I have a few projects in the works, so my time has been divided.  I have, however, received a lot of questions in regard to how the traditional QUICK game fits into the verbiage described in Recoded and Reloaded. So, here is a short write-up.

First, in regard to how we CALL these pattern sides, they are NAMED routes that fit into the backside of the numbered frontside pattern.  For those who are unfamiliar with our play calling system.....go buy the book.  Just kidding.  Below, you can see a diagram giving a brief explanation:

The patterns are described just as in many systems: HITCH, OUT, or FIST (Flat Inside a SlanT):

We tag these patterns with the NUMBERS (9ER) Advantage Principle, in which we have a pattern to attack single high or soft corners, and a default Cover 2 pattern to the frontside.  We will plan our quick side to defeat single high, while the 220 pattern offers a solid choice vs. Two Deep.  One benefit to the high school or college hash marks is the ease with which true two deep can be surmised:  with the ball on the hash, as in the diagram above, the BACKSIDE safety (B) must play on or outside the hash in in order to be a half field player.  Regardless of  where F (front side safety) aligns, if B plays inside the hash, we will treat the alignment as single high. 

As a result, the QB's decision is simple and decisive: if the safety is inside the hash, he can count on single high principles to the tagged quick route; if he is on or outside the hash, he works the "220" pattern.   The accountability falls to the coach to carefully plan boundary and field formational looks, but the work for the QB is clearly defined with an Advantage Principle that not only facilitates the quick game, but this offense's version of the Run N Shoot "Choice" route as well.

This represents the most basic presentation for quick routes.  Hope this helps!

"Like I said before, if you werent in the room with Amos Alonzo Stagg and Knute Rockne, then you stole it from somebody"

- Chip Kelly

I like so many things about Coach Kelly's approach, but this quote might be what I like best.  Football is a game of handed-down knowledge, and few coaches have had his recent success. Whether or not he continues that success with the Eagles is beside the point (I am interested to see how they handle personnel turnover, with released players singing with other teams and giving signal/ procedural information to calling the offense); his innovation is well documented, but the credit he gives to his past experiences is also apparent.

This made me start thinking about the people who I was lucky enough to learn from, and where different components of what I consider as "my" offensive system evolved from:

- I learned John Mackovic's system as a college player.  His system had its roots in Tom Landry's offense, as he was an assistant for him.  The system contained everything, including KEY screens that are so much a part of today's spread environment.  Also, as the Cowboys and 49ers dominated the NFC in the early and mid-90s, influxes of those passing games trickled into our own, using NFL film as a teaching tool.  Multiple shifts, motions, and personnel groupings were a focal point of the attack.  Cleve Bryant, my position coach,  fostered my thirst for knowledge as he let me handle our passing game quality control.  Gene Dahlquist (OC/QBs) was an excellent teacher of passing mechanics and the progression-based passing game. 
 
- My first boss, Kurt Nichols, taught me how to be in a single-back, 3-receiver environment on an every-down basis.  I learned the constraints of the zone running game from a spread out environment.  At the same stop, a former GA for John Jenkins, Wes Cope, taught me the inner workings of the Run & Shoot passing game. 

- My second post reconnected me with a former assistant at Texas, Jack Kiser.  I will forever be endebted to Jack for feeding my thirst for knowledge; while there, he flew in both Norm Chow and the late great Mike Heimerdinger for clinic sessions.  For any young passing-minded coach, these sessions were a dream come true -- I learned the BYU system verbatim, and 'Dinger's take on the staples of the West Coast Offense, and its evolution to one-back sets.  Coach Kiser let me install the passing game, and this experience proved invaluable.

- Along the way, Bill Mountjoy served as a constant resource.  As I was trying to mold the axioms I beleived in into a system, much of the focus was on Joe Gibbs' offenses in Washington.  This would not have been possible without Bill. Bill also introduces me to John McGregor, a longtime Henning assistant.  No matter how crazy the idea, I could be assured of constructive feedback.  Also, John helped use his connections to get all-access exposure to Mike Martz's Rams in their heyday, as well as Bruce Arians' translation of the Colts vaunted system.  To this day, the exchange of ideas is constant.

- At the age of 25, Phil Wickwar gave me total autonomy of an offense, as did Tommy Felty in my next job at 27.  Our teams were a laboratory of sorts, and both these coaches gave me the authority to experiment as I saw fit.  For example, our athletic dropback passer Billy Malone had two 80 yard runs on the zone read in 2000.  It was during these stops where the vertical reads of the run and shoot were streamlined  and rhythm became more defined to fit with the rest of our progression- based passing attack.  The numbers advantage principle came to fruition in our "3" pattern - our version of the Run and Shoot CHOICE route. Moreover, an extended no huddle attack was used for the first time.

- While at North Lamar, I corresponded with the late great Homer Smith.  Always willing to answer questions and send me drill tapes, I will be forever grateful.  He taught me the most in terms of using backside receivers and thus attacking with all 5 receivers on every play.

- Though several years removed from college, my connections with my Alma Mater were still paying dividends.  My friend and teammate, Todd Ford, began working for another Longhorn -- Todd Dodge.  Coach Dodge's system and QB/WR methods are legendary in Texas, and being an annual coach at his camps exposed me to some tremendous knowledge.  For example, I got to meet (among several others) Clayton George, who elevated the way I taught receivers.  Also in this time, Greg Davis' openess to share his insight is evident in looking at my offenses. A former teammate of mine (former Texas QB and current MD Richard Walton) called Coach Davis the best teacher he has ever had. The UT record books reflect this as well. 

-   At Lenoir-Ryhne, I met John Patterson, who encouraged my constant evolution in the passing game, and tirelessly searched for ways to protect for all the routes I was diagramming.  In 2002, we boasted the league's leading passer and school record holder, Brett Meunier. It was during this stop when we began combining 3 step patterns with backside outlets that came open with 5 step timing -- blending some Run and Shoot ideas with Homer Smith's. Also, during the 2003 season, JP and I began developed a highly evolved read system  to take advantage of our running QB, Scott Branton.  In 3 seasons, three different QBs (Kurtis Koester was the third) posted top 10 passing seasons in the school's record books. 

- Also  prior to the 2002 season, Steve Kragthorpe let me come up and sit in on meetings with the Bills.  Drew Bledsoe had just been acquired, and on his way to a Pro Bowl season in Kevin Gilbride's newly installed system.  Many of the Run and Shoot patterns were obvioulsy familiar; I did discover some protection adjustments that would pay dividends in the future, as well as the principle of always throwing away from the MLB as a means for throwing levels-type patterns  this would go on to become our Mike tags in the first book and RAM principle in the second.

Anyone who had followed the evolution of my passing system can see that the X's and O's didn't change from the first book to the next; the organization is the driver of change.  Much of the language is my own, although the idea of numbering receivers on a side comes from Marty McClintock, who was the head coach at Borger High School in Borger, TX.  My parents had moved to Borger during my college years, and Coach Mac was always accomodating enough to talk ball with me back then.  Of course, none of this would have happened without my high school coach, Allen Wilson.  He's the man who taught me how to win, how to have faith in the face of adversity, and how this game can influence the lives of many.  None of the previous would have been possible without Coach Wilson.

We as coaches are striving for continuous improvement; one of the toughest things to do is finding where new plays/ ideas "fit" within the structurre of an offense. In fact, the system from which I work is the culmination of years doing just that -- taking the seemingly limitless ideas in the passing game and grouping them into digestable pieces.   One of my consulting clients, Josh Herring of Lassiter High School (GA), has been doing some *terrific* stuff in their high-powered, high octane passing game for the last several years. His spin on and old West Coast offense staple - HB READ - is not only effective and explosive, but also fits in supremely well into the structure of their offense.   

Our old version of HB READ (called 13 A or B Choice in Coach Mackovic's offense), featured a running back running an option route on an isolated LB.  He could sit versus zone, break out vesus man, and cut across his face if the LB overplayed to the outside:

This option route was surrounded by a pattern that handled LBers "bracketing" the option route by providing 1 on 1 routes out by outside receivers, and a "middle read" to drive back the top of Cover 2 or a "Tampa 2" MLB. 

While the pattern is a good one, the amount of teaching involved was more than one would like, and the pattern had to operate as a "stand alone" play in the offense, without really fitting with anything else.  When I got into coaching, my desire to streamline teaching by grouping plays into pass concepts shoved the choice route onto the back burner of my offensive thinking.  Herring has taken the choice route (called "Sloppy" in their terminology), simplified it's teaching, and found  compartments in the offense in which it fits perfectly. 

Used as a "Mike Read" backside tag (one of the three classifications of backside tags in this passing game), Lassiter High routinely mates "Sloppy" (H Sloppy if the slot is running it; F Sloppy if it is the singleback) with a frontside "Stick" pattern -- one of the "Big Three" pass concepts in this passing attack.  "Mike Read" tags serve the purpose of gaining a numerical advantage versus 2-high defensive coverages: in the diagram below, if the MLB overcommits to the strong side, the WLB becomes vulnerable to various 2 on 1 combinations by the 2 offensive receivers on the left.

Using a familiar frontside combination like STICK provides efficiency for the offense; if MLB plays honest, the offense plays "pitch and catch" vs. the Sam LB.  As the MLB reacts to the stick, the big play potential of the "Sloppy" route becomes realized:

The teaching of the option route is very straightforward. The tagged receiver runs a quick post; if he crosses the WLB's face he'll have plenty of room to work because the rotated towards the stick side.

The end result is the ability to feature a gifted option route runner anytime the defense leaves him isolated; should the defense commit two players to bracket, the offense is left with easy completions provided by the stick combination.  Josh was kind enough to provide some video:

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

In my first coaching stop, I was exposed to a wonderful blend of ideas: Houston's "Run and Shoot" passing game, (thanks to Wes Cope, a former UH graduate assistant) and a fulltime singleback offense, featuring 1 RB, 1TE, and 3 wide receivers as a base offense.  This combination, while alarming to R&S purists, was perfect for me; I still see advantages that a TE/H-Back body provides that a fourth wide receiver simply cannot replace. The protections were what needed tweaking for my taste; more on that later.

At any rate, we ran the complete array of Run 'n Shoot routes (Coach Cope didn't just install the basic 5 patterns; we even got to Wing Post or Flag, Throwback, Hook, etc.), and used the traditional quick combinations in a "Check with Me" manner.  The QB would come into the huddle (yes, the good 'ol huddle days) and say something like "Right 90 or 91, Check with Me" -- which married a "Hitch" combination vs. soft corners, and "Fade/Out" vs. hard corners:

Likewise, we paired slant/flat combinations vs. single-high safety looks with double slants vs. two-high safety configuratons.   All this was pretty standard operating procedure for many offenses back then, but the funny thing about our pocket-based protections (the standard Dennis Erickson-esque 7 man drop back pro) was that it really did not allow for us to tap the passing system's full potential.  It bothered me, even back then, that we almost always kept
"attached" receivers in to block -- again, a product of my experience in Coach Mackovic's system.  The backside features of the Run and Shoot were, to me, some of the best parts of the offense:

I spent one season at that initial coaching stop, but at my next assignment (at Abilene Christian in 1996), I was further exposed to some truly great resources: Norm Chow, and the late Mike Heimerdinger.  Though I had working knowledge of the West Coast Offense from my playing days, the time I spent visiting with these masters of offense was invaluable.  Along with Coach Chow's flood game, and the intricate details of the drag concept from Coach 'Dinger, I learned the details of "F Scat" and "Spacing" from them, respectively.

"66 F Scat"  -  this was the offense's (BYU in 1996) version of "Y Stick"  In the words of Coach Chow himself -- "the thing that makes this play work is the hook over the ball."  Conceptually, it was a quick defender key followed by the quarterback scanning into a receiver breaking back into his vision.  Of note, I distinctively remember Coach Chow talking about experimenting with "X Scat"; college football would become well acquainted with this play as Reggie Bush and USC wreaked havoc on defenses some years later.

In the WCO's spacing idea, an individual quick route was called, and the QB could throw to the primary reciever in normal 3-step rhythm, or progress to alternate receivers across the field:

The advantages to this approach, in which the quarterback can come off of a quick target and "hitch up" to alternates, were clear to me.  The pattern did not waste receivers, and if you taught the QB to progress to alternates in rhythm with his feet (his "hitch steps") in the normal dropback game, he would not feel as if the "rug had been pulled from underneath him" if you called a quick pass, and the defense had it covered.  All the benefits of attacking the full width of a defense, with no new learning for the quarterback! 

The above ideas were nothing new to football in 1996, and yet so few coaches were taking advantage of them.

In the upcoming posts, I will reveal how I blended all these ideas into the quick game that I teach in my system, and also how I have expanded the definition of the quick concept in our terms, enabling an offense to carry very little dropback passing game, and yet still attack a defense consistently through the air.