http://www.a11offense.com/

needle, they have a clip section

I musta missed it my first way through. I'll check it out tomorrow if they don't get back to me with game film. I'd like an entire gamefilm of 3 or 4 games though to get a better feel for it than just highlight clips. I guess beggers can't be choosers though.

Oh and if anyone knows of a local HS in PA or NJ or NY that runs this I would appreciate...maybe even CT and DE.

American Football Monthly

Remember, this is for high school. It appears to check out with all NFHS rules (which I think all states abide by). This certainly could work with outstanding results. But you've got to have the right kids for sure. They've got to be really smart to know who sets on the LOS and who doesn't go down the field. Also, it would have to be an advantage to get your 11 best skill players on the field at one time, right? I'm certainly curious to see if it catches on.

Good answer! I'm convinced.

nath, have you read the thread? I posted a complete answer ~9-10 hours before he posted that and I replied.

I'm pretty sure Massachusetts doesn't.

Really interesting article, wonder why more teams don't do this. What's the difference between a punt and a drop kick?

[x] gimmick
[ ] the future

I'm anxiously waiting for the A-11 defence myself.

A drop kick must bounce off the ground before it is kicked.

I think there's a lot of goofy stuff in the high school game that many college coaches know about.
The fact that 2 college coaches know about this and I guess 1 NFL coach is NOT a revolution.

That said, I would love to see this.
What exactly are the rules to make EVERYONE eligible?

Seems like a lot of teams playing less conservatively and just 'going for it' like crazy including all kind of rugby-style laterals etc [usually saved for desperation last plays and hail-marys] could be a working strategy in high school.
The offense practices that stuff ALL the time and presumably gets good at it whereas the defense only has a little while to figure out how to counter it and to learn what they need to do.


Somewhat reminiscent of Loyola Marymount basketball of 15-20 years ago. They just run and go crazy and if the other team can figure out how to keep up then that's fine...LMU still have more experience doing it anyway.
And if LMU makes a mistake or turnover in there then that's not a problem. They're practically playing a different game anyway with potential for a final score in the 120's or higher.

A football team trying to get THAT weird like this would take some big risks of course but also benefit from big rewards like scoring 3 TD's on 3 straight plays/possessions if they were THAT aggressive.
And they would sure be a ton of fun to watch.

They do. Linky

bump.

espn the magazine had an article about the A-11 in it's most recent issue. didn't care for the article too much b/c the author felt that the nfl offense is too boring as is, but that's another matter.

nfl coaches are aware of this offensive scheme--jeff fischer, chan gailey (chief's oc), and rich mckay (president of the falcons) are mentioned-- but as established itt it is illegal in the nfl b/c there is no scrimmage kick exception. so as is it could only be used by making linemen eligible, but if a lineman reports as an eligible receiver he has to sit out the next play.

in the next article in the magazine they interviewed some members of the steeler's defense and they gave some thoughts about how they would stop it. i assume it's ok to quote since i'm saying it came from espn the magazine, but if not obviously delete it

i thought it was cool to hear how the different responses in terms of how viable it would be in the nfl. probably no way to know w/o seeing someone try it

Recently read the ESPN article and was thinking about making a thread about it (must have missed/forget about this one).

Definitely interesting stuff, I'd think the NFL is pretty happy that their rules prohibit this type of stuff as the article and tarheel pointed out.

Then you get a penalty for illegal formation and get moved back to the 40.

HS FB coach here (not that it means ****)...but the loopholes are gonna be changed and all this nonsense it gonna become moot.

a few questions if you don't mind

-- did your team ever use this? i'm assume not given the tone of the post
-- did you face a team who used this as a base formation, or at all for that matter?
-- if how so how did you go about defending it/ what sort of success did you have?
-- what % of teams would you estimate use this formation?

-Nope (but it's certainly something I would consider. Sorry about the tone...didn't mean it, just telling you what I've heard...I guess it was the word nonsense...I didn't mean that how it probably came off.)
-Nope.
-They make it sound harder than it is....not 'every' player is always eligible...just every player 'COULD' be eligible..if that makes sense. If the officials can learn it, I feel that we should be able to learn it, if that makes sense.
- None around us, but I expect that more will if what I predict at the start doesn't happen.

I never mind...I even started a thread to talk about my team...and to discuss random **** like this. It just didn't take off..probably because of my poor title.

Here's the link.

hah i didn't mean to say your tone was rude. just that it made it unlikely that your team used it

edit: so in terms of eligibility there are still a fixed number of players, it's just that you don't know who? that's worse than i thought it was. i think it's more reasonable if everyone is eligible so the defense at least knows who it has to defend. if the defense has to guess who is going downfield then that is bs

No, you were certainly right...but I didn't intend my tone to imply that I WOULDN'T use it...anything to get an edge, you know?

Big ol Casey Hampton simply saying "pressure busts pipes" gave me a good laugh.

Best discussion of the A-11 that I've seen: http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/20...-approach.html

yeah, what does he weigh-- like 340? he could probably just fall down and take out a couple of receivers lined up in front of him


edit: that's a very good article