Fullbacks, Halfbacks, Running Backs?

[TanksAndSpartans]

In the 80's and 90's do you guys think that instead of splitting carries between a HB and FB teams mostly got away from that and used a "featured back" because the passing game opened up? That the play-calls a dual backfield used to get were now being allocated to the passing game? Is that more or less what helped turn the FB into a blocking position?

I think that makes sense - swapping out a FB for another receiver because the rules were becoming more advantageous to passing. I can't remember where, but I think a coach from the 80s commented once that with the defensive players becoming more athletic, the personnel package (FB, HB, TE, 2WR) wouldn't work well as a primary offense now because the defense would just load the box and stop it.

[Ronfitch]

I believe the names of the positions derive from the distance set back from the line of scrimmage (1/4, 1/2 or fully back) and had nothing to do, per se with the function of the player at that spot.

That is how I recall learning about the origin, before the T formation. Perhaps a variation of the single wing?

[JohnTurney]

In the 80's and 90's do you guys think that instead of splitting carries between a HB and FB teams mostly got away from that and used a "featured back" because the passing game opened up? That the play-calls a dual backfield used to get were now being allocated to the passing game? Is that more or less what helped turn the FB into a blocking position?

Part of it was deception, for some reason lost out philosophically over having your best runner carry the ball and the better blocker block. With two backs who carry the ball, say the halfback carriers 200 times and the fullback 150, I guess with Earl Campbell and the 1-back thing, changed. So, let's not fool them by having plays that the defense has to instantly figure out two has the ball, became, "We know Earl will carry the ball, so let's try and figure out how to stop it"

SO Campbell became Riggins then Dickerson, etc...also, with the 3-4 teams could stop the sweeps better---attacking the middle made more sense and the plays ---sweeps with the halfback leading and guards pulling became out of vogue. So ifdeception wasn't a factor---have the ball carrier carry and the blocker carry.

[TanksAndSpartans]

I believe the names of the positions derive from the distance set back from the line of scrimmage (1/4, 1/2 or fully back) and had nothing to do, per se with the function of the player at that spot.

That is how I recall learning about the origin, before the T formation. Perhaps a variation of the single wing?

But the T formation predates the s-w and goes back to the 1800s. I thought the fullback and two halfbacks were parallel to the LOS, but the second image shows the FB further back. I believe Rugby has a fullback who is truly lined up farther back than anyone. Here are ends back and guards back which I believe became illegal early in the 1900s:

_guards_back.jpg (26.49 KiB) Viewed 12550 times

_ends_back.jpg (40.79 KiB) Viewed 12550 times

[Ronfitch]

I believe the names of the positions derive from the distance set back from the line of scrimmage (1/4, 1/2 or fully back) and had nothing to do, per se with the function of the player at that spot.

That is how I recall learning about the origin, before the T formation. Perhaps a variation of the single wing?

But the T formation predates the s-w and goes back to the 1800s. I thought the fullback and two halfbacks were parallel to the LOS, but the second image shows the FB further back. I believe Rugby has a fullback who is truly lined up farther back than anyone. Here are ends back and guards back which I believe became illegal early in the 1900s:

_guards_back.jpg

_ends_back.jpg

Thanks, Tanks. I did not know that the T Formation was in use before the '30s (thinking of Clark Shaughnessy's work at UChicago and Stanford; Halas bringing it to the Bears).