Ok so I developed a love of American Football a few years ago so much that I’ve taken to calling soccer, well soccer. Being from Ireland though Football is still Gaelic Football.
Anyway being a rugby fan I know that down through the years in rugby there’s been quaterbacks, halfbacks (outside ones, inside ones, flying ones, scrum ones), five-eighths (blame those pedantic New Zealanders), three quarter backs and full backs. The thing about rubgy is that these positions make sense. The half back is the closet to the forwards, then the three quarters then the full back.
So when i watch American Football I’m left wondering why in the I formation the Quarterback is closest to the line, then then Fullback then the Halfback? Surely the Halfback should be the guy directly behind the Quarterback then the Fullback should be the guy who runs with the ball.
Does this come from an earlier formation? Minor point I know but its been bugging me.
Originally, the quarterback took the snap from center and either ran the ball or handed off to one of the halfbacks (there were two) or the fullback. The halfbacks were behind the quarterback, and the fullback behind them.
As passing developed, one of the halfbacks split off to become the flankerback or flanker. Nowadays in the pros, many formation only have a single running back (and sometimes none at all) as passing became the preferred method of gaining ground.
The halfbacks were behind the quarterback, and the fullback behind them.
I was describing a modified T Formation where the halfbacks were up a step from the fullback. That was kept in the pro set in the 60s, which had the flanker.
Even earlier was the Single Wing formation. There, the quarterback was a blocking back and the ball could be centered to either the fullback or tailback.
The halfback is often called the tailback these days, which makes much more sense… abnd the traditional fullback (blocking back) is a dying breed, replaced by an H-back (kind of like a fullback who never carries the ball at all and usually doesn’t line up directly ahead of the HB) or a second tight end on most teams.
Here’s an older thread, Where did “quarterback” come from?, that discusses the original naming conventions in American football. It’s essentially what RealityChuck said, but with additional discussion and citation.
Which is too bad, I’ve always enjoyed having a good fullback on my team (whichever team that may be), that can just pound out a yard or 2 to get into the end zone or a first down.
No, but a lateral or backwards pass may provide an opportunity to advance the ball, as you of all people should know.
IOW, the lateral pass is an alternative to “run until you fall down”, as well as an alternative to “throw it forwards”. I don’t know if that’s what he meant, though.
Cheers for that. Looks like a fullback started off as a big blocker that lined up at the back. Then when the big blocker lined up ahead of the halfback they just kept calling him a Fullback.
The lateral was pretty well established before Knute and the gang came along. It’s simple enough that it doesn’t need to be developed, per se, in the same way the forward pass was (i.e. routes, blocking patterns, etc.)
And, yes, I know laterals provide an **opportunity **to advance… otherwise all these backs we’re speaking of wouldn’t be walking into the try zone untouched while I do all the hard work for them.
