A-11 Offense

[Bleed S & G]

It's not that you can't do it in the college game, it's just that it would not work against a team with any amount of discipline.

Would be a great "back-pocket" play against scUM or in a national title game come 3rd & 4th quarter IMO..

The one thing that would make it work, would be spreading the defense thin and having a QB tear them up on the ground..

Don't think this is the offense of the future and agree it's stupid and gimmicky

 

[Jaxbuck]

Basically, you're lining up with 6 WRs, 2 mobile QBs in the backfield, and 3 blocking tight ends on the line.

Well given scUM's recruiting patterns I'm thinking RR is planning on trying this baby out.

 

[Brutus1]

The reason they can get away without the normal numbering requirement is that they have to line up in a scrimmage kick formation. That's why one qb must be at least 7 yards behind the line of scrimmage.

The main numbering rule is 7-3-5b and it says: At the snap, at least 5 A players on the line of scrimmage must be numbered 50-79.
Exception: When A sets or shifts into a scrimmage kick formation any A player numbered 1-49 or 80-99 may take the position of any A player numbered 50-70.....

From there, go to 2-14-2 and it describes a scrimmage kick formation as a formation with at least one player 7 yards or more behind the neutral zone and in position to receive the long snap. No player may be in position to receive a hand-to-hand snap from between the snappers legs.
(It's illegal in the NCAA because they added to the rule " it must be obvious that a kick may be attempted")

As stated earlier, 7 players must still be on the line at the snap or it will be illegal. Of the 7 on the line, the only 2 that will be eligible to catch a pass would be those on each end. Any player between the ends is ineligible and would be flagged for illegal downfield if they went downfield. If they go downfield and touch the ball (before the defense), then we have illegal touching which is a penalty and a loss of down.

The defense would just have to be smart to realize which players are eligible receivers.

I would think this would be a nightmare for the officials, especially if it's a 5 man crew. You don't have much time to think about the eligibles versus the ineligibles once they take their formation.

I fully expect the Federation will adopt the same additoin to the scrimmage kick formation that the NCAA did.

 

[Brutus1]

Would be a great "back-pocket" play against scUM or in a national title game come 3rd & 4th quarter IMO..

The one thing that would make it work, would be spreading the defense thin and having a QB tear them up on the ground..

Don't think this is the offense of the future and agree it's stupid and gimmicky

Not legal in the NCAA.

 

[Oh8ch]

but to say its garbage b/c it requires more talented teams to alter their strategy (or else possibly be exposed) is absurd.

Directly contradicting the reason the coach himself gave for incorporating the approach.

 

[Bleed S & G]

Directly contradicting the reason the coach himself gave for incorporating the approach.

That team, accoridng to their website, made the playoffs 2 years in a row before this new offense.. it's not like they were horrible.

 

[Oh8ch]

The plan began at Humphries' house in northern California while the two were dreaming of ideas. The question: how to effectively level the playing field for Piedmont, with an enrollment of less than 1,000, when the Highlanders faced schools with student bodies nearly twice that.

I don't know how to interpret that other than "we play schools with more talent than us and in order to win we need to make something other than talent to be the deciding factor".

Or try this:

I'm a new coach coming from an old-school philosophy. Football is meant to line up, get your hand in the dirt and figure it out. But playing within the rules and trying to create an advantage is not something I'm against. There is a philosophy that says you need to line up and see who's the man. However, if you're not the man, you need to come up with some significant strategies to counter that."

I'm from the school that says you line up and see whose the man. And if the rules allow something else to determine the outcome - change the rules.

 

[methomps]

Something else like gameplanning, strategy, and coaching?

 

[Bleed S & G]

Something else like gameplanning, strategy, and coaching?

Say what?

 

[Oh8ch]

Something else like gameplanning, strategy, and coaching?

OK, let's go down that path.

The PGA has been lengthening courses for years to neutralize Tiger. They got it all wrong. Just make the cups 5 feet across and we can look forward to exciting playoffs every week. Its just a little rule change.

Of course gameplanning and coaching and strategy are part of the game. But how much a part? The issue is balance. Holding wasn't always a penalty. And what constitutes holding has evolved over the years. Loosen up the rules and watch the scores go up. Want more D? Loosen up the rules on coverage.

When you have a coach openly admit that he is looking for a strategy that let's his team get around having to go man against man against his opponent - and the rules let him do it - football IMO is heading in the wrong direction. Strategy is way out of balance with talent. Just my opinion. Just as I think we are seeing too much emphasis on speed vis a vis power with the spread.

But don't pretend that rules changes aren't used to tweak the nature of every sport. The three pointer in basketball went a long way towards making basketball more exciting. It also opened the door for a group of one dimensional players who had few places in the old game to have a more prominent role. The winner of the Tour de France is determined almost entirely by the mix of mountain stages and time trials. NASCAR has gone so far as to say simply discount accomplishments on the track so we can pay attention at the end of the racing season - even though that clearly diminishes the odds that the best driver will be acknowledged as such.

Good things? Bad things? Matter of opinion.

I like smash mouth, Big Ten football. If others prefer something that could eventually go coed have at it. I simply disagree.

 

[Brutus1]

You have to have smart defensive players to beat the A-11.

First, they have to recognize which of the receivers are the ineligibles. There has to be at least 2 on every play that will be considered ineligible. Once you identify them, you don't have anyone cover them . All they can do is block, so why waste a man on them? If they're alone, all they can do is float behind the los or look for someone to block. Those 2 will give away the play. If they go downfield, it can't be a pass. If it is, then we have a flag.

I'm gonna have 3 players lined up over the 3 linemen by the ball.

I'm doubling each wr.

I'm rushing 1 player from 2 yards outside of each of the "end interior lineman"

My last 2 players will play as outside lb's off the los.


With a little practice, it could be neutralized, especially if you have multile game tapes to study.

 

[osugrad21]

This offense is new...at least in the strategic sense of the premise.

However, the idea of spreading the field and changing on/off alignments to create confusion is older than the Gatorade bath.

Waterbucket, Polecat, Pod-O, 9-1-1, Muddle Huddle...whatever other names you want to give them.

Old news in idea...I'd be more interested in seeing how he teaches the kids such subtle changes without killing them with terminology.

 

[Bleed S & G]

First, they have to recognize which of the receivers are the ineligibles. There has to be at least 2 on every play that will be considered ineligible. Once you identify them, you don't have anyone cover them . All they can do is block, so why waste a man on them?

The WRs give away the play in any offense.. as do the lineman (in HS ball more-so)

If they're alone, all they can do is float behind the los or look for someone to block. Those 2 will give away the play. If they go downfield, it can't be a pass. If it is, then we have a flag.

These guys can delay going downfield for blocks on a delayed run - or every play could be an option-pass for the QB to decide to pass or run..

If you leave them uncovered - I believe they can catch a pass thats backwards and behind the line of scrimmage - like advancing a fumbled ball.

I'm gonna have 3 players lined up over the 3 linemen by the ball.

I'm doubling each wr.

Thats 13 players on the field..

I'm rushing 1 player from 2 yards outside of each of the "end interior lineman"

14 players..

My last 2 players will play as outside lb's off the los.

15 & 16.. unless I misunderstood "doubling each (5) WR"

This offense is better suited for spreading a D thin and using a running (2 of them) QB then it is for an "air it out" offense


With a little practice, it could be neutralized, especially if you have multile game tapes to study.[/quote]

 

[osu_edu]

This sounds ALL too familiar.....

I bet "ROD"less-dick will have his hands on this brand of "snake oil" in a jiffy!

:osu2:

osu.edu ROCKS!!!

 

[Sportsbuck28]

I don't like it for the same reason as it was created - to allow less talented teams to be competitive. IMO rules that increase the likelihood that the more talented team will win are better rules than those which expose us to chance via gimmick. Same thing is true of the spread option, albeit to a lesser extent.

If you want to see this kind of thing there is always Australia.

So they should line up in the power I and get the shit kicked out of them? Honestly I don't understand why it would be a bad thing for less talented teams to be competitive.