"Running Back U"

[AUEngineer2016 407]

Running back is a generic term that includes tailbacks, halfbacks, and fullbacks (because most causal fans don't know the differences). I would expect a coach to be more specific when diagramming plays. Never has a QB been classified as a running back, even though he is technically a back who is running the ball. Try starting Cam or RGIII as a RB on your fantasy football team.

I'll say it a third and final time, this is a silly argument.

And I will say it again, the definition of the word is pretty definitive. Just because fantasy football sites use that term doesn't make it the right term to use, and actually it is still the wrong term.

The running back is the back who is running the ball, it's pretty plain and simple. That doesn't mean it's always the tailback, that doesn't mean it's never the quarterback. The running back on one play can be completely different than the running back on the next play.

I'll give another example. In 2004, against UT, we ran a toss to the right side with 3 receivers bunched to that side. Cadillac took the ball, acted like he was going to run, and then threw the ball to Aromashodu. On this play, Cadillac was indeed a tailback (which was defined by the way that he lined up in the formation), but he was not a running back, because he did not run the ball.

[AUEngineer2016 407]

I guess we don't have any WR's on the roster since Gus' play diagram only includes X's, Y's, and Z's.

The position Wide Receiver is broken down in Gus's offense into X, Y, and Z positions, the same way the Offensive Lineman is broken down into Guard, Tackle, and Center, and Offensive Backs are broken down into Tailbacks, Halfbacks, Fullbacks, and Quarterbacks.

[Rednilla 5,439]

I'll say it a third and final time, this is a silly argument.

This was the main reason I reposted my response, because I concluded by saying, "Is it football season yet?" It IS, in fact, a silly argument, because we are debating semantics, but the reason we are doing so is that we are so desperate for football that not even an oasis like this article goes ignored.

The fact of the matter is that neither side is wrong, because it's a matter of perspective. Strictly speaking, any back who runs the ball is a running back, which means running quarterbacks would count. However, because of the quarterback's involvement in the passing game, it's not unfair to classify running backs as those whose primary responsibility is the running game.

So how about we all drop the rising tension and just agree to disagree, hmm?

[AUbritt 611]

I'll say it a third and final time, this is a silly argument.

This was the main reason I reposted my response, because I concluded by saying, "Is it football season yet?" It IS, in fact, a silly argument, because we are debating semantics, but the reason we are doing so is that we are so desperate for football that not even an oasis like this article goes ignored.

The fact of the matter is that neither side is wrong, because it's a matter of perspective. Strictly speaking, any back who runs the ball is a running back, which means running quarterbacks would count. However, because of the quarterback's involvement in the passing game, it's not unfair to classify running backs as those whose primary responsibility is the running game.

So how about we all drop the rising tension and just agree to disagree, hmm?

So, you're saying it's ... 50/50?

[Rednilla 5,439]

I'll say it a third and final time, this is a silly argument.

This was the main reason I reposted my response, because I concluded by saying, "Is it football season yet?" It IS, in fact, a silly argument, because we are debating semantics, but the reason we are doing so is that we are so desperate for football that not even an oasis like this article goes ignored.

The fact of the matter is that neither side is wrong, because it's a matter of perspective. Strictly speaking, any back who runs the ball is a running back, which means running quarterbacks would count. However, because of the quarterback's involvement in the passing game, it's not unfair to classify running backs as those whose primary responsibility is the running game.

So how about we all drop the rising tension and just agree to disagree, hmm?

So, you're saying it's ... 50/50?

Either that or it's 50/50 that it's 50/50, and either way we should gather round the campfire and sing kumbaya...

[mcgufcm 4,109]

I find it insane that people are actually contending that what Auburn fans meant for decades when they called it Running Back U is, in fact, that Jimmy Sidle and Randy Campbell were great runners. Whether the term technically means any back that runs the ball, in common parlance, or really in common communication between people who know the game well, running back is short-hand for a tailback, halfback, or fullback. It's a stretch of the common understanding to widen the term to include the modern wingback or hybrid. Trying to shoehorn QBs into a debate about "Running Back U" is absurd.

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

By definition, you cannot be a Running Back and a Quarterback on the same play. You can have a running QB (there have been plenty, before and since Cam), but in the history of the sport, no QB has been classified as a RB for statistical (or any other) purposes. This is a silly argument.

I'm not arguing that he was a QB and a RB on the same play. I'm arguing that he specialized in running and therefore should be considered a RB.

Take for instance Darren McFadden at Arkansas. Many times, he would line up and take a direct snap from the center, make a fake to a WR coming across the formation, and then run it up the middle, a play called the "Wildcat Power". At Auburn, Gus ran this same exact play, but with Cam taking the snap instead of McFadden. On this play, Cam has no intention of ever throwing the football, and many times had no intention of handing it off to the guy coming on the speed sweep. He would simply provide the fake to force the defense to respect the sweep and to soften it up so that he could run into the middle and gain some yards.

McFadden and Cam were used in the same roles in the same formation. IMO on these plays, Cam was not a Quarterback, he played the role of the running back, or as Gus calls it, the "Wildcat Super Back".

Allow me to illustrate the problem with your logic: Would you support Darren McFadde's stats being used to rank him as a quarterback? If he lined up at quarterback and threw passes (which I believe he threw a few) then he should be considered a quarterback?

Is a wide receiver actually a receiver on a given play if he doesn't catch the football?

Does a falling tree make a sound if there's nobody around to hear it?

[AUEngineer2016 407]

Allow me to illustrate the problem with your logic: Would you support Darren McFadde's stats being used to rank him as a quarterback? If he lined up at quarterback and threw passes (which I believe he threw a few) then he should be considered a quarterback?

Is a wide receiver actually a receiver on a given play if he doesn't catch the football?

Does a falling tree make a sound if there's nobody around to hear it?

1) Actually, his stats were used to rank him as a passer. Note that I didn't say quarterback, because that was not the position he lined up in when he threw those passes, he lined up as the Wildcat Super Back. http://www.sports-re...ansas/2007.html

2) Yes, Wide Receiver is a position that is determined by where you line up on the field, just like Quarterback, Tailback, Fullback, Tackle, Guard, etc. If the player lined up as a wide receiver is thrown to, he becomes the "Targeted Receiver", which is determined when the pass is thrown. If/when he catches it, he is then the ball carrier.

3) Yes, the manipulation of air by sound waves due to a tree falling is in no way, shape, or form dependent on human presence. The thing that would depend on human presence is human perception of the sound waves.

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

I assume you are advocating for some of Cams stats to be as a running back and some as a quarterback? How would you ever separate them? Is he a running back when he scrambles? How do you know if it was a designed keeper vs an option? What if it was a run/pass option and he ran?

You can't divide his stats. Simply put, he's a quarterback. Oh and ESPN just ranked Auburn in the Quarterback U rankings and Cam is counted.

[Tiger 8,853]

Cam isn't a QB. Somebody tweet ESPN and tell them to put him under the RB category. That tweet might actually make it on tv.

Is Jimmy Graham a TE or WR?

[AUEngineer2016 407]

I assume you are advocating for some of Cams stats to be as a running back and some as a quarterback? How would you ever separate them? Is he a running back when he scrambles? How do you know if it was a designed keeper vs an option? What if it was a run/pass option and he ran?

You can't divide his stats. Simply put, he's a quarterback. Oh and ESPN just ranked Auburn in the Quarterback U rankings and Cam is counted.

You're still not getting what I am saying. Cam was a running back on any play that he ran the ball, plain and simple. Any rushing yards that he gained were from him being a back running the ball, aka a running back. I'm not saying that he's NOT a quarterback, I'm saying that he lines up at as a Quarterback, and from that position he both throws and runs the ball, making him both a passing back and a running back.

Let me put this another way. In your opinion, is Jay Prosch a running back? He was mentioned in the RBU ranking that ESPN put out. This is because he was a back (lined up at full back) who sometimes ran the ball (not much, a few carries in 2012). Similarly, Cam was a back (lined up at quarterback) who sometimes ran the ball (1400+ yards in 2010).

Being a Quarterback and a Running Back are not mutually exclusive. Being a Quarterback and a Tailback ARE mutually exclusive. You cannot be a quarterback and a tailback on the same play, however you can be a quarterback (based on how you line up) and a running back (based on your actions during the play) during the same play.

[AUEngineer2016 407]

Cam isn't a QB. Somebody tweet ESPN and tell them to put him under the RB category. That tweet might actually make it on tv.

Is Jimmy Graham a TE or WR?

It depends on where he lines up. That is what defines a player as a "Wide Receiver" or a "Tight End"

[mcgufcm 4,109]

You guys are missing the asinine point. He's saying running back is a construct. Any play on which a back runs the ball, that player is a running back. He's correct, but he's also (intentionally, I assume) ignoring the common usage of the term running back as a catchall for tailbacks, halfbacks, and fullbacks. That's what everyone means when they talk about "Running Back U". He just doesn't want to acknowledge that point, and instead, chooses to focus on being argumentative solely for the sake of the argument.

Tim Tebow shouldn't count for UF, but Emmett Smith should. Cam shouldn't count for Auburn, but Cadillac should. Eric Crouch shouldn't count for Nebraska, but Ahman Green should. Everyone knows that, and everyone can see the difference. The counter-point is being made by argumentative people who simply enjoy being contrarians.

[Tiger 8,853]

Cam isn't a QB. Somebody tweet ESPN and tell them to put him under the RB category. That tweet might actually make it on tv.

Is Jimmy Graham a TE or WR?

It depends on where he lines up. That is what defines a player as a "Wide Receiver" or a "Tight End"

I think the NFL is going to deem him a TE although most of his snaps are with him lined up as WR....so, where do we go from here?

[AUEngineer2016 407]

Cam isn't a QB. Somebody tweet ESPN and tell them to put him under the RB category. That tweet might actually make it on tv.

Is Jimmy Graham a TE or WR?

It depends on where he lines up. That is what defines a player as a "Wide Receiver" or a "Tight End"

I think the NFL is going to deem him a TE although most of his snaps are with him lined up as WR....so, where do we go from here?

You guys are missing the asinine point. He's saying running back is a construct. Any play on which a back runs the ball, that player is a running back. He's correct, but he's also (intentionally, I assume) ignoring the common usage of the term running back as a catchall for tailbacks, halfbacks, and fullbacks. That's what everyone means when they talk about "Running Back U". He just doesn't want to acknowledge that point, and instead, chooses to focus on being argumentative solely for the sake of the argument.

Tim Tebow shouldn't count for UF, but Emmett Smith should. Cam shouldn't count for Auburn, but Cadillac should. Eric Crouch shouldn't count for Nebraska, but Ahman Green should. Everyone knows that, and everyone can see the difference. The counter-point is being made by argumentative people who simply enjoy being contrarians.

I'm really not "just being argumentative solely for the sake of the argument", I'm arguing a point on a forum with another member of which he has a different opinion than mine. It also brings in other discussions that should be had when deciding on a RBU. For example, and I have used this example previously, Darren McFadden in the Wildcat vs Cam Newton in the Wildcat. Both were used in the same formation, lined up at the same position, even playing for the same OC, and many times were used in a similar fashion (running the ball on a power or counter play), but for this comparison, Darren McFadden was counted for Arkansas and Cam was not for Auburn.

Just because the term running back is used as a catch-all for all backs other than the quarterback does not mean that it is correct to use it that way, in the same way that if the majority of a math class says 2+2=5 doesn't make it right.

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

Cam isn't a QB. Somebody tweet ESPN and tell them to put him under the RB category. That tweet might actually make it on tv.

Is Jimmy Graham a TE or WR?

It depends on where he lines up. That is what defines a player as a "Wide Receiver" or a "Tight End"

I think the NFL is going to deem him a TE although most of his snaps are with him lined up as WR....so, where do we go from here?

You guys are missing the asinine point. He's saying running back is a construct. Any play on which a back runs the ball, that player is a running back. He's correct, but he's also (intentionally, I assume) ignoring the common usage of the term running back as a catchall for tailbacks, halfbacks, and fullbacks. That's what everyone means when they talk about "Running Back U". He just doesn't want to acknowledge that point, and instead, chooses to focus on being argumentative solely for the sake of the argument.

Tim Tebow shouldn't count for UF, but Emmett Smith should. Cam shouldn't count for Auburn, but Cadillac should. Eric Crouch shouldn't count for Nebraska, but Ahman Green should. Everyone knows that, and everyone can see the difference. The counter-point is being made by argumentative people who simply enjoy being contrarians.

I'm really not "just being argumentative solely for the sake of the argument", I'm arguing a point on a forum with another member of which he has a different opinion than mine. It also brings in other discussions that should be had when deciding on a RBU. For example, and I have used this example previously, Darren McFadden in the Wildcat vs Cam Newton in the Wildcat. Both were used in the same formation, lined up at the same position, even playing for the same OC, and many times were used in a similar fashion (running the ball on a power or counter play), but for this comparison, Darren McFadden was counted for Arkansas and Cam was not for Auburn.

Just because the term running back is used as a catch-all for all backs other than the quarterback does not mean that it is correct to use it that way, in the same way that if the majority of a math class says 2+2=5 doesn't make it right.

For the purpose of the ESPN ranking stats weren't really used, so you would actually have to find a way to attribute his Awards to his "running back" duties or his "quarterback" duties. Also, his all American status was as a quarter back, and he won awards just for quarter backs as well, so he may have have added up to as many points as a "running back" as you think in the points system.

[mcgufcm 4,109]

My apologies. You are either arguing for the sake of arguing OR you really can't see the difference between a QB and every other RB. I suppose I gave you too much credit.

Cam was used in a similar role to McFadden on a small selection of plays over the course of the season. McFadden wasn't actually a QB, and Cam wasn't actually a Running Back, as that term is generally understood, applied, and accepted. Cam was used as a WR on certain plays, but his stats and awards shouldn't be attributed to Auburn's WR legacy.

ESPN's rankings were looking at players that primarily ran the ball. You know, like a tailback or halfback. Even as much as Cam ran, he threw the ball more than he ran it. That doesn't even take into account the plays on which Cam was reading the play with a pass option, was sacked (which counts as a rush attempt), or tucked a called pass play and ran. His primary usage was as a QB, whether he was used as a Wildcat on certain plays is irrelevant. He shouldn't count in the RB U conversation.

[AUEngineer2016 407]

For the purpose of the ESPN ranking stats weren't really used, so you would actually have to find a way to attribute his Awards to his "running back" duties or his "quarterback" duties. Also, his all American status was as a quarter back, and he won awards just for quarter backs as well, so he may have have added up to as many points as a "running back" as you think in the points system.

Awards that Cam won that WERE NOT specifically for QBs: Heisman, Walter Camp, and Maxwell (All also counted in the RBU analysis). These chose Cam as the best PLAYER in CFB, not the best Quarterback.

Awards that Cam won that WERE specifically for QBs: O'Brien. These chose Cam as the best Quarterback in CFB.

Also, there's the fact that Cam only had 7 fewer rushing attempts and 185 fewer rushing yards in his Heisman campaign than Ingram did in his. That's a pretty small difference in rushing stats.

[AUEngineer2016 407]

My apologies. You are either arguing for the sake of arguing OR you really can't see the difference between a QB and every other RB. I suppose I gave you too much credit.

Cam was used in a similar role to McFadden on a small selection of plays over the course of the season. McFadden wasn't actually a QB, and Cam wasn't actually a Running Back, as that term is generally understood, applied, and accepted. Cam was used as a WR on certain plays, but his stats and awards shouldn't be attributed to Auburn's WR legacy.

ESPN's rankings were looking at players that primarily ran the ball. You know, like a tailback or halfback. Even as much as Cam ran, he threw the ball more than he ran it. That doesn't even take into account the plays on which Cam was reading the play with a pass option, was sacked (which counts as a rush attempt), or tucked a called pass play and ran. His primary usage was as a QB, whether he was used as a Wildcat on certain plays is irrelevant. He shouldn't count in the RB U conversation.

My argument is not that he was primarily a runner, my argument is that because he was a back who ran the ball and received accolades in CFB for his performance (which included a large amount of running), he should be taken into account when comparing backs who ran the ball for different programs.

In 2010, Cam accounted for a whopping 36.95% of our rushing yards (which, due to CFB stat rules, also counts the negative yards he accrued due to being sacked) and a staggering 40.49% of our rushing attempts. He was our leading rusher, and had 82 more attempts and 380 more rushing yards than anybody else on the team. I'd say that is a pretty significant portion of our rushing offense.

He was the primary back that ran the ball, therefore, he SHOULD be counted as a running back.

[AUbritt 611]

I'll say it a third and final time, this is a silly argument.

This was the main reason I reposted my response, because I concluded by saying, "Is it football season yet?" It IS, in fact, a silly argument, because we are debating semantics, but the reason we are doing so is that we are so desperate for football that not even an oasis like this article goes ignored.

The fact of the matter is that neither side is wrong, because it's a matter of perspective. Strictly speaking, any back who runs the ball is a running back, which means running quarterbacks would count. However, because of the quarterback's involvement in the passing game, it's not unfair to classify running backs as those whose primary responsibility is the running game.

So how about we all drop the rising tension and just agree to disagree, hmm?

So, you're saying it's ... 50/50?

Either that or it's 50/50 that it's 50/50, and either way we should gather round the campfire and sing kumbaya...

Not sure others are receiving the message, Red.

[tigerbrotha12 2,362]

My apologies. You are either arguing for the sake of arguing OR you really can't see the difference between a QB and every other RB. I suppose I gave you too much credit.

Cam was used in a similar role to McFadden on a small selection of plays over the course of the season. McFadden wasn't actually a QB, and Cam wasn't actually a Running Back, as that term is generally understood, applied, and accepted. Cam was used as a WR on certain plays, but his stats and awards shouldn't be attributed to Auburn's WR legacy.

ESPN's rankings were looking at players that primarily ran the ball. You know, like a tailback or halfback. Even as much as Cam ran, he threw the ball more than he ran it. That doesn't even take into account the plays on which Cam was reading the play with a pass option, was sacked (which counts as a rush attempt), or tucked a called pass play and ran. His primary usage was as a QB, whether he was used as a Wildcat on certain plays is irrelevant. He shouldn't count in the RB U conversation.

My argument is not that he was primarily a runner, my argument is that because he was a back who ran the ball and received accolades in CFB for his performance (which included a large amount of running), he should be taken into account when comparing backs who ran the ball for different programs.

In 2010, Cam accounted for a whopping 36.95% of our rushing yards (which, due to CFB stat rules, also counts the negative yards he accrued due to being sacked) and a staggering 40.49% of our rushing attempts. He was our leading rusher, and had 82 more attempts and 380 more rushing yards than anybody else on the team. I'd say that is a pretty significant portion of our rushing offense.

He was the primary back that ran the ball, therefore, he SHOULD be counted as a running back.

What many of you do not realize is that Cam Newton may not have been playing the role of quarterback on many plays. He was always a threat to throw the ball, but technically so is every running back that takes a direct snap or recieves a handoff or pitch behind the line of scrimmage. So, although Cameron Newton was listed as a quarterback on the depth chart, it does not necessarily mean he assumed that position every time he was on the field. Heck, Newton assumed the role of a wide reciever once, a play we certainly all remember from the Heisman winner as one of his "Heisman monments" in Oxford. It can be said that Cameron Newton took multiple direct snaps while playing the running back position in a wildcat offense with a tailback speeding across for the fake sweep, and the running back, Newton, taking the ball on a called run and running a half back direct snap draw up the middle. I see the point that Newton was a QB and thus was not a running back, but in actuality, it is possible that Cameron Newton assumed the role of the running back for the duration of those direct snap draw plays.

[mcgufcm 4,109]

Okay. I'm out. No one has ever included QBs in the common discussion of RBU, and they shouldn't.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Okay. I'm out. No one has ever included QBs in the common discussion of RBU, and they shouldn't.

This^^^^

[jcm81 2]

Okay. I'm out. No one has ever included QBs in the common discussion of RBU, and they shouldn't.

Not even if said quarterback rushes for more yards than any Heisman winner in 10 years?

Not really fair since Mark Ingram is the only running back in that time period, and Cam had more rushing touchdowns too.

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

For the purpose of the ESPN ranking stats weren't really used, so you would actually have to find a way to attribute his Awards to his "running back" duties or his "quarterback" duties. Also, his all American status was as a quarter back, and he won awards just for quarter backs as well, so he may have have added up to as many points as a "running back" as you think in the points system.

Awards that Cam won that WERE NOT specifically for QBs: Heisman, Walter Camp, and Maxwell (All also counted in the RBU analysis). These chose Cam as the best PLAYER in CFB, not the best Quarterback.

Awards that Cam won that WERE specifically for QBs: O'Brien. These chose Cam as the best Quarterback in CFB.

Also, there's the fact that Cam only had 7 fewer rushing attempts and 185 fewer rushing yards in his Heisman campaign than Ingram did in his. That's a pretty small difference in rushing stats.

It's interesting that the namesake of the Quarterback Award Cam won (Davey O'Brien) had 127 rushing attempts, compared to 167 passing attempts in his college football year of 1938 http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/davey-obrien-1.html

Almost as if it is specifically contemplated that a Quarterback is expected to tote the rock.