afraid of the "mold" and B) he doesn't want to break the mold and reshape it in his image. No, he wants to fit the mold and add to it. The kid gets it and what's more is he sees himself raising the bar. I love this kid.

Btw, I got that quote directly from GTSwarm, not the ajc, not rivals, not scout, not nobody else. Suck it KQ.

 

[33jacket]

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.

Modern day though that position is now identified with someone who doesnt run the ball. Because that is how they are used, not how they are defined.

By definition in rugby zach is a halfback. By definition he is a fullback in american football. He is not used like a modern day fullback. He is used like a 1950s fullback. But he is still a fullback. How you use someone in the same position doesnt change the name of that position.

If you use a TE just to block, the are not now called a second left tackle or right tackle. Or if your qb primarily runs the ball even though the modern day game all he does is pass, he is now not a RB.

Same goes for our BB. Just because the modern day game doesnt use the FB to run, it doesnt mean that if he does run more he isnt a FB. He is a FB. And yes the perception has changed, but thats the reality. He is a FB that runs more in an era where most dont.

 

[B Lifsey]

I suggest we call it the "Czonka Back" or C Back

 

[B Lifsey]

As to sending the letter to ESPN...I think that would likely make them even MORE adamant about calling the position a fullback. I don't recall who or which show but recently heard one talking head comment he knew it wasn't fullback and they played different but he would still call it a fullback because of alignment/stance.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

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.

Modern day though that position is now identified with someone who doesnt run the ball. Because that is how they are used, not how they are defined.

By definition in rugby zach is a halfback. By definition he is a fullback in american football. He is not used like a modern day fullback. He is used like a 1950s fullback. But he is still a fullback. How you use someone in the same position doesnt change the name of that position.

If you use a TE just to block, the are not now called a second left tackle or right tackle. Or if your qb primarily runs the ball even though the modern day game all he does is pass, he is now not a RB.

Same goes for our BB. Just because the modern day game doesnt use the FB to run, it doesnt mean that if he does run more he isnt a FB. He is a FB. And yes the perception has changed, but thats the reality. He is a FB that runs more in an era where most dont.

Very interesting history lesson, but I disagree with whole "perception = reality" mantra. It's a common phrase in today's lexicon that has truth in the fact that perception can be just as powerful as reality.

Actually, perception trumps reality much of the time and this is one. But the two words do not mean the same thing. Pereption is how a situation is believed to be, reality is how it really is. Sometimes they match, sometimes they do not. In our case with the Bback, they do not and it hurts us.

 

[33jacket]

Very interesting history lesson, but I disagree with whole "perception = reality" mantra. It's a common phrase in today's lexicon that has truth in the fact that perception can be just as powerful as reality.

Actually, perception trumps reality much of the time and this is one. But the two words do not mean the same thing. Pereption is how a situation is believed to be, reality is how it really is. Sometimes they match, sometimes they do not. In our case with the Bback, they do not and it hurts us.

I don't really know what you are trying to say. The BB is a FB period. Regardless of how the BB or FB is used, its a FB position. Just like with any other position.

Does how the modern day FB being used hurt the image of the BB absolutely. But it still a FB by position. Therefore when someone calls it a FB, they are correct. Even though he is not being used how the modern FB is being used.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I don't really know what you are trying to say. The BB is a FB period. Regardless of how the BB or FB is used, its a FB position. Just like with any other position.

Does how the modern day FB being used hurt the image of the BB absolutely. But it still a FB by position. Therefore when someone calls it a FB, they are correct. Even though he is not being used how the modern FB is being used.

You can believe what you want, but you just elaborately described how the definition of fullback has changed over the years. So what if what we do is close to what fullbacks did in the 50's? It's not what fullbacks do today.

We actually agree on the key points, a) the perception of our marquee running back is that of a fullback, and b) it hurts recruiting. What we disagree on is if this perception matches reality. I say no, you say yes. So be it. I'm not changing my mind on this and neither are you.

 

[ibeattetris]

You can believe what you want, but you just elaborately described how the definition of fullback has changed over the years. So what if what we do is close to what fullbacks did in the 50's? It's not what fullbacks do today.

We actually agree on the key points, a) the perception of our marquee running back is that of a fullback, and b) it hurts recruiting. What we disagree on is if this perception matches reality. I say no, you say yes. So be it. I'm not changing my mind on this and neither are you.

The fullback is based on the alignment, not the role. If our BBack takes two steps back he'd be at the halfback position, but that isn't where he lines up. Just because the popular role of a fullback is different than ours doesn't change that the BBack is indeed a fullback.

I do like when the announcers use the terms a/b back since the use of those terms indicate role rather than spatial location on the playing field.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The fullback is based on the alignment, not the role. If our BBack takes two steps back he'd be at the halfback position, but that isn't where he lines up. Just because the popular role of a fullback is different than ours doesn't change that the BBack is indeed a fullback.

I do like when the announcers use the terms a/b back since the use of those terms indicate role rather than spatial location on the playing field.

I can accept that, but that's where the perception of the position as a role and not an alignment hurts us. Most fans (and more importantly, recruits) think of it as a role, not a spot behind the qb. That is why CPJ deliberately abandoned the term. It's a shame, or conspiracy, that the network talking bobbleheads haven't as well.

 

[GTJason]

The false assumption here is that ESPN would have any sort of content which is factually correct or worthwhile about a team not in the SEC

 

[ibeattetris]

The false assumption here is that ESPN would have any sort of content which is factually correct or worthwhile about a team not in the SEC

Try not to judge me for living in fantasyland.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The false assumption here is that ESPN would have any sort of content which is factually correct or worthwhile about a team not in the SEC

You hear opposing coaches use the term "fullback" all the time. You also here our O called the "wishbone" and you hear our cut blocks called "chop blocks." We are hurt constantly by improper semantics.

 

[Techster]

I think we're way past the point of trying to correct the media. This was something that needed to be done when CPJ first got here to get ahead of the media/negative recruiting narrative about this offense...unfortunately, marketing and the SID dropped the ball. Our coaches meet with the media before every game to talk about our offense so that the announcers sound halfway knowledgeable about our offense and players. THAT is the time to correct the media and sell them on our positions. We're just doing a poor job of it.

IMHO, the BB should be called the primary or feature back, and the ABs should be called slot or X back (X being X-factor for their multiple roles receiving and running). People may not think that matters, but go back ten years and call a QB a dual threat and it doesn't mean the same thing as it does today. Dual Threat QBs ten years ago meant "Athlete trying to play QB...can't pass the ball consistently". It's superficial, and it probably means nothing to us because we're GT fans and we know the offense, but to laymen who just wants to watch football they see a funky offense with funny names for their positions...that's why they fall back on what the announcers and media say to our detriment.

 

[stylee]

I am really stumped by the idea that a BBack is a "fullback" because of alignment.
That's not how words work.

We can have a positive impact on how we are perceived by admitting that the meanings of words change over time. That's it.
We have no problem admitting this in any other context: "fantastic" used to mean only occurring in the imagination, a fantasy. Now it has an implication similar to "great."
Fullback used to refer to a certain alignment in a different game, then to a different alignment in football, and then to another alignment in football.

The RNS formation, which this offense partly comes from, never had a fullback - it had a "superback." So we've got a wishbone-based offensive strategy (wishbone = fullback) molded with a RNS-based formation (RNS = superback). Why is Laskey the former and not the latter?

We can help ourselves. Let's do that.

 

[33jacket]

You can believe what you want, but you just elaborately described how the definition of fullback has changed over the years. So what if what we do is close to what fullbacks did in the 50's? It's not what fullbacks do today.

We actually agree on the key points, a) the perception of our marquee running back is that of a fullback, and b) it hurts recruiting. What we disagree on is if this perception matches reality. I say no, you say yes. So be it. I'm not changing my mind on this and neither are you.

No. I did not say the definition changed. How they are used did. A FB by definition in American football is a person who lines up half behind the qb. Period. Just as a TE by definition is a person who primarily lines up outside either tackle. Just as a qb by definition is a person who lines up under center and takes snaps.

The position is not defined by how they are used, It's where their alignment is. If you have a person lined up in a 5tech every down. No matter if they rushed the passer or dropped into coverage in a 4-3 scheme. They are the DE. They are not a lb. not a cb. They are the de.

By definition where our BB lines up makes him a FB period. It's not the alignments fault they are no longer used in the run game. And that has not redefined where they line up or what they are called. Sorry man. We have a FB. We don't use him like everyone else. He is still a FB by alignment alone.