ESPN Magazine A-11 Article
 

This weeks ESPN Magazine has an article calling the A-11 an Offensive revolution.

Here is the link:
An offensive revolution is coming to the NFL. Can anyone stop it? - ESPN The Magazine

I saw that it was in there and had a photo of our favorite coach. I haven't read the article yet, though.

The article is somewhat misleading. It makes it sound like the innovation is that all 11 players can go downfield. It doesn't mention that after the pre-snap shifts, the same number of players can do downfield (5) It will just be hard to determine who those 5 eligible receivers are until the last second. It wouldn't surprise me to see some related innovation in the NFL but this will not happen. I'd be surprised if the high school rules are corrected to close this loophole to what it was intended for - SCRIMMAGE KICKS!

There is a reason we do not look to sports writers to understand basic rules. ;)

Peace

I hope every NFHS official sends a note to the national body expressing your opinion of this and of what the NFHS should do. Give them sample language if you wish. Once again, it is left to the officials to protect the integrity of the game.

I read this article a few days ago and saw it as an example of coaching ingenuity but "Offensive Revolution".....Not. Hey, I get it, if I was the coach of, what appears to be, a lilly white (and I am white), undersized, man handled HS football team that was taken to the wood shed just about every game I would be searching for some way to neutralize my opponents as well especially since I lacked the ability to go head to head with them and be successful. The scrimmage kick formation or any variant of it as a base offense in college or the NFL will never happen and it should be stopped at the HS level. Players play football and people watch football in person or on TV because its a battle not a track meet or a magic show. I grew up in Baltimore and still live in the area. I am obviously a Ravens fan and I don't think we scored a touch down in the 12 years prior to this year, lol. Hell we won a Super Bowl with a defense, a kicker and an offense who's sole purpose was to give the defense time to rest. You can't swing dead cat around here without hitting something purple with Ravens on it, proof enough thats its not all about scoring, offense and trickery unless you have 40 players under 5'10" and 160lbs.

Cue Kurt in 4....3....2.....1.....

~Sigh~
 

I think I am going to vomit.

Has Kurt finished his 15 minutes of fame yet?

What a foolish article. It mentions that the A-11 is not legal in the NFL and probably never will be. Why give it such prominence in the article. I also question the numbers that "hundreds" of high schools are using it. It mentions the inovation of having 2 QBs. Where the heck has this guy been? The Dolphins used 2 QBs back in the 70's. I can't remember his name but they had a receiver who had been a QB in college and used to run an option with him throwing the ball. My take on this is that sales are low and Kurt is trying to make a few bucks for Christmass so he managed to work his con game on a writer for ESPN.

Pretty sure you mean:

I'd be surprised if the high school rules are NOT corrected to close this loophole

Jim Jensen? Was a QB at Boston U? Played for the Dolphins from 1981-1992 and threw exactly 7 passes in his NFL career.

Of course, the "other" quarterback for all but two of those years was that Marino guy.

That's the guy! Thanks. Naturally they didn't have to go to it often with all of their other weapons. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't a new concept.

TimC and Overandback you guys seem to know these coaches or perhaps officiated their games. Whats your feedback on the article & the A-11?

Hmmm,
 

I have never officiated a real football game in my life.

I have, however, read all of Kurt's drivel, watched two Oregon teams play the offense and watched films of other teams.

I also have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

Kurt is simply mining a loop hole in the rules that we hope will soon be closed.

Regards,

Haven't read the article yet.

Haven't seen the A-11 in Arizona, but we were briefed on it in the preseason and I heard there were maybe a couple of schools using it.

My only opinion on the coach in question is that he sure seems to stir up more indignation in this forum than I can personally muster, but that's fine. He found a new method of doing things, and that's fine, too.

I don't think the A11 is a travesty or makes a mockery of the game. It's an innovation, like the single wing was and the t-formation was and the shotgun was and trips and the h-back and any number of other things that have happened since Walter Camp. No more, no less.

It does seem to go against the spirit of the rule which is being exploited, but we have a process for that. In the history of this game, rules have been made, people have found ways around them, and the rulesmakers adjust. 'Twas ever thus.

Do these two statements contradict each other?

“An offensive revolution is coming to the NFL. Can anyone stop it?”

“The A-11 isn't close to legal in the NFL, and probably never will be.”

False advertising in the article header.

One of the guys I worked a basketball game earlier this month said he ran into the A-11 here in Nebraska, in a freshman game. He ended up having the same school in the playoffs, and asked the varsity head coach if he uses any of the A-11 stuff, and the coach looked at him like he was crazy. Apparently, the freshman coaches at that school slipped some of that stuff in without letting the varsity coach know. What a riot.

They dont need it in the NFL, because they can report in in/eligible number variations.

If they wanted something like it, they wouldn't use such a Rube Goldbergish means as a scrimmage kick formation numbering exception, they would simply abolish or alter the eligible receiver numbering rule they adopted decades ago. And I could see them doing that, because at the time they adopted the rule they picked up most of their rule chages from the colleges, while nowadays rules changes are as likely to come down from the pros into the colleges as vice versa.

As to the semi-prediction made by the article regarding roughing the passer, if the NFL did that it would probably wind up making the avg. offense more conservative than now. That's because if they adopted the kind of strict liability that exists now re contacting the kicker, they would surely have to adopt a similar caveat that it would not apply if the passer left "usual passing position". Which means that rather than passing up that additional protection for their expensive passers, teams would station them in "passing position" permanently.

Robert

"Normally used for punts, the rule stated that as long as the player receiving the snap was seven yards behind center, any teammate wearing the jersey of an eligible receiver (between Nos. 1 and 49 or 80 and 89) was permitted to go downfield."

:confused::confused::confused:

The writer in the article suggested that Bill Walsh created an offense that took advantage of a rule. All Bill Walsh did was create an offense that allowed players to do things they did not traditionally do. Actually they were running similar offenses with John Unitas in the 50s and 60s, Walsh just had success with the concept and created more plays with a specific concept. He did not take advantage of a rule to run that offense. And the article was a little misleading by suggesting that all players could go out for a pass. That is also not true; only 5 players can go out for a pass. There are just 11 eligible numbers but most are illegal by position. This was never stated clearly in the article.

You have to read the entire thing, not pull out one or two lines. ;)

Peace

It's a shame that most fans and stupid sportswriters forget that the very integral portion of this game is strategy of maneuvering all body types and skills on your side of the ball forward, not just a few. The game was not meant to be a track meet. The game includes having to out maneuver big, strong, slow guys weighing 300+ pounds who have bricks for hands, who may have superior feet, making others maneuver around them at a risk. (I added the superior feet so everyone knows I’m talking about players, not umpires). Lets get to the point: A-11 is just flag football without the flags.<O:p</O:p

Yeah, they got that one wrong.

So the NFL want's more offense?

Wait a sec, there was a league that had a ton of scoring and different rule changes geared towards offensive scoring... Oh yeah! the Arena Football league. Let's watch some of their games... oh wait...

See, I guess people want to watch real football (NFL) instead of basketball with an oddly shaped ball (AFL / A-11FL)

"But bossman, my offense would give the Lions a FIGHTING CHANCE against these other teams!"

What that means is, he took advantage of all the rules!

You gotta admit...Arenaball was a lot of fun. I'm not a snob, myself, so it doesn't have to be [pretentious quote]"Real"[/pretentious quote] for me to enjoy it for what it is. Or was. It did last 22 years and did get a lot of people to watch. Not nearly as much as the NFL, but then, it's not an either/or situation, is it?

Sure, the NFL is the most popular football league, but it's not the only one. And I don't think the AFL had an oddly-shaped ball, did it? It looked different, but I'm not sure it was oddly-shaped. May have been a tiny bit thinner for passing, don't know for sure.

You might be right, but the AFL is taking a year off. The XFL could not last more than 1 year. The Euro League is not defunct. And the USFL could not last and tried to sue the NFL to maintain. The NFL must be doing something right. People might complain that there is not enough scoring, but all those leagues had gimmicks associated with their games to them a no one seems to be watching. Even the CFL tried to work in this county and they only lasted a year or two. I do not think people are looking for a video game football style league. That might be changing, but nothing else seems to work.

Peace

OTOH, the year the WFL started playing, the NFL adopted most of their rules either directly or in spirit, so it appears the NFL was scared.

Three, not 'a year or two'. And helped produce quality officials such as Bill Vinovich, #52. And was attractive to Modell because of the exposition due to the CFL team. Modell had a large debt and a new team was the way to get rid of that debt.

I didn't say the NFL wasn't doing something right. There's no question, it's the absolute highest level of football, the best football and probably the best and most popular sports league in human history. I love it.

But I have room in my pallette of things I like for things that aren't the NFL. That's just me. If it's not you, that's cool, too. I dug the USFL, warts and all (the new one ain't gonna play a game, and neither is the UFL). I liked watching Arenaball for a bit.

The NFL has constantly tweaked its game over the years to make it as appealing as possible. The rules changes in 1974 (coincident with the WFL, they may or may not have been in response to it) and 1978 and the tweaks over the years have been made with the idea of keeping offense and scoring and excitment up when defense has seemingly gained an advantage. Fans like the ball in the air. Yet, the game we watch today is still very similar to what they watched in 1958. Bigger players? Yep. Faster? You bet. More window dressing? Yeah. But still basically the same game. A great game. But not the only game, IMHO, worth giving some attention to.

My only suggestion is that even if you like other leagues that does not mean others like those games too. And the fact that those leagues fell off, to me is a suggestion that everyone is not totally hip with the rules or style of play of all those games. One of the reasons I feel the NFL is loved, is because it has some tie to the past. If you totally change the game, you might totally change who watches it. And I do not see the NFL or any other level totally allowing such rules to come into their game because the game would look nothing like it did even 100 years ago. Rules changes are usually in place to make slight changes in the game, not completely destroy its foundation.

Peace

I dislike Arena football for the same reason I grew to dislike the NBA. You can definitely have too much offense. An exiciting game to watch is one that is balanced with offense and defense. A football game with a score of 65 to 56 is not exciting to me in the least.

Well, apparently I'm not the only one. Others do like those games. Not in anything approaching the numbers of the NFL, but is that the standard? Anything less than that and you're not registering? My only point was that I'm not a snob about it. Others might be. That's cool. Whatever. There's room enough for everybody's tastes.

They're not nearly as popular, no question. But the AFL found a niche and exploited it for more than 20 years. In a better economy? Maybe it would be doing it this winter, maybe not.

But just because most people prefer Coke or Pepsi doesn't mean I don't still see RC Cola around.

You're right. It's a multitude of little tweaks over the years, gradually, not a quantum leap. And, like I said above, the game is largely the same as it was 50 years ago.

But if you looked back to 1920, a fan of that time would have his head on a swivel in 2008 and would think all the throwing completely destroyed the foundation of the game. It's all about your point of reference, I guess. Most of us grew up in the era where the football was in the air a lot.

I did not in anyway try to suggest you were the only one. Either way it goes, those businesses did not survive. And part of the reason was there was not a market for them. You may love the AFL, but many more people apparently did not share your love with that style of football. You do not shut down your league for a year if you are doing well. The NFL is not only the most popular football league, but the most popular league in this country. I think that did not happen by accident.

Peace

Then you wouldn't enjoy 6-man football at the high school level. Of course, then, some 8-man games would offend you perhaps?

Not surprising that a discussion about the A-11 devolves into a discussion over the merits of "different" kinds of football. And that is exactly what the proponents of the A-11 should do if they believe in it so strongly, create an A-11 League, cause it does not belong in normal football.

I am not familiar with either 6 or 8 man football at the high school level. I would have to see it to decide whether or not I enjoy it. Regardless of what I may or may not enjoy, I never said that it "offends" me. I have nothing against Arena football, except that I don't enjoy watching it, therefore I don't. If someone else loves it or enjoys watching it, that's fine, I don't care.

Am I parsing that correctly? If so, has it occurred to you that the changes dicussed are still minor compared to the changes to the game since 1908? At least one the discussed changes would even take the rules back to more like they were in 1908.

Robert

The trouble with Arena football is that it left its rules too close to those of outdoor football (and the IFL, lacking the patented rebounding screens, even more so) so that it suffers by comparison. They even adopted rules to make it artificially look more like the outdoor game than it should -- restrictions on defenses to allow 8 a side in space that really should accommodate fewer -- while still allowing new series for advancing just 10 yards in 4 downs, making defensive stops rare, resembling service breaks in high level men's tennis. They wanted players to go both ways, but then put in exceptions for where it really counts -- quarterbacks and kickers. They were afraid to extend the screens to the floor, where some player might get his hand caught in the links, or to make the side walls part of regular play, let alone extending the cage enclosure around the whole playing area.

Robert

Just for the record, I don't love Arena football. Is there a reason I can't express an appreciation of something without being told that I am in the tiny minority that loves (your words, not mine) it?

I appreciate it for what it is. Like I said, I don't believe there's only one league, one way to play, one anything. There's a top dog, no question, and, no, the NFL didn't get to its market position by accident. Again, I never said that, so there was no need to make that point to me. Then again, you've never been one to admit you weren't 100% right, so there we are.

I like cheese.

There.

Can we have a debate about that?

I did not realize we were debating anything (seriously). I thought we were having a conversation about football. I was just saying that people do not seem to like these leagues or wide open game that does not give the defense a fighting chance. Really, that was all I was saying.

Peace

Try 9-man where last year I worked two dome-games in one day and there were over 200 pts. scored in those 2 games. It's not that much fun when you are a wing.

I prefer to watch a low-scoring game where one play can make the difference. However, I find that arena ball is entertaining, just not the optimum format for me. For arena ball, I just have to accept that it is not real football.

I can relate, being a wing in 8-man ball sucks big time some of the time. It all depends on what kind of teams you have out there. If you have two explosive offenses, then it's a long day. If you have two really sucky defenses, can be a long day. If you have two solid offenses and two solid defenses, then it's a good day.

We had one weekend last year (Friday night and Saturday afternoon) where the two 8-man games we had combined for over 250 points, maybe almost 275. Yes, you read that right. Final score Friday night was like 60something-50something, while Saturday afternoon's final was 80something-70something.

A buddy of mine coached 6-man ball one year, and he had a great offense, fair defense. His team almost broke the state scoring record on offense, and almost gave up the most points ever on defense and yet came in 2nd in the state.