The A-11 Offense

That could be the same thing people said when you started going empty coach. I don't think we should judge this offense until we learn more about it. If I'm not mistaken I think the team running this thing last year made the playoffs, and who knows? we all may have to defend it sooner or later.

HEY BUICE AND BLUE,

I GUESS AS YOU SAY THE PROOF WILL BE IN THE PUDDING. BUT, I HAVE BEEN IN THIS GAME MORE THAN LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE SEEN LOT'S OF SCHEMES FALL BY THE WAYSIDE. WHEN THEY START MAKING EVERYBODY ELGIBLE, WE MAY AS WELL PLAY CANADIAN RULES FOOTBALL. I do not say that, or mean that, in an argumentive way at all. People did say the same thing about my version of the 3 x 2
coach, until we whipped everyone and won a professional championship with it. If it proves to be a winner, then it too will command respect in my book. Just my opinion as always.

Coach Easton-TIGER ONE

I guess its legal because its technically a "scrimmage kick formation." Here's that piece of the article:

Here's how it works: On every play in the A-11, there are two quarterbacks in the backfield at one time, both set up seven yards behind the line of scrimmage. Every man on the field wears a number that potentially makes him an eligible receiver. Potential receivers set up in "pods" at each end of the field. The line, in the base set, consists of two tight ends and a center. Once the ball is snapped, up to six players (including both quarterbacks) become eligible receivers. All of this is legal because technically, according to the rules of high-school football, the Piedmont players are lined up in what is known as a "scrimmage kick" formation (hence, the quarterbacks placed seven yards behind the line, so as to comply with the rules), and therefore, normal eligibility issues do not apply.

PS: TO CALL IT SOUND IS CRAZY.

My understanding is that there are only seven on the line of scrimmage on any given play, it just changes between who the seven are, essentially like an unbalanced formation. What difference does it make how long I've been coaching? The point remains valid that it is a LEGAL offense and to just write it off seems foolish to me. It just seems to me you coaches have been around too long and seen too much change in the game to simply dismiss this thing immediately. I'm not saying we should all install it and spend all of our time practicing defending it, but we better have some kind of game plan in the back of our mind, because who knows when we will see it? And please explain to me what isn't sound about it. Is it really that much different than other formations we have seen, such as the swinging gate?

I know a couple of years ago Florida experimented with sending their tackles out lined up splitting the difference between their two receivers on each side of ther formation, resulting in something that looks very much like the base formation of this A-11 offense. The made their play call based on how the defense reacted running option or bubble screen if the defense left everybody inside and zone or QB iso if the defense spread too thin. Was this a waste of time?

Actually BYU used a formation similar to this back in earlier 1980's and If you read the book Run and Shoot: The Now Attack. Tiger Ellison talks about using a similar formation in the 1960's.

If you look at the schools Max Preps page they actually only scored over 21 points in 3 games. If you look further into there history they actually scored more point with there more traditional spread offense. Here is link to Max Preps

www.maxpreps.com/FanPag..._Fall_07-08/California

As far as it being legal some state in the Federation have already passed rules to outlaw this. North Carolina passed a rule that any team that runs this offense will be given unsportsman like conduct penalty and then if they do it again they throw the head coach out. We will see if other states follow over the winter months.

As far as defending it the biggest thing would be to recognize who is eligible and who isn't. I think bringing one more then they can block is probably a good idea. They do other stuff such as shift to trips and quads. It still comes down to who blocks best wins. I have never seen a QB throw a pass for his back.

Blueadams I think what you have is pretty good. EMLOS is always eligible. There are going to be times when you are basically man to man and have no safety help.



......S...................................B..........................................S.......
C.........C.....................B...L.......L...B...........................C.........C
O...O...O..........................E...C...E...............................O...O...O

.........................................Q........Q


Don't worry fellas when the run and shoot came they had no idea how to defend that till Bob Davie and Texas A&M ran it out of the big 12. Bob Kenig later wrote a book that outlines this defense. Same thing happened with the Wishbone and Notre Dame and there Okie Dog Pinch and backbone defenses gave us ways to defend that. Later Phil Jack Dawson wrote a book that outlined that defense. Just how football goes.

One last fact: UNLESS THE PLAYER WEARING A NON-ELGIBLE NUMBER REPORTS EVERY PLAY TO THE REFEREE AND NOONE ELSE, HE IS INELGIBLE AS A RECEIVER NO MATTER WHERE HE ALIGNS. I'm no longer sure of all the HS level rules, but do know that at our level it is a penelty for illegal participation and loss of down, AS WE OCASSIONALY SEE A TACKLE ELGIBLE , if he doesn't report.

Coach Easton-TIGER ONE

I'm not positive but I think I read that it is legal in the NCAA in situations where a kick is likely to occur. Not sure if that means it is basically only legal on fourth down or is up to the officials' discretion, but I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere.

I know a couple of years ago we had a defensive lineman who we decided to play in the fullback spot a little bit and we had to change him into a 40 number to be eligible. Not 100% sure but I don't think you can become eligible by reporting in high school, I think you need to have the eligible number.

Buice, you are correct. "Scrimmage Kick Formations" are only allowed in the NCAA when "it is obvious that a kick may be attempted." See this part of the article below:

..."At the moment, thanks to the NFL's neo-Fascist rulebook, it would be almost impossible to implement the A-11 on the professional level. But on the college level, there is a loophole -- a rule permits a scrimmage-kick formation if "it is obvious that a kick may be attempted," opening up the A-11 for use on certain situations, such as 4th-and-short or in goal-line sets -- up to, say, 10-12 times per game. Bryan said he expects up to 70 college programs (and up to a couple thousand high schools) to implement some form of the A-11 into their offense this season. Among those who have contacted him was "an extremely well-known coach in Texas," which I'm assuming was either Texas Tech's mad genius, Mike Leach, or Eric Taylor from "Friday Night Lights."

quote:

---

Originally posted by: git

I don't think this is a very sound offense, just that someone is trying to make some good money off of hardworking coaches by exploiting a loophole in the rules. JMO

---

In the words of Rush Probst "DING" things are not what they appear at piedmont. Watch some tape and see there I formation package that looks very conventional.

If you are going to install an unconventional spread offense look at Jerry Easton's 3x2 book. Then just call him on the phone and he will give all the answers you need.

jrkelly,

I respectfully disagree. The whole point of that exception was so a TE or someone who normally wears an elidgible # can long-snap, not so you can avoid long standing rules about who is eligible and play the game with no offensive line.

-Scott

In addition to the long-snapper, the rule exists so coaches can get more speed on the field for punt coverage.

It appears to me that some people get all excited by FAD offenses & defenses with "catchy" names (IE: "A-11" offense; "Radar" defense; etc.)!

The BEST systems are the "no-name" systems (such as the Indy Colts offense; New England Patriots offense; NY Giants offense; Southern Cal's offense; LSU's offense; ETC.). These are Super Bowl winners, & College National Champs, that run the "no-name" system of sound, fundamental football!!!!!

Anyone who wants to learn REAL FOOTBALL would do well to study some of those "no-name" systems!!!!!!!

Coaches,

We just played this offense on Saturday. I didn't change from my base 44 too much as I just wanted to pressure the crap out of them. The defense in and of itself wasn't bad, but we were outmatched by their receivers and by something I had never seen before. So basically by the second half I just sent my best LB on QB kill missions every play. When they stopped rolling to his side I switched him up. They only scored in the second half by our mistakes and nice little dink over the middle. Other than that we held them. We got beat down, because we didn't make the adjustments quick enough but it won't happen again and my kids played great football against something they weren't even prepared for. I think it's kind of a cool looking offense, but you definitely can't run the football out of it if the pressure is coming.

Just my .02