Expanding the Quick Passing Game (Part 4)

I've spent the previous 3 installments outlining the influencing factors in my version of the contemporary quick passing attack; now I will briefly surmise how I currently group the quick passing game.  This, too, is different from most.

With quick screens becoming more of a part of the picture offensively, the role of quick passes in our arsenal changed dramatically. When I arrived at North Lamar HS in 2000, I began tinkering with our quick passing game in an attempt to maximize our "down the field" opportunities vs. man coverage.  With so few true opportunities during the course of a game (not to mention practice limitations, as our kids played both ways) to create explosive plays, I wanted to be able to capitalize whenever that opportunity prestented itself.  Through constant evolution, the versatility of the quick passing game has expanded far beyond outside recievers running simple hitch, slant, or fade routes, with the quarterback being forced into an all or non propostion depending on the defense of that particular down.

"Quick" passing, for us, became more about reading technique, and less about the conventional routes associated with the Quick Game.  In our "Quick" aresenal there are three concepts:

First, the traditional quick passing game is defined as a "Plus One" concept.  Here, we are either attacking with "`1 vs. none" (one receiver vs. NO flat defender), or "2  vs. 1" --  using backside receivers to break into the quarterback's vision, like the Run 'n Shoot patterns did before them... 

We also had an adaptive enough system to release the back to the weakside of a 3-1 set, if that proves to be the most advantageous way of throwing slant/flat (this is the same platform from which we base our "BAMA" tag -- our name for the 2 man snag pattern that has gained such polpularity of late):

Second, we group the "Corner" concept as an extension of the quick game, in which a high-low stretch is created on the corner.  Many call this "Smash" and count it as part of their dropback inventory; we used it as a means to take 5 yards in quick rhythm vs. soft, retreating corners, but deal a devastating blow to the defense should they be in a coverage that uncovers the flag route to the inside receiver.  In this fashion -- throwing the hitch in with a "quick 3" drop from shotgun or "hitching up" to throw the flag -- the offense gets all the "on air" completions it works against in practice, all the most opportune situations to throw the flag route, and none of the mess of teaching the customary hitch/fade route conversion.  Should the defense present a "soft" corner but an expanding flat defender, the QB treats that as not having a "plus one" advantage, and goes backside.

It should also be noted that the backside "FIN" route is run with the exact same mechanics as the normal hitch; if there is no ball on rhythm, the receiver can continue inside, creating an interior high-low stretch for the quarterback. 

Third, the "Two Man Game" concept allowed us to attack the outside linebacker in a Two Deep configuration. It negates the common defensive answer to quick game: a "cloud" (Cover 2) corner.  Further, the possibility of a backside "glance" or "deep slant" discourages post snap disguises, and can be thrown quickly enough to discourage zone blitz.  Moreover, the Two Man Game regularly involves the running back, who is often an afterthought in the passing game.

If the glance is not an option due to the defense encountered, or the strengths of the offensive personnel, the backside of the concept can be mated with the already familiar "Fin" combination: 

Once these basic concepts are introduced, they can can help translate some of the more complex-looking patterns in football and break them down into very digestable pieces.  Take, for example, the corner-pivot pattern usually associated with "bunch" formation: vs. a hard corner, the QB treats it like the normal Corner Concept, then would work backside.  Vs. a soft corner, he would use the pivot and flat like the Two Man Game concept before working the backside Hi-Low. 

The benefits of packaging our passing game this way were easy to see:
- We could help protect the passer based on the rhythm of the pass package
- The concepts provided simple keys for the quarterback, and could be run at the varsity and sub-varsity level
- We could feature the best players we had
- We could give the defense multiple looks
- We could concentrate on easy throws provided to us
- Because of no need for route conversion (hitch to fade), we could almost treat the throw to the flag as an "on air" throw vs. Cover 1 or Cover 2