Is Reggie Gilliam a top 5 fullback in the NFL?

[FireChans]

I think he might be. Ricard and Juice are probably the only 2 dudes I take over him.

[NoSaint]

Are there 6 true fullbacks in the nfl?

[Brand J]

He’s a roster spot we don’t necessarily need. If he was an offensive threat in some way, blocked like Sam Gash or had hands like Larry Centers, okay. But he doesn’t really move the needle in one way or another.

[MJS]

You know what I don't understand? Why aren't full backs called half backs and half backs called full backs? Full backs line up in front of half backs, generally. You'd think it would go: 1) QB, 2) HB, 3) FB.

[eSJayDee]

Do you even call him a FB?

There's nobody on the roster ahead of him; as I recall he's been healthy all year & he's played what, prolly (well) under 100 offensive snaps.  Meanwhile, he plays most ST snaps & has prolly played 300+ there.  No, he's not a top 5 FB & he's arguably not even a FB.  For that matter, as someone mentioned above, how many true FBs are there these days?

[FireChans]

22 minutes ago, MJS said:

You know what I don't understand? Why aren't full backs called half backs and half backs called full backs? Full backs line up in front of half backs, generally. You'd think it would go: 1) QB, 2) HB, 3) FB.

Don’t even get me starting on H-backs.

[ChronicAndKnuckles]

Gilliam is not a super star obviously, but NFL teams need players like this that can fill multiple roles to save other roster spots. 

[WhoTom]

44 minutes ago, MJS said:

You know what I don't understand? Why aren't full backs called half backs and half backs called full backs? Full backs line up in front of half backs, generally. You'd think it would go: 1) QB, 2) HB, 3) FB.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_football_positions

 

[JerseyBills]

He's the best FB tush pusher lol

Good on ST

[Shaw66]

34 minutes ago, eSJayDee said:

Do you even call him a FB?

There's nobody on the roster ahead of him; as I recall he's been healthy all year & he's played what, prolly (well) under 100 offensive snaps.  Meanwhile, he plays most ST snaps & has prolly played 300+ there.  No, he's not a top 5 FB & he's arguably not even a FB.  For that matter, as someone mentioned above, how many true FBs are there these days?

This description of him is correct, in my mind.   He's a guy who's useful to the coaches, because he can play tight end, be a true fullback, split out, he can play special teams, he can even have an important role in gadget plays - like fake punts.  When the coaches are talking about new plays and variations of existing plays and someone asks, "do we have someone who can do THIS?," the answer is "Gilmore."  I think opposing coaches preparing for the Bills know that Gilmore likely will show up someplace where they haven't seen him before.  They know the Bills need him to do a particular thing, and it could be almost anything.   He's the ultimate utility infielder, a true Jack of all trades.

 

I don't know how many other teams have a guy like that.  The Saints have Hill.  That's a pretty unique roster slot.  I'm not saying either a Hill or a Gilliam is necessarily a good or bad idea; I'm just saying it's an interesting use of a roster slot.  

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, MJS said:

You know what I don't understand? Why aren't full backs called half backs and half backs called full backs? Full backs line up in front of half backs, generally. You'd think it would go: 1) QB, 2) HB, 3) FB.

That's an interesting question.   I can't tell from what you wrote whether you're joking or not.  So, if you know this and you were making a joke, I like it.  If you don't know this, then you'll be happy to know there was a day when quarter, half, and full did delineate their relative positions in the formation, with the fullback deepest in the backfield and the half backs a step ahead of the fullback.  At least variations of the T formation did that.   Out of those formations, the fullback was the power back and the halfbacks were valued more for their speed and elusiveness than their power.  McCaffrey lined up in the slot is something you might see from a halfback like Frank Gifford 60 years ago, but never a fullback.  As the game evolved, power, speed, and elusiveness began appearing in various combinations, so you had Jim Brown's combination, Gale Sayers combination, and ultimately Thurman's and Emmit Smith's combinations.  The feature back began lining up all over the place.  The power back, the short-yardage, between-the-tackles back was not as useful, and the power back evolved into more of blocking back and change-of-pace runner.  The position still was called fullback, even though the feature back began lining up deepest in the backfield and the "fullback" was lining up more like a halfback used to. 

 

So, yeah, the fullback literally is usually not the "full" back.  

[ngbills]

99 total snaps on O. So no. 

[DBilz2500]

Who cares 

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, MJS said:

You know what I don't understand? Why aren't full backs called half backs and half backs called full backs? Full backs line up in front of half backs, generally. You'd think it would go: 1) QB, 2) HB, 3) FB.

Fullbacks are all full figured.  Many HBs are not 

[MJS]

24 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

That's an interesting question.   I can't tell from what you wrote whether you're joking or not.  So, if you know this and you were making a joke, I like it.  If you don't know this, then you'll be happy to know there was a day when quarter, half, and full did delineate their relative positions in the formation, with the fullback deepest in the backfield and the half backs a step ahead of the fullback.  At least variations of the T formation did that.   Out of those formations, the fullback was the power back and the halfbacks were valued more for their speed and elusiveness than their power.  McCaffrey lined up in the slot is something you might see from a halfback like Frank Gifford 60 years ago, but never a fullback.  As the game evolved, power, speed, and elusiveness began appearing in various combinations, so you had Jim Brown's combination, Gale Sayers combination, and ultimately Thurman's and Emmit Smith's combinations.  The feature back began lining up all over the place.  The power back, the short-yardage, between-the-tackles back was not as useful, and the power back evolved into more of blocking back and change-of-pace runner.  The position still was called fullback, even though the feature back began lining up deepest in the backfield and the "fullback" was lining up more like a halfback used to. 

 

So, yeah, the fullback literally is usually not the "full" back.  

Well, it's not a joke, but I find it a little strange. Other positions have gone through radical changes of body types as well, but they still align with their position on the field. The fact that full backs are called half backs because of their body size and skill set is silly to me. They should be called full backs, just quick and elusive varieties today because that is what the game has shifted to. Whoever lines up farthest back should be a full back.

 

Obviously, you have motions and formations that don't work like that, but out of base formations, like I-formation, where you line up in those is telling. Half backs always line up in the full back position in formations like that.

 

I just don't like it. It doesn't make sense, haha!

[machine gun kelly]

Considering there are probably only 5 fbs in the league, sure.

[Pete]

Reggie is a core special teamer,  playing all 4 units.  His hit on opening kickoff is one of the Bills plays of the year.  Gilliam is a very valuable Bill

[Shaw66]

48 minutes ago, MJS said:

Well, it's not a joke, but I find it a little strange. Other positions have gone through radical changes of body types as well, but they still align with their position on the field. The fact that full backs are called half backs because of their body size and skill set is silly to me. They should be called full backs, just quick and elusive varieties today because that is what the game has shifted to. Whoever lines up farthest back should be a full back.

Obviously, you have motions and formations that don't work like that, but out of base formations, like I-formation, where you line up in those is telling. Half backs always line up in the full back position in formations like that.

 

I just don't like it. It doesn't make sense, haha!

Yeah, it's funny.  It's just the evolution of football and it's language.  The guy we call a 1-tech defensive tackle, is a nose tackle in the 3-4.  I think when the 3-4 first came into existence, the nose tackle was just the tackle.   And 80 years ago, when teams played 5-man lines, you had two ends, two tackles, and a nose guard.  The 1-tech, the nose tackle, and the nose guard all were the same body type with more or less the same role.  The 4-3 DE is sometimes a guy we used to call an outside linebacker and sometimes a guy we used to call a defensive end.  Now, regardless of the formation, we call them an edge.  

 

We used to have split ends and flanker backs.  Finally everyone gave up agreed that they're all wideouts, regardless of where they line up.   Free safeties and strong safeties used to have significantly different roles, not so much any more.  

 

Fullback is one situation where the name followed the body type and role, regardless of where he lined up.  

[BuffaloBillyG]

56 minutes ago, Pete said:

Reggie is a core special teamer,  playing all 4 units.  His hit on opening kickoff is one of the Bills plays of the year.  Gilliam is a very valuable Bill

Agree. Not sure I would classify him as any real position. He's just a football player. 

[ControllerOfPlanetX]

I am only interested in players on this team being in the top 1.