ESPN and the A-11: a combination that guarantees poor reporting.
The ESPN recently had a cover story about the A-11 or "All-Eleven" offense, which I have written rather extensively about. My contention with it boils down to the fact that the entire offense is based around a particular rule exemption merely designed to allow speedier athletes on the field when a team punts (hence why it is called the "scrimmage kick exception") and that if the A-11's creators and proponents want to make their offense an every down one they should do it like how other rules get created, which is roughly democratically, by getting their representatives on the rules committees to do away with the eligible number restrictions to begin with. (At every level of football the offense must have five guys with ineligible jersey numbers -- i.e. 50s-70s -- who are ineligible to catch passes no matter where they line up, except when the "scrimmage kick exception" kicks in.) For some reason the A-11 types seem more committed to doing it via this rule exemption, which strikes me as surreptitious and a bit odd. (If you believe your offense is the future why not just get the rules passed? Especially since your rule exemption forces you to keep your quarterback to take seven yards deep shotgun snaps?)
For example, the image below does not depict the A-11, but instead something that has been going on for years. The difference between the A-11 and what is going on with Florida below is that, with Florida, the defense can identify receivers and linemen by their jersey numbers; in the A-11 they would all be wearing eligible numbers and, one second before the snap, some guys would step on the line and become ineligible while others would not. (And indeed, the A-11 creators are firm in stating that what they are doing is new and not old, though I'm not so convinced.)
In any event, the author gets flat wrong how the rule at play works:
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.
No. The offense is still limited to five eligible receivers after the snap: the number of eligible receivers is still restricted to the ends and people in the backfield, and the offense must still have seven guys on the line of scrimmage. Thus there are always five guys ineligible. What the eligibility restrictions did is that ineligible numbers -- 50s through 70s -- were ineligible even if in the backfield. The article therefore implies that offenses are getting six, seven, eight guys into the secondary, which is just not true, even in high school.
Further, the piece doesn't ever bother to explain how the offense actually works, or even what any of the opposing views might be. There is some lip-service given to debunking the straw-men and misguided Platonic Idealists who think it is "just not football," but those are easy targets. It never takes on those who fear that a wholesale adoption of the offense will remove spots for linemen on teams, or those with process-oriented objections like mine, which is extra-salient since all football rules are arbitrary -- 100 yard football fields, four downs, eleven men on the field; these are all important rules no? Yet the Canadians vary them all.
Instead, we get loaded gems like these:
Curiously, Titans coach Jeff Fisher, the other co-chair of the NFL's Competition Committee, says he has no interest in modifying the rules to allow for a full-blown A-11, because it would alter the game too radically
"Curiously"? As in, if only Jeff Fisher wasn't blind to the truth in front of his face, he'd know what's good for him. But this has to be in there, and the ESPN writer has to paint the A-11's rise as our witnessing some kind of Hegelian inevitable march through history:
Shock to the System
Wowed by The Wildcat, Spread HD and A-11? You ain't seen nothing yet. An offensive revolution is coming to the NFL. Can anyone stop it?
by David Fleming
"An offensive revolution is coming to the NFL"? As indicated above, the A-11 is illegal in the NFL; the scrimmage kick doesn't work how it does in high school. It doesn't work in college how it works in high school either. In high school any time the "snap recipient" is more than seven yards deep you can be in the scrimmage kick exception; in college it "must be obvious that a kick might be attempted." That language excludes anything but fake-punts, because it is only "obvious" that a kick might be attempted when there are things like, oh I don't know, there's a kicker on the field and it is fourth down. (Again, I'd have less of a problem with this if they just lobbied to get the restrictions done away with to begin with. I could buy that; it'd be what people wanted. The A-11's approach strikes one of caprice.)
Anyway, let's get more fundamental here.
That's why their playbooks are barely distinguishable from the ones Paul Brown first handed out in the 1940s. "When it comes to new ideas, I wouldn't say the NFL is risk averse," says former Ravens coach Brian Billick. "I'd say it's downright paranoid. You want something new? Sure, go ahead and try something. Make one mistake, and your ass is out on the street."With offenses standing still, it's only a matter of time before defenses close the gap; witness how the Cover 2 has largely neutralized Walsh's creation. As scoring plummets, you can bet the league, once again facing scary economic conditions, will react as it always has—with more offensive-minded rules changes, followed by new schemes designed to take advantage of them. "The game will always evolve," says Falcons president Rich McKay, co-chair of the NFL's Competition Committee. "The only question is, What's next, and when is it going to happen?"
Let's unpack this.
- The major reason why Paul Brown's playbooks are still so influential is because of geometry and arithmetic. There's only eleven players and only five eligible receivers. (This is true even in the A-11, though before the snap they cause confusion because some guys pretend like they might go out but are actually ineligible and if they cross the line of scrimmage -- and the ref spots them, the real sticking point -- they are still ineligible. The A-11 doesn't change that.) And the dimensions of the football field are the same, and so the coverages are largely the same as they were back then. You still face Cover 2 (two deep), Cover 3 (three deep), Cover 4 (four deep), and Cover 1-man (one deep) and Cover-0 man (none deep). So the reason the plays seem so similar is because there's only so many ways to deploy your receivers to take advantage of the open spots. In fact, I've seen (and helped) the Piedmont A-11 guys with their pass concepts. Trust me, behind the fact that there's a lot of guys standing up before the snap, after the snap it's the same concepts you would see from the Steelers, Paul Brown, Mike Leach, or Urban Meyer.
- Billick is right about innovation in the NFL, though only to a point. This is a point worth elaborating on, but innovation goes in different directions in football. Macro-changes -- of the kind like the single-wing resurgence, run and shoot and spread, triple-option, and other arguments about the very structure of football and its geometry -- tend to come bottom up for the reason Billick states: small schools and colleges have little to lose. It doesn't work? You're no different than the last guy. And you need to do something different to give yourself a chance. But the NFL in many ways dominates the micro-evolutions: it's millions of dollars, staffs as armies, unlimited equipment, and only workaholics need apply. It's football 24/7; ideas get chewed up, synthesized, and assimilated. They might not merge the flexbone with the run and shoot, but they will play around with every single way you can get into three-verticals in a game, from every formation you can. It's Walsh taken to its logical extreme. All the best ideas are eventually tested in the pros. We're a long way off from the A-11 being there.
- Cover 2 neutralized the West Coast Offense? Bizarre. Who did the reporter speak to? The so-called "Tampa 2" was made famous in the 90s by Tony Dungy. Who did Dungy play more than anyone else then? The Mike Holmgren-Brett Favre Packers. Because in the Tampa 2 the middle-linebacker vacates to the deep middle, Holmgren ran the crap out of the "Texas" concept, where the tight-end flies down the middle and drags that linebacker deep and the running back runs an angle route in that void. Countered? The Packers won a Super Bowl and won many of those contests. And the author's point is a complete non sequitur. Cover 2 countered the West Coast Offense (presumably by taking away short passes), so now everyone is spread and... throws even more short passes?
- The final point is when the author just starts making things up. Scoring shall plummet! Plummet! Then they'll have to let in the A-11.
The proliferation of the spread-style scheme in high school and college means there are fewer classic pocket passers in the pipeline. When the well finally runs dry, NFL QBs will naturally evolve into smaller, more durable runners who can handle the physical pounding of the game and throw when they have to. Assuming the NFL creates special roster exemptions, teams might sign four of these new prototypes (think: Tim Tebow), platoon them two at a time like tailbacks or hold one out for safe-keeping until November. Instead of banking everything on one $12 million star, teams will pay four passers $3 million each. And with tougher QBs and less economic risk, they'll be free to run wide-open schemes, like the run 'n shoot, that expose passers to more hits.
So, the fact that more and more teams throw the ball at the lower levels means that there will be fewer guys who can pass, pocket or otherwise? The author is right only if you take the most narrow view of it: there will be fewer guys who can only pass, but there will be many more -- a la Tim Tebow -- who can do many things. What they focus on will depend on their talents and their system. But who can argue that suddenly the NFL will become a league of "durable running QBs" who "throw when they have to"?
I admit I have always liked the idea of a shotgun spread with two QBs -- call it the "Twin Tebow" offense, but at this point we're very far removed from having to expand something called the "scrimmage kick exception."
Anyway, there's a few things going on here. One, is that, as is normal with any other tabloid, ESPN the Magazine is hyping the next big thing before it's done anything. (The A-11 is kind of the Lindsey Lohan of football offenses: everywhere today; fond remembrances and bold statements tomorrow; maybe even a DUI or two in the future before we forget about it.) No A-11 team has had any kind of success -- which is not an entirely fair criticism, since the early adopters are largely small schools and downtrodden programs who need a boost both in terms of hype and getting kids out to play, which is often the biggest battle they face. Yet, as the video below shows, this is hardly the stuff that dreams are made on. Not bad, but revolutionary? And worth relying solely upon a rule exemption? Then I'm not sure.
In any event, I began as a fan of the A-11, but as I explored it more -- something the author of this ESPN piece has not done -- you see that its roots are shaky. Again, I am no football purist. I don't think there is "true football" or that it doesn't involve passing or the spread. I do disagree with some kind of bizarre view that football's history is inexorably moving to the A-11 (we've had Arena football for over a decade, flag football and 8-man football for longer). It's just a different animal. But if they want the A-11 to become a part of high school, college, and pro ball, then they should get the eligibility number rule changed rather than trying to rely on a rule exemption.
Which, I should add, I would support. I repeat, I would fully support doing away with the eligible number restrictions (which was put in place essentially to eliminate the tackle eligible passes). But I would do it head on, not through this rule exemption, and I would also increase the time that players must be set before the snap from one second to two or three. (In high school it is only one.) That way, it wouldn't be as difficult for defenses and officials to identify who in the heck is actually eligible or ineligible, which I suppose does reduce the concept's effectiveness. But, since there is no platonic ideal football, it's all about finding what rules make a game we all enjoy. All rules in sports are arbitrary (three strikes, 10 foot high goal posts), so they can all be changed. Here's to the game evolving the right way.
*As noted previously, I got the idea and name for this feature from the excellent Brad DeLong.
0 comments:
Post a Comment