|
A11-In
Apr 2, 2008 10:53:26 GMT -6
Post by kurtbryan on Apr 2, 2008 10:53:26 GMT -6
Quick Kick on 3rd Down....YES, we did that a few times this year and paid huge dividends for us - a real game changer, in fact it was a Key turning point in our 1st A-11 win. In terms of history of the game, where it is going, and some people wanting to change rules to deny thousands of teams the opportunity to use this offense in whole, part or as a package, etc. There are many, many coaches and players that are in favor of this new offense and what it brings to the game ------ so, either all of them are wrong - or maybe they are right? Respectfully, like the 50-year veteran Official said in the AFM article about the A-11 - "it was bound to happen."* Since we took the time to get it approved and went through the entire process nationally and via the state, and then it was well received by coaches, players, fans and Officials, and now we have actual Officials beginning to write articles already posted online and forthcoming IN FAVOR of the A-11 and its innovative aspect. Remember, like somebody else tried to debate this point by referencing the Fumblerooski and Wrong Ball trick. Those are deceptive plays. However, this in an entirely New offensive system of football - in which coaches and officials have already proven it can be taught, learned, understood, executed and most importantly Officiated.Well, might we all learn something from the wonderful, tough history of the game of football and forever respsect it for those qualities and many more. But, simply because some people do not think our style of football is "not real football", humbly, that is not for anybody to judge. The game is fluid in its very nature as a physical sport and its inherently creative and ceaseless change. Thanks and hopefully we can keep this thread well reasoned and seasoned. KB
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 2, 2008 11:50:11 GMT -6
Post by phantom on Apr 2, 2008 11:50:11 GMT -6
Interesting question... did the eligible receiver number restirctions begin because an A11 offense was out there (50-60 years ago)? It wasn't that long ago in the Federation. It happened in the early '70s. Before that the Tackle-eligible pass was fairly common (I caught one once) so I can imagine that there were other creative methods were used. When the number restrictions came in it created a problem on punts. One solution was to use OL covering kicks. The other was to bring either another jersey or a vest to put over the jersey of a more athletic player. To get them on and off quickly they were baggy. That was no problem mostly but a big problem for the long-snapper.
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 2, 2008 14:49:01 GMT -6
Post by silkyice on Apr 2, 2008 14:49:01 GMT -6
If it is whithin the rules, go for it.
But like I said early I think the rule could be changed easily.
Just change the rule that you can only disallow the number restrictions on 4th down or if it is any other down you have to kick or run the ball.
Or make it even more restrictive: disallow the number restrictions and you can only kick or run no matter the down.
Actually, the more I think about, the more I like not even having the scrimmage kick rule or eligible number rule. Just have a rule that states if you do not line up with 5 eligible numbers 50-79, then you cannot pass. It doesn't matter if the QB is 7 yards deep or not.
You can still throw a backward lateral, run, or kick with these rules.
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 2, 2008 14:55:07 GMT -6
Post by silkyice on Apr 2, 2008 14:55:07 GMT -6
Again, please don't think that I am hating on the A-11.
But, it is a little bit like teams that would have the punter throw a fade to the gunners knowing that the defensive team was bumping them the whole way and it would result in a pass interference. I think that they changed the rules on that one.
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 2, 2008 20:10:30 GMT -6
Post by unc31 on Apr 2, 2008 20:10:30 GMT -6
Innovation is a wonderful thing in any endeavor. Coach Bryan I am not trying to bash you by any means so please don't take this wrong....to me the A-11 just sounds like a way to break the intent of the rules of football. There are eliglible numbers for a reason. To me it is a little disrespectful to the rich history and tradition of the game. Take 6 eligible guys and align any way you like, but there are supposed to be 5 ineliglibles. Otherwise it is just Carolina Tag Football ( Everybody is eligible). I know that you have to be in an eliglible alignment, but to me it is just not football if you break the intent of the rules. The rules were pu in place concerning punt team numbers so that punting teams could get faster guys on the field to cover punts rather than linemen.
Are you saying, by the way that the A-11 is NOT DECEPTIVE? I don't get that twist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
A11-In
Apr 2, 2008 20:31:12 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2008 20:31:12 GMT -6
Coach Bryan, I've been following all the A-11 stuff with great interest since I first heard about it because I'm a defensive coordinator and I want to know exactly what could come up. I can expect we could see it early in the season just because. . .
I read somewhere, on this site, maybe on another (remember, I've tried to read every message board, article, etc. on this offense) and you advocate that coaches that want to install this offense should send film, info, etc. to the state associations / or officials so that they can familiarize themselves with it.
Why would that be necessary? If what you do is within the rules (which it is), and if it is not a travesty of the game (as you say) then why should officials take any time to study an offense that, as seems to be the argument, is a natural evolution of the game? I've seen wing-t teams get plays whistled dead because the dive fake was so good that the ref blew it dead. I've seen teams run inside zone and get called for holding yet obviously weren't--just that dominant. I've seen a CB with one hand knock down a pass with his hand and still get called for defensive holding because apparently his other hand (which he didn't have) was holding the receiver's jersey. The list goes on.
So should the refs be sent film each and every week so they can familiarize themselves with one handed DBs, great play fake teams, etc.?
Next, all I did was ask an official in our state what action our state was going to take in the A-11 debate, provided them with some links, etc. and it has stirred a lot of conversation. Personally I don't care if it's legal or not, but when asking the question it really got action.
So I guess what I'm asking is this, and please believe me when I say I'm asking this with all the respect I think you deserve, if this is to be taken as a legitimate and serious part of the game of football, why does it constantly need to be defended, and why would you have to defend it by sending it to officials before they even see it?
I think I partly know the answer, because you don't want to get into a game and have them penalize you every play that you do this because the refs won't look in the rule book to see that it is legal, but isn't it enough before the game when they ask about trick plays to say "we will run our offense from a scrimmage kick formation, we will do this, this, and this."?
Thanks. By the way, I honestly don't care one way or the other whether this stays within the rules or not. I guess I'd like to see it stay for a few years because I think some people who are doing this (and I am NOT INFERRING THAT THIS WOULD BE YOU) would say "the old traditionalist were afraid of this kind of change and scurried to change the rule."
Good luck.
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 2, 2008 20:44:49 GMT -6
Post by spos21ram on Apr 2, 2008 20:44:49 GMT -6
In my opinion I think the A-11 in itself should be an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty because I believe the intent is to deceive. I do not think it's against the rules to line up in it, but the goal is to decieve. I can see rule changes happening in the future. Like others have said, I really could care less if it's legal or not, but this is my opinion on the legality of it.
We all know what the intent of the SKF in the rulebook. It's to help the punt team get athletes on the field for the purpose of defending their punt. But in a way the A-11 is a good thing becuase new ideas like this is how grey areas and loop holes get fixed and changed.
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 2, 2008 21:44:55 GMT -6
Post by kurtbryan on Apr 2, 2008 21:44:55 GMT -6
Coaches, thanks for your opinions - all of them - and the answers to your questions are posted/listed/linked on our web site below so we do not have to eat up CoachHuey valuable space regurgitating the same stuff.
But, the reason we as a staff felt it was worthy to EDUCATE the Officials in our region and in upper NorCal where we also played - was since it was so new - we thought it would be First Rate to have the Opposing Coaches and Officials on the same page.
However, it is worthy to note - that our staff has had over two years to "get comfortable" with the idea of this new offensive system.
And it is perfectly normal for coaches to react:
1. With a total love for the idea 2. With a total hate for the idea 3. A combo of item # 1 and 2...then go either way 4. Curiousity, interest and wanting more info/education 5. Indifference or apathetic Sincerely,
KB
|
|
ramsoc
Junior Member
Posts: 431
|
A11-In
Apr 2, 2008 23:23:36 GMT -6
Post by ramsoc on Apr 2, 2008 23:23:36 GMT -6
Implementing the A-11 for 7 on 7 is simple and is the Best time to get all 6 of your primary WR's massive work, while the OL/TE work on Pass Pro/Blitz, etc. But it does require a tiny bit of modification from a coaches perspective: 1. You need to decide per series or periods of practice during Skelly How many players the Defense will have in the White Box (between the Hashes). Is the Def. going to be in 4-1 or 3-2 Look (5 in the Box), or something else, etc. 2. With all of the delayed Shifting in this offense and last second adjusting, it gives your WR's lots of Reps to ensure everybody is aligning correctly: on/off, trading sides to another part of the field, motioning, etc. 3. From a Defensive POV, obviously it forces them to learn who is or is not eligible on that certain play and/or in a particular formation 4. Our 7 on 7 periods and Half-field sessions are very productive KB I was talking more of tournaments...
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 2, 2008 23:46:52 GMT -6
Post by raiderpirates on Apr 2, 2008 23:46:52 GMT -6
Its greatest impact will probably be on special teams at higher levels. I've seen teams spread out punt formations with three deep set blockers to form a protective wedge on the punt since extra people come through unblocked.
This way almost every return lane is filled and there's plenty of chances to run fakes off rubs or floods.
Teams used it in our league, we lost a scrimmage on the final play from it(off a kickscreen), they had 98 yards to go(our QB actually appeared to have put the ball across the end zone line 2 plays earlier, we got a pretty rough spot).
They took over at the 2 with enough time for one play and the other coach moved the two safeties from past the 50(as I wanted) to one at the LOS and one at normal one cover depth. A missed tackle off a kickscreen by that safety was the difference, otherwise it was good for 18 yards.
Points to make- 1)Their OL were not in stances wide, and league bylaws forbid 2 point stances from the lack of effective stance. Jr coaches were getting tired of having guys play with no drive blocking/3 point ability ingrained to their play. It's much harder to uncoach a bad habit coached into player, so they established stance requirements for other teams to adhere. Since it was preseason I didn't ask the call be done because it provided motivation for tackling drills and we beat that team resoundingly(their first reg.season loss) when we faced them again in regular and post season.
2)Their OL were going out into pass patterns, entirely forbidden unless they used some kind of tackle eligible prior notice. Illegal man downfield, it basically isolates a T in space with nothing to do if the D gaps it correctly. This was not called in games, I mentioned to a friend's team and they got a reset on a play from it to kill a drive and set up their own scoring effort. It put a limitation on some of their plays but they found ways to score without that worry in later games.
3) Other coaches would spread the wrong people out wide(DE and safeties). There's other players to walk out there that can be far more effective. I always prefer DE stay on the passer since they get upfield and contain well. Only one other league coach worked two covers much, he beat us in the title game(we did get into the red zone after swapping leads twice in the last 3 min though).
It's a great change of pace item, a momentum item. Timing when this is used will result in some great opportunities vs. teams not versed in its coverage.
The bread and butter of the series is basically crafted off restraint play looks. This fits in with the physical description of personnel.
The main problem I would have is that the team doesn't rep standard forms, so the defense doesn't get used to standard keys and gaps for recognition. Out of position makes it even tougher for technique to play in. Finding balance for that may be the biggest challenge.
Or, this could enhance creativity, use of other techniques, to force other teams into playing horizontal football to match you. Lots of wrong-arm stuff, lots of players moving in space in ways opponents are not accustomed, stringing their plans out so your guys can play similar styles on both sides of the ball.
The scoreboard's half empty or the scoreboard's half full. Depending on how you see things?
Also, motion of anyone outside of using the slot or backfield can be pretty restrictive. A nitpicking ref crew could jump on their interpretation, or experienced players could key some of those items to time a lot of the plays.
The teams that used it best here actually ran a swinging gate. They put four linemen out wide and with a setback and two wings. They changed the look with a TE alternating on the OL front. We were the only team to consistently stop them, as the league copied the style they avoided its use until trash time arrived.
Have you tried a half-line/unbalanced with this? Basically bring the line down on one side and to the play side keep the T wide? That way you get the Piedmont look on them and still have some familiar half step/slide drills to do for the others. Then you can add the TE close to balance the line or extend it, and using those players for alternates to send in plays you can create some coverage miscues on switching the TE out or playing both at once.
Such a varied array of formation changes can be done. Once the receivers get formation/route tags down it could be amazing to see in action. Do you signal the plays in and go no huddle if the formation stays the same? Like a Malazahn kind of approach?
I always prefer to give a QB two or three plays for use in the huddle, with check downs off that. That way, if things click, we should get anywhere from 20-30 yards a pop off a series of plays. Refs started slowing us down so the other teams could substitute and change formations, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
A11-In
Apr 3, 2008 6:39:04 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2008 6:39:04 GMT -6
Coach Bryan, this is a serious question about the scheme and I'm not a member on the other sites and haven't found this answer. And I'm not being any more critical than I would be when asking someone about their coverage, their blitz, etc.
To me, it seems like you have some guys that really aren't totally involved in the play here and there. You have guys lined up as slots and whatever you would call your receivers who are on the line yet covered up. They are too wide to pick up a player coming tight off the edge but they aren't a threat to catch a pass because they're ineligible. Sometimes I see them trying to kind of scoop in and cut-off backside but it's not always possible. So my question is, do you feel sometimes as if you aren't using all 11 players?
When I first started looking at this I thought, "oh man, there are 11 guys out there and any of them can catch a pass. They'll spread you out and run." But I kind of see places where all 11 are eligible, but you can't use all 11. Defense, by scheme, has to use all 11. Even if your alignment is going to widen me out, I'm counting on where I can spill runs, who has force, etc. Do you feel like there are times that less than 11 guys are involved?
What do you WANT the defense to do against you? It seems to me that you want them to try to come up with some unique scheme to align to you, but I think for myself that I'd rather just play my base D (perhaps widened out a bit) and run our zone dogs. I understand that if I have more in the box than you do then you will probably not run very much, but as I look at it, if I have a 4 man front I can force you to throw every down. How do you handle a zone dog scheme?
Again, I've read a lot about this offense but have to ask the questions here because this is where we are. If you don't want to take up the time and space here could you point me specifically to where you address this or PM me?
P.S. How do you respond to the statement, "all they are doing is running a fake punt every play, most of us would love to know when a fake punt is coming."
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 3, 2008 8:13:45 GMT -6
Post by kurtbryan on Apr 3, 2008 8:13:45 GMT -6
OK IrishBlitzer...I take it you are poking and having fun it terms of not knowing where to look for the answers to your questions...BUT our web site for this offense is listed in my signature and very easy to find on the internet. However: 1. In terms of WHAT Defenses we Want teams to run vs. us. Well, we saw 9 different types of looks in 11 weeks of games - I must admit, in that regard (teams trying to stop our SYSTEM), it was very much like teams trying various ways to stop the Triple Option or the Veer - every DC has "something" he is comfortable with or OK with using for that week's game. 2. Vs. a Four-man DL, it is OK to Pass or Run. In fact, our Run Game vs. a 4-1 Look will be much more enhanced and effective in 2008 thanks in large part to all of the GREAT ideas shared with us this off-season. 3. Using all 11 guys on each Play: YES, every player has a distinct role regardless of whether or not he is Eligible or INeligible on that certain play. The "Covered" players are called ANCHORS because on many plays we want to get the ball Inside them and up the Alley, or Outside them and downhill fast. 4. If you have watched our Video clips online, you will notice our Anchors are KEY players, and because they are operating often from an Already Established Leverage Point from the Outside - In vs. the Defenders in the White Box...it is Far Easier for them To Collapse the On-Rushing DE, so our QB can Roll Out much easier. We call that a HUNT Block, and there are Many examples viewable online and it has proven to be extremely effective. 5. Also, the Anchors Decoy catching a Negative Hitch or Negative Bubble Screen, and in 2008 THEY WILL catch those routes in every game, which will further Stress Out the Defense to Widen Out - which will automatically open up Running Lanes in the White Box (between the Hashes). 6. In terms of how we handle Zone Dogs: Each week is different, but one thing to take note of - it is nearly impossible for a Defense to Double Cover any WR, and we never saw true double coverage One time all year. So each WR is practically on an Island with that particular Defender assigned to his Zone or Man, if you get my drift, etc. * Also, there is another thread on here asking about Bill Walsh's book, etc. And, if you followed Coach Walsh the last couple of years - he humbly acknowledged that his West Coast offense was becoming less and less of a factor in football. And, if you research what he said about it and why - you will discover he understood the Need for Innovation and Change and total revamping of systems in football - even if it was not going to help his wonderful contributions to the game move on in their pure form, etc. Thanks. KB
|
|
draven
Freshmen Member
Posts: 19
|
A11-In
Apr 3, 2008 9:14:52 GMT -6
Post by draven on Apr 3, 2008 9:14:52 GMT -6
I don't see how anyone could call this an unsportsmanlike penalty for trying to deceive the defense. The rule states that this is a scrimmage kick formation. If this penalty is called I'm going to make sure to tell the referrees that no team can run the wing-t (because of the deception aspect), playaction or any trick play for that matter. Until the Federation changes the wording of this rule it is perfectly legal.
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 3, 2008 9:36:50 GMT -6
Post by spos21ram on Apr 3, 2008 9:36:50 GMT -6
I don't see how anyone could call this an unsportsmanlike penalty for trying to deceive the defense. The rule states that this is a scrimmage kick formation. If this penalty is called I'm going to make sure to tell the referrees that no team can run the wing-t (because of the deception aspect), playaction or any trick play for that matter. Until the Federation changes the wording of this rule it is perfectly legal. The wing t doesn't try to decieve until after the ball is snapped, totally different issue. The A-11 is trying to deceive before the snap with trying to confuse who is eligible and who isn't by using eligible numbers.
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 3, 2008 9:57:30 GMT -6
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 3, 2008 9:57:30 GMT -6
I don't see how anyone could call this an unsportsmanlike penalty for trying to deceive the defense. The rule states that this is a scrimmage kick formation. If this penalty is called I'm going to make sure to tell the referrees that no team can run the wing-t (because of the deception aspect), playaction or any trick play for that matter. Until the Federation changes the wording of this rule it is perfectly legal. I don't think anyone here is saying that a penalty should be called, because as you clearly pointed out this is following the letter of the rule. What people are saying is that the Federation/governing bodies should REVISIT their decision, recognize that this is not following the SPIRIT of the scrimmage kick rules, which were designed to facilitate scrimmage kicks, not offense. At some point in time, there was found a need to create "eligible" numbers. If this is still a true statement, then why does the depth of the quarterback matter? This is the fundamental issue. Substance, not form.
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 3, 2008 10:07:26 GMT -6
Post by williamcrehan on Apr 3, 2008 10:07:26 GMT -6
draven,
You said it yourself, "The rule states that this is a scrimmage kick formation." If you kick out of it only 1% of the time, I feel it loses it's "kick formation" meaning.
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 3, 2008 10:37:46 GMT -6
Post by spos21ram on Apr 3, 2008 10:37:46 GMT -6
It's a given that the SKF was not intedended for this. That's why it's called a loop hole in the rules. I'm sure the topic will be revisited by the Federation.
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 3, 2008 10:52:13 GMT -6
Post by kurtbryan on Apr 3, 2008 10:52:13 GMT -6
It is great to debate these issues, but what is being totally ignored by some people on this board are these facts:
1. The A-11 idea was submitted in great detail with ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS ABOUT RULES & INTENT PUT FORTH, see the link on our web site under, "Approval Process"
2. AFTER it was Approved, we EDUCATED the Officials because it was Brand new and wanted Open communication as evidenced by the AFM article and other articles online
3. THEN, after the 2007 season, we have been in the comprehensive Process of gathering DETAILED feedback from coaches, players, fans and Officials who worked or saw our games, etc. And WHAT their exact thoughts were about it
4. Now, 50-year Veteran Officials and Other coaches and Officials interviewed by AFM and other Officiating/Coaching sources have executed their due diligence and interviewed these guys in Depth. And by far the the RESULTS have been EXTREMELY FAVORABLE by those Officials and Coaches in their own words.
5. Please understand those facts as we move forward, and it is fine if some of you want to predict the Feds will outlaw the A-11, but there will be MANY, MANY coaches, players and even Officials, who will stand up for this exciting innovation now and in the future.
Thank you guys, and as Forrest Gump said, "That's all I have to say about that."
KB
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 3, 2008 11:28:05 GMT -6
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 3, 2008 11:28:05 GMT -6
It is great to debate these issues, but what is being totally ignored by some people on this board are these facts: 1. The A-11 idea was submitted in great detail with ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS ABOUT RULES & INTENT PUT FORTH, see the link on our web site under, "Approval Process" 2. AFTER it was Approved, we EDUCATED the Officials because it was Brand new and wanted Open communication as evidenced by the AFM article and other articles online 3. THEN, after the 2007 season, we have been in the comprehensive Process of gathering DETAILED feedback from coaches, players, fans and Officials who worked or saw our games, etc. And WHAT their exact thoughts were about it 4. Now, 50-year Veteran Officials and Other coaches and Officials interviewed by AFM and other Officiating/Coaching sources have executed their due diligence and interviewed these guys in Depth. And by far the the RESULTS have been EXTREMELY FAVORABLE by those Officials and Coaches in their own words. 5. Please understand those facts as we move forward, and it is fine if some of you want to predict the Feds will outlaw the A-11, but there will be MANY, MANY coaches, players and even Officials, who will stand up for this exciting innovation now and in the future. Thank you guys, and as Forrest Gump said, "That's all I have to say about that." KB You are correct...but what is, and has always been totallyignored by you is that YOU were the one submitting all of the info. Should others be the presentors/protestors...well the Federation is simply a central voice of its members. I think you and your staff have been given plenty of accolades regarding your usage of the loophole. People now simply want to see the loophole closed. The only way for it NOT to be closed is to explain this one fundamental question: If the eligible/ineligible number concept is deemed necessary/good for plays in which a player takes a snap from under center...why does the depth of the QB matter. Again, this is a form vs substance argument, and the only question that really matters.
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 3, 2008 11:59:54 GMT -6
Post by kurtbryan on Apr 3, 2008 11:59:54 GMT -6
If the eligible/ineligible number concept is deemed necessary/good for plays in which a player takes a snap from under center...why does the depth of the QB matter. Again, this is a form vs substance argument, and the only question that really matters. [/quote]
I have enjoyed answering all of those questions in great detail on here and on our web site.
And even though we researched a NEW idea based on existing rules, and developed a NEW system of offense under those rules, even though it was totally different...
We understood many people would love it, but some people respectfully would not like it and/or have a hard time with the interpretations outlined, but that is OK too.
Best of luck.
KB
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 3, 2008 12:25:34 GMT -6
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 3, 2008 12:25:34 GMT -6
If the eligible/ineligible number concept is deemed necessary/good for plays in which a player takes a snap from under center...why does the depth of the QB matter. Again, this is a form vs substance argument, and the only question that really matters.
Coach, respectfully, you have NEVER ONCE answered that question. The reason being, there is no answer, and thus the concept of "loophole" is introduced. Again, I think everyone here (mostly intelligent football coaches who care for the sport and its future) agrees the A-11 is completely within the current rules. And many on here have applauded the creativity to mold a structure within those current rules. But that central question : "How does the depth of the quarterback change the need/necessity of the eligible numbers rule" is the central issue. And it has never been addressed.
|
|
|
A11-In
Apr 3, 2008 12:32:15 GMT -6
Post by tog on Apr 3, 2008 12:32:15 GMT -6
It is a loophole and you are exploiting it. I have no problem with that, hell, I teach the OL to exploit the interpretation of holding all the time.
It is a loophole that should be closed in my opinion. Best of luck until/if that happens with it Kurt.
This thread is now locked. Things were going to pick up with the feistyness, I think everyone got their point across about how they feel about it. If you guys have a specific thing to address see some of Kurt's many other threads about the actual x and o's of this scheme.
|
|