Talk:Running back

Names removed from article

I'm not sure that the decision to remove names from this article is any less POV than having them in the article. After all, who decides the difference between a future star and a current star. Perhaps some criteria should be posted and agreed to for RBs to merit inclusion in the section. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, even though I was the one that removed them. Future stars is far more POV that current stars, however. We probably should set criteria for the inclusion of "present stars." A trip to the Pro Bowl? At least 2 1,000-yard seasons? That's what I'm currently thinking, but if anybody has any better ideas that'd be great. bob rulz 17:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How about meeting any one of the following: 1) At least two 1,000-yard seasons 2) At least one 1,300-yard season 3) First-round draft pick (only for rookies)? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like good criteria to me. bob rulz 05:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Rating

This chart [1] shows the draft results of a new rating formula I propose:
TG=TDs per game YG=yards per game C=career carries minimum 100 games

rating = [0.30 * TG + 0.50 * YG / 25 + 0.20 *C / 1000] / 3.5
--Billymac00 19:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancies

this link [2]lists Bettis yardage as 13662 ...also lists Smith TDs at 164

Potential Hall of Fame

Possible candidates to consider from the crop of active and recently retired include E Smith,E James,C Martin,M Faulk,R Watters,S Alexander,T Thomas,T Barber,E George and J Bettis in no order.

Wingbacks?

"Wingback" redirects to this article, but this article doesn't mention what a wingback is...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.5.41 (talk • contribs)

Yup, I came here to say the exact same thing. I'm going to add "wingback" to the first line, but that's all I can do. I don't know much about it. --- RockMFR 01:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't a wingback one of two backs in a split or "pro" formation?

         R   ETCTE R  R
               Q
              W W

Okay, here's the run down. A wingback is the guy at the extreme edges of a field goal block formation or an unbalanced flexbone formation. The wingback is typically a running back or fullback lined up behind the line of scrimmage after a tight end. While a slotback is a running back or fullback lined up off the line of scrimmage without a tight end.

You've seen wingbacks in the Seattle Seahawks goal line formation where Max Strong and another fullback/tight end play wingbacks.

             ETGCGTE
           WB   Q   WB
               TB

The slotbacks and wingbacks are utilized a lot in triple option offenses while they are completely utilized for blocking in the NFL or pass catching h-backs.

      WR     TGCGTE
           SB  Q   WB
               FB

Excaliburhorn 20:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

That's great info. Please add it to the article rather than just mentioning it on this talk page. —Lowellian (reply) 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Although the photo of a running back is a pretty good one, can't we find one that better shows what a halfback does? The player in the photo is holding the ball poorly and running in the open field, if you know nothing about football the picture doesn't help at all... A picture of a back running up the middle probably wouldn't come out well, but maybe someone has a picture of a running back lining up in the backfield, perhaps in an ace or I formation? That would at least show where the player tends to line up...

I agree, this is a good photo if we want to show how NOT to hold the ball when running. 67.99.60.231 20:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Half vs. Full

I was trying to figure out why the fullback is only halfway in the backfield, and the halfback is the deepest player. From what I've read, this is American derision of the original Scottish rugby terms where the fullback was the deepest player, but if any one could shed some light on why the American football terms are different, it would be much appreciated! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.15.18.18 (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, it's mostly derived from old option offenses. The fullback used to line up the deepest in the formation with two halfbacks behind the quarterback.

        WR   TGCGT    WR
               QB  
            HB    HB
               FB

Excaliburhorn 23:16, 11-Apr-2007 (UTC)

Layman's terms

This page could do with a brief description of what a running back actually does in layman's terms.

Something that your jock hating sister could grip easily like a beefed up version of, "he stands out of the way, somebody throws the ball to him, and he legs it half way down the field with it".

perfectblue 15:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wishbone Offense

The first few lines of the article talks about there being one, two, or strictly speaking three running backs in and offensive play. In a wishbone offense there are three, or strictly speaking four (incl the quarterback) running backs. Although this offense is not used in the professional game, the Wishbone is used often enough in college, and high school and as a "trick" play/formation in the pro game.

Lead paragraph fails to explain the role of the player

Now I'm not in any way an expert on the american style of football which is why I came to this page. But here I'm greeted with the following lead:

"A running back (RB) is the position of a player on an American or Canadian football team who lines up in the offensive backfield. There are usually one or two running backs on the field for a given play, depending on the offensive formation. A running back may be a halfback (HB for short, also called a tailback) or a fullback (FB). (In Canadian football, there is also a position called a slotback. In American football, a player is occasionally referred to as an H-Back or an F-Back; this means that the player plays a position that is a hybrid of running back and tight end.) While a fullback is technically a running back, in modern parlance the terms "running back" and "RB" are frequently used to refer only to halfbacks."

Notice that NOWHERE in this do you explain what the guy actually does. Instead it all gets bogged down into weird semantics. The various versions of the running back is probably very interesting, but the first order of business is surely to explain what the position entails. --Bomkia 19:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Point well taken. How's it look to you now? Groupthink 22:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

HB Passing

Other than LaDanian Tomlinson, which RB has passed the ball regularly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.56.44 (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Walter Payton. Groupthink 14:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

PJ Daniels

Why the hell is PJ Daniels the posterboy for this article? Shouldn't we use someone more universally known... like a Reggie Bush, or a historical great like Emmit?? --asher14

Race

Why is there even mention of race for a running back? If this article is strictly for NFL running backs, then maybe it would bear mentioning. However, there are probably more non-African American running backs in football, when you take into account high school football.

Besides, this is an article on the position, not who plays it. Would I find mention of race in the place-kicker or punter articles? This needs to be more objective and inform the reader what the position incorporates and not the number of blacks playing the position in the NFL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.171.235 (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Reggie Bush

There are many great names of NFL running backs in this article. How is Reggie Bush, who averages about 40 yards a game, mentioned as a prototypical "scat back"? I think you should actually be productive in order to be mentioned as anything "prototypical".

For that matter, why is the running back who best combined both speed and power, Eric Dickerson, not mentioned in here? Reggie Bush couldn't even carry Dickerson's you know what when it comes to being an NFL great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.166.139 (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

I was just wondering why there is an article for Running back and Halfback? There is no section in either article demonstrating the differences between a halfback and a running back. Whats everyones opinion on an article merge especially considering they are almost the same article? —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 04:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. I think that an article about running backs ought to encompass everything there is to know about half backs and full backs. Bibbly Bob (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge A "running back" can refer to either the halfback or the fullback. "Running back" is not a synonym for the halfback. There's a difference between them. Go Silver and Black!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merge. In addition to the prior comment (which raises a valid point), the halfback position in the first 90 years of the game (c. 1870 to c. 1960) was both a defensive and offensive position. Unlike today's game (with 30 or more distinct positions), football in its original form had seven simple positions, all of which were two-way positions. Each of those historic positions has (and should continue to have) a separate article. They are: end (right and left), tackle (right and left), guard (right and left), center, halfback (right and left), fullback and quarterback -- no linebackers, free safeties, strong safeties, cornerbacks, nicklebacks, long snappers, tight ends, gunners, etc. Separate treatment of the halfback position (and each of the seven historical positions in the original game) is needed. It is not historically accurate to refer to a pre-1950s halfback as a running back or as a defensive back -- nor to refer to a pre-1950s end as a wide receiver (even though ends when playing offense were the most common pass receivers) or a pre-1950s center as a linebacker (even though most centers in the early days filled the defensive role most commonly thought of as a linebacker). The seven historic positions should not be modified to try to "fit" them into modern football terminology. Cbl62 (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the original post about a merge. An offensive halfback is offense halfback in the purest sense no matter how others want to phrase it with nonsense. A fullback does everything in the back field. You want to question the names of backs then do so in another page. Truth is, quarters do anything 1/4 of the time, halfbacks do so 1/2 the same time, fullbacks to so 1/1 of the time. Base on any argument we should start calling offensive linemen, protectors. Since they protect. I do know "running" backs run.

In any sense. It should be; see other posts for running back. e.g. full, half, quarter.

How in the world is Darren Sproles a 'prototypical' scat back?

No way he is a hall of famer, the way he's playing right now. He didn't even make a Pro Bowl as a runningback or had a 1000 yard season. I would put Tony Dorsett/Gale Sayers in his place. I mean, come ON! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.80.23 (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Odd sentence

"No position in Canadian/American football can perform his duties successfully without the help of other players."

Really? --Stacecom (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)