Fullbacks, Halfbacks, Running Backs?

[Oszuscik]

This may be a dumb question, but I've been trying to get this straight for some time and cannot find the answer I'm looking for online. In the 60's and 70's it seemed that the primary ball-carrier in an offense was the "fullback" (Jim Brown, Jim Taylor, John Brockington...) and his backfield partner was the "halfback", who would block for the fullback, but also take hand-offs and occasionally pass as well. This makes sense to me, quarter-half-full, nice and clean.

So how did the fullback transition to being the blocking back BETWEEN the halfback and quarterback? Why did the halfback stop being the lead blocker and flip positions in the formation with the fullback? The morphing of the backfield alignment from the 60's to modern times just doesn't make sense to me.

I grew up watching football in the 90's just accepting there's a RB and FB. Now I'm making an effort to study and learn the history of the game, and when I see the common offensive formations from 40-50 years ago I'm just thinking they're neat and clean and make sense. So I guess I just don't understand the evolution of the fullback position and how the halfback morphed into "running back". If anyone doesn't mind taking the time to explain it to me I'd appreciate it.

[JohnTurney]

This may be a dumb question, but I've been trying to get this straight for some time and cannot find the answer I'm looking for online. In the 60's and 70's it seemed that the primary ball-carrier in an offense was the "fullback" (Jim Brown, Jim Taylor, John Brockington...) and his backfield partner was the "halfback", who would block for the fullback, but also take hand-offs and occasionally pass as well. This makes sense to me, quarter-half-full, nice and clean.

So how did the fullback transition to being the blocking back BETWEEN the halfback and quarterback? Why did the halfback stop being the lead blocker and flip positions in the formation with the fullback? The morphing of the backfield alignment from the 60's to modern times just doesn't make sense to me.

I grew up watching football in the 90's just accepting there's a RB and FB. Now I'm making an effort to study and learn the history of the game, and when I see the common offensive formations from 40-50 years ago I'm just thinking they're neat and clean and make sense. So I guess I just don't understand the evolution of the fullback position and how the halfback morphed into "running back". If anyone doesn't mind taking the time to explain it to me I'd appreciate it.

In the 1990s it became the "fullback offense" by transitioning to more I formation (green formation) attacks, rather than split backs. So, technically, in the playbooks, Emmitt Smith was really the fullback and Moose was the halfback--if you used "traditional nomenclature". But also, in the I formation, some called Emmitt the "tailback" and Moose the "fullback". But that was more of a college term that was adopted, I guess in late 1980s or early 1990s so that became the accepted terms.

I think it was Paul Brown, but not 100% sure, that numberd the backs.

The QB was #1
the left halfback was #2
the fullback was #3 (behind the QB)
and the right halfback was #4

eventually the #4 back became the flaknker (think Lenny Moore, etc)

So, the 2 back was 3 back remained. And the 2 was still the halfback and the 3 was the fullback (the back on the 2 receiver side) he was
on the flanker side and the tight end side.


In the era you are talking about, 1960s, when there was a tight end----they ran mostly from split backs.. or "pro set" or "red" and "brown" The fullback was the back on the tight end side. So the terms (FB and HB) are based on who was on the TE side in split backs not who carried the ball.

Of course they could change positions (they may call it switch or exchange) and the FB would be weak and the HB would be on strong side.

So the terms were more for the media in the 1990s, really. It wasn't necessarily the position they were playing in the traditional sense. I am sure they eventually changed the terms at some point.

[JuggernautJ]

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.

...I've been trying to get this straight for some time and cannot find the answer I'm looking for online. In the 60's and 70's it seemed that the primary ball-carrier in an offense was the "fullback" (Jim Brown, Jim Taylor, John Brockington...) and his backfield partner was the "halfback", who would block for the fullback, but also take hand-offs and occasionally pass as well. This makes sense to me, quarter-half-full, nice and clean....

I grew up watching football at that time (Jim Brown to John Brockington) and had exactly the opposite impression....
I thought the position was (more or less) determined by size with the big, slow guy at fullback and the smaller, faster guy at halfback. The halfback (Gale Sayers, O.J.) ran and the fullback (Ken Willard, Bill Brown), more often than not, blocked for him.
Of course and as you noted, there were teams where the fullback was the better and lead back.

Somewhere along the line the nomenclature evolved (for the most part) to running back/tailback (for the main ball carrier) and fullback (for the blocker). And I think, depending on the offense being run and the inclination of the coaching staff and system, that's pretty much still where it is.

And then there was the H-Back...

[bachslunch]

I’m not sure there was a hard and fast rule at the time regarding which type of back carried the ball more. It was often a fullback, but there are exceptions. For example, in the NFL in 1961, the leading rushers for San Francisco (J.D. Smith), Chicago (Willie Galimore), Dallas (Don Perkins), St Louis (Prentice Gautt), Los Angeles (Jon Arnett), Minnesota (Hugh McElhenny), and Washington (Dick James) were halfbacks.

[TanksAndSpartans]

I bet that numbering goes back even further. There's an interview where Hap Moran who played in the 20s mentions playing either wingback or #2 back, so my guess would be the #2 was the TB or LH even back then. He also mentions A back.

Its an interesting topic especially with the FB being phased out to some extent. And in a way similarly to how calling Friedman a QB when he really lined up at tailback could be misleading, I think there are similar examples with fullbacks. When I started watching football I think the understanding was the FB blocked for the other guy, but there were players called fullbacks - Riggins, Muncie, others who when you watched them actually lined up in a way for them to be the ball carrier, not block.

I've always been really impressed with the guys who did both. Jim Taylor and Joe Perry come to mind. They had some really good rushing yardage seasons, but also lead blocked for others like Perry for McElhenny.

[JuggernautJ]

....When I started watching football I think the understanding was the FB blocked for the other guy, but there were players called fullbacks - Riggins, Muncie, others who when you watched them actually lined up in a way for them to be the ball carrier, not block.

I've always been really impressed with the guys who did both. Jim Taylor and Joe Perry come to mind. They had some really good rushing yardage seasons, but also lead blocked for others like Perry for McElhenny.

Who do we think were the best running fullbacks?
We've already mentioned Jim Brown and Jim Taylor (probably the best two? Closely followed by) Joe the Jet.
One Hall of Famer not yet mentioned would be Csonka. Another would be John Henry Johnson. And, of course, Marion Motley.
Any others of note?

(Nagurski (and Nevers?), but he is really from an era previous to the one we are discussing.)

[JohnTurney]

I bet that numbering goes back even further. There's an interview where Hap Moran who played in the 20s mentions playing either wingback or #2 back, so my guess would be the #2 was the TB or LH even back then. He also mentions A back.

I

That's interesting. Maybe it goes back to college and Amos Alonzo Stagg or something...the "A" could be where the backs line up, I've seen that a lot in playbooks. the A position, B, position, etc...

[Bryan]

I’m not sure there was a hard and fast rule at the time regarding which type of back carried the ball more. It was often a fullback, but there are exceptions. For example, in the NFL in 1961, the leading rushers for San Francisco (J.D. Smith), Chicago (Willie Galimore), Dallas (Don Perkins), St Louis (Prentice Gautt), Los Angeles (Jon Arnett), Minnesota (Hugh McElhenny), and Washington (Dick James) were halfbacks.

Wasn't Don Perkins a fullback?

[JWL]

This came up on a Jets forum years ago. I responded-

Yeah, the halfback and fullback terms are now misnomers.

From a common sense standpoint, Lorenzo Neal is not a fullback. He lines up between LT and the quarterback. Tomlinson should be listed as a fullback or tailback. Neal should be listed as a blocking back or halfback.

***

Jim Brown was a fullback. He had a smaller halfback named Ernie Green who frequently acted as his lead blocker. That's just one example from the 1960s.

When the I-formation came into vogue the fullback began to line up between the QB and the HB. This seems to be where the fullback and halfback terminology got scrambled.

[Oszuscik]

Interesting! So the three-back backfield was most common, with a LHB, FB, and RHB. Then the RHB morphed into the flanker position, with the remaining HB and FB commonly split in a Pro Set formation. Then the fullback, typically the larger of the two backs, transitioned to mostly blocking assignments as opposed to sharing carries with the HB. I think I've got it, that seems like a pretty natural evolution of the backfield.

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?