All the draft complaining...let's look over the past 10 seasons...

[tynimiller]

Honestly, the running back situation is worthy of a thread itself...BUT since we are discussing it here..this arguably should be the strongest position on the team by far in numerous respects.

We have a starter that at MINIMUM half the league would LOVE to have in Jones...a back up that is arguably more capable than many starters - worst case better than half the backups in the league...and a high draft pick with off the chart measurables (albeit unproven to translate to NFL as with any rookie).

Beyond that you have a skilled Dexter Williams many were hopeful for in the organization - seemingly it is digesting the offense that is the issue. Ervin a skilled, quick shifty returner type RB...and don't forget the Patrick Taylor pick up as an UDFA. Each of these guys I love aspects of, there just simply isn't enough room for them.

I sense Dexter can still be stashed without fear on the Practice Squad, even more than Taylor...whom I think is destined to be cut/lost to another team if put on PS.

Ervin best chance to have a gameday role is that returner role...but there is only so many spots and I think the team's decision is an easy one when another returner allows them to cut Ervin.

 

[tynimiller]

Is a fullback not a RB? Four made the final roster in 2019. Jones, Williams, Dexter Williams, and Danny Vitale.

The FB role will be filled by Deguara IMO, Stern or Lewis may even slide in there and you'll probably see Williams and Dillon in split back positions play that "lead blocker" role some. I don't see GB holding a "FB" on the roster this season.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Is a fullback not a RB? Four made the final roster in 2019. Jones, Williams, Dexter Williams, and Danny Vitale.

A FB is not a RB, nor is his close relative the H-back. But if you want to count FBs as such then you better count Deguara in that group because he was drafted to take Vitale's snaps blocking out of the backfield along with whatever else he proves good at besides those limited snaps.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The FB role will be filled by Deguara IMO, Stern or Lewis may even slide in there and you'll probably see Williams and Dillon in split back positions play that "lead blocker" role some. I don't see GB holding a "FB" on the roster this season.

They tried Lewis for a couple of snaps blocking out of the backfield early last season and then ditched that idea. Lewis had never been an H-back previously and didn't show a knack for it. I've heard chitter chatter that Sternberger was a good blocker out of the backfield in college. I'm not seeing that in any of the available tape and certainly not in the step up in competition. I'm not even seeing Sternberger as a good in-line blocker, maybe adequate. If he plays up to his draft status you're going to see him quite a bit out of the slot like Graham.

Need 2 yards? It's gonna be Lewis in line and Deguara in the backfield.

 

[Fat Dogs]

A FB is not a RB, nor is close relative the H-back. But if you want to count FBs as such then you better count Deguara in that group because he was drafted to take Vitale's snaps blocking out of the backfield along with whatever else he proves good at besides those limited snaps.

A fullback isn’t a running back?? Lol I’m lost. I played fullback so I can 1,000 percent vouch that it most certainly is. I understand that we will no longer be rostering a “fullback” and will be using an H-back “hybrid” in Deguara. I was simply telling you that we rostered four RB’s and six receivers for our final 53 man roster in 2019. There is a giant possibility that we do the same in 2020. The 3 obvious backs and Ervin (special teams.)

 

[tynimiller]

Matter of fact has anyone started a "predict the roster" thread yet.....I may have to dig into this...

 

[HardRightEdge]

A fullback isn’t a running back?? Lol I’m lost. I played fullback so I can 1,000 percent vouch that it most certainly is. I understand that we will no longer be rostering a “fullback” and will be using an H-back “hybrid” in Deguara. I was simply telling you that we rostered four RB’s and six receivers for our final 53 man roster in 2019. There is a giant possibility that we do the same in 2020. The 3 obvious backs and Ervin (special teams.)

I don't know where you played fullback, but that position sure ain't a running back in this league today. FBs in the NFL, as few as there are left, are lucky if they get 50 touches all year. Most teams don't even have one.

They don't even consider FB a position eligible for All Pro consideration anymore. A FB might get in, I suppose, under the "flex" position designation. The current gold standard among FBs, I think most would agree, is Kyle Juszczyk. He ran the ball 3 times last year and caught 20 passes. Heck of a blocker, though.

I have no idea what they might be doing in high school football these days. You would have been absolutely correct 50 years ago when you could go to a state title game with a 2,000+ yard future NFL player at halfback and 1,000+ yard fullback while throwing the ball 4 times per game.

 

[gopkrs]

Whether or not you consider a fullback a RB; I think he still goes under the RB umbrella when you are thinking how many to keep. And I certainly think that Deguara is going to be a TE. He can catch and he can get open. Of course he will be doing some blocking also. And so there are decisions to be made about how many RBs and TEs we will keep as a group. Might as well group them together and not worry so much about designations. imho

 

[Fat Dogs]

I don't know where you played fullback, but that position sure ain't a running back in this league today. FBs in the NFL, as few as there are left, are lucky if they get 50 touches all year. Most teams don't even have one.

They don't even consider FB a position eligible for All Pro consideration anymore. A FB might get in, I suppose, under the "flex" position designation. The current gold standard among FBs, I think most would agree, is Kyle Juszczyk. He ran the ball 3 times last year and caught 20 passes. Heck of a blocker, though.

I have no idea what they might be doing in high school football these days. You would have been absolutely correct 50 years ago when you could go to a state title game with a 2,000+ yard future NFL player at halfback and 1,000+ yard fullback while throwing the ball 4 times per game.

Ok but there is a difference between a fullback not running the ball and not being Considered a RB. The FB isn’t heavily used in today’s NFL but yea.. that’s not my point. I was saying that the packers rostered 4 RB’s last year and have a pretty high probability of doing it again. The obvious 3 and Ervin (who might not be used as a RB.)

 

[HardRightEdge]

Whether or not you consider a fullback a RB; I think he still goes under the RB umbrella when you are thinking how many to keep. And I certainly think that Deguara is going to be a TE. He can catch and he can get open. Of course he will be doing some blocking also. And so there are decisions to be made about how many RBs and TEs we will keep as a group. Might as well group them together and not worry so much about designations. imho

I don't think it makes sense to lump RBs and TEs together. It makes sense to lump FBs and TEs together depending on who they are since they are of similar types for special teams purposes. Positionally, the lumping depends on who the players are and what they can do.

Ultimately, the problem is in constructing a game day roster that covers all the bases. It will be a little easier this year with the game day roster increased from 46 to 48, but that's offset by one spot since teams by rule must now carry 8 OLs on game day when 7 might have been adequate if you have the positional versatility in the backups or in a line shuffle.

You have to cover special teams and injury backups at every position, prudent to cover for two injuries in each position group occurring during the game. This is not easy. It's quite handy having a guy like Tramon Williams, to take one example, because he could swing from slot to wide or safety in a pinch. It's why the Packers carried 3 safeties on the game day roster almost all year. Other than for special teams, where WRs and CBs can overlap as well, positional overlap and buying game day roster spots is a function of the particular players and their skill sets, not simply by virtue of their positional designations. A Tramon Williams allows you to combine S and CB for headcount on game day.

My point is that if Ervin is the emergency #3 even if they don't get him more offensive touches, carrying Jones, Dillon and Williams on the game day roster is a luxury for which you're not likely to find the room. Again, are you going to put your second round pick or a $2 million player on the sidelines in sweats? That doesn't make sense unless Dillon simply is not ready. It's not like you're gonna cut a second round pick and expect to sign him to the practice squad. But if Dillon is ready, you just don't need Williams even if he is a good player.

Jones would have to take a lot of snaps out of the slot or wide with another RB on the field to keep all these guys unless Dillion isn't all that and ends up in a red shirt year.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Ok but there is a difference between a fullback not running the ball and not being Considered a RB. The FB isn’t heavily used in today’s NFL but yea.. that’s not my point. I was saying that the packers rostered 4 RB’s last year and have a pretty high probability of doing it again. The obvious 3 and Ervin (who might not be used as a RB.)

How you can call a guy a running back who never runs the ball is beyond me. It's not like he's your emergency #3. You'll find that guy elsewhere on the game day roster. Worse, I don't know how you might believe thinking otherwise is somehow funny with the evidence all around you.

In the end, it is what a guy can do and does, not what positional designation is next to his name on the roster sheet. You can put an "S" next to Raven Green's name, but if he's playing Will ILB in nickel D (as he and couple of "safeties" who preceded him have done a semi-regular basis), then he is most certainly an ILB when playing ILB is what he is doing.

A FB who runs a couple of times per year, catches a little, and run blocks on 90% or more of his snaps is just a FB. Whether Dagurea will be just a FB or a true H-back will depend on whether he gets snaps in-line or out of the slot. If he doesn't, that "TE" next to his name is a misnomer; he'd be a FB.

I don't how this could be any clearer.

 

[AmishMafia]

Technically a FB is actually:

When blocking he is an off-ball OG
When running the ball he is an on-ball RB
When going out for a pass he is an out-ball receiver

 

[Fat Dogs]

How you can call a guy a running back who never runs the ball is beyond me. It's not like he's your emergency #3. You'll find that guy elsewhere on the game day roster. Worse, I don't know how you might believe thinking otherwise is somehow funny with the evidence all around you.

In the end, it is what a guy can do and does, not what positional designation is next to his name on the roster sheet. You can put an "S" next to Raven Green's name, but if he's playing Will ILB in nickel D (as he and couple of "safeties" who preceded him have done a semi-regular basis), then he is most certainly an ILB when playing ILB is what he is doing.

A FB who runs a couple of times per year, catches a little, and run blocks on 90% or more of his snaps is just a FB. Whether Dagurea will be just a FB or a true H-back will depend on whether he gets snaps in-line or out of the slot. If he doesn't, that "TE" next to his name is a misnomer; he'd be a FB.

I don't how this could be any clearer.

I read you loud and clear and find it funny that you want to change football 101 positional groupings because you don’t think a fullback should be called a RB. Call it what you will but I assure you that when teams break into positional groupings, the RB’s (HB, and FB) work together just like DB’s (safeties and corners.) I also don’t think you fully grasp how many NFL teams actually roster 4 running backs.

 

[Heyjoe4]

How you can call a guy a running back who never runs the ball is beyond me. It's not like he's your emergency #3. You'll find that guy elsewhere on the game day roster. Worse, I don't know how you might believe thinking otherwise is somehow funny with the evidence all around you.

In the end, it is what a guy can do and does, not what positional designation is next to his name on the roster sheet. You can put an "S" next to Raven Green's name, but if he's playing Will ILB in nickel D (as he and couple of "safeties" who preceded him have done a semi-regular basis), then he is most certainly an ILB when playing ILB is what he is doing.

A FB who runs a couple of times per year, catches a little, and run blocks on 90% or more of his snaps is just a FB. Whether Dagurea will be just a FB or a true H-back will depend on whether he gets snaps in-line or out of the slot. If he doesn't, that "TE" next to his name is a misnomer; he'd be a FB.

I don't how this could be any clearer.

You describe how the NFL works today. There is a lot of position crossover as you point out.

 

[Fat Dogs]

How you can call a guy a running back who never runs the ball is beyond me. It's not like he's your emergency #3. You'll find that guy elsewhere on the game day roster. Worse, I don't know how you might believe thinking otherwise is somehow funny with the evidence all around you.

In the end, it is what a guy can do and does, not what positional designation is next to his name on the roster sheet. You can put an "S" next to Raven Green's name, but if he's playing Will ILB in nickel D (as he and couple of "safeties" who preceded him have done a semi-regular basis), then he is most certainly an ILB when playing ILB is what he is doing.

A FB who runs a couple of times per year, catches a little, and run blocks on 90% or more of his snaps is just a FB. Whether Dagurea will be just a FB or a true H-back will depend on whether he gets snaps in-line or out of the slot. If he doesn't, that "TE" next to his name is a misnomer; he'd be a FB.

I don't how this could be any clearer.

I don’t really care about the designations. We are both saying the same thing so there’s really no reason to argue about something so trivial so for that I apologize. Cutting a team to 53 isn’t easy but I don’t think that you are aware of how many teams actually carry 4 rb’s for depth and special teams. Here is a list of all NFC teams initial 53 man roster in 2019. I can do the AFC but I’m sure we will have similar results.

Packers (4) 3 HB, 1 FB
Vikings (5) 4 HB,1 FB
Bears (4) 4 HB
Lions (4) 3 HB, 1 FB

49ers (4) 3 HB, 1 FB
Seahawks (5) 4 HB, 1 FB
Rams (3) 3 HB
Cardinals (4) 4 HB

eagles (4) 4 HB
Cowboys (4) 4 HB if you count Zeke (holdout)
Giants (4) 3 HB, 1 FB
Redskins (5) 5 HB (1 placed on IR)

Saints (4) 3 HB, 1 FB
Falcons (3) 3 HB
Bucs (3) 3 HB
Panthers (4) 3 HB, 1 FB

I also looked at 2019 kick return leaders and 10 RB’s were in the top 32 so this helps explain the teams that rostered 4 HB’s. The packers keeping 4 RB’s (1 designated to return kicks wouldn’t be against the grain since 7 out of 16 NFC teams did it last season.

 

[gopkrs]

I don't think it makes sense to lump RBs and TEs together. It makes sense to lump FBs and TEs together depending on who they are since they are of similar types for special teams purposes. Positionally, the lumping depends on who the players are and what they can do.

Ultimately, the problem is in constructing a game day roster that covers all the bases. It will be a little easier this year with the game day roster increased from 46 to 48, but that's offset by one spot since teams by rule must now carry 8 OLs on game day when 7 might have been adequate if you have the positional versatility in the backups or in a line shuffle.

You have to cover special teams and injury backups at every position, prudent to cover for two injuries in each position group occurring during the game. This is not easy. It's quite handy having a guy like Tramon Williams, to take one example, because he could swing from slot to wide or safety in a pinch. It's why the Packers carried 3 safeties on the game day roster almost all year. Other than for special teams, where WRs and CBs can overlap as well, positional overlap and buying game day roster spots is a function of the particular players and their skill sets, not simply by virtue of their positional designations. A Tramon Williams allows you to combine S and CB for headcount on game day.

My point is that if Ervin is the emergency #3 even if they don't get him more offensive touches, carrying Jones, Dillon and Williams on the game day roster is a luxury for which you're not likely to find the room. Again, are you going to put your second round pick or a $2 million player on the sidelines in sweats? That doesn't make sense unless Dillon simply is not ready. It's not like you're gonna cut a second round pick and expect to sign him to the practice squad. But if Dillon is ready, you just don't need Williams even if he is a good player.

Jones would have to take a lot of snaps out of the slot or wide with another RB on the field to keep all these guys unless Dillion isn't all that and ends up in a red shirt year.

I was not talking game day. I was talking roster. And yes, there are points to be made all around about where to count a player as far as his position. But we do need to designate some players for special teams imho because it is a very important aspect of the game. Ervin is a good example if he ends up being a good returner, he really does not need to be counted as one of the running backs even if he will get some playing time. Summers is another guy if he can be an outstanding special teams player. Because I don't think he will ever be a decent linebacker. On a side, if Williams makes the team; we are in worse shape than I thought. Don't care about his speed. A couple of specialists is a good thing and not a waste of a position nor trying to round out a position with a mediocre player because he can play special teams. Let him specialize and kick *** on kick offs. If he can do it.

 

[OldSchool101]

Need 2 yards? It's gonna be Lewis in line and Deguara in the backfield.

Option of Dillon in that 12 formation and you’ve got a Power Package we haven’t seen in quite some time.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I read you loud and clear and find it funny that you want to change football 101 positional groupings because you don’t think a fullback should be called a RB.

Those football 101 positional groupings are a template that has become largely obsolete. Looking at the huddle, the player numbers and their positional designations don't tell you where the guys are going to line up, what their assignments are likely to be, or what play is likely to be called.

For example, 12 personnel 1 (RB, 2 TEs, 2 WRs) can range from a power run formation, either both TEs in line or a TE-as-H-back in the backfield, to a RB motioning with the RB, TEs and WRs in slot or out wide in a 5-wide empty backfield that says you're throwing the ball. That's if Rodgers is your QB. If your QB is Lamar Jackson, depending on down and distance, you'd have to think about defending a QB run against that spread defense.

This latter point is one example that goes to the larger issue. A defensive coordinator is not saying, "when somebody, anybody, rolls out 12 personnel we're going to do this. That will vary from game to game based on opponent tendencies in what they run out of different personnel groupings, and what the opposing personnel is actually capable of doing. When a slow footed TE enters the huddle known to funtion as a blocker you are not going to game plan to defend that in the same way as the slot TE who is a weak blocker and a high target receiving threat who is subbed out, to take just one example. When you get down to specific plays, defending tendencies and working matchups, personnel groupings are largely worthless.

This isn't your father's or grandfather's 1960's NFL, where a halfback and a fullback, both running threats and justifiably both called "running backs", are in the backfield on nearly every play, the TE is in-line on nearly every play, and the x and y receivers are exactly that on nearly every play. I used the term "nearly" there to account for possible exceptions I don't recall, but "rarely otherwise" might be the better description.

X, Y, Z designations are also obsolete even though you see people still using them. Split end, TE, Flanker? Really? Where's the slot receiver? When you see Adams in the huddle, what is he? He could be X, Y or slot. When you saw Graham in the huddle, what was he? He could have been x, y, z or slot?

I had a similar discussion with a regular poster a while back regarding this bizarre "dime linebacker" terminology. If it's 2nd. and 5, for example, one of the many tweener run-pass downs, and you put a Greene (or Campbell, et. al.) off the ball in the tackle box, he's an ILB in a nickel defense. It just so happens you want particular characterics in you ILB in nickel leaning toward defending the pass. If it's 3rd. and 15, Greene is set 15 yards off the line in a 3-across safety prevent, then he's a safety.

These antiquated designations, which also includes calling a FB who runs the ball 3 times per season a "running back", ranges somewhere between minimal usefulness and analytical laziness pre-snap. "Greene's on the field. He's their dime linebacker," or "Graham's on the field, he's their TE", tells you nothing about what position they are actually playing, what play is being called, whether it's a nickel or dime defense once the ball is snapped.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Option of Dillon in that 12 formation and you’ve got a Power Package we haven’t seen in quite some time.

Oh, back to the future a la Taylor and Hornung? Power sweep?

Of couse you have to wonder how much run blocking Jones and Dillon have done in their entire lives. I suppose if they were playing with a running option QB in college they were expected to slam somebody on the fake as the QB keeps and runs. I couldn't say. I think you can expect the guy they just hired to play the FB role is the guy they want blocking.

How about the 3-back full house or wishbone with Jones, Dillon and Williams in the backfield? SF ran that at least once in a cross betwen a wishbone and a square dance, with 3 in the backfield doing pirouettes pre-snap. Remember that? That's no joke. Of course you wouldn't carry an extra running back on the game day roster just to run one gadget play when you already have Ervin capable of doing the do-si-do.

 

[gopkrs]

These antiquated designations, which also includes calling a FB who runs the ball 3 times per season a "running back", ranges some between minimal usefulness pre-snap and laziness. "Greene's on the field. He's their dime linebacker," or "Graham's on the field, he's their TE", tells you nothing about what position they are actually playing, what play is being called, whether it's a nickel or dime defense once the ball is snapped.

I guess next you will want to change their designations during the play. LOL I think some of it is coaches wanting to appear indispensable (and smart). And they try to make it more complicated than it actually is. Sometimes it is warranted I guess but it can get absurd imho.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don’t really care about the designations. We are both saying the same thing so there’s really no reason to argue about something so trivial so for that I apologize. Cutting a team to 53 isn’t easy but I don’t think that you are aware of how many teams actually carry 4 rb’s for depth and special teams. Here is a list of all NFC teams initial 53 man roster in 2019. I can do the AFC but I’m sure we will have similar results.

Packers (4) 3 HB, 1 FB
Vikings (5) 4 HB,1 FB
Bears (4) 4 HB
Lions (4) 3 HB, 1 FB

49ers (4) 3 HB, 1 FB
Seahawks (5) 4 HB, 1 FB
Rams (3) 3 HB
Cardinals (4) 4 HB

eagles (4) 4 HB
Cowboys (4) 4 HB if you count Zeke (holdout)
Giants (4) 3 HB, 1 FB
Redskins (5) 5 HB (1 placed on IR)

Saints (4) 3 HB, 1 FB
Falcons (3) 3 HB
Bucs (3) 3 HB
Panthers (4) 3 HB, 1 FB

I also looked at 2019 kick return leaders and 10 RB’s were in the top 32 so this helps explain the teams that rostered 4 HB’s. The packers keeping 4 RB’s (1 designated to return kicks wouldn’t be against the grain since 7 out of 16 NFC teams did it last season.

That's not terribly helpful without looking into the specific cases--player capabilities, roles, injuries. I've already mentioned a couple of situations where the Packers would carry 4 RBs. Perhaps Dillon is perceived as not ready or too risky to take over Williams' job right out of the box, kinda like how they started Taylor over Jenkins. It's not like you'd get Dillon on the practice squad without somebody signing him away. There's the unlikely proposition that they play Jones a lot out of the slot or wide. How many of those teams with 4 "halfbacks" have one who is in essence a WR swing man. There's injuries. Clearly the IR guys (and Zeke as a holdout or somebody suspended for opening day) are irrelvant to the discussion. If Jones, Dillon or Williams cannot play on opening day, for whatever reason, you're going to see the other two on the roster, and the game day roster, for at least the time being.

So, come opening day, if Jones, Dillon and Ervin are fit as a fiddle, the team commits to Dillon taking Willams snaps, Jones is not going to get more WR snaps, and they want to give Ervin a few more touches while being the emergency #3, it is hard to see how Williams will fit.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I don’t really care about the designations. We are both saying the same thing so there’s really no reason to argue about something so trivial so for that I apologize. Cutting a team to 53 isn’t easy but I don’t think that you are aware of how many teams actually carry 4 rb’s for depth and special teams. Here is a list of all NFC teams initial 53 man roster in 2019. I can do the AFC but I’m sure we will have similar results.

Packers (4) 3 HB, 1 FB
Vikings (5) 4 HB,1 FB
Bears (4) 4 HB
Lions (4) 3 HB, 1 FB

49ers (4) 3 HB, 1 FB
Seahawks (5) 4 HB, 1 FB
Rams (3) 3 HB
Cardinals (4) 4 HB

eagles (4) 4 HB
Cowboys (4) 4 HB if you count Zeke (holdout)
Giants (4) 3 HB, 1 FB
Redskins (5) 5 HB (1 placed on IR)

Saints (4) 3 HB, 1 FB
Falcons (3) 3 HB
Bucs (3) 3 HB
Panthers (4) 3 HB, 1 FB

I also looked at 2019 kick return leaders and 10 RB’s were in the top 32 so this helps explain the teams that rostered 4 HB’s. The packers keeping 4 RB’s (1 designated to return kicks wouldn’t be against the grain since 7 out of 16 NFC teams did it last season.

Yeah and that’s why it makes sense to hold onto Ervin as a 4th RB, but whose primary duty is special teams as a returner. Geez GB had negative return yardage before they added Ervin last year. Maybe there are better guys out there, or surprises in training camp, but it seems like this is a problem GB has fixed. And if memory serves Ervin was serviceable as a RB and gadget player with versatility.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I guess next you will want to change their designations during the play. LOL I think some of it is coaches wanting to appear indispensable (and smart). And they try to make it more complicated than it actually is. Sometimes it is warranted I guess but it can get absurd imho.

I don't know why you would think that. I would change their designations only up to the snap. You have to account for where they are after motion as an added consideration but not beyond that. I subscribe to the football theory that if he lines up like a duck and quacks like a duck then you know what he is.

If coaches are being too clever by half that's a different discussion. But wanting it to be simpler does not make it so. It is as complicated as they make it. The way the game is played today, insisting on the old standard designations is jamming pegs that are sometime round, sometimes square or sometime oblong always into round holes. That's just banging your head against the wall of the realities on the ground. New fangled terms like "dime linebacker" makes matters worse by trying to sound up to date while doing the same d*mn thing.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yeah and that’s why it makes sense to hold onto Ervin as a 4th RB, but whose primary duty is special teams as a returner. Geez GB had negative return yardage before they added Ervin last year. Maybe there are better guys out there, or surprises in training camp, but it seems like this is a problem GB has fixed. And if memory serves Ervin was serviceable as a RB and gadget player with versatility.

You have not been following along. Nowhere did I suggest Ervin would be the odd man out, quite the opposite.

 

[gopkrs]

I don't know why you would think that. I would change their designations only up to the snap. You have to account for where they are after motion as an added consideration but not beyond that. I subscribe to the football theory that if he lines up like a duck and quacks like a duck then you know what he is.

If coaches are being too clever by half that's a different discussion. But wanting it to be simpler does not make it so. It is as complicated as they make it. The way the game is played today, insisting on the old standard designations is jamming pegs that are sometime round, sometimes square or sometime oblong always into round holes. That's just banging your head against the wall of the realities on the groiund. New fangled terms like "dime linebacker" makes matters worse by trying to sound up to date while doing the same d*mn thing.

The thing is ... it just is simpler. And them trying to complicate things is a mistake. Execution is and always has been the name of the game. Just because you want to put a slot receiver to the outside does not really change the fact that he is now a flanker. Old verbage but more accurate than calling him a slot triple x or something. Just because you back up one of the Smith bros. so that he is guarding against the pass does not change him into a safety/corner hybrid. He quacks like a DE. Oh, but you want to call him an outside linebacker. OK, call him that. It just does not change much even though I am certain you think it does.