Talk:Tailback

Merge With Running back

The article Running back already has this information, and more.Andrew zot 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - but then you would have to leave Tailback by itself for British "traffic jam" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.134.21 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 2006 August 20 (UTC).

No you wouldn't, are you messed in the head? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.205.117.165 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2006 August 29 (UTC).

Honestly, I think merging this and Fullback with Running back would be best. The running back is usually considered a halfback/tailback, but a running back is both fullback and halfback/tailback. Just put them as different sections. So, if we're going to merge this with the running back topic, we should merge fullback with it too. MisunderstoodLobster 02:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tailback, but not fullback. Most sports fans use "running back" to mean "tailback" or "halfback", but not "fullback", as they rarely ever run the ball. — Sampo Torgo ^[talk] @ 11:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot merge Fullback and Running back. They are two different positions, whereas tailback and running back are essentially the same. Hence the fullback and running back positions on an NFL depth chart. A fullback is generally a bigger player, used mostly in blocking situations, goal line situations, or third down conversions, where the extra push of a larger player is needed.--Mosh1 19:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]