Under Center or Shotgun
A debate where there should be no debate
Football is a game, a game that lives at a focal point of history, strategy, and innovation. History reminds us that there is really nothing new about the game just different ways of expressing past successes. When history becomes tradition you often look past the strategic value and comfort yourself with nostalgia. Nostalgia can often get in the way of innovation because the romantic idea that what worked for Dad should always work because of the warm fuzzy feeling it gives you. But warm fuzzy feelings don't win football games. Strategies of the past were successful because they took the ideas of the past and repackaged them to fit the modern (at the time) game, and that tradition continues to this very day.
When developing an offensive system a coach has to take into account many factors. First and foremost he must understand the strengths and weaknesses of his rosters. Physical and fundamental weaknesses trump any desire to run specific plays or overarching philosophies. You're not going to throw the ball 50 times a game if you have a QB who can only throw the ball 15 yards or you won't have a successful running game if your only RB is 41 years old and 5'6. Believe me I've been there. The Jimmies and Joes need to be your focal point and not the X's and O's.
Even after taking into account your roster there is still another crucial step and that is to take into account your own limitations as a coach. You must be able to coach up your system and do so with the confidence to preach your system is law. The test I use anytime I'm building up a new system or even a weekly game plan is to take a play, any play, at set it against an expected defensive counteraction. Then from this defensive reaction I take a play from my playbook or gameplan to counter and/or exploit the action...to which there will be a defensive reaction. This back and forth keeps going until I can get back to my original play. If I can get back to where I started I know I have a complete system to defeat that particular defense.
The final most crucial step to any systematic installation is the ability to deploy it from your gut. Statistics and analytics are great and all, but when it comes down to crunch time I don't want to have to look at a spreadsheet to figure out what the situation dictates I should do, I should already know because my instincts take over. So when we bring everything back to the heart of the matter, the debate between running plays under center or in shotgun, after developing a system based on his players and his ability to coach it up the play call comes down to what feels right at the moment. And like it or not many coaches, myself included, believe that running the majority of the plays out of shotgun puts their teams in the best situation systematically, fundamentally, and instinctively.
So now that that fine introduction is out of the way I'm going to now proceed to bitch for the foreseeable future about why running plays under center in the Air Raid offense provides little to no systematic or fundamental value and why it is counter productive to the instincts of coaching the offense. Of course we'll hit this issue from a Wisconsin football point of view, but we'll dig deeper if necessary. Buckle up.
Let's get the easy one out of the way and I'll give one to you Never Gunners. Yes it takes away the QB sneak in the traditional sense. You got me...I guess we can end the article now? Well not so fast. While the old school QB sneak where everyone and their mom in the stadium knows it's coming is taken off the table there is a better way that it can still be accomplished. The Badgers could easily like up in one of their base formations with base 11 personnel and simply motion someone like Riley Nowakowksi under center and run the sneak. You get the benefit of the sneak action but you do so against a base defense that is caught off guard. This strategy has been employed in the NFL by the Miami Dolphins using ex-Badger Alec Ingold as the "QB". So I'll give under center a point for tradition, but modern ties it up 1-1 with the motion. Moving on to the next most brought of talking point and that is "under center hits faster and the shotgun is too slow".
So let's start simple. No. No it's not faster.
It's not slower but it certainly isn't faster when you compare similar plays. Let's use a basic inside zone play as an example, the inside zone being the NFL's most commonly used play in short yardage situations. To execute an inside zone under center first things first the RB is at a depth of at least 7 yards. On the snap the RB will take a flat step and then come downhill aiming at the outside shoulder of the playside guard. The QB will separate from the center and work to get as deep as possible to give the handoff. Typically we are aiming for 5-6 yards deep taking 4-5 steps to get there depending on what type of separation he takes from the center. After the handoff we expect the RB within three steps to be at what I call "cutting speed". He can't cut until he gets three steps in the ground and he isn't going fast enough to make an effective cut so that's why we preach that minimum. Now he's coming downhill at a slight angle to the guard and he reads the double team for his cut.
As for the line the rules are essentially the same as we are hunting for double teams. One thing we need to be aware with under center is the importance to block everyone on the line of scrimmage. Some teams tell the QB to "block the DE with your eyes" but that is only effective if your QB is a running threat because the bootleg action takes more time to develop so he has to have enough acceleration that if we do run a naked boot that he can outrun the DE to his landmark. Other teams will use either a fullback or TE to block that EMOLOS.
How about in the gun? If we look at Phil Longo's backfield alignments typically we see the QB 5 yards with the RB offset either 1x2 or a 2x2 yards away from the QB. Post snap there are typically two different inside zone paths that the RB can take depending on the QB's footwork. Myself I use footwork more in tune with the New Hampshire Mafia in that my QB takes a step with his playside foot off the midline and then hinges open to square up the read man. With this QB action my RB takes a quick shuffle step to get as close to the midline as possible so when he gets into the mesh he can be moving as straight downhill at the playside A gap as possible.
Another way to do it is simply to just have the QB flip his hips as quickly as possible with the RB just taking short jab step and the coming downhill on more of an angle to the guard. Now it is important to note that just because he is on an angle to the line of scrimmage does not mean he is on an angle to his read. He is square to the read just the axis of the read is different. This can actually make it much easier to read cutbacks which is important in the inside zone.
As for the blocking scheme like was said previously the scheme is relatively the same. Less in the box can make it easier because that allows the line to stick on double teams longer, but can also make it more difficult for big linemen to operate on the 2nd level because there is more space. The advantage of the gun is however the ability to add a read element to the play. Whether it's reading the EMOLOS for a keep/give or moving that read to the 2nd level it allows you to not have to account for everyone in the box in the blocking scheme.
Getting back to the original point running inside zone under center is not necessarily faster when you run equivalent schemes. Sure you can shorten depths or add a toss element, but with any play you have to make trade offs to run it faster, simpler, etc. So when you take speed out of the equation what you're left with is simplicity, and when you compare the two styles you see that to run this basic play under center you are adding a lot more moving parts, and a lot more points where things can go wrong. If it fits your players, and you can coach it up then go for it, but if your overall offensive philosophy is built on simplicity then I think the score is now 2-1 in favor of the shotgun.
"Everything you can run out of the shotgun you can run under center". You can pass, you can play action, you can run...everything. Yes this is very true. For every shotgun play there is an under center equivalent and on paper it looks very similar. However I can assure you that on paper is where the similarities stay because when you get onto the football field everything changes.
The biggest change is obviously footwork. Time honored football math will tell you that a three step drop under center is equivalent to a one step drop in the gun, a five step drop is a three step, etc. But that math doesn't add up when you take into account technique, timing, and vision. Phil Longo uses a unique style of dropback in that he has his QBs backpedal. That allows his QBs to have full field vision with improved vision to his backside. Traditionally the QB would have to look over his shoulder to see anything to his backside and even those with the most flexible necks can't see everything. Back in the day Johnny Unitas could backpedal to a 7 step drop and not get sacked, but with today's modern defenses having the QB turn in his drop gets him to his landmark faster. Another benefit to the gun is that it gives the QB flexibility to adjust his footwork to better time with the receivers routes, which is very difficult under center because in a traditional drop you there are crossover steps that you can't simply stop in the middle or extend to throw the ball. You lose flexibility so route timing has to be rigid which can lead to very different drops which in turn leads to more technique having to be learned.
And that's just the passing game. Every run play has different technique. For every advantage you gain in the play action game you lose in the read game. For traditional playaction to work you need a definitive reaction to the run action, but with gun play action even a subtle shoulder nod can cause just enough conflict to open up a receiver. There is no subtlety under center. Regardless of the the play to run it both ways requires two sets of skills and fundamentals, and unless you are gaining a tactical advantage from a play there is no reason to learn how to do it twice for the sake of multiplicity.
3-1 Shotgun.
So let's end with applying what we've learned to the real world. Why don't the Badgers simply go under center in a first and goal situation and just bang three straight QB sneaks and score? The real question was answered in the previous paragraph. Does a QB sneak in that situation give the Badges a tactical advantage? In a situation like that where it's basically our big bodies versus their's and therefore do we gain the tactical advantage? Well the answer is obvious...no. We have ran QB sneaks this season and they haven't been glowing success against teams inferior to Ohio State. We have ran traditional isos and powers under center against lesser teams in open field situations and have been stuff. Maybe it comes down to the coaching staff through practice and film study have determined that the best formation to be in, and the formation that puts the defense in the least advantageous position is the be in our standard 2x2 wing formation with 11 personnel. That is something us as fans are going to have to get used to this season because Luke Fickell and Phil Longo didn't pull a Coach Prime and nuke the roster. They brought in what we didn't have on the roster, and they are giving the rest of the team a chance to audition for the remaining roles. Even when the roster is 100% what they want they are going to run what they feel is best for the team to gain an advantage...whether we like it or not!
4-1 Shotgun.