The future of football? The A-11 offense
by Desroko on Jul 26, 2008 12:13 PM EDT
Email
PrintPer Rivals.com, and AOL Fanhouse, a California high school may be revolutionizing football offense with a formation in which every player on the field - that's right, every single one - is an eligible receiver.
Most of us here are probably aware that all levels of American football require seven players on the line of scrimmage, typically five offensive linemen and two wideouts, or a wideout and a tight end. In addition, five of those players are not pass-eligible. These are almost always offensive linemen.
Piedmont High School is doing things a bit differently. Their new "A-11" formation has a "center " flanked by two tight ends, with three wideouts on either side. Two quarterbacks line up in the shotgun. None of the players wear uniform numbers corresponding to offensive linemen, and the formation looks more like a kickoff or punt than a typical offensive play.
WR WR WR TE C TE WR WR WR
QB QB
Of course, they can't work their way around the rules entirely. Besides the player who takes the snap, there can be only five eligible receivers. But Piedmont HS's solution is deviously simple - we'll have five receivers, but you won't know which ones until the ball is snapped. Five stay in to block, and five are sent beyond the line of scrimmage. God help the poor defense which is supposed to figure out which is which.
Could this work at other levels? I'll leave the questions of utility aside, and note only that I think this is brilliant. However, the NCAA and NFL rules don't align completely with the California's. The NFL, in particular, seems to specify that of the seven men on the LOS, only the two on the ends of the line (the tight end and a wideout) are eligible.
But this formation may be able to thrive in college football - apparently Piedmont has already been besieged with requests from college football programs, including some D-1A, about their new strategy.
25 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I dunno
There’s the answer! Willie Reid at Right Tackle!
Seriously, though, this looks like a pass-heavy formation with people ill-equipped to block (unless you had 6 Hines Wards). All you’d need is 2 DE’s and 9 DB’s to shut this down very quickly. Might work for kids, but not in the pros.
Could make a real good trick play...but
Forgetting the rules issue and imagining that this could fly…
You’d have to have nerves of steel to be the “real” QB knowing the speed of NFL pass rushers, but I suppose there would be dump off opportunities aplenty. There’s not a lot of beef in that formation for slowing anyone’s progress to the QB.
This almost seems like an offensive version of the zone blitz, with no one knowing who was doing what. I’d love to see it tried…by some other team without Ben as QB – he gets sacked too much already. Seriously though, I love the trick/gadget plays and this could be (in some version) a potential….for instance, what if you had a running QB and a good passer – who gets the snap – it creates indecision in the defense. Could be good.
they could use
some TE’s lined up wide as well, for to help blocking.
i saw the videos
that looks unbelievable. i live about 40 minutes from piedmont high, and will probably check a game out this year to see the a-11 in action
"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006
for sure
i’ll get that done. i’d heard of it before, but never realized it was from piedmont. i live in pleasanton (about 25 minutes from oakland, 45 from SF).
i gotta start posting here more, give california some representation on here. not a frontrunner, my entire family save an uncle (sinking spring) and grandma (georgia) lives in pittsburgh. parents from baden and mt. lebanon, moved here right before i was born.
"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006
welcome to the site
dude. Got a good buddy lives in SF. Heading out there this year to catch Niners game with him.
good stuff dude
monster park is kind of a hole, but the fans there love their team. good experience.
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
What happens to the Running Backs?
The biggest reason I don’t want to see this in the NFL, is because this strategy eliminates the smashmouth element completely. No longer would there be a need for running backs, and defenses would be severely limited in the blitz factor as it would be too easy for a QB to get rid of the ball. I admit that whoever came up with this strategy is a genius, but the only time I would ever want to see it is in trick formations.
My high School is doing something out of the norm too. Our football team no longer huddles up but is an endless no huddle.
To the tune of the classic children's song "This Old Man" (the part with nick nack patty whack)
Big Snack, Silverback, take the Dawg Pound's Bone, the Black and Gold sent the Brownies crying home.
by Tim Mullhaupt (HSS) on Jul 26, 2008 9:52 PM EDT reply actions
Sure, this might work in sunny California
but how about when the turf is ripped up and muddy in the middle of a blizzard?
gotta use the facilities to your advantage ;)
"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006
Take this to the Arena League...
seriously this would kill traditional football. Absolutely no running game just “hey let’s throw, throw, throw every game. As someone else stated earlier, this works for high school but take this to the NFL and it would be exposed.
by iBleedBlack&Gold on Jul 27, 2008 3:00 AM EDT reply actions
I will note
that running doesn’t have to be completely discounted by this. (I’m not eve sure why they have two quarterbacks in the formation – it could easily be a QB and RB). A variation imilar to the spread option culd be devised.
This is a formation but it doesn’t have to the only formation that a team can use. There could always be variations that involve more tight ends for blocking purposes. They could also start out in a formation like this to get teams spread out and then use motion to line up in a more traditional I-formation and utilize some form of running game. Who knows if that would really work in the pros but I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see this at the college level sometime. Look at how fast the ‘spread-option’ offense has swept the nation.
Kind of off point, but if the college game keeps taking in new ideas like this one and the spread, how long before the players available for NFL teams aren’t as applicable to the NFL game. I know I’ve heard alot already about QBs that weren’t NFL material because they were in the spread. This could have the same effect – imagine if college teams started shedding linemen to adopt this kind of formation or another. Just a ponder.
Good point
However, high schoolers that want to make the NFL will probably chose the more NFL-like colleges to go to, so schools that look close to the NFL are still going to attract the best recruits. And kick the tar out of the Hawaii’s of the world.
true
That’s kind of why the ‘gimmick’ offenses got started though. Places like Texas Tech and Utah who couldn’t compete with the ‘big boy’s’ of college football as far as recruiting goes, developed a system where they didn’t have to have the best players to excel. This could just end up being another form of that.
they run out of this formation
if you watch the videos on a11offense.com, there are clearly running plays executed by the dual qb’s.
"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006
HS
i think this is also a great idea for a HS which finds it difficult to recruit many large o-lineman, i know our school had significant disadvantage there, because our line was always small on the whole. (although our d-line was often HUGE, weird).
What about "illegal man downfield" penalties?
The NFL has rules to prevent total chaos (like this idea) from overtaking the game. One it is that the two players on both sides of the center and the center aren’t allowed to catch the ball, so it would be obvious who to cover. Also, they aren’t allowed more than 5 yards downfield on passing plays, and I don’t think they can do pre-snap motion, so they are pretty useless for anything other than blocking. They may be able to take laterals or handoffs (not sure), but if they’re on the line, they wouldn’t get back in time to do anything useful (unless the DL’s agreed to count to 5 mississippi). This formation still doesn’t yield any more than the 6 position players (QB + 5 WR/TE/RB’s) that the spread offense offers, and it completely eliminates blocking for the running game, so I can’t image it would have much use in the NFL, other than maybe getting your opponent to waste a timeout.
As mentioned,
this is illegal in the NFL, which defines eligible receivers differently than most other levels. There would have to be a rule change, which I seriously doubt will ever happen, for it to be used in pro ball.
I do see this gaining some popularity in college football, though, which will contribute further towards the college and pro games becoming distinct sports.
the CIF and NCS rules
are apparently a tad different in terms of defining eligible receivers than college, and obviously the NFL.
"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006
Mismatches
The biggest thing that I can see about this approach to offense is that it would create mismatches between teams. An offense that used this against a team with a more traditional defense should be able to throw alot more easily on the defense. On the other hand, if it really caught on, then defenses would adapt (having more dbs, etc.), in which case a smashmouth ball control offense should be able to manhandle the defense. If five OLmen only have to block a couple of DLmen, and mostly dbs, they should be able to overpower them easily.
Also, this offense could be more easily used in college since you can have 85 players on scholarship, as opposed to 53 on an active NFL roster. The lower player count in the NFL requires that you choose your scheme (3-4 vs. 4-3 defense or traditional offense vs. run & shoot).
One last thought. This offense just seems like a typical pick up game offense. What’s next, having the best QB in the city playing QB for every team?
by WolfpackSteelersFan on Jul 29, 2008 1:42 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"Thoughtful discussion with a sense of history."
Art Rooney Jr.
"Level-headed thinking." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
