Installing Pre-Snap Movement in Spring

The final piece of the puzzle!

By now, we know what players are playing what positions, what plays we are running, and what formations are going to put our players in best position to execute those plays that will become the core of our offense. The final piece of the puzzle is adding shifts and motions.

First, I want to define these terms. A very common definition for “shift” that I have heard is moving two players at the same time. In the Shanahan/McVay system, and mine as a result, a shift is movement to a formation. Shifts are tagged before the formation is given.

• Z Mo to Double RT

“Z Mo” is the shift. Double RT is the formation. “Mo” tells the tagged WR to align in the slot opposite the call. The call/formation is Double RT, so everyone except the Z aligns in Double RT. The Z would align in the slot to the left and move to his outside alignment in Double RT on the QB’s signal.

Motion, on the other hand, is movement away from a formation. Motions are tagged after the formation. If I wanted to get to the exact same look as Z Mo to Double RT, I could do this instead:

• Speed RT Z Float

Speed RT is the formation, a 1x3 or “Nub Trips” formation. Z Float is the motion. Float for me is a little bit different than you’ll see in the leaked playbooks (‘21 Kentucky - Coen). Float, in my offense, is Fly to Outside WR (compare to “Flight” - Fly to Inside WR). Fly is fast motion toward the core, but Float expands on that, telling the tagged WR to Fly until he is an outside WR or the QB snaps the ball.

Regardless of these two calls, we end up with twins on the left (X outside, F in the slot), and a “pro” side (Y attached, Z outside flanker), but how we got there is different. There are infinite possibilities outside of that, but this begs the question of shifts vs. motions philosophically.

I have previously posited shifts as an easy way to run the same play without breaking the huddle and presenting the exact same formation, and while I still believe that is the case, I think motions, when used correctly, can increase the level of deception we are providing a defense.

I ran into two obstacles with a shift mindset.

1. Shifts can cause us to line up in abnormal presentations. In last week’s article, we discussed some reasons why limiting formations (to a degree) can be beneficial, so if we are constantly lining up in abnormal looks then shifting to our more traditional formations, defenses can wait to see what our final formation is before beginning to read keys.

   • Abnormal look - a formation we haven’t run any plays out of on film and will continue to not run plays from in the current game’s gameplan.

2. An offense can very quickly have a lot of shifts to remember (with my definition of a shift). I mentioned “Mo” earlier as aligning in the opposite slot before motioning to the final formation. What if I want him to line up as the outside WR opposite? Slot same-side or opposite? Wing same-side or opposite? Backfield same-side, opposite, dot? All would have to have a different name for the shift.

Then, I saw this picture mid-season of Sean McVay’s play sheet and noticed that, for this game at least, he did not have shifts active, only motions, and I realized that he was using motion to get from one formation to another, not shifts. Diving deeper, I realized the “illusion of complexity” in all of it - McVay has multiple plays active at each motion. This was the major unlock for me. There is no point in moving players pre-snap if the defense is simply going to wait back for us to get into one of our “normal” looks. We have to threaten the ability to snap the ball at any point along the way by having plays that we can run before, during, and after each motion

.

So with a shift, we may not be presenting a formation the defense thinks we can run a play from. If we haven’t established any tendencies from that look, we have nothing to try to get them thinking about, so they can wait until we get into a normal formation and start thinking about tendencies then. But if we align in a formation we can run a set of plays from and motion to another formation we can run a set of plays from, we’re forcing a defense to constantly be thinking about what can be run out of every look and switching tendencies on them pre-snap. This can cause overthinking and get a defense playing slower, or it can cause defenses to simply not think. Either way, that’s a win for the offense. I think this can also be accomplished with just a few formations and motions as opposed to needing a new name for every shift’s starting location as mentioned earlier.

So for me right now, I am heavily leaning toward motions instead of shifts. Motions mean that I control the presentation the whole way through. We are only motioning from formations we have plays from and only motioning to formations (or snapping the ball on the run) that we have other plays from. Let’s revisit my “Speed RT Z Float” example. I would have a series of plays to run from Speed RT with no motion, a series of plays to run from Speed RT Z Missile motion, which would snap the ball as the Z is entering the core (think Jet Sweep Reads and Play Actions), and Speed RT Z Float once the Z is passing the slot space to the right. The defense has to be ready at every step for the ball to be snapped. I would also have plays that I like from Double RT. Because the distribution of players is the same between Double RT and Speed RT Z Float (twins left, pro right) I can run the exact same plays between the two.

Motion to this level is an identity. If we want to be able to motion like this, or even multiple pre-snap motions like McVay, it has to start now. I do believe shifts are still great for not simply lining up and running the same play the exact same way, at least preventing the DC from calling a specific blitz based off pre-snap alignment, but I think motions like this are a bit higher-leverage. Paid subscribers are going to have access to my thoughts on installing it in spring, and I believe it’s a lot more simple than you might think.