A11-In

And that's all I have to say, about that

My D-11 defense is on the way to combat the A-11.

I'm all for out of the box thinking. BUT.... Don't count your chickens until there hatched or whatever they say. I know the A-11 wont make it to the NCAA or the NFL mainly because the rules wont allow it bottom line. I do think SOME teams will have success with it initially because of its obscure formations but once teams find the best way to align then we will see the truth. I dont know enough about this offense but as far as I know its only been ran by 1 school for 1 year..correct ?

Coach Bryan,
I read the article in AFM and have read many posts here. While I do not think the A11 is more me, I do recognize the trully innovative nature of it. It has certainly got my braining spinning and thinking about how to defend it.
It actually makes me think of rugby w/ a legal forward pass..
Kudos for thinking outside the box and clearly working so hard to develop the concept.

I don't think football will die if it doesn't evolve. Football isn't going anywhere. Basketball hasn't evolved in 30 years (3 point shot - which was a rule change).

That being said, A-11 looks cool. Not for me (unless it proves to be unstoppable).

I also think that it could bring about some rule changes that would eliminate it. But while the rules are in favor of it, go for it.

I don't know how you can say it's the real deal yet when it's only been around for 1 year. If an offense has consistant success over a period of 5-10 years, then yes that can be considered the real deal.

You also mentioned that it's a way for small quick teams to combat size. I've already seen smaller, quick teams blow bigger, stronger teams out of the water using conventional offenses.

I posed this question in an A-11 thread a few months ago but it never got answerd by Coach Bryan. If I have any of this info wrong please let me know because I coule be.

Would you agree that the new conference you're in is weaker that your previous one? Because that makes a huge difference on a teams success. A quick example....Back a few years ago my high school was in an extremely tough division and went 4-6 with a pretty talented group of players. The following year we had the same talent, if not worse but the division was realigned and we ended up going something like 10-1 or 9-2 and won the state championship. We had the same talent and the same offense but because the talent level of the opponents was down, we looked better than what we were.

From the info I have read you had a tough time in the playoffs. Would you say the teams you beat were not that much more skilled than you guys were? This offense is suppose to combat supirior talent but when facing these teams there doesnt seem to be an improvement.

I will say this, the A-11 is a very innovative and interesting football offense. I think it is a huge credit to coach Bryan and his staff for having the guts and the perseverance to install and advocate for such a system. It is truly a well thought-out and well intended system. My hat is genuinely off to those guys for what they are doing.

However, I think there are some interesting arguments here that illustrate why the "A-11" or the "5-wide" styles of football will never be for me. It's not fear, it's not "DUGH...I DUNNO WHAT EYEM DOIN IN DA PASSIN GAME," and it's not laziness. It's purely my philosophy and beliefs in what football is all about.

Now, hear me out on this and try not to get too wound up...

Football is a special sport. I don't think anyone here will argue about that. But, one of the many reasons it's a special sport because of the diversity of the "types" of players that can be involved. Football has always (to me) been a game that is characterized by physical play, the strategies and uniqueness of linemen play, and mental / physical / emotional toughness.

It seems like every time we talk about "innovations" in the game, it's all about how to compete with weaker kids and / or about getting "athletes" on the field. People come out and say stuff like:

1. We can't compete with the bigger schools
2. We can't get the basketball kids to come out and play
3. Our kids are outweighed across the board in every game
4. Our offense is more "fun" for the athletes
5. It is safer and less physically demanding on the kids
etc. etc.

In my mind, fellas (oh crap, here comes the $hitstorm) these are excuses. It's so easy to say "we don't have the players," as an excuse for lack of success. It's also easy to say "we don't have the players" because then, when your innovations work, you look like a coaching genius and are well set-up to take all the credit.

My question is why are coaches not trying to be "innovative" and get your kids tougher and more physically prepared to play the game? Obviously it IS possible because your oppoenents are capable of doing it, or otherwise you wouldn't be so dang outmatched in every game.

I never thought I would see the day that we need to make football more accessible to weaker and smaller kids. There are already sports for weaker and smaller kids. Go to a soccer game and you'll see what I mean. Our sport is for bigger and stronger and tougher kids. In fact, I used to tell our kids about how I felt about the bumper stickers that you see around town that say "Soccer: The Sport For All." I'd tell the kids that it is true that soccer IS the sport for everyone and that's very nice, but WE have pride because WE know that only a special type of athlete can play football.

We talk about how "fun" the sport is when you're throwing the ball and getting into wide, spread-out formations. I wonder who we are talking about when we say this? Certainly fun for the WR's and QB's...no doubt! But, I have yet to talk to any offensive lineman that says he wants to spend all week pass blocking and zone blocking for 2-3 run plays. Offensive linemen think that double teams, pulling, trapping, and power blocking are fun! So, why are we shifting philisophically toward sacrificing the "fun" of these guys (who are the most unique and under-appreciated athletes in all of sports) for the "fun" of the guys who already get to score all the TD's and touch the ball?

"Well coach, we don't get any linemen and TE types out in our program."

Well, I would say that you DEFINITELEY won't get any of those types of guys out now, if your philosophy has shifted toward making these guys a glorified picket fence.

Again, what are you doing to get these types of guys out...to develop them...to make the game fun for them? Someone in the "5-wide" thread argued that coaches won't run that offense because they are "afraid of change" and they "don't know how to coach the passing game." I think the same can be argued for those who simply throw their hands up and say "our program has weak kids!" Well, what are you doing to be creative and innovative to get those kinds of guys out? What are you doing to turn that 205 lb offensive linemen into a 230 lb offensive linemen in the weightroom? What are you doint to motivate FOOTBALL PLAYERS to get out there and play football? THAT'S innovation too, and it is just as possible and it is just as much hard work as any scheme or system.

We went from having 2 seasons in-a-row where we didn't have a single OL that averaged over 200 lbs. One year, our biggest guy was 220, and everyone else was in the 180-lb range. As a team, we didn't fare so well, especially being the lowest-populated school in our league. We stuck to our guns, we emphasized weight room and off-season participation, we rewarded tough, physical play, and we made our "big guys" feel special...and 3 years later, we were one of the biggest teams in our division, with a line averaging over 230 lbs (including several gifted TE's that were basketball-type guys and all between 210 and 230 lbs). We weren't slugs...we were physical, big, and nasty...like football players are supposed to be. Granted, it is a long-range strategy, and it takes time to turn things around, but it is where we want to be.

This is why I always argue for balance in an offensive and defensive philosophy. Everything else becomes a self-fufilling prophecy. But, to me, it's more important to keep football accessible for these special and unique athletes and to maintain the unique football mentality rather than saying "we don't have that, so we're going to move on," for the sake of short-term competitiveness.

Football is a special game because of the types of players the game demands. It requires toughness, discipline, teamwork, and a selfless attitude. I know that's not "fun" for a lot of selfish and weak kids out there. Well, that's too bad. I don't want selfish and weak kids on my teams. I want tough kids who care about winning and will do what it takes to be competitive in the off-season. We try to breed that...burn it into the fabric of what the program is all about... Are we successful every single year? NOPE! But, when we aren't "successful" we are still "competitive" and we have kids having fun.

Anyway, I've rambled quite a bit. I'm not a former Offensive Lineman (I was actually a RB and a DB), but I feel like those kinds of guys (FB's, OL, TE's) are what make our game unique and special. We should always try to have "innovative" ways to get these kids out and develop them into football players, and have a system designed to allow them to contribute and flourish just like anyone else. I don't see basketball trying to change itself to allow for 5'6 kids to play because they "need more athletes", and I don't see soccer coaches trying to develop systems to allow big slow kids to play because "we need more size." Those games aren't designed for kids like that. Just like football isn't designed for kids that aren't tough and strong.

If that's the future of football ("athletes," basketball on grass, QB-dominated, etc.), then so be it, but then it becomes just another game, and not the unique and special game that it has always been.

Lochness pretty much said it all and i'd like to also say that if a team is year in and year out physically outmatched then maybe we as coaches need to be inovative in our off season workout plan rather than our offensive scheme. Because no matter what athletism a player has, he can always be work to be just as strong and game smart as the next guy. You often see in football the average player who works his butt off to compete with the players with the "natural" ability that are lazy.

I also don't buy the "my offense is great because I can compete against the superior teams with my tiny, slow, unathletic players". In all honestly if your players are that bad you won't compete no matter what offense you run. We all know that our offenses are more effective with better players, that's obvious.

This A11 discussion will end once the "kicking formation number non restrictions" rule changes. I am sure the calls to the NFHS will begin soon.

I'm sure somebody was trying to deceive the defense in a similiar way and subsequently the rule was adopted.

I was in no way saying its a bad system I just dont think it will be ran as a system for college teams maybe as a change of pace or "trick" formation. I love the fact that its a differnt offense I am all for that, im a 5 wides guy so i like that kid of stuff. I just want to see it over time.

Just how do you implement this in 7 on 7? The whole point is the shifting, so for it to be effective, you'd need all 11. Not exactly built for 7 on 7