Shotgun formation

[green&gold75]

For those who have played, or otherwise have an opinion, how much does it affect a defense's mindset and play whether a QB takes the snap under center, or from shotgun formation. I ask because I observe, for example, a team has the ball 3rd and 11 at the opposing team's 40 yd line, everyone is looking for pass, and they do pass, yet they don't start in shotgun formation. Is the thinking that the defense will still be obliged to think run more than otherwise? Thoughts?

[SDHornet]

Depends on the situation IMO. Is the game close? Does the offensive team have a capable kicker who can hit a long FG? If a FG gives the offensive team the lead, is there enough time for the defensive teams offense to mount a scoring drive?

[green&gold75]

Thanks SDHornet, but the jist of he question is about the advantage in time and field visability to a QB when he is passing from shotgun formation. I can understand starting under center on a planned pass on, say, 2nd and 2, where the defense is more likely to be thinking run, and may bite on a play fake, but in general, on third and long and planning to pass, why would anyone not want to start in shotgun formation? Love to hear from a former QB or front 7 defensive player on this.

[clenz]

Depends on the situation IMO. Is the game close? Does the offensive team have a capable kicker who can hit a long FG? If a FG gives the offensive team the lead, is there enough time for the defensive teams offense to mount a scoring drive?

These are all very good questions. It depends on the point of the game and everything like that.


However, in general for me (and the defensive sets I played in during high school and my brief time in college) the formation didn't matter for 3rd and long as much as the situation and the teams tendencies that were picked up in film study and during the game.

I found that being able to pick up on the language the QB is using throughout the game will tell you just as much, probably more, about what is being run than the formation. The one different I would look for under center vs. shot gun in a 3rd and long look is the routes that will be run. This isn't always the case, but in my experiences it seems to hold true.

If they are under center you can bet there will be more routes run for a three step drop than for a 5 or 7 step drop. There may be a deep route run but I'd be willing to bet that more often than not they are looking for the WR to make a play after the catch. More or less a "running" pass play (quick slant, quick in, quick out, short post, etc...).

If they are in shot gun I'd look for something a little deeper. Not necessarily a deep seam, but an out on the other side of the marker. I would guess it is going to be a 10-15 yard out/in/hitch. Maybe a drag right behind the backers.


I'm sure someone will take the opposite approach as me on this, and that is fine. There isn't a real set thing to look for. It depends on the game situation, what the teams tendencies are, how the game has progressed and what they have had work and what they haven't, etc...

[green&gold75]

Depends on the situation IMO. Is the game close? Does the offensive team have a capable kicker who can hit a long FG? If a FG gives the offensive team the lead, is there enough time for the defensive teams offense to mount a scoring drive?

These are all very good questions. It depends on the point of the game and everything like that.


However, in general for me (and the defensive sets I played in during high school and my brief time in college) the formation didn't matter for 3rd and long as much as the situation and the teams tendencies that were picked up in film study and during the game.

I found that being able to pick up on the language the QB is using throughout the game will tell you just as much, probably more, about what is being run than the formation. The one different I would look for under center vs. shot gun in a 3rd and long look is the routes that will be run. This isn't always the case, but in my experiences it seems to hold true.

If they are under center you can bet there will be more routes run for a three step drop than for a 5 or 7 step drop. There may be a deep route run but I'd be willing to bet that more often than not they are looking for the WR to make a play after the catch. More or less a "running" pass play (quick slant, quick in, quick out, short post, etc...).

If they are in shot gun I'd look for something a little deeper. Not necessarily a deep seam, but an out on the other side of the marker. I would guess it is going to be a 10-15 yard out/in/hitch. Maybe a drag right behind the backers.
I'm sure someone will take the opposite approach as me on this, and that is fine. There isn't a real set thing to look for. It depends on the game situation, what the teams tendencies are, how the game has progressed and what they have had work and what they haven't, etc...

Makes sense to me.

[JayJ79]

bit of a tangent:
but why is it called "shotgun formation" anyway?

[SuperHornet]

The Whiners developed the formation out of the old short punt formation. The short punt itself was a variation of the old single-wing type formations where the tailback ran the offense and the QB was merely a blocking back up near the line behind the guard or in the G-T gap. I presume that the shotgun got it's name with the Whiners because it was originally (and still is to a large degree) used mainly for passing. It probably came from the old British army squad tactic where one rank would kneel and another rank behind it would stand, shooting from there.

Barring anything different in terms of individual team tendencies, the obvious reaction to any gun formation is to drop linemen or backers (or both) and go to a nickel/dime/dollar defense because of the overwhelming tendency to throw out of this formation. That's why some offenses keep a back or two with the QB: a draw can be devastating if the defense is playing all cover. Many offenses which use gun only go to it at the end of the game, increasing the viability of this reaction.

Yet there is also the argument to keep the QB under center. In a T or I derivative set, there is MUCH more threat to run; stretch is a very common run call in "usual" passing situations to cross up the defense, and it's harder to run out of gun. Besides, with the threat of the run, the DBs' attention is not solely on the receivers; depending on the scheme, some may be jointly responsible for run support. Do those screw-the-defense-up runs a couple of times, and they're ripe for a PAP off of it.

A lot of it depends on the OC's philosophy. Personally, I like to mix it up. We probably ran a bit too much HB screen in 3rd and long at UOP. At Sac, we probably hit the stretch play a bit too much. You gotta cross the defense up, and doing the same thing over and over (be it gun or under center) just isn't going to cut it.

That about clear as mud? LOL.

[green&gold75]

The Whiners developed the formation out of the old short punt formation. The short punt itself was a variation of the old single-wing type formations where the tailback ran the offense and the QB was merely a blocking back up near the line behind the guard or in the G-T gap. I presume that the shotgun got it's name with the Whiners because it was originally (and still is to a large degree) used mainly for passing. It probably came from the old British army squad tactic where one rank would kneel and another rank behind it would stand, shooting from there.

Barring anything different in terms of individual team tendencies, the obvious reaction to any gun formation is to drop linemen or backers (or both) and go to a nickel/dime/dollar defense because of the overwhelming tendency to throw out of this formation. That's why some offenses keep a back or two with the QB: a draw can be devastating if the defense is playing all cover. Many offenses which use gun only go to it at the end of the game, increasing the viability of this reaction.

Yet there is also the argument to keep the QB under center. In a T or I derivative set, there is MUCH more threat to run; stretch is a very common run call in "usual" passing situations to cross up the defense, and it's harder to run out of gun. Besides, with the threat of the run, the DBs' attention is not solely on the receivers; depending on the scheme, some may be jointly responsible for run support. Do those screw-the-defense-up runs a couple of times, and they're ripe for a PAP off of it.
A lot of it depends on the OC's philosophy. Personally, I like to mix it up. We probably ran a bit too much HB screen in 3rd and long at UOP. At Sac, we probably hit the stretch play a bit too much. You gotta cross the defense up, and doing the same thing over and over (be it gun or under center) just isn't going to cut it.

That about clear as mud? LOL.

Thanks. You've given me a better picture of the thinking that goes on in making that decision.

[clenz]

Or you get teams like UNI, ASU, WVU, Texas, etc... Who run almost only shotgun and have damn good run games

[SuperHornet]

That's a gimmick, clenz. The running game from those sets likely garners its success more from the spread set (thereby taking defenders out of the box) than from the fact that they're in gun. One only has to look at spread sets with the QB under center to see that. The QB in the gun in a spread set is an advantage in these run-successful offenses ONLY because the QB is mobile (i.e. he can roll out or run speed option out of the gun a bit easier). If he's not, he may as well be under center for all the use they'll get out of him. Those run-based gun offenses DEMAND a mobile QB and break down without one. They may as well be pulling the Single Wing or Notre Dame Box out of mothballs.

[clenz]

I'll tell you before you keep going that UNI isn't spreading the field with our shot gun. We often have 2 backs and a TE at a wing position. We also haven't ever had real mobile qbs.

[SuperHornet]

I'd like to see some footage of that. It gets away from the typical stereotypes. Sounds quite a bit like a modification of the pre-T Formation sets, though it probably has some modern twists to it.

One thing in it's favor, even with a stone-foot QB: while there's always the debate about whether or not a QB has more time to pass in the gun, he's definitely seeing the defense longer, and it's harder for them to get away with crazy alignment shifts (particularly DBs lining up far away from their area of responsibility and scrambling back there at the snap).

[Libertine]

bit of a tangent:
but why is it called "shotgun formation" anyway?

The name came from when SF 49ers coach Red Hickey implemented the short punt formation on offense around 1960. Opposing coaches referred to it as a "shotgun formation" because it seemed to spray multiple receivers all over the field.

[clenz]

I'd like to see some footage of that. It gets away from the typical stereotypes. Sounds quite a bit like a modification of the pre-T Formation sets, though it probably has some modern twists to it.

One thing in it's favor, even with a stone-foot QB: while there's always the debate about whether or not a QB has more time to pass in the gun, he's definitely seeing the defense longer, and it's harder for them to get away with crazy alignment shifts (particularly DBs lining up far away from their area of responsibility and scrambling back there at the snap).

I don't have any film of it with me, however, I did do some MS Paint mock ups of the most common formations that we run. The RB's aren't always both tailbacks, sometimes we got a HB and one FB, 2 HB, a FB and a power style back, sometimes we got a WR back there as well. We also run standard shot gun 4 and 5 wide, standard shot gun three wide, we also run some standard I formation with 3-4 wide.

[Aho Old Guy]

...

Barring anything different in terms of individual team tendencies, the obvious reaction to any gun formation is to drop linemen or backers (or both) and go to a nickel/dime/dollar defense because of the overwhelming tendency to throw out of this formation. That's why some offenses keep a back or two with the QB: a draw can be devastating if the defense is playing all cover. ...

This.

Hit 'em where they ain't with a quick trap to the short side of the field. Unless you have the misfortune of running into a DL stunt you have a good chance to 'pop' your man into open space. Even better: catch them in a bad blitz and you're gold.

The natural tendency of a DE is up field --- give them a nice little shove and let them take themselves out of the play.

It then becomes a numbers game with your interior lineman and how well you seal the backside.

Use the defense's tendencies against them. Slot a man on the weak side and bring him in motion. Most likely that nickel back (if he is in the box) will either go with him in man-to-man or rotate out as the DBs shift or load even more to the strong side.