|
Post by dolomite on Feb 15, 2009 10:52:27 GMT -6
Now maybe we can all get back to knocking what is truly evil: the double wing. The DW is not a loophole its a smash mouth system. Sounds like you're bitter and have probably been trounced by it before. I'd feel the same way If I had to coach against it instead of running it.
|
|
|
Post by charger109 on Feb 15, 2009 10:54:39 GMT -6
A-11??? Chit, I thought it was a new steak sauce? hahaha! That was good coach! ;D That is funny!
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Feb 15, 2009 11:33:50 GMT -6
Now maybe we can all get back to knocking what is truly evil: the double wing. The DW is not a loophole its a smash mouth system. Sounds like you're bitter and have probably been trounced by it before. I'd feel the same way If I had to coach against it instead of running it. it's called humor. try it sometime...
|
|
|
Post by tothehouse on Feb 15, 2009 11:56:56 GMT -6
Might wanna purchase an A-11 DVD and stick it in a time capsule. "Remember this? Yeah, it's kind of like the USFL and the XFL...here for a minute and then gone".
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Feb 15, 2009 12:26:40 GMT -6
Now maybe we can all get back to knocking what is truly evil: the double wing. The DW is not a loophole its a smash mouth system. Sounds like you're bitter and have probably been trounced by it before. I'd feel the same way If I had to coach against it instead of running it. Y'all are Haters! Hating on the DW and now the A-11
|
|
|
Post by unc31 on Feb 15, 2009 13:01:27 GMT -6
The thing that I find strange is that Bryan and Humphries will not just say, okay, we get it. And then get to work on a new innovation. It is kinda like refusing to go to DVD instead of VHS. Maybe certain schools cannot afford $29.00 for a cheap DVD player so they insist on trading film in VHS format and will not just say, okay, I get it. The majority wants to go to DVD, so we will relinquish.
Also, when I went on the A11 website there were only about a dozen schools or less listed who were using the A11. Yet all the material being released makes it sound like hundreds of programs nationawide are rallying to the A11.
Best of luck to Bryan and Humphries on what really was a great innovation under their interpretation of the rules. I mean you can't blame them for trying. Attorneys and politicians make entire careers out of finding loopholes. However, when that loophole is closed they move on which is what Bryan and Humphries should do. Pride cometh before the fall. Guys, if you read this, don't let your pride swallow you up. You are two very intelligent and enterprising men. Move on to the next project and good luck.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 15, 2009 13:12:34 GMT -6
The thing that I find strange is that Bryan and Humphries will not just say, okay, we get it. And then get to work on a new innovation. It is kinda like refusing to go to DVD instead of VHS. Maybe certain schools cannot afford $29.00 for a cheap DVD player so they insist on trading film in VHS format and will not just say, okay, I get it. The majority wants to go to DVD, so we will relinquish. Also, when I went on the A11 website there were only about a dozen schools or less listed who were using the A11. Yet all the material being released makes it sound like hundreds of programs nationawide are rallying to the A11. Best of luck to Bryan and Humphries on what really was a great innovation under their interpretation of the rules. I mean you can't blame them for trying. Attorneys and politicians make entire careers out of finding loopholes. However, when that loophole is closed they move on which is what Bryan and Humphries should do. Pride cometh before the fall. Guys, if you read this, don't let your pride swallow you up. You are two very intelligent and enterprising men. Move on to the next project and good luck. The problem is, THAT IS NOT THEIR JOB. This is what gets me at this point. They are supposed to be the football coaches at Piedmont High School, not think tank employees or salesman.
|
|
|
Post by unc31 on Feb 15, 2009 13:17:52 GMT -6
I agree. I am not arguing that point. I am just trying to say move on without throwing animosity toward them.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 15, 2009 13:26:44 GMT -6
I agree. I am not arguing that point. I am just trying to say move on without throwing animosity toward them. I think at this point, they fully deserve any animosity geared towards them. They brought it on themselves through a consistent pattern of deceit and avoiding forthright questions. They continue on with their current response on their site (dated feb 10) as well as suppressing information as Coach Hensley pointed out. They brought it on by calling those who pointed out the loophole nature of the offense as "close minded". They did it by pumping the sales of their materials, while it was KNOWN to them that the loophole was very likely to be closed. A spade is a spade, and this spade has gone FAR beyond an offense it isn't funny. It is a movement to become a new sport...but they don't want that, as it wouldn't be able to piggy back on all the resources of the current sport.
|
|
|
Post by coachnorm on Feb 15, 2009 13:30:47 GMT -6
To me this has always been about closing a loophole that was suddenly being exploited, not about banning an offense. They can still use the offense, they're just going to have to work within the rules to doit. The weird thing is the originators of the offense instead of saying "we can work within the rules." prove everyone calling it a gimmick right by threatening a new federation of all asinine things. What turned me off from the first with Kurt Bryan was the shameless self promotion. He didn't strike me as an innovator so much as a used car salesman. While looking around for info on the offense the other day I found out that this wasn't his only attempt at shameless self promotion. Check out www.kurtbryan.com
|
|
|
Post by morris on Feb 15, 2009 13:47:04 GMT -6
From his new book
THE DOUBLE MOVE By Kurt A. Bryan
When Kenny Brown is named the new football coach at a prestigious college, he puts together a top-notch coaching staff including Phillip Zanton, a former pro football superstar. However, Kenny doesn't realize that Zanton is having an affair with the powerful but morally bankrupt priest, father Rudy. As the truth about the priest begins to unfold, people start to disappear. After the brutal murder of a friend, Kenny goes to father Rudy for support, unaware that he is the priest's next target
So the ex pro football player is having an affiar with a priest? Ummm not sure what to say about that and someone is making it into a movie.
THE GAME BREAKER By Kurt A. Bryan
In the history of the NCAA, no world-class female athlete has ever received a scholarship to play football. Never that is, until college football coach Kenny Brown gives TJ Woods the opportunity of a lifetime. Unbeknownst to Kenny, however, his dream of making TJ a football heroine and marketing icon clash with the sinister plans of a charismatic billionaire Presidential Candidate - Ferguson Marshall.
When Kenny discovers that Marshall intends to kill him, he realizes that TJ is also at risk. Can the devious Marshall be stopped before he becomes the next President of the United States? Can TJ's career -- and her life be saved? Can Kenny stay alive for the next 24 hours?
A real edge-of-the-seat thriller with an innovative sports twist.
That sound familar?
|
|
|
Post by FlexboneOne on Feb 15, 2009 14:05:48 GMT -6
The thing that I find strange is that Bryan and Humphries will not just say, okay, we get it. And then get to work on a new innovation. It is kinda like refusing to go to DVD instead of VHS. Maybe certain schools cannot afford $29.00 for a cheap DVD player so they insist on trading film in VHS format and will not just say, okay, I get it. The majority wants to go to DVD, so we will relinquish. Also, when I went on the A11 website there were only about a dozen schools or less listed who were using the A11. Yet all the material being released makes it sound like hundreds of programs nationawide are rallying to the A11. Best of luck to Bryan and Humphries on what really was a great innovation under their interpretation of the rules. I mean you can't blame them for trying. Attorneys and politicians make entire careers out of finding loopholes. However, when that loophole is closed they move on which is what Bryan and Humphries should do. Pride cometh before the fall. Guys, if you read this, don't let your pride swallow you up. You are two very intelligent and enterprising men. Move on to the next project and good luck. If people can't see that this whole thing is just a marketing ploy, then I have some oceanfront property in AZ to sell ya too. This whole event is a case of what happens when people let money come between kids and football. Can anyone here actually say that they are there for the kids??!! Hell no they aren't. They are manipulating their website and all other forms of communication in order to squeeze the very last dime out that they can. I'm sorry folks, this just rubs me the wrong way. This kind of thing does nothing but hurt the sport, and they should be ashamed of the shady way they are handling this. They should just come out and admit that their gimmick is dead, and move on. But to continue to preach that "all is well" is just utter BS.
|
|
|
Post by coachhensley on Feb 15, 2009 15:22:05 GMT -6
Guess what guys. I was just banned from the A-11 offense forum for talking about using the A-11 as a 4th down offense ! They are really suppressing information.
|
|
|
Post by coachjoe3 on Feb 15, 2009 18:56:21 GMT -6
Now maybe we can all get back to knocking what is truly evil: the double wing. The DW is not a loophole its a smash mouth system. Sounds like you're bitter and have probably been trounced by it before. I'd feel the same way If I had to coach against it instead of running it. Aw, Huey beat me to it!
|
|
stx
Freshmen Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by stx on Feb 15, 2009 19:08:17 GMT -6
I know this will not get deleted here, but I think the A-11 is simply going to be around, just toned down SLIGHTLY. Why couldn't teams just report player A (jersey #76) and player B (jersey #6) as being eligible and plop them on the ends of both sides of the LOS? It will be called the A-7. Or, give EVERY player an inelgible number but report EVERY player as being eligible. For those that read the ESPN The Magazine article on this offense, that was the idea of one of the Steelers players.
I know they wouldn't be able to play two consecutive downs, but this scheme could still be somewhat alive. Please forgive me if I am off a little off here-I do not really study the NFHS rules and could be completely wrong in my theories:
Yesterday's A-11
...7....5..........3.2.1.........87.......82 .....85..................................84 .....................6....................... .......................9
Today's A-7 (report 76 and 63 as eligible to the officials)
76.....5..........3.55.56.........87........63 ....85.......................................84 .......................6..................... ..........................9
or (report every player-again, you would have to have a platoon method)
76....56..........72..78..79..........59....55 .....58...........................................62 ........................67 ............................69
(Copyright 2009 by stx so scumbag money-mongers cannot reproduce into a crazy marketing ploy)
I can already see the infomercial now, "Call within the next 10 minutes and get a copy of or NEW manual for ONLY 30 EASY payments of $19.99...BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE...not only will we double your order, we'll throw in our new concept- THE DECUPLE OPTION...forget about the oldschool TRIPLE option only using three players, now you can you 10! AN AMAZING OFFER...CALL NOW!"
|
|
|
Post by coachhensley on Feb 15, 2009 19:18:44 GMT -6
I know this will not get deleted here, but I think the A-11 is simply going to be around, just toned down SLIGHTLY. Why couldn't teams just report player A (jersey #76) and player B (jersey #6) as being eligible and plop them on the ends of both sides of the LOS? It will be called the A-7. Or, give EVERY player an inelgible number but report EVERY player as being eligible. For those that read the ESPN The Magazine article on this offense, that was the idea of one of the Steelers players. I know they wouldn't be able to play two consecutive downs, but this scheme could still be somewhat alive. Please forgive me if I am off a little off here-I do not really study the NFHS rules and could be completely wrong in my theories: Yesterday's A-11 ...7....5..........3.2.1.........87.......82 .....85..................................84 .....................6....................... .......................9 Today's A- 7 (report 76 and 63 as eligible to the officials) 76.....5..........3.55.56.........87........63 ....85.......................................84 .......................6..................... ..........................9 or (report every player-again, you would have to have a platoon method) 76....56..........72..78..79..........59....55 .....58...........................................62 ........................67 ............................69 I think the two guys is reasonable, you only have to rotate two guys at a time.... This would probably be a better version of the A-11 since you could go under center and at normal shotgun depth (5 yards).
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Feb 15, 2009 19:21:43 GMT -6
You are completely wrong! No one reports in NFHS.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 15, 2009 19:25:54 GMT -6
I know this will not get deleted here, but I think the A-11 is simply going to be around, just toned down SLIGHTLY. Why couldn't teams just report player A (jersey #76) and player B (jersey #6) as being eligible and plop them on the ends of both sides of the LOS? It will be called the A-7. Or, give EVERY player an inelgible number but report EVERY player as being eligible. For those that read the ESPN The Magazine article on this offense, that was the idea of one of the Steelers players. The reason it was a Steeler's player is that reporting is purely an NFL convention. There is no mechanism for this in the Federation or in NCAA.
|
|
stx
Freshmen Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by stx on Feb 15, 2009 19:27:35 GMT -6
Ah, thankyou...
Glad I added in that disclaimer in paragraph #2.
Does this ruling change that much though, really?
89.....5..........62.55.56.........63........87 ....85.......................................84 .......................6..................... ..........................9
All the ineligible numbers can still get a double reverse, a backward pass, etc...
Its still going to be a screwy offense until they make it mandatory for FIVE players to have ineligible numbers.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Feb 15, 2009 20:46:03 GMT -6
I know this will not get deleted here, but I think the A-11 is simply going to be around, just toned down SLIGHTLY. Why couldn't teams just report player A (jersey #76) and player B (jersey #6) as being eligible and plop them on the ends of both sides of the LOS? It will be called the A-7. Or, give EVERY player an inelgible number but report EVERY player as being eligible. For those that read the ESPN The Magazine article on this offense, that was the idea of one of the Steelers players. I know they wouldn't be able to play two consecutive downs, but this scheme could still be somewhat alive. Please forgive me if I am off a little off here-I do not really study the NFHS rules and could be completely wrong in my theories: Yesterday's A-11 ...7....5..........3.2.1.........87.......82 .....85..................................84 .....................6....................... .......................9 Today's A- 7 (report 76 and 63 as eligible to the officials) 76.....5..........3.55.56.........87........63 ....85.......................................84 .......................6..................... ..........................9 or (report every player-again, you would have to have a platoon method) 76....56..........72..78..79..........59....55 .....58...........................................62 ........................67 ............................69 (Copyright 2009 by stx so scumbag money-mongers cannot reproduce into a crazy marketing ploy) I can already see the infomercial now, "Call within the next 10 minutes and get a copy of or NEW manual for ONLY 30 EASY payments of $19.99...BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE...not only will we double your order, we'll throw in our new concept- THE DECUPLE OPTION...forget about the oldschool TRIPLE option only using three players, now you can you 10! AN AMAZING OFFER...CALL NOW!" Uhhhh...under NFHS rules, any player wearing a jersey numbered 50-79 is automatically ineligible. There is no "reporting in as eligible" in high school ball.
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Feb 15, 2009 20:48:21 GMT -6
Ah, thankyou... Glad I added in that disclaimer in paragraph #2. Does this ruling change that much though, really? 89.....5..........62.55.56.........63........87 ....85.......................................84 .......................6..................... ..........................9 All the ineligible numbers can still get a double reverse, a backward pass, etc... Its still going to be a screwy offense until they make it mandatory for FIVE players to have ineligible numbers. Didn't you forget about the part where it states that only the Center can have the eligible number on 1st,2nd, and 3rd down? In you're diagram u have four lineman numbers...you're other eligible number must be the Center doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Feb 15, 2009 21:01:39 GMT -6
Ah, thankyou... Glad I added in that disclaimer in paragraph #2. Does this ruling change that much though, really? 89.....5..........62.55.56.........63........87 ....85.......................................84 .......................6..................... ..........................9 All the ineligible numbers can still get a double reverse, a backward pass, etc... Its still going to be a screwy offense until they make it mandatory for FIVE players to have ineligible numbers. Yeah...but, with what you are showing here, there are only 6 possible receivers (89, 85, 5, 84, 87, and either 6 or 9). By making the offense have a required number of players who are wearing jersies numbered 50-79 on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Downs, the main advantage of the A-11 has been defeated. Furthermore, as far as players who are wearing jersies numbered 50-79 go, those players always have been able to and will continue to be able to take handoffs on reverses and catch backwards passes. The A-11 had nothing to do with that.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Feb 15, 2009 21:12:42 GMT -6
Looks like one of the "contingencies" is to have coaches who want to use the A-11 lobby their state association to ignore the SKE clarification: From a11offense.com: Coaches;
Over the past several days we have been flooded with emails and phone calls from coaches, players and fans in support of the A-11. Thank you very much, and yes, we are reviewing a mix of plans and options submitted to us. We have it narrowed down to about 4 choices and will go from there.
In about a month, we will put forth a few options for our state and the NFHS to review, and any team, league or section throughout the country can follow our lead, or join our cause.
* In the meantime, other coaches have already let us know they will formally Petition their own State to Allow the A-11 Offense, and/or they will ask their state to not recognize the recent SKF rule change, etc.
Link to find your Own State's Contact Info:
www.nfhs.org/stateassociations.aspx
This is an incredibly fluid period of time in the history of our great game of football, things are changing, some people like it and others don't.
Remember, the sole reason the A-11 was developed was to help undermanned or overmatched teams compete just a little bit better. When we launched the A-11 we had no idea it would take off like this, and with other programs hopping onboard too.
As always, we respect each and every opinion.
KB
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Feb 15, 2009 21:35:31 GMT -6
The sole reason the A-11 was developed to help unmanned overmatched teams? I think that is why Greg Sheperd started BFS in 1976. To give undermanned teams a chance by being stronger and faster. I would love to chat more but I have to go watch Brothers and Sisters with my wife.
|
|
stx
Freshmen Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by stx on Feb 15, 2009 21:57:11 GMT -6
Ah, thankyou... Glad I added in that disclaimer in paragraph #2. Does this ruling change that much though, really? 89.....5..........62.55.56.........63........87 ....85.......................................84 .......................6..................... ..........................9 All the ineligible numbers can still get a double reverse, a backward pass, etc... Its still going to be a screwy offense until they make it mandatory for FIVE players to have ineligible numbers. Didn't you forget about the part where it states that only the Center can have the eligible number on 1st,2nd, and 3rd down? In you're diagram u have four lineman numbers...you're other eligible number must be the Center doesn't it? Hm, I thought it said the center "may" have an eligible number, but he is ineligible. At least that's what the rivals article said. He does not HAVE to have an eligible number does he?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 15, 2009 23:50:44 GMT -6
Hm, I thought it said the center "may" have an eligible number, but he is ineligible. If the snapper is an end, he's eligible. So on downs 1-3 in Fed rules, if the offense uses a swinging gate setup, that would provide for some tackle eligible type plays. If the snapper wears 1-49 or 80-99 and is designated as S below: .......88.79.65.57.53.......................S...82 .....32...........44.........21 ..................................................15 (7+ yds. back) then they could shift 82 off the line and 44 into the line, and S would become an eligible receiver. Robert in the Bronx
|
|
stx
Freshmen Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by stx on Feb 16, 2009 0:25:51 GMT -6
Hm, I thought it said the center "may" have an eligible number, but he is ineligible. If the snapper is an end, he's eligible. So on downs 1-3 in Fed rules, if the offense uses a swinging gate setup, that would provide for some tackle eligible type plays. If the snapper wears 1-49 or 80-99 and is designated as S below: .......88.79.65.57.53.......................S...82 .....32...........44.........21 ..................................................15 (7+ yds. back) then they could shift 82 off the line and 44 into the line, and S would become an eligible receiver. Robert in the Bronx Thank you for that, but my question refers to this setup... 89.....5..........62.55.56.........63........87 ....85.......................................84 .......................6..................... ..........................9 (7+ yards) Can the center have 55 as his jersey number during a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd down scrimmage kick formation? Or, do the two hypothetical guards and two hypothetical tackles have to have the four ineligible numbers? In this setup I just showed, if the center can be one of the four players required to have an ineligible number, once 89 were to shift to a slot and 84 onto the LOS, #5 would be eligible...thus a part of the A11 still exists (in theory). If the center must have an eligible number, then obviously #5 would have to be an ineligible number unless #87 was an ineligible number... then the A11 is totally killed.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 16, 2009 6:36:37 GMT -6
Looks like one of the "contingencies" is to have coaches who want to use the A-11 lobby their state association to ignore the SKE clarification: From a11offense.com: Coaches;
Over the past several days we have been flooded with emails and phone calls from coaches, players and fans in support of the A-11. Thank you very much, and yes, we are reviewing a mix of plans and options submitted to us. We have it narrowed down to about 4 choices and will go from there.
In about a month, we will put forth a few options for our state and the NFHS to review, and any team, league or section throughout the country can follow our lead, or join our cause.
* In the meantime, other coaches have already let us know they will formally Petition their own State to Allow the A-11 Offense, and/or they will ask their state to not recognize the recent SKF rule change, etc.
Link to find your Own State's Contact Info:
www.nfhs.org/stateassociations.aspx
This is an incredibly fluid period of time in the history of our great game of football, things are changing, some people like it and others don't.
Remember, the sole reason the A-11 was developed was to help undermanned or overmatched teams compete just a little bit better. When we launched the A-11 we had no idea it would take off like this, and with other programs hopping onboard too.
As always, we respect each and every opinion.
KB Why "in about a month" The kids should be getting geared up for offseason ball drills and potentially spring ball "in about a month". Why do they need to continually drag on? Why the need to use the term "flooded" when as far as this board (which is probably a good representation of progressive-thinking football coaches country wide) there is absolutely no support? Why the lying, deflected answers, and subterfuge? Petition the state systems to simply ignore the rule change? These guys have truly gone off the deep end, it has become evident that this ENTIRE ORDEAL is becoming all about Kurt and Stan and not about the boys at Piedmont High School . If this was truly about "allowing kids to compete" then the correct course of action would be different! This is about "allowing coaches their fame", and that is disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Feb 16, 2009 7:30:15 GMT -6
Thank you for that, but my question refers to this setup... 89.....5..........62.55.56.........63........87 ....85.......................................84 .......................6..................... ..........................9 (7+ yards) Can the center have 55 as his jersey number during a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd down scrimmage kick formation? Or, do the two hypothetical guards and two hypothetical tackles have to have the four ineligible numbers? In this setup I just showed, if the center can be one of the four players required to have an ineligible number, once 89 were to shift to a slot and 84 onto the LOS, #5 would be eligible...thus a part of the A11 still exists (in theory). If the center must have an eligible number, then obviously #5 would have to be an ineligible number unless #87 was an ineligible number... then the A11 is totally killed. How is that any different than what was allowed pre-A-11? Shifting into and out of unbalanced formations has been a part of football for a long time. That has nothing to do with the A-11.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Feb 16, 2009 7:48:48 GMT -6
Looks like one of the "contingencies" is to have coaches who want to use the A-11 lobby their state association to ignore the SKE clarification: From a11offense.com: Coaches;
Over the past several days we have been flooded with emails and phone calls from coaches, players and fans in support of the A-11. Thank you very much, and yes, we are reviewing a mix of plans and options submitted to us. We have it narrowed down to about 4 choices and will go from there.
In about a month, we will put forth a few options for our state and the NFHS to review, and any team, league or section throughout the country can follow our lead, or join our cause.
* In the meantime, other coaches have already let us know they will formally Petition their own State to Allow the A-11 Offense, and/or they will ask their state to not recognize the recent SKF rule change, etc.
Link to find your Own State's Contact Info:
www.nfhs.org/stateassociations.aspx
This is an incredibly fluid period of time in the history of our great game of football, things are changing, some people like it and others don't.
Remember, the sole reason the A-11 was developed was to help undermanned or overmatched teams compete just a little bit better. When we launched the A-11 we had no idea it would take off like this, and with other programs hopping onboard too.
As always, we respect each and every opinion.
KB I'd love to comment further on what I think about this statement, but I have to go vomit in my mouth now. ;D
|
|