Talk:Running back

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That sounds like good criteria to me. bob rulz 05:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names removed from article 

message: This chart  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)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Layman's terms 

message: 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)
replies: text: Point well taken.  How's it look to you now? Groupthink 22:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph fails to explain the role of the player 

message: 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)
replies: text: Walter Payton. Groupthink 14:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HB Passing

message: 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)
thread_title:  Race 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reggie Bush 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How in the world is Darren Sproles a 'prototypical' scat back? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Odd sentence