Serious Question re: Our "Fullback"

[IronJacket7]

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.

I definitely understand the point you are trying to make but its like your post above, we are splitting frog hairs here.

However, I'd venture to say that the most important factor in recruiting a BB for our offense is what they here from our coaches mouths and not what they hear misconstrued by ESPN

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I definitely understand the point you are trying to make but its like your post above, we are splitting frog hairs here.

However, I'd venture to say that the most important factor in recruiting a BB for our offense is what they here from our coaches mouths and not what they hear misconstrued by ESPN

I think it depends on the kid. And it's not so much what they specifically here from ESPNers. It's what they're hearing from their friends and family. I hate to say it, but many if not most kids value status over all else. Playing for GT doesn't bring status to these kids so they go somewhere that does. Playing in an offense that is not the flavor of the day/month/year by ESPN is not gonna stroke these kids' egos.

That's why we need to target SA's with a genuine interest in a top notch education paired with a chance to play for championships. That's what we need to sell. But, alas, all kids want to be on Sports Center and I'm not talking about being the punchline of their jokes or misinformation.

 

[BranMart]

... 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.

I saw Jim Grobe say that on that Fox show about the ACC, whatever it is called. "I know they call it B-Back but I am gonna call it fullback, shucks golly."

 

[alaguy]

Why don't we call him--TAILBACK--as the topback or tail on the line made up of the ctr,QB and then TB.

 

[danny daniel]

For an example of why 33jacket is off here:

That's a traditional single wing formation. The quarterback is not "behind center" here; he's a 'quarter' of the way back (and over the tackle too, fwiw) and so can still receive an airborne snap.
That changed with the popularization of the under center T formation, wherein the QB was now taking the snap directly from the center.

Despite the difference in alignment, the QB was still a QB.

Justin Thomas, undercenter and not a quarter of the way back, is a QB. DeShaun Watson, in the shotgun and not a quarter of the way back, is a QB. That's because the term "quarterback" evolved to encompass something separate from alignment - it now referred to a player's function.

Small correction: In most single wing plays the tailback (al la Bobby Dodd) takes the airborne snap, not the QB.

 

[zhavenor]

Small correction: In most single wing plays the tailback (al la Bobby Dodd) takes the airborne snap, not the QB.

... or the fullback. It's one of the beautiful things about single wing football. Love me some spinner series

 

[stylee]

We ran the spin series in high school. Lots of fun to run, especially when you've got 5 guys tackling you as your QB runs untouched and unnoticed into the endzone.

 

[awbuzz]

... 3 + pages of interesting reading...

 

[Northeast Stinger]

We did not even get to terms like H-back and Tail-back. I remember when everything was pretty straight forward and offensive players had a set name which did not change even if their position on the filed changed. Ends were either tight or split but no rule required them to line up a particular way. Extra receivers were usually referred to as flanker backs and could split out as wide as they wanted. I could go on but the point is that it seems like there was an understanding that the position had a name and that name stayed even if you lined up in a different place. If was as if the assumption was that you had an "orthodox" function if you played a particular position but you could line up in an "unorthodox" way but your name still stayed the same. Since none of this has been consistently true for the last 50 years I guess coaches now have the right to name positions anything they like except for those which will forever remain the same such as guard, tackle, center etc.

 

[DCSS]

The offensive line should be called center, off center, and way off center. The tackle doesn't really tackle.

 

[AE 87]

The offensive line should be called center, off center, and way off center. The tackle doesn't really tackle.

Duke's did. Eeyooo!

 

[ibeattetris]

The offensive line should be called center, off center, and way off center. The tackle doesn't really tackle.

Center guard, left guard, and lefter guard?

 

[DCSS]

Center guard, left guard, and lefter guard?

And the TE be the leftest guard? That would work. I was thinking center, left off center, and left way off center. The TE could remain the same or be Far Out Man.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

How about center is AOL, guard: BOL and tackle: COL. Screw the TE, don't wan't 'em, don't need 'em.

 

[Mack]

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.

I agree with you but we have more of a fullback in Laskey than a B back.....now JD well that is different but shoot never had any faith in ESPN or their announcers like Bob Davis etc.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I agree with you but we have more of a fullback in Laskey than a B back.....now JD well that is different but shoot never had any faith in ESPN or their announcers like Bob Davis etc.

Eh, the Cox brothers were more like fullbacks, imo. Laskey ain't JD, but he's more like a tailback than a fullback. Heck, blocking isn't even one of his strong suits.

 

[DCSS]

How about center is AOL, guard: BOL and tackle: COL. Screw the TE, don't wan't 'em, don't need 'em.

LOL

 

[DCSS]

I still think an oversized tailback would work best at BBack. Has CPJ ever commented on what he considers the ideal size and skill set?

 

[Rock]

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.

absolutely this^^^^^^

What do you call the bback when he lines up a qb? bqbback???
if a LB lines up to play qb, he is the qb.
has everything to do with alignment.

and by the way, who cares??? is it reall ythat big of a deal? Is a kid gonna say " oh, heck no, I m not coming there now. I heard it called a fb vs Miami?" c'mon.

 

[Techster]

I still think an oversized tailback would work best at BBack. Has CPJ ever commented on what he considers the ideal size and skill set?

Dwyer.

He made a comment one time that Dwyer was probably as close to perfect BB as you could get.