History and Significance of Position Names in American and Canadian Football
Origins in Rugby
Being variants of 19th Century rugby football, American and
Canadian football position nomenclature has its origins therein. Early
rugby did no more than distinguish in tactics between the great bulk of
the players who played as forwards and the relative few who played back
defensively as "tends", as in goaltenders. After a while the attacking
or at least counterattacking possibilities of playing close behind the
scrimmage (which came later to be called "scrummage") came to be
recognized, and some players stationed themselves between the forwards
and tends as "half-tends". It being seen that the players outside
scrimmage (the "pack", i.e. the forwards) were not limited to a
defensive role, the tends and half-tends were renamed "back" and "half
back" positions.
As the game became more sophisticated, backs postioned at different
depths (i.e. distances behind the forwards) were further differentiated
into half back, three quarters (the fraction 3/4) back, and full back,
according to English and Scottish nomenclature, or quarter back, half
back, and full back in the Irish nomenclature. In rugby the
English-Scottish nomenclature was eventually adopted worldwide, with the
word 'back" often omitted for brevity from the half back ("half") and
three quarters back ("three quarter") names, and "fullback" as a single
word. ?In some systems "five-eighths back" has been added. (The
illustration here of singular forms should not be construed as
indicating the number of players in any of those positions, nor is the
fraction in the name at all proportional to the actual depth of the
position; they indicate only a quirky form of ordinality, not
cardinality.) Having the backs at different depths facilitates passing
movements in which the ball is tossed from one player to (usually) the
next closest, such that each back receiving the ball in turn can be
running forward and yet not ahead of the player who threw it, forward
passing of the ball being illegal. Because of the involvement of the 3/4
backs, such a movement is often called a three-quarters movement.
It was the Irish nomenclature of quarter back, half back, and full back
that came to North America for use in what was to become the dominant
native form of football. The terms became hyphenated and eventually
unhyphenated single words, "quarterback" (QB), "halfback" (HB), and
"fullback" (FB). The lack of quarterback in the English-Scottish
nomenclature for rugby led to the position name "scrum-half" to
distinguish the halfback playing close to scrimmage (renamed "scrummage"
or "scrum") from another who would "stand off" from it or "fly" away --
the "stand-off" or "fly-half".
- For reference see Football: The Rugby Union Game, 1892, Frank Marshall, ed., pp. 18-22.
Early American football
Soon after 1880, when the number of players per team was reduced to 11,
and some other important rule changes made in American football, it
became customary for 7 of the players to play as a forward line, and the
remaining 4 as backs, although it wasn't until early in the 20th Century
that the rules required at least 7 on the line. The one in the center
was of course named "center" (C), and the ones on the ends of the line,
"end" (E). For a brief while the other line positions were called "next
to center" and "next to end", but they quickly evolved other names based
on their functions.
It seems that when playing defense, the next-to-ends were said to have
made a disproportionate share of tackles, so they were named "tackler",
soon shortened to "tackle" (T). However, this may well have been
arbitrary naming to answer the likely demand of a substitute word for
the awkward "next to end".
Teams usually preferred to have the center be the one to "snap" the
ball (put it into play by scrimmage), that is, to balance the line by
having equal numbers of players on the line on both sides of the
snapper. This identification became so strong that to this day,
practically everyone refers to the snapper as the center, even though by
preference, or by necessity under early rules wherein the ball might
have to be snapped very close to the side line, the line could be
unbalanced. Thus began the tradition of naming positions by role rather
than exclusively by relative placement.
Although from 1880 one side in each scrimmage was given the exclusive
right to put the ball into play, the rules for conducting the scrimmage
were not like today's. Before it was put in play, the opposing line
players could not step
in front of the ball , but they could meet at the shoulders and begin
shoving. Opponents were not allowed to shove the center of the side
entitled to play it completely off the ball and thereby prevent it from
being put in play, but they were not barred from putting enough pressure
on him to spoil his delivery of the ball. This was reflected in the
early rules that provided no penalty for offside at the scrimmage until
one side had infringed 3 times consecutively before the ball could be
put in play. One can imagine that the opposing centers and nearby line
players would jockey considerably, the offense not wanting to deliver a
bad ball, and the defense not wanting to allow too good a ball to be
served up. (Had every instance of offside been penalizable, it would
have been too tempting for one side to release pressure and cause
players of the opposing line to step offside simply to avoid falling on
their faces.) This is how the next-to-center position came to be named
"guard" (G).
The guards of the offensive team would guard the ball and the player
putting it in play. There were basically two ways of doing so, as should
be familiar to modern observers of rugby football. One way was for the
guards to prop up the center by binding onto him with their hands and
arms, adding their forward shoving force to his, in the manner of the
front row in a modern scrummage or of the side scrimmagers in early
Canadian football (see below). The other way was for the guards to bind
to each other over the
center, leaving him free to play the ball practically unmolested; in
rugby that form of binding has been seen at times in forming a maul from
a lineout (before lifting was legal), and used to be legal for the props
in a set scrummage. Once snapping the ball with the hand or hands became
legal, it became common practice for the guards to position their feet
well ahead of the center's, and for the center to reach forward for the
ball from a kneeling, sideways-facing, or other unexposed position to
hand the ball to the quarterback; although this formation removed the
center from effective blocking position, it was considered worthwhile to
protect the ball. The defensive team would form similarly, and in the
binding-over scheme their center could either try to sneak under the
offensive team's guards after the ball was put in play, or to rove
behind his own team's guards.
After rule changes in the late 1880s allowing blocking and tackling
below the waist discouraged offensive teams from extending their backs
away from the linemen, and encouraging the lines to play "tight"
(teammates close together rather than taking wide "splits"), a
balanced-line diamond backfield formation became the commonest, and
would be the basis for systems far into the future. The offensive and
defensive teams were arrayed thusly:
E T G C G T E
QB
HB HB
FB
(Diagrams frequently prefix the positions with "L" and "R" to indicate
left and right of a pair, which the players would be designated by, but
such being obvious here, the prefix is omitted.) On defense the players
would play slightly wider (to prevent being outflanked) and the backs,
especially the fullback, frequently deeper, especially if they were
expecting a kick. On offense the fullback would do most of the kicking,
except for onside kicks, but otherwise might line up level with the
halfbacks, the backs then forming a straight T (see below); otherwise
the formation was approximately that of the later diamond T, although
the fullback was a little deeper than in the diamond T. This is a
relationship which has come back into popularity recently in
professional football with the "H back" formation; see below. Even the
team receiving an opponent's kickoff would tend to line up in an
expanded version of the formation shown above.
The space behind each respective team's line players (the team's
"line"), and collectively the backs operating out of that space, became
known as that team's "backfield". In various forms of football in the
19th Century, players crashing into their opponents headlong were said
to "rush", so the line was also called the "rush line"; a song from the
turn into the 20th Century, "More Work for the Undertaker", said someone
"played the center rush", called simply the position of center above.
Meanwhile some circumstances favored the team on defense's backing one
or more players out of the rush line to a position slightly behind it.
The resulting position was called "line-half" analogously to the
scrum-half in rugby, and was precursor to the linebacker positions
explained below.
For reference see Walter Camp, "Intercollegiate Foot-Ball in America", first installment, St. Nicholas 17:1, November 1889; Camp, American Football, 1894 ed.
Early Canadian football
Around 1900, at the same time the number of players on a Canadian
football team was reduced to 14, the number of players in scrimmage
(formerly packing all the forwards) was fixed at 3 per team. It became
customary for 6 to 8 of the other players to continue as what might be
known in rugby as loose (non-packing, i.e. not binding together)
forwards who in Canadian football formed "wing lines" on either side of
the scrimmage. In scrimmage each team had one centre scrimmager flanked
by two side scrimmagers. The side scrimmagers bound with hands and arms
to their centre scrimmager. The centre scrimmager of the side entitled
(and required) to do so would put the ball down in front of him for play
by scrimmage, while both sets of three bodies each ("formed into one
compact body" as the rules specified) were crouched and shoving forward
at each other, probably meeting at the shoulders as do the front row of
forwards in rugby's set scummage. Depending on the rules details of the
time for the particular circuit of Canadian football clubs, the centre
scrimmagers would either contend with their feet for the ball, or one
would be entitled to foot it first (usually heeling it back) while the
other team's would try to spoil the ball's delivery.
The backfield of 3 to 5 players continued to use the nomenclature (see
above) of quarterback, halfback, and fullback, and sometimes included
one or two flying wings (see below).
When 6 played on the winglines, their positions were called "inside
wing", "middle wing", and "outside wing", arrayed in order away from the
scrimmage. An additional player called "flying wing" could "fly",
between a position on the wingline outside the outside wing, and the
backfield.
However, the 14-a-side game's rules never required certain numbers of
players in either the winglines or the backfield.
With the later reduction in sides from 14 to 12 players and
introduction of the thrown (not footed) snap, the positions of the three
scrimmagers were replaced by a single position called "snap". The
position names in the winglines were retained for a while, but
eventually replaced by the USA nomenclature, although it wasn't until
the 1960s that Canadian rules required 7 players on the offensive line
unless they were playing short handed. Before that only 5 were required
on plays in which no forward pass was thrown, so ti's likely that in
such situations one or both ends were replaced by or became a back.
?"Snap" became "centre" and considered a wingline or line position.
?"Centre" even became the rule book designation of the snapper,
although as in the USA version there is no necessity that the player who
snaps the ball have equal numbers of teammates flanking him or her on
the line.
More position names; confusion begins
A tendency was seen from early on for players to keep their position
names even when playing out of that position. For instance, before the
minimum number of players on the offensive line was fixed at 7, when
players who would otherwise be in the line as guards or tackles played
from offensive backfield positions, the formation was known as a
"guard(s) back" or "tackle(s) back" formation.
Meanwhile, another position name was introduced. Players were placed in
the offensive backfield just outside of their ends, in a position that
came to be called "wingback" (WB). Formations with one or two wingbacks
came to be called single or double wingback or wing formations.
Over time, the typically fast back who played fullback on offense and
defense was replaced by a heavier one who presented a greater threat to
run with the ball more or less straight ahead, and to tackle his
opponent trying to do the same. For this purpose, the player tended to
be placed closer to the line than previously -- often as far forward as
the halfbacks (the offensive backs then forming a letter T, sometimes
called a "straight T" later to distinguish it from slight variants
wherein other backs didn't form a line perpendicular to that from the
quarterback) or even farther forward. But the position kept being called
"fullback". On defense, this necessitated another positon name for the
fast back who played farthest back: "safety man" or simply "safety" (S),
representing the last defense against a breakaway play, and the position
from which to field opposing kicks. Approximately, on defense the
quarterback and fullback exchanged positions from what they'd been
playing on offense, and the quarterback became the safety.
Still, when at the beginning of the 20th Century a penalty was
introduced for hitting the opposing kicker after a kick, the foul was at
first called "running into the fullback", inasmuch as the deepest back
usually did the kicking.
Confusion increased when the legalization of the forward pass made it
more advisable for teams to defend with fewer on the line of scrimmage
and more behind. Although the offense could no longer play "guard back",
for instance, the defense had no such limitations. A common defensive
formation was the 6-2-3 or 6-2-2-1, shown below arrayed against an
offense's straight T:
S
HB HB
C FB
____E_ T__ _G ____G_ T _ E____
E T G C G T E
QB
HB FB HB
Note that the so-called center and fullback are playing left and right
versions of the same position! ?Fortunately the silliness of this
nomenclature was eventually realized, and the positions renamed
"linebacker". However, that did not become the usual way to name that
position until platoon football became common, with players specializing
in offense or defense substituted according to which team has the ball.
There seems to have been some tendency for defensive positions to be
named for where the player would play on offense, although quarterback
and safety formed an early exception.
This writer does not know whether it was actually the offensive center
who was ?typically first pulled back on defense to play as
linebacker, but that was the naming convention. ?This inside-out
trend continued as the number of players on the defensive line was
reduced, guards being next to go, followed by a tackle. So, in a 5-man
line, the middle player is the only guard, and in a 3-man line, the
middle player is the only tackle. It would seem superfluous to apply an
extra designator when there are no left and right versions of a line
position in a formation, but, possibly influenced by the designation of
"middle linebacker" as one of three, a lone defensive lineman is known
as "middle guard" or "middle tackle".
When linebackers are playing close to or level with the line, a
somewhat reliable way to distinguish them from line players is that the
defensive line players will be in a 3- or 4-point stance, meaning that
they will be supported by one or both hands in addition to feet on the
ground, while the linebackers will have only feet on the ground. Line
players with one or both hands on the ground are called "down linemen";
typically all defensive linemen are so positioned.
Alternate position naming schemes for an offensive formation are
illustrated below in a version of single wing formation:
E G C G T T E
QB
HB HB
FB
E T C G G T E
QB
FB WB
TB
In the top illustration the center is flanked by guards in the 4-2
unbalanced line (4 players on one side, the "strong side" of the center,
2 on the other, "weak", side) as in a balanced line, leaving the tackles
together. In the bottom illustration the guards are kept "inside" by
being next to each other. The end positions are fixed by rule, because
"end" is a rule book term.
As to the backfield, the top illustration preserves the principle of
the names reflecting distance from the line. However, the bottom
illustration needs further explanation, having eliminated the halfbacks
and introduced a new position name, "tailback" (TB). Wingback has been
described above, but the "WB" in the above illustration is deeper back
than that position name would seem to warrant. That's because this is a
"wingback deep" version of the single wing, and the position is named
wingback because the player is named for his true wingback position as
it exists in other versions. In this version the player may stand as
deep as any other back, but there has been a reluctance to identify
formations in American football as having more than one fullback (or
tailback -- see below), although two-fullback systems were not uncommon
at one time in rugby.
What to make of the replacement of the other halfback from the top
illustration by the fullback in the bottom one? Well, if the wingback
were playing in a true wingback position but named halfback, then the
other "halfback" would be playing deeper and thus deserve the name
fullback. Another justification is that the player positioned as the
left halfback in the top illustration tends to have the fullback
characteristics described above. But rather than call the faster,
lighter back behind (and in this formation, to the left of) him a
halfback and so contradict the distance-back-determines-the-name
principle (and rather than add rugby's three-quarters back), we call
that player "tailback" -- the tail of the formation, farther back than
the fullback. Unfortunately, even when two players positioned to take a
thrown snap in a single wing formation are level with each other (i.e.
at equal depth), the faster one (usually playing weak side) is often
called the tailback and the more massive one the fullback.
Note that the quarterback in this formation is not in position to
receive the snap. ASCII art (letter diagrams) cannot show this fine a
detail, but a quarterback in position to take a handed snap is allowed
by rule to stand farther forward, in a place which would otherwise cause
illegal confusion as to whether the player was in the backfield or the
line. ?However, the popularity of thrown-snap formations from about
1920 to about 1950 (and the illegality of the handed snap in Canadian
football when snapping by hand rather than foot was first prescribed in
that game) induced some teams to place the quarterback a little farther
back, receiving the snap via a short toss.
Even ASCII art is subtle enough to show the left end above a little
farther from the nearest other line player of the same team than is the
right end. Such a slight additional gap is said to be "flexing" that
end, but does not produce an additional position name. However, when the
gap is considerably greater, that is said to be a "split end" (SE). That
produced a position name when on offense a team played with one end
split and the other not split -- a "tight end" (TE). The split end being
specialized for going downfield to catch forward passes, it becomes more
useful to differentiate the split from the tight end than between left
and right end.
Instead of wingbacks or conventionally-placed halfbacks, an offensive
team could have backs positioned wide of the rest of the formation,
similarly to a split end, to be pass receivers. ?Such a back would
be called a "flankerback" or "flanker" (FL).
A more straightforward use of the position name "tailback" is shown
below in an offensive short punt formation, whose use, despite its name,
is not confined to punting. Without rugby's three-quarter backs, the
sequence of quarter-, half-, full-, and tailback makes do. The line
shown is balanced with one split end. In such a case, the side with the
tight end is someimes said to be the strong side of the line, and hence
of the formation, because the tight end is better placed than the split
end to block, especially on running plays. An additional justification
for calling that the strong side in the example below is that the
backfield has more players on that side, although that will not always
be the case, and in this case the positioning of backs does not produce
strikingly strong and weak sides, as opposed to the single wing
formation shown above.
SE T G C G T TE
QB
HB
FB
TB
If the deepest back were a specialist in punting, one might substitute
"P" for "punter" for the "TB" above.
Age of confusion
The trend of naming offensive positions for the role or build of player
in it continued. In some cases this obfuscates important details.
A?recent diagram of a short punt formation for offense in youth
football had no quarterback, but two fullbacks at the depth of the QB
shown above, and a halfback at the position labeled FB above. Some
discussions of the single wing previously diagrammed claim it has no
quarterback. And many's the time when a player in the farthest back
position, in a formation similar to the short punt shown above, is
referred to as quarterback! Position names no longer needed to reflect
any given player's combined roles on offense and defense when few played
both ways. As a result, position naming on defense has become less
confusing and more informative. However, position naming on offense,
while tending to eliminate obsolete distinctions, has also tended to
hide important ones and confuse others.
Offenses and defenses continued to adapt to the increases in forward
passing favored by the rules. Below is diagrammed a 3-4-4 (or simply
"3-4") defensive formation and an offensive formation it might line up
against across the lines of scrimmage, as popular beginning in later
portions of the 20th Century:
FS SS
CB CB
OLB ILB ILB OLB
__________________E_______NT______E___________________
WR T G C G T TE
QB WR
RB RB
Beginning with the defensive line, one notices a slight departure from
previous nomenclature with the position labeled "NT". Why not simply
"T"? The superfluous designator "middle" when the defense was playing
with an odd number on the line less than 7, as in "middle guard", was
discussed above. (This invites the unanswered question of whether, if
the defense has an 8-player line, it includes a "left center" and "right
center".) "NT" stands for "nose tackle", "nose" having been introduced
with guards to indicate a position "on the nose" of the opposing center,
although "nose guard" had not been a popular term, probably because it
suggested a piece of protective equipment. There is justification for
the extra word, in that the tackle in a 3-player defensive line could
well play off center; however, this distinction is not maintained with
teams using such a tactic, so the position could and probably should be
referred to simply as "tackle" -- or "defensive tackle" (DT) in a player
roster (see below).
The linebacker (LB) positions are straightforwardly distinguished as
inside (ILB) and outside (OLB). When there are only three linebackers,
the one inside is labeled middle linebacker (MLB), and the outside
positions can instead be named as left and right.
The defense's halfbacks have been renamed cornerbacks (CB), a fitting
term given that they play at the edges or "corners". The term has no
spurious indicator of the depth as which they are positioned in the
defensive backfield.
Finally there are shown two safeties. In this case they are
distinguished as "free safety" (FS) -- also known as "weak safety" --
and "strong safety" (SS). The strong safety is on the side following the
strong (tight end) side of the balanced offensive line (see above), and
has responsibility for covering (guarding as a pass receiver) the TE,
while the free safety has no such coverage assignment. However, the
coverage played by ?defense does not always easily allow assignment
of such distinct names for safeties. A formation with more than 2
safeties could have them described by their relative geometric placement
-- outside, shallow, deep, etc. -- but such is not general practice;
however, see the discussion of the "nickel" below.
The offense is diagrammed in what was for some time referred to as a
"pro set"-- "set" indicating that the players are stationary, although
one back may go in motion from it. This particular version is said to
have a "deuce", "flank" backfield. From the description above of the
straight T, this formation can be seen to be derived by splitting one
end and moving the halfback on the opposite side to a flanker position.
Instead of "SE" and "FL" for those positions, however, we see "WR", for
"wide receiver".
In the 1960s teams would distinguish between flankers (e.g. the New
York Jets professional football club's George Sauer) and split ends
(e.g. his teammate Don Maynard) on their player rosters. For a
relatively brief ?period game rules had been adopted in some codes
requiring different uniform numbers for line players from those of
backs, and the position naming distinction carried on for a while after
the rules were amended to require only certains sets of numbers for
ineligible and eligible receivers of forward passes. It became
commonplace for ends to shift into backfield positions and vice versa.
By the 1970s the common practice changed to refer to flankers and split
ends both as wide receivers or, more colloquially, "wideouts" -- they
play from wide of the rest of the formation.
Note, however, that the playing rules still distnguish between ends and
backs on offense. There are differences as to the motions the players in
those positions are allowed to make during and preparatory to their
team's snapping the ball. At the time they snap the ball the team is
required to have 7 players (minus any number their side is playing short
in Canadian football) on their line of scrimmage, which includes split
or tight ends but not flankers or wingbacks.
Meanwhile the distinction between fullback and halfback was erased,
each replaced by "running back" (RB). That term became popular during
the 1960s as well, although even into the 1970s some playing the pro set
kept the HB-FB distinction. So, for instance, in the flank formation
shown above, those positions were named as in the straight T, while in
the "split" version of the deuce backfield, the fullback occupied the
other halfback position shown in the straight T. The distinction
referred to the build of the players, the fullback being a stronger
runner more or less straight ahead, and the halfback faster to attack
the defense's flanks. However, on many teams there was no strong
distinction between those backs, and since their major role was running
with the ball, "running back" was most descriptive without maintaining a
spurious geometric connotation that'd become outmoded by their lining up
in different depth relationships.
Alternative names for RBs are "deep backs" and "setbacks", although the
latter is disfavored because it has also been used for backs in general,
both on offense and defense. There is, moreover, a generic term for the
deeper-playing backs (CB & S) on defense: "defensive back" (DB),
appropriately enough. Note that the term excludes the linebackers, even
though they be backs in the traditional sense because they are usually
not on their team's line of scrimmage. There also exist the generic
terms "defensive lineman" (DL) and "offensive lineman" (OL), although
the latter refers only to the interior linemen, excluding the ends
because of their eligibility to receive forward passes.
However, to this day many teams maintain the offense's
fullback-halfback distinction, especially in "full house" backfields,
i.e. those with a quarterback and 3 running backs, that is, no backs
playing wider as wingbacks or flankers.? This is confusing enough
when the fullback plays slightly forward of the halfbacks, as in the Y
formation shown below, later used to run the wishbone system (the backs
forming a letter Y or a resemblance to a wishbone):
E T G C G T E
QB
FB
HB HB
At least that one is an easy enough derivation to visualize from the
original diamond, with the depth of the fullback inverted with respect
to the halves. However, some formations have placed the heavy back even
more starkly forward, to function as a blocker for the running backs. In
the diagram below of the V formation used by Dartmouth College in the
1950s, the respective position names have been rationalized as "BB" (a
not-very-popular designation, "blocking back") and RB:
E T G C G T E
QB BB
RB RB
(The running and blocking backs can be seen to form a letter V.)
However, in its time the running backs were known as halfbacks and the
blocking back as fullback. Another such example is the I formation,
shown below in a with-wingback version:
WR T G C G T TE
WB QB
FB
TB
The diagram shows the more geometrically rational designation of
tailback behind the fullback. However, some would label the deepest back
in this form of deuce backfield "HB", considering one halfback to have
moved behind the fullback, who is in both the role of blocking back and
the heavy up-the-middle runner. Those who would emphasize the blocking
role of the FB (the "up back") might even label the deepest back "RB",
with a BB instead of FB. Few, however, would use the straightforwardly
geometric labels of QB, HB, and FB in that order from front to back.
Note also that the wingback is on the wing of a tackle rather than an
end. This is accepted nomenclature where an end is split ("WR" above).
The wingback is just behind and outside of the "interior lineman" (line
player other than end). However, it is not uncommon for a wingback to be
outside the tight end in an I or other formation where the opposite end
is split.
In the power I formation, instead of the wingback shown above, there is
another deep back in the traditional halfback position. That position in
the power I is probably called "halfback" more than any other name. In
the triple I, where all the backs are in one line perpendicular to the
lines of scrimmage, one could hope for the backs to be called quarter-,
half-, full-, and tailback in order of depth, but various names are
probably used.
The diagram below of an "ace" formation deliberately mixes
terms/symbols for wide receivers:
E T G C G T WR
SB QB WR
RB
On the left are represented the more traditional and descriptive terms
"end" and "slotback" (SB). The latter is for a position that would be
labeled "FL", except that the back is in a "slot" between tackle and end
(instead of outside of the end), here illustrating a double "wide slot"
formation. (It's wide because the end is fully split, rather than merely
flexed -- see above.) There being no tight end, there seems to be no
need to label either end as split; both are. But on the right, the
slotback and end positions are merely labeled as wide receivers. Note
that the single running back here is shown to one side of the
center-quarterback combination, but that "ace" RB could as well be
directly behind them.
In some cases the specific terminology of certain coaches has made its
way into the general parlance. Coaches, having no motivation to
publicize their plans, usually adopt cryptic codes for certain
positions, using letters, numbers, or short names for their convenience.
One set of designations which has been making the rounds as of this
writing on Web sites purporting to explain football is the letters X, Y,
and Z to designate receivers. It is doubtful that many coaches agree on
the use of these terms to designate specific positions consistently from
play to play, and those letters don't seem to enlighten but only to
obscure. (One manual for football spectators in the 1960s explained that
someone calling offensive plays in the huddle would point to primary,
secondary, and tertiary receivers while giving them those letters; those
designations would vary depending on the play, not on the positions
those receivers occupied.) However, one such letter designation has
caught on recently: "H-back", illustrated in the offensive formation
below:
E T G C G T E
QB WB
HB
RB
Here the H-back is represented by the symbol, appropriately enough,
"HB". The H-back position is like that of the "wingback deep" position
previously described in a version of the single wing formation, and here
is shown behind a wingback to emphasize that, although more often the
H-back and wingback, if there is one, are on opposite sides of the set.
You may say the abbreviation "HB" is already taken up by the halfback.
Fortunately, the H-back does occupy a position about the same as the
halfback in the diamond formation of the 19th Century! It is likely that
"H-back" is term derived by back formation (pun unavoidable) from the
abbreviation for halfback, although arbitrary letter designation by some
coach is just as good an explanation.
You may see an offensive formation like that below described as one of
3 tight ends:
E T G C G T E
QB WB
RB RB
However, it is labeled above as a version of the wing T, i.e. a T
formation wherein one deep back has been replaced by a wingback. The
description of its having 3 tight ends is absurd, inasmuch as a line can
have only 2 ends, but comes about when the wingback position is occupied
by a player most suited to blocking who otherwise usually plays tight
end. If the extra blocker up front is actually in a line position, then,
considering that a potential eligible receiver is being sacrificed, it
would be better to conceive the formation as having an extra tackle or
guard:
E T G C G T T E
QB
RB
RB
In the same vein as a formation's supposedly having 3 tight ends,
examine the shotgun formation below. This is similar to the short punt
formation shown previously, except that potential forward pass receivers
are more widely spread. It is therefore, like the double wide slot
offensive formation shown previously, a type of spread formation:
WR T G C G T WR
WB WB WR
TB
However, many would label the tailback above as quarterback, even
though the position is clearly the deepest back! Until 1960 the
formation above would have been called a double wing, and the tailback
labeled a fullback, there being no need for the tailback designation
when the backs assume so few intermediate depths. However, the deep back
position above is usually occupied by a player who habitually plays QB,
so the habitual position name tends to stick, as with the "extra tight
end".
The identification engendered by the T formation of quarterback as
someone who takes the snap is so strong nowadays that some describe the
single wing formation diagrammed previously (under "more position
names"), wherein the quarterback is positioned behind other interior
line players than the center (and therefore cannot conveniently receive
the snap), as having no quarterback! Such descriptions may have the QB
as BB, although the system used may involve that player considerably as
a ballcarrier or receiver, not just a blocker.
On defense meanwhile, an opposite philosophy to position naming is
sometimes followed from that of the supposed third offensive end.
Instead of the position name following the player to a different
position, a new position name may be applied in such a substitution
situation. This occurs when a team that usually uses 4 defensive backs
(counting cornerbacks and safeties) adds a 5th, thus producing the
"nickel" defense (a nickel being a 5 cent piece). It will be said that
the extra DB is the "nickel back", even though coverage assignments will
be redistributed, and therefore no particular DB is functionally or
positionally in a "nickel" position distinct from the other 4. Nor, if a
6th DB is added, could one distinguish between the "nickel" and the
"dime" back. However, if they are subbed in one at a time, an observer
may apply "seniority" in naming one "nickel", etc. Fortunately a roster
will usually simply list such players as S, CB, or simply DB.
Making sense of it all
The trend away from geometric naming of
the offensive positions has led to considerable confusion. It has been
said that some coaches at low levels of football, having heard game
descriptions that included a team's having "put their tight end in
motion", have done exactly so, and incurred the penalty for the
resulting illegal motion. Because of the rules of the game, it
frequently matters whether a player of the offense is on the line of
scrimmage or in the backfield, and in those cases the descriptor "wide
receiver" is insufficient and "end in motion" (except in Canadian
football, where they're allowed to be shuffling sideways along the line
of scrimmage when the ball is snapped) is nonsense, although it may
reflect the way the player in question is listed on the roster. In
describing the play in a National Football League game, one may hear the
contorted locution, "The quarterback was eligible to receive a forward
pass because he was in the shotgun formation", when it would be far
simpler to say that the team's eligible receivers included the tailback
who took the snap; the rules apply differently depending on whether the
player is positioned behind the snapper to take a handed snap, or
farther back and hence in the backfield.
One can delineate two types of useful nomenclature. One type is for
such purposes as calling play-by-play on radio, in text, or as described
to a blind person. Such a nomenclature focuses on where a player is when the
teams line up for scrimmage, and can describe the formation overall.
Such nomenclature is also be useful for technical purposes --
instructions for coaches, for example. In this type of nomenclature
geometry predominates, and there are no paradoxes such as extra ends,
ends in motion, or quarterbacks standing deep in the backfield. For
many play-by-play purposes some geometric details, such as whether a
wide receiver is an end or a flanker, can be glossed over unless they
come into play. If a wide receiver is described as being in motion, the
announcer in calling it "motion" conveys it as legal play by a flanker,
but if an end changes position, the announcer refers to the player as
"shifting" instead. The advantage of speed in calling a game is
manifest, and it's faster to say "Jones and Smith are split out wide
left and right" than to specify that one is a split end and the other a
flanker, or that both are flankers or ends.
The other type of nomenclature describes players by their usual roles
-- a description that's more suitable in describing a whole game or
season than play by play. Such nomenclature may be used on rosters or
in scouting reports, for instance. While in 1950 it would've been
common to say, "This team needs a passer", to include various positions
from which a player might throw forward passes (and a pro team might
well have converted a college tailback into a quarterback), it doesn't
seem to do much harm to say, "This team needs a quarterback", in an era
when one associates quarterbacks with passing and vice versa. On the
other hand, it doesn't hurt at all to mention the skill rather than the
position, if it's really a skill that's sought rather than a "job
title". And if a team's standard formation is shotgun, nothing is
gained by including "quarterback" in the roster if there really isn't
one.
In describing defenses there doesn't seem to be a need for dual
nomenclature. Nobody sees a need to geometrically break down a
formation of 3 safeties into strong [side], weak [side], and "middle",
for instance, although if a team is expecting a kick one might well
specify positions of "deep safety" and "shallow safety". The line and
linebacker position names give role and geometric information about
equally. In odd-man line formations the adjective "nose" can be reserved
to distinguish cases wherein the middle lineman is directly opposite
the snapper from those where the middle defensive line player is
offset, and "middle" is superfluous if the existence of the odd number
of linemen has already been conveyed.
