Do any football historians on the board know at what point in the history of the game the halfback and fullback positions switched places? It is my understanding that originally(as the name implies) the fullback lined up the farthest behind the center, with the halfback in front of him. was there a shift in the rules that caused the halfback to become the primary ballcarrier, and if so, why didn’t they just switch the names?
thanks
Well, I’m no historian, but I am not aware that the fullback was ever the primary ballcarrier. The halfback’s position near the quarterback lends itself to handoff plays as well as short passes; the fullback’s position lends itelf to blocking for the halfback, and fullbacks only occasionally get the ball . Halfbacks are generally faster, especially for the long run, whereas fullbacks (ideally) are stronger and more explosive. The halfback is delayed slightly while getting the ball, which allows the fullback to bull ahead and block a tackler. After that, the halfback usually passes the fullback, and relies on his greater speed, some tactical changes in direction, and some blocking from the ends.
The position is confused since this “I” formation is not used all the time (or even much, anymore), and when there’s only one running back, or no running backs, the names of the positions do get changed (as a matter of fact, “tailback,” wingback," “blocking back,” and the like are a bit more common that the old “halfback/fullback” combo).
(Note: I am talking out of my, er, “fullback” here, and am only posting because no one else has).
When Clark Shaugnessy of Stanford introduced the T-formation into football into 1940, the standard terminology made the quarterback the player who took the snap right under the center.
Directly behind him was the fullback. Behind the fullback were two halfbacks who were split apart.
This was a change from the single wing where the four backs would line up in a sort of box (sort of a parallelogram). The snap would usually go to one of the halfbacks. At least one of the versions that I saw a high school team run.
Let me put it more simply. the logical way to line up in the I formation, based only on the names of the positions, would be:
Center->Quarterback->Halfback->Fullback
of course, in modern football, it actually lines up as
C->QB->FB->HB
while this makes sense because it allows the bigger fullback to act as a lead blocker, it makes no sense based on the way the positions are named. I think I just confused the question with all the stuff about primary ballcarries and what not.
If you are lining up in the I formation, you don’t have a halfback, you have a tailback.
Sometimes the tailback would be referred to as a halfback because, the tailback in the I formation, like a halfback in the T formation, would be the primary ballcarrier.
However, very few football teams use a true “halfback” anymore.
ahhhhh… so the problem is that the Running back is often refered to as the halfback, but based on formation, they may or may not be playing the actual halfback position. Are there any commonly used(in the pros) formations that use a true halfback?
Some teams, in short yardage situations will use what is now called “the full house backfield” which looks like the old T formation of Shaugnessy and Halas. But usually the extra back brought in is another fullback or a tight end most of the time.
NFL teams haven’t used a formation with 3 running backs as its principal set since the 1950s I think.
The few college teams that run the option or use the wishbone have true halfbacks. But such an offense is a rarity now.
But see, even in the wishbone the guy they call the fullback lines up in front of the two guys they call halfbacks. So the OP question still applies.
I have in my hands a college football rule book, which includes a diagram of an offensive formation to show how players should be numbered. The diagram probably hasn’t changed since the 1940’s. It shows a very old fashioned formation, sort of a “reverse wishbone” with two halfbacks, followed by a fullback. I’ve never seen such a formation in real life, but it must have been common at one time.
So now I’m speculating . . . but in this type of formation, the fullback’s primary responsibility was probably blocking. Later, when teams switched to two-back formations, or to three backs in the “wishbone” pattern, they kept the “fullback” name for the primary blocker, even though he was no longer “geographically” a fullback.
You’re looking at a single-wing formation, as BobT mentioned, an offense which has been a museum piece for half a century. A single-wing quarterback was just a blocker, while the tailback was the passer.
The position of quarterback didn’t take its present connotation until the T-formation with Frankie Albert at Stanford.
The quarterback in Notre Dame’s famous “Four Horsemen” backfield was Harry Struhdeler, and his job was mainly blocking. But he did call the signals. But he was not a typical dropback QB that we know now.
Does the strike season count? I remember a team (can’t remember which one) that went to it in the strike season.
slight hijack here,since I have no idea why backs are referred to as full or half-but had to originate in the early (like Pop warner) era,and in those years the fulback was the mr.inside to the halfbacks mr.outside,in addition to being the usual first block on the DE or linebacker when the other backs carried while the other half
took care of the dbs flowing to the play.
The original ** flanker ** or wideout was Dub Jones of the early 50s Cleve.Browns,to take advantage of the fact they had 2 premier pass catching ends (Lavelli and Mac Speedie) already.Other teams soon folowed suit as passing became a bigger part of the attacks.
Dub,incidentally was the father of Bert,of LSU and Colt fame.
No, this isn’t a single wing-see http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2002/2002_football_rules.pdf and scroll to Page 26.
The OP is accurate in that the position seems to have switched. Franco Harris of the late '70’s Steelers was a fullback, and Rocky Bleier was a halfback. And Rocky did most of the blocking. In fact, I don’t ever remember Franco lining up anywhere but deep in the Steelers backfield.
This always made sense to me, as the progression seemed logical (i.e. quarterback, halfback, fullback). But I don’t remember exactly when the positions flipped.
Here this article should clear up our confusion:
http://www.footballresearch.com/articles/frpage.cfm?topic=runningspecies