My boyfriend took this quiz and got 100%. He knows his stuff. I think the only thing he didn’t fully know was the etymology of the terms and how they relate to the positions of today. Hence my desire to look like a badass!
The wikipedia image uses QB in the modern definition, ie “the guy who gets the ball first” to make the image a bit more understandable, rather than including a long description about how all the snaps are to the tail back and the QB is just some guy up front.
Just to enlarge on an earlier reply about rugby, wing backs as well as centres are three-quarters. I don’t think positions were especially differentiated before the 15-man game emerged - prior to that you had forwards and backs, nothing more, and it was mainly a forwards’ game. In some circles the fly-half (a.k.a. outside half or standoff half) and the inside centre are known as first and second five-eights. In practice, the very existence of “inside” and “outside” centre as opposed to “left” and “right” centre implies the use of a five-eighth system regardless of nomenclature (because one particular centre is the first to receive the ball from the fly-half).
Wing three-quarters are usually referred to as “left” and “right” rather than “open” and “blind” as it’s not normally practical for them to swap positions at each set-piece; of course, after any impromptu breakdown (ruck or maul) near one touchline, one winger is temporarily the “blind-side winger” by default.
Other codes of football have half-forwards as well as half-backs - a logical system.
The wikipedia article you cite describes variations of the single wing as they are played today. The single wing offense played in the teens and twenties had an unbalanced line (2 linemen to one side of the center and 4 linemen on the other side) and four backs. The backs were named (from front to back) “wing back,” “blocking back”, “fullback”, and “tailback.” The tailback received the snap and usually ran with the ball. The single wing was developed by Glen “Pop” Warner and popularized by his star player, Jim Thorpe.
**WoodenTaco’s **description of the modern-T formation is spot on, and that’s where the term quarterback first came into use.
And if you want to look smarter than me never admit that you didn’t know until 6 months ago that the Washington Redskins were not out of Washington State. :smack: My SO still won’t let me live that down.
Again, the term “quarterback” goes back in America at least to 1879, which is long before a modern “T”-formation had been developed. See my links posted above.
Well, I don’t see a LINK in your post. I do see a reference to an outside source, but it references a book from 1890s about something that “resembled” a T formation. So, with respect, you have not shown that the “T” formation as we understand it today existed in 1879 when the term was coined. Now you may have reference to some other piece of information that extends the true “T” back to the 1870s, in which case I’d be happy to reconsider my statement (and truly interested in the material, btw).
And, btw, in a “T” formation, there would be no “quarter-back”, “half-back” or “full-back” because there would only be two layers of player; the cross of the T and the player in front. So I think your idea that the “T” formation gave rise to the “quarterback” term is faulty.
The more so since there is information that the term was being used in 20-a-side RUGBY back in the roughly 1860s.
That’s a very helpful reference, zut, thank you.
BUT, although the writer accredits Camp with the formation of the “T” offense, every other mention I’ve seen of the “T” offense describes a formation consistent with the capital letter, not the one described by the author in your quote, or by Wooden Taco as being like a small-“t” with the fullback deeper than the half-backs. So I guess what I need is some contemporary authority stating that that was a true “T” offense.
I chose this particular cite, because you can see how Walter Camp himself drew the “regular formation” in his book (diagram 2), and it does indeed look like a capital T, with the half- and full-backs all at the same distance from the line (although the diagram two pages earlier shows the fullback behind the halfbacks).
