The Shotgun, The 'Gun, and the Shotgun Spread Offense

Ferment is abroad in football. The possibilities widen; new ideas are accepted and implemented within hours of conception. People are interested now in not just who their favorite players are, but what are these fascinating schemes. With the internet comes accessibility: now your high school runs what your favorite college team is not sophisticated enough to do. The ideas come from everywhere. The innovators are born on disparate staffs and the ideas ebb, flow, and crash together constantly, daily, hourly. Now even the big, famous schools must wade into the waters to hire those comfortable with its movements: Rodriguez to Michigan, Tony Franklin hired by Auburn.


This ferment is ideal. A decade ago ideas were stagnant. Football was only for the purists, and if you failed to replicate the Platonic ideals, then you hadn't been schooled properly. Five years later, the beginnings of the ferment - turbulent, muddy, a vigorous undercurrent. Ten years later - today, now - the waters are flooding, spilling onto that once sacred ground.

Rich Rodriguez, the Johnny Appleseed of the Spread, has been hired by Michigan. The Pundits talk of the "the Spread," the "Gun Spread," the "Gun Option," the "Airraid," the "Zone Read," and the "Pistol." The coaches talk of these too, but they also talk of the "Gun Jets Sweep," and the "Gun Jets," the "Gun Veer," and the "Gun Triple."

The ideas stir. They stir football itself. This reexamination of all that came before - restless, relentless. The search for good ideas, new ideas, ideas never before dreamed of. This - the ferment - is not a fad. It cannot be. It is football itself: there's been a synthesis.

The 'Gun and its history.

The shotgun itself, the perceived center of all of this "newness," has its roots in the beginning of football, however.
Most commentators, of course, seem to deify the "shotgun" itself as an entire offense rather than what it is - a particular way to align your quarterback and perform the center-exchange. Ironically, however, they also take a restricted view of the gun’s presence in football history, presuming it was invented, alternative, in the 60s (Red Hickey), the 70s (Tom Landry), the 80s (pick somebody), the 90s (pick somebody), or the 2000s (whoever they root for, or often Urban Meyer or some passing coach). Regardless, it's somewhat silly.

The point of this article is to show that (a) the shotgun itself has ancient roots, and is not some passing fad, (b) and, thus by inference, the ferment and change I spoke of in the introductory paragraphs is not as limited as how you align your Quarterback.

Indeed, I imagine that the shotgun's history would surprise many such commentators. The “gun” was in many ways the standard back in the early days of football. Especially consider that the under-center snap was not invented until at least a decade or so after football itself was invented, if not longer. In fact, in the fairly early days, players had to actually short-kick the ball with their heel (don’t ask me!) back as a form of snap. Also, the gun and the pass have been around since 1908-1910 or so, since the forward pass was legalized and encouraged by rule changes due to the “brutal” nature of football at a time when the “single-wing” and almost all offenses involved shotgun type snaps which lead to melees resulting from attempts to advance the ball.

To demonstrate the trends, I think there are four good “watershed” type games that either were representative for the time or helped us get where we are today, though there are surely others.

1. Notre Dame vs. Army Part I

In 1913, Notre Dame traveled to West Point to face the heavily favored Army. Final score: 35-13, Notre Dame. Knute Rockne, the famous future coach but then little-known end, caught an array of passes from one Gus Dorais, who that day nearly revolutionized the position. The legend grows larger over time, and the forward pass had been legal for roughly eight years, but that day Dorais completed 14 of 17 passes for 243 yards and three touchdowns. Dorais even completed a pass to Rockne that, at the time, was the longest pass play ever. But more importantly, this game was the coming out party for the forward pass. Although this story might be collateral to the shotgun story – indeed Dorais was already operating out of the “gun” – but few would question that the forward pass still defines football today.

2. Notre Dame vs. Army Part II

By 1925, Rockne was Notre Dame’s coach. We all have heard these famous lines:

Outlined against a blue-gray October sky, the Four Horsemen rode again. In dramatic lore they are known as Famine, Pestilence, Destruction and Death. These are only aliases. Their real names are Stuhldreher, Miller, Crowley and Layden.

The four horsemen were four backfield mates who played for now-coach Knute Rockne. Most people forget the next few lines from that paragraph:

They formed the crest of the South Bend cyclone before which another fighting Army football team was swept over the precipice at the Polo Grounds yesterday afternoon as 55,000 spectators peered down on the bewildering panorama spread on the green plain below.

Notre Dame won 13-7. To our story, this game was not so much a watershed as it was representative of the time: Notre Dame ran an all-shotgun offense known as the “Notre Dame Box.” The “box” was a shotgun formation where the center could snap to any one of four guys, depending how they lined up. So, the most famous galloping backfield of all time played in the Gun, however bizarre it would appear by today’s standards.



This should serve as a firm rebuttal to the argument that the shotgun is currently new or (more popularly) was invented only to pass. This is flatly wrong. From the beginning of football, the shotgun was about running the football and faking. Indeed, it was even about power. Just ask the Four Horsemen.

3. Chicago Bears vs. Washington Redskins – The day the shotgun died.

In 1940 Bears Coach George Halas unleashed his under center offense on the Redskins on the way to a modest 73-0 victory. The Bears utilized the then-fairly rare “Tee Formation,” where the Quarterback (remember, he was originally so named because of how far back he aligned - the term was a rugby term before it was a football term) would in line up under center with three backs behind him in a straight “Tee.” Using this formation, along with a series of fakes, counters, traps, bootlegs, and other deception Halas’s Bears crushed the Redskins to win the NFL title. Note that the Redskins had beaten the Bears earlier that season.

For the next thirty to forty years, the unequivocal primary method for hiking the ball was the under center snap. This game is also important because it shows that faking, deception, and using multiple ball carriers is not new, nor is it exclusive to the shotgun. It is simply a distinct concept.

After this game the shotgun made a few appearances, most famously with Red Hickey with the 49ers and Tom Landry with the Cowboys. And in the 80s and later in the 90s teams as disparate as the Miami Dolphins with Marino, Purdue with Joe Tiller and Drew Brees, and the Hal Mumme Kentucky Wildcats (with the support of Mike Leach) set quite a number of passing records in the gun. But this modern revolution came about, I believe, because people had to see how you could throw and run from the shotgun.

Although Rich Rodriguez probably deserve smore credit than anyone for spreading the concepts themselves, it was Northwestern’s late-coach Randy Walker who I think turned the football coaching world on its head one blue-skied afternoon in November, 2000.

4. Northwestern vs. Michigan – The Modern Era Dawns.

Northwestern defeats Michigan 54-51. This is shocking enough. Northwestern scored fifty-four points against a Michigan team known for great defense and great defensive talent. Doubly shocking. Quarterback Zak Kustok threw for 322 yards and four touchdowns. Not so shocking from a spread QB in victory. Don’t they always have to throw for this much to win? That’s why they get in the gun, right?

But wait, there’s another stat.

Northwestern Rushing: 332 Yards; 6.64 average per carry. 332 yards.

What? Three-Hundred and Thirty Yards rushing?

How did they do that? Yes their running back had a huge day, but the yards that also made everyone sit up and take notice were the 55 yards from Northwestern’s quarterback, Zak Kustok – hardly Vince Young or Pat White in raw athleticism. But the light went off across the country. If Zak Kustok can do it, maybe my guy can too. And even if he’s not Vince Young, just the threat that he can make the defense pay if they over pursue by getting me eight yards, then let’s do it.

Obviously, not everyone running the spread now saw this game. Even Gun Guru Urban Meyer didn’t start running this offense until his Bowling Green days sometime after this game, and he admittedly went out to others to learn the offense. The shotgun run-game didn’t bubble up inside anyone like a well-spring. But this was the game that changed the landscape.

Where we are are now.


So Randy Walker and Rich Rodriguez blew the doors off. The gun is now fully part of the arsenal for nearly every team, and the sky is the limit on what you can do. The all-eleven offense, the pistol, and the single-wing itself are all part of the calculus. Who knows, maybe we’ll see a major team running the Notre Dame box.

I thought I’d provide a quick summary of some of the factors in the calculus for when you want to use the gun. Observe that many of the factors come from Coach Homer Smith, so I can’t too much credit.

Advantages of the Shotgun

- The QB can get deeper in a given amount of time (whether the 3 yard “pistol” snap or a 7-8 gun for passing)

- Lateral play faking (but not drop back style play action, at least so easily) can be achieved

- Relatedly, the zone-read is a kind of “bootleg-plus” in that instead of calling a blind bootleg, you make the backside defensive end wrong every time)

- Some QB's can see better (i.e. wider field of vision)

- The depth of the QB often forces the defense to expose its pressure plans more clearly

- The RB might be able to pick up a blitz better (i.e. no dropping QB to bump into)

- It does not need a snap count and helps mitigate crowd noise factors (though many still use a snap count)


Disadvantages of the Shotgun

- The QB has to take his eyes off the pass defense and has to watch the ball into his hands. This effect also somewhat reduces the QB’s ability to see the coverage and read changes (Cover 2 to 1, etc.) until after the snap. This is particularly acute for 3-step passes, where you have to catch and throw almost immediately. The read becomes almost exclusively pre-snap.

- The Shotgun alignment makes some lead-plays more difficult. I also would argue that the “gun-option,” as such, is not completely structurally sound in the way other veer plays are. Some gun teams have tried to develop the veer from the gun. Time will tell whether they are successful. (This requires more discussion than I have space for.)

- It becomes a crutch for the QB and an easy way to avoid improving footwork and play faking. I think this is an underrated problem. Footwork in the gun is (a) easier, because it is less, but is (b) prone to getting very, very sloppy. If there is any knock against “spread gun” QBs who go to the Pros, this one of the few viable ones, but can be simply overcome with good coaching.

- It retards the notion of a power run game and shifts more towards deception based delays, options, or draw type run plays. This is not a bad thing, though true.

- It can amplify your QB’s athletic skills, in either direction. If they are very athletic, it can improve their ability to make plays, but if they are not athletic many traditional QB plays – bootlegs, play action, and certain lead-option type run plays - are almost entirely out of the question.

- The footwork of the QB changes as does timing for pass plays. The "mesh" point for hand-offs to the RB change as well. Now Florida offensive coordinator Dan Mullen says this is one reason they run shotgun almost exclusively, so they can practice just one thing and get good at it.

So there are pros and cons. What this mostly counsels is a commitment to what you do, an organized, systematic approach to your offense, and an acknowledgment of where your weaknesses are as well as your strengths. The great shotgun teams work on this consistently, the haphazard teams will consistently both live and die by their sword-of-the-moment.

"Switch It" - Put a Little Hawaii In Your Offense

While the Run & Shoot is over twenty-years old and I have even discussed its demise from most levels of football, the obvious recent R&S success story has been the Hawaii Warriors under lifelong 'Shooter, June Jones. With Colt Brennan (and seemingly anyone else they put back there), they have lit up opposing teams and broken a few scoreboards along the way. It's a great offense.

But let it be known that Jones has adapted some aspects of the traditional Mouse Davis Run and Shoot to his liking, discarding some concepts, adapting others, and overhauling the pass protection. (Hence why my "What Killed the Run and Shoot" thread doesn't keep Jones up awake at night - they simply do different things now.)

In the traditional shoot, there were only a few pass packages, but each had multifarious adjustments for each receiver. They did this by requiring each receiver to identify the defense and each would adjust his route on the fly. The QB would synthesize this information and hit the proper man. As June Jones said when he was still in the NFL: "When our receivers run up the field, they are going to look for one of five coverages. A team may use 50 defenses, but to us it will be one of those five."

Those five coverages were: "(1) Three Deep Zone; (2) Two Deep Zone, (3) Two Deep Man Under; (4) Man Free [One safety deep with man-to-man underneath]; (5) Four Across Man (Blitz)."

Now, this was quite successful for many years. Without overemphasizing the impact, the rise of the zone blitz muddied the waters for many of these reads and hastened the R&S's retreat. I say I don't want to emphasize this too much, because the zone blitz has been around for at least as long as the Shoot, so it wasn't just that.

But there has been a definite trend among Shooters to reduce the number of reads that receivers must make. Even Jones has reduced the amount of reading in his offense and appears to have discarded a few of the concepts completely, while only adjusting others. And yet, the "reading" is what makes the Shoot the Shoot. So that is my topic today.

I have said many times that regardless of whether you see teams run the "Run and Shoot" per se (and I am talking about the "Run and Shoot" as a distinct system, not just a generic term for any ol' spread team), you will constantly see the R&S concepts and you will continue to see them for a long time. So in this post I want to discuss one of the most common and successful concepts, the Switch.

The Switch

The Switch is one of the Shoot mainstays, but the concept has transcended the offense and now chunks of NFL and College playbooks are dedicated to the "switch" - often from coaches who would otherwise show nothing but disdain for the now supposedly discredited offense. But to many coaches, players, and fans, the play is still shrouded in mystery.

The concept is, at core, a two man concept. Two receivers release and "switch": The outside guys angle inside for 5-6 yards before pushing vertical, while the inside guy runs a "wheel route" under the outside guy, rubs right off of his hip, and then turns up the sideline. That's when they play gets interesting.

In the original R&S, each receiver had the five delineated options depending on what coverage he saw. They could break it quick on slants, run vertical routes, post routes, curls or in cuts. When it worked it was beautiful. But sometimes, to borrow Yeats's phrase, "things fall apart." Or simply it took immense practice time for receivers to get good at running the play.

Indeed, it is simpler to teach this kind of thinking when all of your routes adjust. But it's not quite so simple if you run curl-flat as your bread and butter play, with no reading, as many teams do. And yet. the play thrives.

The Reads

Some coaches have installed the switch and simply eliminated the reads entirely. This is a sound approach, and it captures the initial beauty of the play: the "rub" the two switching receivers create against man. And it still works as a kind of "vertical stretch" where the two receivers can put deep defenders in a bind with one down the sideline and another in the seam, especially if a backside receiver runs in the seam as well.

But the play's potency is in its variance. And you can be variant without overly complex reads. How? Here is how I suggest running the play, as dithered from the best College, Pro, and High School minds who use this concept.

The Routes

Below is a basic diagram of the route.



The reads are as follows:

Inside Receiver: The inside receiver will come under the outside guy on his route, and wheel up the sideline. All he is looking for is whether there is someone deeper than him in the deep one-third of the field. Or, if the guy on him is playing him in man, he just asks: "He's even? I'm leaving! (Running deep) He goin? I'm stayin." It's as simple as deciding whether you could get open deep or not. If the defender stays deep, the receiver will stop at 10-12 yards and settle and curl back to the Quarterback.

Outside Receiver: The outside guy will stem his route inside and then push up the seam. His read is simple:

- Middle of the Field Closed (I.e. Is there a single deep safety in the middle of the field, like in Cover 3?) - Run a seam.

- Middle of the Field Open (I.e. Are there two deep safeties with no one deep down the middle?) - Run a square in at 12 yards.

I have previously described the nuances of this MOFO/MOFC read. Now, this might sound a bit tricky, but this is the one, core "reading" principle that any receiver can quickly identify both before and after the snap, and in most cases it is quite intuitive: don't run into coverage.

Below is the route against a few coverages to show how it would play out.

Cover 3



And Cover 2



QB Read:

The QB's read is not difficult. It is a pure progression read, though pre-snap and post-snap he will identify 2-high and 1-high so he knows what he's looking for. Against 1-high he will look at the F/S (deep middle safety's) movement. He will peek for the backside seam but read (1) inside switcher, (2) outside switcher, and (3) outlet to running back.

Final Concerns

One of the purposes of this article was to show that this concept, native to the Run and Shoot, can be run in many offenses. I have shown it so far in a very Shoot friendly formation. But do not be fooled: this route can be run by any two line of scrimmage receivers, in nearly any offense. See the diagram below with the Switch with play-action from the I formation. Again, you can run this from any formation you like.



And finally, if one did adopt to their offense (or you begin to notice it on television), there are further adjustments you can make. One of the long-time best has been the "Switch-Smash," shown below.



On this route the outside receiver stems inside and then pushes to 12 yards before running a corner route, while the inside receiver "wheels" out and pushes to 5-6 and then hitches back. He then delays briefly, and if the QB does not immediately deliver the ball, he will work to find the opposite spot or burst and lose his man to man defender. This is a great change up, particular against a team that runs Cover 2.


Grab-Bag

As a final parting shot, I will show you a few more variations with what you can do with this play. The concept is simple, so you can build on it or combo it as you like.

The Thing about Louboutins

Out of all the super designer footwear brands out there like Manolos and Jimmy Choos, my favourite is Christian Louboutins. I really want to be able to say that I love them all, but I've been to the stores and tried them on and to be honest, I've never really seen anything at the Jimmy Choo store that I really wanted to try on. As for Manolos, physically the designs don't look too special either. I heard it was the angle of the arch that is crazy comfortable, but I don't quite need that at this point in my life yet when there are so many decently comfortable black pumps out there still i.e. Fiona by Cole Haan. So yes, Manolos and Jimmy Choos are like wine- an acquired taste developed over time. For me, the charm for Louboutins are just more obvious. Their designs are just more elegant and me. For their classic pumps, I like how the pointy toes are just so and is not severely pointy like the Manolo ones nor too blunt or god forbed- squared!

Their non-classic designs also just seem more youthful and fun.

They also do a very nice slightly pointy yet well rounded toe. And isn't the whole silohuette just so gorgeous? And of course, there is also the signature red sole, which is just sooo cute! Although it makes me wonder, what happens when one walks on it for a while and the red sole is no longer red? Isn't it so sad to ruin something so pretty? I mean I know I shouldn't care too much, but personally I get upset when there is so much as a scratch on my new shoe (hence I am also the type who wants to "save" things for special days, but I am gradually learning the error of my ways in tha respect). How does everyone else deal? Or do Louboutin girls just don't care?

Image Source: Net a Porter

I Dream of a Lifestyle Involving Many Cocktail Dresses V: Coloured Tights

One positive thing about spending the holidays back in Hong Kong is the temperature -it's cool enough to wear a cute jacket but warm enough to wear skirts and dresses without freezing ones legs. In the past, tights used to mean that it was so cold I had to wear them with my school skirt. But this year, for the first time, I'm actually considering wearing black tights as part of a casual outfit. (OK, so everyone does this, but it's new to me.) I'm imagining outfits with short cotton dresses or very long tees with black leggings -kind of Olsen-esque.

Another tights-related style I'm thinking about are coloured tights. Now I've never been an adventurous dresser, so I'm certainly not thinking of wearing colourful tights with crazy coloured shorts and tees, (80's style.) I'm thinking more of the girly, simple way like the images (above and below). I think the key to this look is really to keep the outfit simple. Basically, keep everything else but the tights black or neutral-coloured.


To be honest, wearing colourful tights seem like a lot of effort to me. I mean, do you know how many colours and degrees of sheerness of tights there are out there? What is the difference between '50 den' and '80 den' tights? What does 'den' mean anyways? Just the thought of buying a pair of coloured tights is enough to keep me away. But the argument of you're-only-young-once, and you can't exactly wear coloured tights when you pass a certain age is making me consider having some fun with this trend.


Are you wearing coloured tights this season? If so, how are you wearing them?


Image credit: www.urbanoutfitters.co.uk, www.fcukmail.com, www.topshop.com

Tiffany Rings

I have a thing for rings. Besides my silver hoop earrings, I think that my next best jewelry investment is my 1837 Tiffany ring. I've had it for around 3 years now and I wear it everyday. It is one of those pretty accessories that matches anything and is perfect for all occasions. It is simple, clean cut and not too overtly Tiffany's (unless you look at it this closely). I love it so much, I even paid $10 to get it cleaned at Tiffany's once. Unfortunately for me even after the cleaning it didn't look like new. I guess all that banging and clanging from daily wear has finally taken its toll.


So just as a fun exercise, I thought I'd look at more rings from Tiffany. They DO make great presents after all *hint hint*. For a more elegant and delicate design, I am loving these two (left: open heart, right: closed heart). Though as girly a girl as I am, even I find the heart a little bit too girly for daily use (hmm maybe unless it meant something....). The closed heart is more versatile since it really looks more like a oddly shaped bean than a heart.
Even simpler, there is the Cushion (left) and the Torque (right). There is no question the versatility here. The Cushion is a little TOO simple for me (if I'm going to spend that kind of money, I'd like something with a bit more design and effort). I love the twisted design of the Torque, though I do wonder about how comfortable it is with all the odd angles.
I think out of all of them, these two strike the best balance between versatility and design (left: Somerset, right: Knots). It is simple yet unique. Though personally, I think the Somerset is a bit too bulky for my fingers. I much prefer the Knot, with its feminine yet simple design.

So yes, these are my just some of thoughts on Tiffany's silver rings. And the best thing about these choices in my opinion is that they are not the typical Tiffany designs. We have enough of those floating around as it is.

Image Source: Tiffany

FW07: Waistcoats

So waistcoats/vests have been around for a while, but it must be one of those things that grows on you because now that I've seen so many people on the streets and on tv wear it, I really want one!
Luckily for me, judging from the Phillip Lim 3.1 (left) and Alice + Olivia (rght) catwalk above, the waistcoat trend is still here with us this season.
So I started out looking for one and almost bought this very classic tweedish one (right) from Urban Outfitters the other day. As far as waistcoasts go, this would match with a lot of outfits and the fit was pretty decent. I think the back is also a black satinish material, which I thought was interesting. Only downside was that the tweed material was really rough and since this waistcoast was not on sale, I didn't think it was worth the $42. They need to consider repricing UO...... On the other side of the Atlantic, we have this other classic waistcoat (left) from Top Shop.
Another very classic option for waistcoats are pinstriples (they are a derivative of suits/tux after all). I like these two from Alice + Olivia (left) and Top Shop (right). Though the Alice + Olivia one while more fitted looking (since the model is wearing it) might have a bit too much detail (pockets and collar) for me. I think I prefer something cleaner, since for me, a waistcoat IS a detail and it IS already striped....
Something more interesting, we have these two from Top Shop. Not too sure how flattering the blue one would be (left) but I LOVE the military inspired one (right).
Something more party-ish, we have these colorful shiny options from UO (left) and Vena Cava (right)- a great way to add some character to your party outfit. Though I think for satin, the cutting is very important and you can already see thee poor cutting from the picture here for UO (I do like the color though)- so be careful!

Image Source: Elle, Top Shop, Shop Bop and Urban Outfitters

Bipasha Basu & John Abraham

Bipasha Basu & John Abraham

I Dream of a Lifestyle Involving Many Cocktail Dresses IV: 20's Style Bags

UK's high street stores have been pushing and selling a lot of 20's style this party season. Now for those living in the States, where retailers tend to sell clean-cut clothes, you might not really know how a modern 20's dress looks like.

Remember the dress Kate Moss wore to Fashion Rocks this year? Think of a short, non-volume mini-dress; think beads and drop-waist. The two featured above are the examples I like (from Kate Moss Top Shop and Oasis).

So along with these dresses, high street shops are selling 20's style bags. While these bags don't seem very modern, in my imagination of a fancy world, I imagine one could carry these in a very glamorous, stylish way. Think Mary-Kate Olsen. (Oh btw, I'm not an expert on fashion, so excuse me if I say or feature items from the wrong decades.)

One of the main features of 20's style bags are frame bags. The first one that caught my eye is this golden, embroidered one from the Kate Moss Top Shop collection. It's more casual than the other ones and so pretty. Plus, doesn't it look like I had to go through vintage stores to dig it up (minus the effort)?

Another feature of 20's style bags are beaded bags. One that caught my eye is this black beaded one, also from Kate Moss Top Shop. It's simple but with just enough pattern detail.

Warehouse has one which is a bit more fancy -lots of gems. Not really my style though.

Oasis also has a range of beaded bags. My friend just bought the one on the left in black. One good thing about these bags is that if matched right, they can be carried in 'usual' functions like to cocktails and even clubbing, or to more dresses-up functions, like weddings and dances.

Even though it's kind of plain, I would like to see this bronze pouch in real life. If it's big enough to be somewhat practical (although I suspect it's not), at 18 pounds, I might just buy it.

If these aren't fancy enough for you, how about this box-bag from Top Shop?

French Connection has this very interesting bottle-bag. The design is pretty unique, isn't it? (Plus, the photo of the model holding it shows that you can match these 20's bags with your very contemporary dresses.)

And if you're really into the whole dressing up thing, this feather hairband from Accessorize is a fantastic accessory to add onto your outfit. It's easy to wear and adds just the right amount of dressiness. Just make sure you don't put too many things together and wear the accessories to stuiable events.

Do you like this whole 20's style party clothes revival by the UK high street?

Image credits: www.oasis-store.com, www.topshop.com, www.asos.com, www.accessorize.com