Chalk Talk: More on the Pistol Alignment, Why it's not just for Mobile QBs, Uzi Alignment

[KDawg]

This forum has been inundated with Pistol alignment information over this offseason over and over again, so at this point any post is probably considered overkill. But I wanted to touch on a few additional aspects (without going into double, triple, quadruple and playaction concepts).

 

Offense, Formation, or Alignment?

As most know already, the system was devised by Chris Ault. What a lot of people don't realize is the "why". Ault created the system because he didn't like the Shotgun. He liked the concept of it, but not the actual alignment. The shotgun alignment, with the back to the side, allows for only an east/west running game. The surprise element is lacking quite a bit, especially at the higher levels where misdirection can be blown up by a defensive lineman that's worth his paycheck. In layman's terms:

 

If the back aligns to the quarterback's left, he's really only a threat to run to the opposite side of the formation. So in the gun, especially if your QB wasn't a run threat, the threat of a run was really only relevent to the side away from the back's original alignment.

 

The pistol alignment changed that. The back being behind the QB really opened up the running game. The entire base package from inside zone, to lead/iso plays and Power O was now available to the offense... In either direction.

 

The reason I consider pistol an alignment is simple: It's not a formation (this is something I originally believed, but after thought, it's simply not a stand alone formation) and it's not an offense. It couldn't be a formation because you get additional players added to it, and you can vary what the rest of your personnel does on a play to play basis. The pistol alignment is essentially just telling you that the QB is in a slightly closer shotgun alignment with the back behind him.

 

The Uzi is a variation of that alignment, but it's still not a formation. It doesn't tell you what other players are in what spots, it just tells you the backfield alignment. This is the same reason that I now consider the "I" formation an alignment, versus a formation. But I digress, that's semantics. That's just my point of view, there are people much smarter than me, and better than me that still call it a formation.

 

All things considered, though, a formation is really a series of alignments put together under one umbrella.

 

Mobile, Dual Threat QB Necessary?

The original idea of the pistol didn't include the zone read. Which means that you absolutely don't need an athletic quarterback to run it. A mobile, athletic quarterback such as RG3, Russell Wilson, Cam Newton or Colin Kaepernick absolutely add to the scheme and give you great flexibility within it. But it's not a necessary piece to the pistol alignment puzzle.

 

The pistol alignment still allows the quarterback to see a defense, much like the shotgun does. One of the original benefits to the shotgun alignment was that it allowed the quarterbacks to see the defense shift and move post snap because he was slightly further back. That aspect remains true with the pistol alignment. The difference now is that the defense has to respect the run to both directions, and it's just as downhill as it would be from a traditional "I" alignment.

 

The other reason why you'd go to a pistol is that it allows for a balanced protection. Most times, in shotgun, the back will protect to the side they're aligned to. That tipped defenses to send pressures the opposite way, to get a two on one situation with an offensive lineman. The pistol allows for the back to protect either way, and really balance your protection.

 

All of the above are reasons that you don't need one of the new breed super athletic guys running the offense. There was a lot of concern about Alex Smith using the pistol under Andy Reid in Kansas City earlier in the offseason. The same can be said about why Kirk Cousins didn't run it last year, people thought it was because he wasn't as mobile as RG3. While that's a true statement, it's not necessarily why Cousins wasn't in the pistol. Cousins wasn't in the pistol as often because he simply wasn't comfortable with it. It takes time to get used to, and be comfortable in. But the entire East Coast Offense (Shanahan playbook) is available to the team in the pistol formation, only the constraint plays (plays such as read-option) aren't AS available to a more immobile QB.

 

Think about it. Smith or Cousins from the shotgun wouldn't be looked at strangely. So why should they from the pistol? They can still see the field well, except now the running game and, due to the running game being a threat in both directions, the play action game is more effective than it would be in the traditional shot gun.

 

There is no reason to keep either guy in the gun, or under center, simply because they're not as mobile as the superhuman QBs we're beginning to see in the NFL.

 

The Uzi Formation

The Uzi formation is a nickname that we've given to the diamond formation. It's simply an old school "T" formation. Remember, football is very cyclical. Things that were once new are old, and things that were once old are now new. The "T" formation has been reincarnated.

 

The Uzi is simply this: Pistol Alignment for QB/RB. The FB and HB simply flank the QB to either side.

 

Stop and think about that for a second. If you have five offensive linemen and four backs in the backfield, that's nine players inside to contend with. Most defense coordinators will undoubtedly stack the box against nine guys. Where does that give you an advantage? On the perimeter. With a mobile QB, the zone read could be even more scary. With a statue QB you still have extra hats (players) to contend with, and plenty of misdirection opportunities.

 

But alos keep in mind that nine in the box provides one on one match ups with receivers. Kansas City would benefit as Dwayne Bowe is now one on one with a corner. We would benefit as players such as Pierre Garcon are one on one. San Francisco benefits with Crabtree and/or Anquan Boldin one on one. There are coverage schemes to help combat that issue, such as quarters where the safeties make a read before declaring their responsibility (coverage or filling the alley). But that's where playaction concepts come into play. To freeze the safeties a bit.

 

Then factor in the possibilities of an arc block on a backside DE on the zone read play, where the DE goes to take on the FB, then the fullback pulls away, and the DE is in bad position. The FB can then go to second level and block a backer, thus effectively taking two guys out of the play, or go out on a pass route as an outlet.

 

Conclusion

The pistol isn't a "trend". It's here to stay. It's variations are endless, the possibilities are endless. It's a very effective formation whether the QB is a threat to run or not, but moreso if he is. This is why I don't agree with Mike Tomlin's statement that it's a fad, simply because a commitment to it means your QB is going to get hit. While he's right that the zone read play will get your quarterback hit, the pistol alignment doesn't mean that your QB is running. Ideally, you don't want your QB running the ball on a routine basis, you want him doing it when the area is vacated and there's space for him to get a good gain and get down or get out of bounds. That protects your QB. Any defensive player, coordinator or head coach worth a salt is going to want to get a free shot in on the quarterback, as long as it's a clean/legal hit. If the QB doesn't get down or get out of bounds, then repeated exposure to hits becomes an issue. If they play it smart, though, it's not any more of a threat than if they are standing in the pocket delivering a pass.

[Riggo-toni]

Cool informative writeup. Thx.

[DC9]

Great writeup again KD.

 

I think you can find film from a lot of teams running at least one play out of the Pistol last year.  And I agree, it's not a trend.

 

Good info on the uzi forcing teams to commit more players to the box.  I noticed that this was a formation that we often did go deep out of last year and it now makes a lot of sense why.  Lot's of toys to play with in this offense, an OC who loves toying with formations, and a QB who can do anything you want him to do (as well as add input from his past experience in the offense) spells a lot of potential success over the next several season. 

 

And this isn't even getting into the different types of runs you can do... inside zone, outside zone, jet sweep, zone read, boot, dive, triple option, and then all of the play action off of that. 

[KDawg]

Great writeup again KD.

 

I think you can find film from a lot of teams running at least one play out of the Pistol last year.  And I agree, it's not a trend.

 

Good info on the uzi forcing teams to commit more players to the box.  I noticed that this was a formation that we often did go deep out of last year and it now makes a lot of sense why.  Lot's of toys to play with in this offense, an OC who loves toying with formations, and a QB who can do anything you want him to do (as well as add input from his past experience in the offense) spells a lot of potential success over the next several season. 

 

And this isn't even getting into the different types of runs you can do... inside zone, outside zone, jet sweep, zone read, boot, dive, triple option, and then all of the play action off of that. 

 

 

You can run essentially any offensive concept out of the pistol alignment. There are pretty much no restrictions. Bone stuff, Option stuff, zone, gap, man schemes, west coast, Air Coryell, Erhardt-Perkins... Everything.

[Darth Tater]

I know that Pittsburg used the pistol forms to keep Big Ben on the field when he was nursing a bad ankle (knee?).  I'd heard about why Marino's Dolphins couldn't run (especially later in Dan's career) was that Dan Marino couldn't get to the mesh point quick enough so the OC moved it closer to the LOS.  If this is true, I wonder if Marino would have benefited from the pistol?

[KDawg]

Most likely. He could have seen the field a lot better, and the mesh point wouldn't have been an issue.

[DC9]

I know that Pittsburg used the pistol forms to keep Big Ben on the field when he was nursing a bad ankle (knee?).  I'd heard about why Marino's Dolphins couldn't run (especially later in Dan's career) was that Dan Marino couldn't get to the mesh point quick enough so the OC moved it closer to the LOS.  If this is true, I wonder if Marino would have benefited from the pistol?

 

 

Could be.  The Ravens and Saints both ran it last year as well.  As KD and just about EVERYONE else is trying to say, it's not JUST to run the zone read... as Kyle said at the podium yesterday, it's basically the formation for our normal offense, except Robert is about 3 yards - 4 yards behind the center instead of underneath.  It's a spread look with a running back who can go anywhere an I back can go.

[Mahons21]

Ironically enough, the pistol actually makes reading the weak-side DE more difficult, since you don't have the RB coming across the QB as you would in shotgun.  Thus the pistol actually makes the zone-read more difficult to run than the traditional zone read out of shotgun.

[LD0506]

So, in a "big picture" way, wouldn't the Pistol/Uzi,etc. be more demanding for the QB/RB, in that they actually read/react to a defensive alignment or scheme as opposed to just calling a play and running it into the teeth of the defense regardless? I understand the general thrust of the advantages to it, but everything has a price, and you frequently hear coaches talk about "thinking too much", how they want the players to just play instinctively, so how much more exacting practice and cerebral play (or whatever else) do you need from your offense with this scheme?

 

 

[darrelgreenie]

Ironically enough, the pistol actually makes reading the weak-side DE more difficult, since you don't have the RB coming across the QB as you would in shotgun.  Thus the pistol actually makes the zone-read more difficult to run than the traditional zone read out of shotgun.

you can still have the rb path of travel move across the Qb in pistol.

[Mahons21]

Ironically enough, the pistol actually makes reading the weak-side DE more difficult, since you don't have the RB coming across the QB as you would in shotgun.  Thus the pistol actually makes the zone-read more difficult to run than the traditional zone read out of shotgun.

you can still have the rb path of travel move across the Qb in pistol.

No doubt.  But it will take longer to get the mesh point, and the east to west movement won't be as pronounced.  In short, the zone-read is easier to run from traditional shotgun than it is spread.

[rick7423]

Most likely. He could have seen the field a lot better, and the mesh point wouldn't have been an issue.

I am showing my inexperience here: what is the mesh point?

[KDawg]

Where the QB and RB meet in a handoff.

[rick7423]

Agh... makes sense. Thanks for the help.

[TD Riggo]

I just want to see the "Uzi formation" because it sounds so badass!

 

Nice article!

[Oldfan]

KDawg: You can run essentially any offensive concept out of the pistol alignment. There are pretty much no restrictions. Bone stuff, Option stuff, zone, gap, man schemes, west coast, Air Coryell, Erhardt-Perkins... Everything.

 

 

I agree with 90% of your comments in this thread, but I think you might want to tone this statement down a bit. To less-sophisticated readers, it might sound like you are saying that everything could be run just as well as in the original scheme. If true, that would be one magnificent creation.

 

It's hard to say what we really mean in this context. All the terms have to be defined. What do you mean by "West Coast Offense?" Bill Walsh seemed to begin with the idea of his QB "throwing on rhythm. " If we define that term as Walsh did, starting the QB under center is a requirement. 

 

Walsh was flat-out opposed to the shotgun and he would scoff at using the pistol for the same reason. He would say that the QB can't throw on rhythm, he has to take his eyes off the defense to catch the snap, and there's greater risk of a bad snap.

 

I think Walsh was wrong in his emphasis in throwing on rhythm, but my point is that there would be a lot of highly qualified football people raising their eyebrows on your statement.

[KCClybun]

It's actually pretty well known that the "West Coast Offense" as defined by Bill Walsh has largely been out of existence for a long time. Bill Walsh basically never ran shotgun because he thought it'd mess up the timing aspects, and teams that are defined as West Coast Offense teams like us, the Packers, the Saints, use it all the time. Mike Shanahan took the WCO and flipped the reads from short-to-deep to deep-to-short.

 

 

"West Coast Offense" is just a catch-all term for a core set of principles that are still followed today, even though the concepts and how those principles are applied.

 

 

Or, the short version; quit nitpicking.

[Oldfan]

It's actually pretty well known that the "West Coast Offense" as defined by Bill Walsh has largely been out of existence for a long time. Bill Walsh basically never ran shotgun because he thought it'd mess up the timing aspects, and teams that are defined as West Coast Offense teams like us, the Packers, the Saints, use it all the time. Mike Shanahan took the WCO and flipped the reads from short-to-deep to deep-to-short.

 

 

"West Coast Offense" is just a catch-all term for a core set of principles that are still followed today, even though the concepts and how those principles are applied.

 

 

Or, the short version; quit nitpicking.

Your post and mine were about Bill Walsh and the West Coast Offense. Otherwise, I see no relevance. You obviously missed the point.

[darrelgreenie]

Ironically enough, the pistol actually makes reading the weak-side DE more difficult, since you don't have the RB coming across the QB as you would in shotgun.  Thus the pistol actually makes the zone-read more difficult to run than the traditional zone read out of shotgun.

you can still have the rb path of travel move across the Qb in pistol.

No doubt.  But it will take longer to get the mesh point, and the east to west movement won't be as pronounced.  In short, the zone-read is easier to run from traditional shotgun than it is spread.

I disagree. I watched too much Nevada /Kaepernick cut-ups 2 years ago to agree with you on this one. If there is a difference I would argue the benefit is greater running zone read from pistol because of the pistol has more possibilities for the defense to worry about.

[darrelgreenie]

-Oldfan

How been?

I get what you are saying here. Especially about general or undefined terms when it comes to a football discussion.

It seems kd is speaking in a more general sense. Conceptually you can run stuff from those (wco, ciryell, e&p) offenses through the pistol formation.

But the execution is different and for many coaches/people its the execution that gives a play its identity.

[Mahons21]

DG,

 

I think you're interpreting my point to mean that the zone-read is more effective out of the shotgun.  That's not my point.

 

My point was that the job of the QB the "read" is more difficult from pistol than it is traditional shotgun. 

[KCClybun]

DG,

I think you're interpreting my point to mean that the zone-read is more effective out of the shotgun. That's not my point.

My point was that the job of the QB the "read" is more difficult from pistol than it is traditional shotgun.

How?

[KDawg]

It was definitely meant in a general sense. Not in a "this is the best alignment in the world!!" sense.

[Darth Tater]

 

 

Ironically enough, the pistol actually makes reading the weak-side DE more difficult, since you don't have the RB coming across the QB as you would in shotgun.  Thus the pistol actually makes the zone-read more difficult to run than the traditional zone read out of shotgun.

you can still have the rb path of travel move across the Qb in pistol.

No doubt.  But it will take longer to get the mesh point, and the east to west movement won't be as pronounced.  In short, the zone-read is easier to run from traditional shotgun than it is spread.

I disagree. I watched too much Nevada /Kaepernick cut-ups 2 years ago to agree with you on this one. If there is a difference I would argue the benefit is greater running zone read from pistol because of the pistol has more possibilities for the defense to worry about.

What you see usually is more of a veer read in the normal pistol or a modified zone read.  If its an uzi or a Near/Far type of alignment (a HB aligned to the QB's side), you run would likely run the dive option of the zone read through that up back and use the ace back for the pitch option.  I think I've also seen a pistol base using an offset ace back

DG,

 

I think you're interpreting my point to mean that the zone-read is more effective out of the shotgun.  That's not my point.

 

My point was that the job of the QB the "read" is more difficult from pistol than it is traditional shotgun. 

It is the ace back's path that is altered, not the QB's read "difficulty".  I think the birth of using an offset ace back came about because the ace may not be quick enough to get to the proper mesh point.

[Mahons21]

I'm referencing plays like the one at 1:32 in the link below.  The RB does not cross the QB from east to west as pronounced as he would from shotgun, and though Kaep makes a play, the DE is right there and easily could have made the play himself. You're essentially forced to the inside zone read, unless you want to alter the path of the ace back.

 

 

The ace back's path is not altered, and the QB is forced to make a read with a DE that isn't crashing nearly as hard to the play side, thus the task becomes more difficult.