r/footballstrategy

Obligatory I Am Not A Baller, nor a coach. But I did have a few ideas I wanted to run by the people here and see if they were in any way feasible.

My idea is a hybrid concept merging Josh Heupel’s ultra-wide split system with a motion-heavy, 5-wide/Empty base offense. By combining the spatial stress of wide splits with pre-snap motion, I think we can eliminate the traditional flaws of running an Empty-heavy attack without sacrificing its advantages.

I've always been fascinated with 5wide/empty formation, and wondering what the extent of that set could be---how often a team at the FBS level could use empty until it no longer became advantageous. In looking to solve some of the issues brought by an empty formation (no running game, no rb blocking, only short passes advisable), I looked at Josh Heupel's wide splits.

So heres my idea. This is a team that begins 70% of its plays in some form of empty formation. The tempo is moderate (helping alleviate the defensive issues brought upon by heupel's uber-fast tempo), with the advantages of faster tempo replaced by the advantages brought upon by frequent presnap motion. With motion being one of the single most correlative factors with explosive plays, I think this is a very solid replacement.

So the idea is by starting in empty, typically 5wide, it forces the defense to prepare for 5 receivers on nearly every play. But, you may say, wont they just stack the box and blitz? Not with wide splits they wont. Or, well, they could, but in fixing that problem the defense creates another one by not matching every receiver.

The biggest, and most obvious, next issue to solve is "There is no running game." But there is! Because, as is common in some 5wide offenses, one of the receivers is a running back. Early in the play clock (to leave time and avoid a penalty), he motions into the backfield, and you now have a back behind the QB should you want to run or use play action, against a defense that spent the pre-snap period preparing for five receivers. The empty look (and wide splits) keeps boxes light ,although I admit the motioning of one into the backfield allows the defense to stack the boxes, if the ball is not snapped quick enough.

Therein lies a requirement for this scheme, one (prefferably two) running backs with the ability to catch passes. Running routes is less needed, I beleive we could keep them to slants and screens, but regardless having a stonehanded rb is a nogo.

Motion will be run on 70-80% of plays, as a subtitute for the tempo used by Heupel. To avoid exhaustion, the widest of WRs will have much smaller motions, while the slots while frequently run from one side to the other to once again force the defense to tell on itself, force them to constantly communicate, and keep them on their toes.

The tempo will be moderate, which shortens the game and gives the defense more time to rest then a fast-tempo team. With the frequency of motion, a faster tempo risks exhaustion for receivers. Tempo after big plays or in strategic situations, but not as a crucial aspect of the scheme.

While passing out of 5wide will be a necessity (as well as a big plus of the offense!) the mere constant threat of 5wide I believe will provide a background of stress upon the defense. Starting in a 4WR set and motioning the rb out to once again form a 5wr set could create paranoia within the defense at the difficulty to properly predict the offense, affecting playcalls and offering you consistently light boxes to run out of.

Of course, like any 'expiremental' scheme, there would be more conventional sets, especially short-yardage and goal line. And the usage of wide splits will not be 100%, if their pass rush is consistently winning you'd of course need to adjust and switch to a more condensed set, or even drastically reduce the usage of 5wide in general. But there will always be responses to every scheme, offense and defense, and adjustmnts needed to be made.

Obviously I'm just a beginner, and apologies if this post was scatterbrained, but I wondered if a scheme like this was advantageous or feasible at any level, or if something like it had been tried before? Thank you

Unreleased Interview Until Now

For those who didn't see, here is the ending.

Idaho is down 7 with 15 seconds left in the game. They get a first down and the ball carrier is tackled in bounds with one second left on the clock.

The refs stop the game to review and confirm if there was a second left, the ruling is confirmed.

Because the ball carrier was tackled in bounds, the clock should keep rolling (restarting on the ref's signal), and everyone on offense must be set for a full second before the ball can be snapped, meaning the clock would run down to zero before Idaho ever had a chance to legally snap the ball again. This exact scenario happened to Iowa State against Iowa 2 weeks ago. Ball carrier was tackled in bounds with one second remaining, meaning the clock would expire before Iowa State could legally snap the ball again, so the game is effectively over despite technically having a second left.

But after the refs confirmed that Idaho had a first down with one second left, Montana State called a timeout????(!?) Did they not just give the other team a second chance when the game would've been over had they literally done nothing? Like the clock should restart on the ref's signal and expire before Idaho could run a play.

The next play, which if I am correct was only able to happen because of Montana State's timeout, Idaho scores a touchdown and goes for two to win the game. Am I missing something or did Montana State actually just cost themselves the game?