Back to Old School II: I Like to Move It, Move It
This is the second part in the series on the UT offense and the Single Wing. The first part may be read here.
In the previous post in this series, I noted that Clawson experimented with the Single Wing formation in the Spring scrimmage game. Most of the previous post was spent explaining what the Single Wing looks like, and a few of the advantages that the formation gave to the offense. Here, I will take a look at the real action: what happens once the ball is snapped?
Prior to the snap, the Single Wing simply looks like a run-heavy formation - something that may be used in goal-line situations, perhaps. The classic Single Wing has no wide receivers, 4 players in the backfield, and 7 blockers. But the fundamental theory behind Single Wing football is quite different from a pro-set offense, beginning with the instant that the center begins to move the football backward. At that point, football begins to look a little bit less like today's NFL game and a little bit more like a rugby match.
So let's take a look at the snap...

FIGURE 3 - THE SNAP
When the Single Wing was created around the turn of the century, the direct snap was not legal (e.g. today's QB-under-center snap). Instead, the ball had to be tossed back to a ball carrier in a manner similar to the modern shotgun snap. (Earlier, during football's very early years, the ball was put into play rugby-style, by being sort-of kicked back by the center. The American changes instituted the handling of the ball by the center, but the distance requirement remained and the ball was put into play in a shotgun-style snap for a long time.)
Here, the center snaps to either ‘back as the play dictates. However, it's not just a matter of snapping to one of two slightly skewed positions; the ball was usually snapped to some position in front of the receiving ‘back in their line of path. This gave the initial ball handler an extra step on the play but required much of the center. Aside from the usual snap-then-get-your-head-up-and-block skill, the center had to have sure hands and be full of self-confidence. (Hmm... do we know where a center with those traits might be found?)
But why move the center to the side? Couldn't he snap the ball like that from his now-customary position? Certainly. Actually, there are balanced-line Single Wing formations; the Single Wing displayed in the O&W game had a balanced line, in fact. But take a look at what is gained by moving the center:
FIGURE 4 - A DIFFERENT LOOK AT THE LINE
Take a look at the line -- not in terms of player position titles, but from the inside out. Remember that the center, because of his task of snapping the ball, is always about a half step behind the rest of the linemen in getting out of his stance. In modern formations, that means that the hinge of nearly every blocking scheme lags the rest of the line. In the Single Wing, that lag has been moved slightly to one side. If you consider the ends as linemen (which is what they were, historically) then you have the awesome result of having four linemen in a row that can all move in true unison at the snap of the ball. Take a second look at that in the above formation and let your mind wander just a bit on the possibilities.
By now, you've probably also noticed that those same linemen also have the backfield focused behind them. The Single Wing has an incredible amount of running power focused to the strong side once you start imagining the blocking and running possibilities. (Again, remember that the quarterback here is not Peyton Manning; this quarterback calls plays but he is usually a blocker, occasionally a receiver, and occasionally a runner. He may pass, but that would be rare.)
With all that power to one side, the natural defensive response is to overshift -- to place more players on the strong side than the weak side. As you know, no formation sees widespread use unless it can attack both sides of the field. That is true of the Single Wing as well. There are many reverses, counters, passes, and sweeps to the weak side that can really cause problems for an overshifted defense. But that'd take a long time to explain. For now, just trust me on that and know that others have written on the weakside far better than I could.
I'll continue next time by drawing up a few Single Wing plays. Once we get a good feel for this offense under our belt, we can look at how it might help UT. The results may surprise you.
0 recs |
6 comments
Comments
My . . .
. . . look at the options! I love the subtle differences that have potentially huge impacts, like having a wall of blockers four-wide all moving at the same time with four potential runners and three potential lead blockers in front of them. Or passes. Or reverses. Nice. Can’t wait to see some of the plays.
Go Vols!
by Joel on
Jul 29, 2008 8:59 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Wrong place for this but.............
Fulmer needs to countersue that guy in Alabama, take his used car dealership, rename it Crimson Tide Used Cars, and sell nothing but 79 El Caminos
by VolBrian on
Jul 29, 2008 9:21 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Thank You
This is a great analysis, like we did in the Army with lessons learned, and the after action review. I think Dave Clawson will move us equal to Florida in regards to matching talent to techniques and systems. If our front four hold up, we will surprise FLA and GA.
My web site is at www.donvandergriff.com
I wrote a blog entry about the two quarterback system this HS used in CA, and it worked.
Don
by ArmyVOL on
Jul 29, 2008 11:23 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
You're Most Welcome
I agree with you about Clawson finding schemes for the talent. I had just started reading up on the Single Wing when they broke that play out at the scrimmage, so it kinda lit a fire in me. It was the first real data point I had on Clawson I could pursue.
Thanks for stopping by; come back often! Army guy, huh? I’m former Navy myself, and I have great respect for the Army and its mission. 24 years is impressive by any standard.
I also remember hearing about the A-11 offense, and I’m dying to learn more about it. I’ve always felt there’d be a tipping point when the rules changes would create a sudden and drastic shift toward a passing game, and the A-11 may just be the product of that. When I get a chance, I’ll read through your post more thorughly.
by hooper on
Jul 29, 2008 11:31 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Notre Dame Box ? Why Not ?
Single wing looks good for power running, why not add a few plays from the old Notre Dame Box, and the power I, and the Wishbone, heck try em all we might find something that works. Old Smokey GO VOLS!!!!!!!
P.S. I saw a video on the A-11 offense and it is a spread Offense using two QB”s and it was wild, great for passing, everybody was catching passes, you gotta see it . I think I saw it on you tube.
OLD SMOKEY
by volman on
Jul 29, 2008 12:07 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Single Wing
Power running is just part of the equation when you are talking Single Wing football. Add motion and the good old fullback full spinner series and the deception is incredible. McFadden did a bif of that last year. You can also use jet motion and run jet sweep series stuff. Bring back the Single Wing!
http://winningyouthfootball.com
Dave Cisar http://winninngyouthfootball.com
by davecisar on
Jul 30, 2008 8:23 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs












