|
|
Post by airraider on Dec 20, 2007 20:28:34 GMT -6
Well, coachd, yours is a separate question. I could be wrong but my recollection was airraider was fairly hostile too. I understand the salesman question - yes many of the posts sound more like we are being sold something. That said, I haven't paid for anything yet. So I take the good with the bad. To each his own though. I think you have me pegged wrong. I am no where near hostile about this. Before the video, I really like the idea of what I conceived it to be in my head.. then the video kind of let me down a bit.. I expected it to look something like the diagram included in that first article we saw.. And to me it simply looked like a normal spread offense other than maybe the interior guys not wearing a linemen number.. And I never said anything negative about the concept other than I had hoped it would be a little more wide open as I was thinking.. and that it really only seemed to have a potential to give man teams a bit of trouble.. sorry you made a mistake about what I was trying to say. |
|
|
|
Post by kurtbryan on Dec 20, 2007 20:42:51 GMT -6
Relax Airraider and others with questions.
IF I was too worried about what other coaches thought I/We/My Staff and I would have never launched the A-11 offense.
However, the Video Clips DO NOT show our offense in PRE-Snap alignment before they actually shift in which they are NEAR but not on the L.O.S. ...so it does put a lot of stress on the Defense cause up to the last few seconds prior to the snap, they are unsure of who is going to be Eligible on that given play.
Hope that helps.
KB
|
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Dec 20, 2007 20:56:40 GMT -6
Relax Airraider and others with questions. IF I was too worried about what other coaches thought I/We/My Staff and I would have never launched the A-11 offense. However, the Video Clips DO NOT show our offense in PRE-Snap alignment before they actually shift in which they are NEAR but not on the L.O.S. ...so it does put a lot of stress on the Defense cause up to the last few seconds prior to the snap, they are unsure of who is going to be Eligible on that given play. Hope that helps. KB Im not criticizing the idea in general.. just I do not really understand how it ulitimately stresses a zone defense.. Man, yes I can see.. Im not talking down.. Im asking.. how does it stress a zone team? The end guys on the line and the guys in the backfield.. their eligible.. I know that.. presnap.. I know the threats.. so teach me how it stresses the defense.. I would not come on here calling you out on the concept for it being crazy.. I am the one who posted the video of the QB going in motion from the slot.. I built he crazy road!!  |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 20, 2007 20:58:21 GMT -6
I think you have me pegged wrong. I am no where near hostile about this. Before the video, I really like the idea of what I conceived it to be in my head.. then the video kind of let me down a bit.. I expected it to look something like the diagram included in that first article we saw.. And to me it simply looked like a normal spread offense other than maybe the interior guys not wearing a linemen number.. And I never said anything negative about the concept other than I had hoped it would be a little more wide open as I was thinking.. and that it really only seemed to have a potential to give man teams a bit of trouble.. sorry you made a mistake about what I was trying to say. Sorry I must have just been on edge with a pile of work and misconstrued what you meant. I probably also got you confused with someone else (and I really apologize about that) based on vague recollections of the original thread. If I wanted to say anything I should have reread the original thread. I respect your thoughts on this stuff, including your other posts, and I do agree that watching the video was not exactly shocking or awe inspiring. So I definitely offer my apologies. I shouldn't have directed all that specific to you, as vague as most of it was. |
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Dec 20, 2007 21:43:29 GMT -6
I think you have me pegged wrong. I am no where near hostile about this. Before the video, I really like the idea of what I conceived it to be in my head.. then the video kind of let me down a bit.. I expected it to look something like the diagram included in that first article we saw.. And to me it simply looked like a normal spread offense other than maybe the interior guys not wearing a linemen number.. And I never said anything negative about the concept other than I had hoped it would be a little more wide open as I was thinking.. and that it really only seemed to have a potential to give man teams a bit of trouble.. sorry you made a mistake about what I was trying to say. Sorry I must have just been on edge with a pile of work and misconstrued what you meant. I probably also got you confused with someone else (and I really apologize about that) based on vague recollections of the original thread. If I wanted to say anything I should have reread the original thread. I respect your thoughts on this stuff, including your other posts, and I do agree that watching the video was not exactly shocking or awe inspiring. So I definitely offer my apologies. I shouldn't have directed all that specific to you, as vague as most of it was. Not a problem at all.. I LOVE this kind of stuff.. I just was hoping that what I had originally fell in love with.. (the thought) was what it really was.. maybe I can build upon his idea and grow it into what I actually was picturing it to be.. |
|
billyn
Sophomore Member
Posts: 231
|
Post by billyn on Dec 20, 2007 22:51:23 GMT -6
Here is why I predict a rule change. At one time there was no rule against breaking the huddle with 12 men. At one time there was no rule regarding offensive players having to be inside the #'s after the ready for play signal. At one time the hidden ball play was legal. The rule for the fumblerooskie has been changed also. Why were these rules changed, because they involved deceptions that went beyond normal game play. What is the purpose of having all 11 players with eligible numbers. Obviously, it is to deceive the defense regarding who is and who is not an eligible receiver. This flirts with an ethical line in how the game is played.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Dec 20, 2007 22:57:34 GMT -6
Here is why I predict a rule change. At one time there was no rule against breaking the huddle with 12 men. At one time there was no rule regarding offensive players having to be inside the #'s after the ready for play signal. At one time the hidden ball play was legal. The rule for the fumblerooskie has been changed also. Why were these rules changed, because they involved deceptions that went beyond normal game play. What is the purpose of having all 11 players with eligible numbers. Obviously, it is to deceive the defense regarding who is and who is not an eligible receiver. This flirts with an ethical line in how the game is played. He brings up good points. But, I say this: If it is legal - now - then do what you feel you need to do to win games. But, I doubt this would fly according to NCAA rules and if so, like the poster mentioned, it wouldn't last long as the whole rule about "kick formation" is to protect the snapper and allow a team to put 'athletes' (read defensive players - where numbers don't matter) on the punt team. Now, to be clear, I'm not dog-piling Coach Bryant here. I think they did the right thing by checking with their state's governing body and making sure what they were planning was within the rules. It is legal there, so I say "why not?". Heck, I ran the no-huddle when you didn't have to report inside the 9 yd mark ... and believe me, we used this to our advantage. |
|
billyn
Sophomore Member
Posts: 231
|
Post by billyn on Dec 20, 2007 23:15:11 GMT -6
One thing I forgot to add is that there is too much potential for abuse of the eligible receiver rule. It would be easy to see how officials would have a hard time identifying illegal men downfield. One other problem I see is that this unlike the spread offense has too much potential to radically alter the nature of the game of football. It has the potential to change the game maybe too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Dec 20, 2007 23:48:25 GMT -6
One thing I forgot to add is that there is too much potential for abuse of the eligible receiver rule. It would be easy to see how officials would have a hard time identifying illegal men downfield. One other problem I see is that this unlike the spread offense has too much potential to radically alter the nature of the game of football. It has the potential to change the game maybe too much. I believe this was also said about the forward pass. I see your point and there probably will be a rule change...eventually, but until then I wont play the 'what if' game and will look at this scheme as I do any other scheme... look, learn, and adapt to it |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 21, 2007 7:58:44 GMT -6
I believe this was also said about the forward pass. I see your point and there probably will be a rule change...eventually, but until then I wont play the 'what if' game and will look at this scheme as I do any other scheme... look, learn, and adapt to it Well, I do understand his point though. If you're going to radically alter the fundamental nature of what "football" is, then you'd like to do it more directly (i.e. legalizing the forward pass) than through a loophole in the scrimmage kick formation. The forward pass was legalized to change the game because they got legislative scrutiny from the game being too brutal. But, if taken to its extreme, this could be pretty wild. Now, I agree though Kurt should do what he does until he can't, and continue to get good with it. But I see Billy's point. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 21, 2007 8:18:15 GMT -6
How much adjusting is done, in terms of covered-now uncovered (eligible/non-eligible) in the course of a series? I was assuming it would be you have 8 or so different guys trained to do the same concepts depending on who was the 1,2,3, & 4th receiver to a side.....and the pre-snap shift would determine who would be who....determining which defender would be obsolesced.... something like this;
--X----F-----L------A----C----B-----Z-----H-----Z------Y---
---------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------Q-----------------------------------
then
------F------------------C----B-----Z-----H-----Z------Y---
--X---------L-----A----------------------------------------------
--------------------------Q-----------------------------------
to this;
-------F-----L------A----C---------Z-----------Z-------Y-----
--X------------------------------B----------H----------------
--------------------------Q-----------------------------------
The video (and maybe there is more) doesn't accentuate those possibilities (to me). I think were some people struggle with here is trying to see the application of this concept as more than a "full-time swinging gate" and more as an offense. The entire thrust of the A-11 (IMO) would be to allow a variety of vertical threats along the horizontal width of the field....you are no longer limited by players "in-the-box". You can, by design, spread the entire defense horizontally, then with a formation adjustment (on and off the LOS) shut an entire side off and 'turn on' the other side versus isolated defenders. I WILL say this.....hats off to Coach Bryann and staff for having the balls to try this. Even more so for the results they got (the bottom line). Nothing wrong with thinking outside the box. |
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Dec 21, 2007 9:33:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by kurtbryan on Dec 21, 2007 11:38:07 GMT -6
Coaches:
To Billyn:
Regarding the legality and/or deception rule: WE ALREADY went through that entire scrutiny BEFORE last season and passed with flying colors via the NFHS and CIF, so NO it is not to deceive the Defense, it is just to Spread the Defense Out to try and Somewhat negate most of the team's we play overwhelming size advantage over Piedmont, etc. And, remember we have 11 games of direct feedback from coaches, players and officials indeed.
Can somebody else please (if they want to) go ahead and Piggyback with Billyn and any others that want to spend their time laboring to change rules against the A-11 offense - to go and start another thread on this site?
Please...cause I am weary of wasting time about it. Remember, humbly and respectfully, my staff and I are not only communicating with many coaches nationwide on this site, but are in full communication trading films and/or schemes with a bevy of coaches via other mediums and are having much fun working with them.
So...to answer Brophy's questions:
YES, what you presented is along the lines of what we do very much indeed. In fact, when Tog returns from X-mas break, he is going to post another 1/2 of a game film which will be even Clearer and more detailed.
Airraider question about why it would stress a Zone D:
1. Possible vertical threats and who the reads might be
2. Shifting and motion changes the reads for DB's
3. Even though a player might be Ineligible to go downfield to catch a pass on a given play, he is still OK to catch a Lateral behind the L.O.S. - something we did not do in 2007 but will perfect in 2008 to more fully maximize even more WR's. To be succint...when one of the two Backs in the backfield is 7 yards deep, you can have the other Back Staggered up short, let us say 3 yards deep, short snap to him and wing a Negative hitch out to the flank, etc. and off you go.
Earlier, one of the coaches mentioned he thought maybe we could spread the field even more. OK, but we also do not usually want our # 1 receivers to each side wider than the bottom of the numbers because we do not want to give the defense a 12th man - the boundary to use.
* Also, he said it looked like many broken plays - Nope, several delay draws and other looks, but a handful of plays did get busted - stuff happens.
Appreciate the dialogue...
KB
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Dec 21, 2007 11:43:12 GMT -6
i totally understand about broken plays happening
it probably just looks like a "broken play" to some as it is so different
do you do any check with me stuff out there? changing the play into a run based on numbers around what is left of the box?
|
|
|
|
Post by kurtbryan on Dec 21, 2007 11:46:46 GMT -6
Check with me stuff:
Yes, we do have a small package of CWM for example:
1. From our Base Set we have three choices the # 1 QB can select from:
a. Option either way
b. Quick Screen mirrored to each side
c. Qb Draw or Lead depending upon Down & Distance
Gotta run for now.
KB
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Dec 21, 2007 14:14:21 GMT -6
too many people are taking the Amry Poppin's approach here and panicing over soem kid not putting his taupins in the bank. I think as coaches we are always looking for an advantage and if your not then maybe you should be. Kurt did his due diligence and got it cleared by NFHS and CIF so more power to them. As to the spirit of the rules/game its not my place to say...we have heard that same argument about walking on the the grass. In the future there will probably be rule changes and such, but until then let him do what is needed (in his mind) to compete.... as Huey stated earlier, if every team ran the perfect offense & defense then the best teams would only be .500
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 21, 2007 17:02:37 GMT -6
I would disagree saintrad. I don't think anyone here is saying that the A-11 is illegal by federation rules. Obviously it is legal, as KB has pointed out so many times, and they went through a great deal of investigating to make sure it would be legal. HOWEVER, I DO think it is our place AS COACHES..the caretakers of the game, to discuss if certain things are within the spirit of the rules of the game. If not us, then who?
I see nothing wrong with EITHER side of this....be it those coaches using loopholes in the rules, or coaches calling attention and crying foul.
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Dec 21, 2007 17:18:15 GMT -6
And that is all I look for in this debate as well 5085. I never said anywhere that it wasn't legal or such and all I care is that we debate this honestly rather than playing the sales angle or whatever. I have a lot of respect for spreadattack, you, brophy, the mods and such. But, I do wish people would look at this for what it is (as most of us appear to be doing), understand it for what it is (most of us are trying to do that) and not jump to the holy bastion of thinking that this is the 2nd coming or something. I find coach Bryan's ingenuity for developing this as an excellent job of understanding the game and trying to find and advantage. I personally wont be using this because of our personnel we have here, the political climate we have hear, and for some of the same reasons others have stated. Yes, I do see possible rules changes in the future because of this loophole and that is fine, but I really don't see this scheme showing its face in NE Arizona anytime soon so I am willing to wait it out, see what happens, and see what is done to counter it. As spread said earlier in this thread ( and I whole-heartedly agree with) when I have to face this offense then I can test my theories out and see how the battlefield decides who the victor is.
Chris, I have to say that you have some of the most original insights into this game... thanks for sharing with us.
|
|
|
|
Post by kurtbryan on Dec 21, 2007 17:47:02 GMT -6
When running the Inside Trap or Wider Trey/Gap to offer a Countering Effect off of the Zone Read/Option, what have you guys had the most damaging success with?
1. Pulling such as on quick trap in the A Gaps...Guard Down, Center Down and Backside Guard Pull to Kick Out the # 3 tech?
Or...
2. Block Everybody down and either Trey or Gap it?
Would really like to know the details of why such and such has been better for you?
Kurt
|
|
|
|
Post by coachfrisco on Dec 22, 2007 11:13:30 GMT -6
One thing I forgot to add is that there is too much potential for abuse of the eligible receiver rule. It would be easy to see how officials would have a hard time identifying illegal men downfield. One other problem I see is that this unlike the spread offense has too much potential to radically alter the nature of the game of football. It has the potential to change the game maybe too much. Wow. Something amazing to consider. That the game of football can't handle innovation. That it would be best of football remained the same. Would everyone continue to watch football if every game looked like the Minnesota Vikings Chicago Bears Monday Night bore-a-thon. Can anyone differentiate the style of football played by all the NFL teams other than the Patriots & Colts? When the game quits evolving it will die. Whether we like it or not, we are in an era of innovation in the game of football. Spread option, Florida offense, Texas Tech offense, Rutgers 2 pod spread punt, 49ers A-11 formation punt vs Carolina, De La Salle's 4-1-2 spread punt in the NCS Championship Game. . . .the list goes on. This is what football needs to keep evolving as the greatest game. All the innovation should be embraced. The guys doing all this innovation have the balls to try it, in the face of "traditionalists" who want to limit change in the game. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 22, 2007 11:27:27 GMT -6
It isn't that it can't handle innovation. But I think that as you can clearly see in the video and from the discussions that the A-11 using the scrimmage kick loophole will result in essentially FLAG FOOTBALL type play, with tackling. It isn't a knock on the scheme, it is the truth about the scheme.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachfrisco on Dec 22, 2007 12:04:36 GMT -6
Regarding my last post, I am a real fan of entertaining football. I saw Piedmont play and loved their A-11 offense. They are one small school trying something different, in one small area of the country and people who have never seen it are calling for it to be banned. . .that would be a shame.
I coach in the San Francisco Bay Area and first learned about this two quarterback A-11 offense from an article in a local newspaper at the beginning of the season. I was intrigued and followed it all year. They got beat the first two games, then won 7 in a row to make the play-offs. They got a ton of positive press and every Friday night I looked forward to seeing their highlights on our local High School Sports Focus program. One of my friends refereed one of their games and he told me how cool it was that Piedmont was trying something different and that it was one of his most enjoyable games to referee this season. I had an opportunity to see one of their home games later in the season and it looked confusing to me at first (the defense looked confused too). But as the game went along you could see how they were spreading the defense into 3 zones and shifting to create mismatches. One thing that impressed me seeing it in person, was how they used a deadly draw to limit the defensive pressure. Their QB was also able to sprint out much easier than I expected, and one of the covered receivers on the right side delivered a devastating crack back to a defender chasing him. It was great to see and I hope they do not ban it. Our staff is looking forward to learning more about how the A-11 works at the NorCal coaching clinic.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachfrisco on Dec 22, 2007 12:10:11 GMT -6
What do you mean by FLAG FOOTBALL type of play? I saw it live and it definitely looked like real football to me. It did not look like flag football.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 22, 2007 12:20:53 GMT -6
Regarding my last post, I am a real fan of entertaining football. I saw Piedmont play and loved their A-11 offense. They are one small school trying something different, in one small area of the country and people who have never seen it are calling for it to be banned. . .that would be a shame. Why? They are clearly using a loop hole in the rules. The rule was intended for the kicking game. Are they cheating? NO. They made sure it was legal, just like any good coach would. Should the loophole be closed? In my opinion, YES. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 22, 2007 12:30:43 GMT -6
What do you mean by FLAG FOOTBALL type of play? I saw it live and it definitely looked like real football to me. It did not look like flag football. By flag football, i mean just that. That all 11 players are skill players, and that in the span of a 1 second shift, any of 9 different players are eligible for a pass. Go watch a game of "real" flag football (like the national flag championships and such) and compare that to the a-11. Bottom line, the rule is a SCRIMMAGE KICK RULE for a reason. Kudos to coach bryan and his staff for figuring out a way to use it to their advantage, but like tax loopholes, and any other loophole, just because it currently is within the rules, doesn't mean that it should continue to be such. |
|
|
|
Post by kkennedy on Dec 22, 2007 12:32:54 GMT -6
It isn't that it can't handle innovation. But I think that as you can clearly see in the video and from the discussions that the A-11 using the scrimmage kick loophole will result in essentially FLAG FOOTBALL type play, with tackling. It isn't a knock on the scheme, it is the truth about the scheme. You don't like it don't use it, and make sure you beat it everytime you face it. We know you don't like it you have made that abundantly clear can we let the horse R.I.P. It has been beaten to the bone. |
|
|
|
Post by coachfrisco on Dec 22, 2007 12:33:27 GMT -6
Its clearly within the rules to run a scrimmage kick formation on any down in the high school football rulebook. That is what differentiates "high school football" from "college football" from "pro football". Its not a loophole, its within the rules. Even if they were to change the "rule" to college football rules, the A-11 can still be run on 3rd & 4th down. . .so it doesn't look like it is going away. I was watching the 49ers game 2 weeks ago and they lined up in the A-11 base formation. Carolina was so spread out, the Niners could have had run a play for a first down. . . I wish they had, it would have added EXCITEMENT to the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 22, 2007 12:44:40 GMT -6
Its clearly within the rules to run a scrimmage kick formation on any down in the high school football rulebook. That is what differentiates "high school football" from "college football" from "pro football". Its not a loophole, its within the rules. BY DEFINITION, the scrimmage kick formation substitution rule is for SCRIMMAGE KICKS. So then, using the substitution rule for things other than scrimmage kicks are, again, by definition, LOOPHOLES. Why does everyone get their panties all in a twirl over this fact. As was pointed out in this thread, Breaking the huddle with 12 used to be legal, fumblerooskie was once legal, not having to report within the numbers was legal..the "wrong ball play" ... etc etc. There is NOTHING wrong with saying that something that is within the rules now, should not be fixed KKennedy--it isn't simply about not liking it, or beating it. It is about keeping the spirit of the rules, as well as keeping a certain demographic of kids playing (if you play against the A-11, chances are you arent going to be playing many, if any of your DL. |
|
|
|
Post by kkennedy on Dec 22, 2007 12:57:00 GMT -6
Yeah and if you play a spread team you use less linebackers and more DB's Play a wishbone team and you play less Db's and more linebackers. You might not agree that it is within the spirit of the rules BUT the people that actually get to decide that in his state decided that it was. Therefore it exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by longtigercat on Dec 22, 2007 12:57:34 GMT -6
The controveresy and emotion is interesting. My take ... It's a fascinating concept. Whether it's truly innovative or not, it engages your own thought and innovative nature. As others experiment with the initial concept, I could see something with more of an identity developing. Kurt admits that this is the first year he has even been in a spread type of attack. As someone who has been running a single back for 15+ years, and the gun as a base for 5+ years, I would be taking my experience and applying it to this concept. I'm not ready to completely change from what I feel has been a successful offensive strategy, but am intrigued with the package. I would need to know, or develop myself, the set of reads and keys that I would be looking for - my answer sheet. It sounds as though Kurt hasn't had a chance to devleop this yet after one season. It's great to think that any receiver can be eligible but the QB has to be able to "see" it. For me it's like the passing tree/numbering system. As a coach with a numbering system, I understantd that you can sit on the sideline and change the pattern by changing the number in order to exploit a defense, but IMO it's too confusing for the QB on the field. We teach concepts in the passing game, not numbers. The same applies to the run game. We have a set of "guidelines" we look for and then answer accordingly. I will say too that we are used to seeing everything and don't truly gameplan or script in a traditional sense like we used to, since we never know what we will see that week. When we first started, it was difficult to adjust quickly - we felt like idiots sometimes for not "seeing" things we could've exploited. But most of what we are successful at is due to gametime adjustments. Kurt, could you explain any of the basics in the offense - maybe just a piece of it - some sort of read or key you have found that is helpful. Or, divulge what your core passing game might be or the base run plays. I will also say that there's a hidden investment in the concept - you have to buy a whole new set of jerseys to account for all the eligible #'s  |
|
