7 on 7 "ettiquete"

[bleedblue]

This is a question I had when I myself played 7 on 7 and I think carries relevance to today.

Should teams play to win when it comes to 7 on 7, or should they play to work on their passing game using their actual playbook and personel that they would use in a real game?

I bring this up because we played two types of teams in 7 on 7.

Most teams would use their actual personel and playbook, using 7 on 7 as a means to work on the synchronization and efficiency in the passing game. My own team did this as well. This is how I think 7 on 7 should be played.

But there were a handful of teams we played that would use playbooks and personel specifically designed for 7 on 7 that would not fly in a real football game. I remember playing Colleyville Heritage in a 7 on 7 game and they would do things like set "picks", run absolutely ridiculous crossing patterns and use other gimmicks that would only work in a 7 on 7 game. And defensively they would use schemes that would not work in a real game, such as committing a guy to jump in the face of our QB as he looked back to pass as if it were an inbound pass in basketball. And I remember playing Dallas Jesuit and they would use a tall lineman and try to lob him the ball because he was taller than everyone else and he would try to jump up and get it. And Marcus used plays that would have a couple guys stand around on the snap and then after a couple seconds begin to run their route. Needless to say, we lost to all 3 of these teams and I believe these teams advanced rather far in the 7 on 7 tournament.

So the question is, should teams play to win when it comes to 7 on 7 or instead try to make their real teams for the fall better?

[has09]

I think teams benefit more by running their playbooks etc., but I dont have a problem with teams developing some special plays for conversions etc.

[Wypirates03]

I think teams benefit more by running their playbooks etc., but I dont have a problem with teams developing some special plays for conversions etc.

I agree.

The two teams that I noticed setting picks, and running bs plays were Jesuit and Arlington Seguin. Neither qualified, so... yeah. They don't always work.

[trainin' the game]

This is a question I had when I myself played 7 on 7 and I think carries relevance to today.

Should teams play to win when it comes to 7 on 7, or should they play to work on their passing game using their actual playbook and personel that they would use in a real game?

I bring this up because we played two types of teams in 7 on 7.

Most teams would use their actual personel and playbook, using 7 on 7 as a means to work on the synchronization and efficiency in the passing game. My own team did this as well. This is how I think 7 on 7 should be played.

But there were a handful of teams we played that would use playbooks and personel specifically designed for 7 on 7 that would not fly in a real football game. I remember playing Colleyville Heritage in a 7 on 7 game and they would do things like set "picks", run absolutely ridiculous crossing patterns and use other gimmicks that would only work in a 7 on 7 game. And defensively they would use schemes that would not work in a real game, such as committing a guy to jump in the face of our QB as he looked back to pass as if it were an inbound pass in basketball. And I remember playing Dallas Jesuit and they would use a tall lineman and try to lob him the ball because he was taller than everyone else and he would try to jump up and get it. And Marcus used plays that would have a couple guys stand around on the snap and then after a couple seconds begin to run their route. Needless to say, we lost to all 3 of these teams and I believe these teams advanced rather far in the 7 on 7 tournament.

So the question is, should teams play to win when it comes to 7 on 7 or instead try to make their real teams for the fall better?


i understand what you are saying; cedar hill never played in those types of 7 on 7 tournaments until this year. cedar hill would play other area teams and use their game offense and defense in the game.

this year cedar hill played in their first sqt tourney and qualified for a state appearence; even though they didn't exactly use the same plays and defensive schemes as they would in a regular game; there were other x-factors that i think would help a team once the season started. examples were having your qb call plays and make reads, wr and qb timing, defensively they are able to run a type of dime coverage, kids are put in adverse situations in trying to win a ball game, and it gives kids the chance to see where they stand against other kids.

[odessapermian.com]

In qualifying and/or league games, run your real offense and defense. If you do qualify and make the trip to the state tournament, then I say let it all hang out. Picks, tricks, whatever. If you're going to make that long trip and pay all that money to play in College Station, you might as well try to win it all.

[Irving79]

This topic surfaces with some regularity this time of year. 7 on 7 is a fun sport. It's not football, really. But it does have some very good skills training applications. My son plays for a school that runs the Wing-T (don't laugh). 7 on 7 is the most fun they can have on offense. Further, there is virtually no input from the coaches. Dad's run the show. So they have to create special offensive schemes and plays to make it work. If they ran a more pass-friendly offense, I think they'd be glad to use it in the 7 on 7 format.

Either way, it's competition. The kids want to win. I say let them do what they want.

[DrEdward]

There are schools (and fans) around which view 7 on 7 as a sport in and of itself. Others view the game as practice and development for the 11 man version for their backs and receivers. In either view, it is clearly a game designed for the offense. If your school is one of the former, then it will be much more likely to run the gimick kind of plays with all the picks and patterns that would never see the field in the fall version of the game. In the later view, the use of normal 11 man routes and sets is more frequently viewed. But even in this later case, there are schools which do not utilize theri normal defense backs and linebackers, instead utilizing all defense corners and safeties rather than linebackers, as there is no need to protect against the run. I view these schools as a hybrid between the two alternative visions for 7 on 7.

I am of the opinion that the purpose of the 7 on 7 leagues is to develop the timing between QBs and receivers for the fall. Thus I prefer the view that the squads should run their regular patterns and play their regular defensive packages. But I don't fault those schools which take an alternate view. It is fun to watch in either event and the boys seem to enjoy playing the game and want to win under etiher principal varaition.

[FeeltheHaka]

In my opinion, learning to win and how to win has its benefits. Learning how to execute plays and improvise as a team has its benefits as well. Showing your strengths and routes to opponents is not such a good idea in my opinion. I think guys just playing a game together can have intangible benefits.

[ktCarl]

This is a question I had when I myself played 7 on 7 and I think carries relevance to today.

Should teams play to win when it comes to 7 on 7, or should they play to work on their passing game using their actual playbook and personel that they would use in a real game?

I bring this up because we played two types of teams in 7 on 7.

Most teams would use their actual personel and playbook, using 7 on 7 as a means to work on the synchronization and efficiency in the passing game. My own team did this as well. This is how I think 7 on 7 should be played.

But there were a handful of teams we played that would use playbooks and personel specifically designed for 7 on 7 that would not fly in a real football game. I remember playing Colleyville Heritage in a 7 on 7 game and they would do things like set "picks", run absolutely ridiculous crossing patterns and use other gimmicks that would only work in a 7 on 7 game. And defensively they would use schemes that would not work in a real game, such as committing a guy to jump in the face of our QB as he looked back to pass as if it were an inbound pass in basketball. And I remember playing Dallas Jesuit and they would use a tall lineman and try to lob him the ball because he was taller than everyone else and he would try to jump up and get it. And Marcus used plays that would have a couple guys stand around on the snap and then after a couple seconds begin to run their route. Needless to say, we lost to all 3 of these teams and I believe these teams advanced rather far in the 7 on 7 tournament.

So the question is, should teams play to win when it comes to 7 on 7 or instead try to make their real teams for the fall better?

I would play to win using the playbook plays for the up coming fall season. You could mix up real plays and gimmick plays if you want. I would like to think the coaches have their skills position kids in 7 on 7 to stay sharp. Who doesn't play to win?

[drgnbkr]

Some schools use all DB's on defense, others use their linebackers to give them reps covering the quick outs and crosses. To each their own.

[HEB Star]

At Hebron we use Db's and Linebackers and try to run plays from the playbook to keep the coaches happy. That being said when we get down to the goal line with 3rd and two and or a vital extra point we use little low shovel passes and dinks that would never be used or work in a real game.

[forest99]

if you use the basketball type plays and have a special 7on7 playbook and have any kind of athletes at all you will most likely win alot of your games, no doubt. but in the long run that does not help your situation in the fall AT ALL. you should play to win the game of course, but within the contraints of your own offense and defense, otherwise its pointless.

[kbarj]

I believe our team uses its standard defense (with LBs), and mixes the offense between standard and 7-on-7 plays. Some of our (school) coaches show up for games (but not practices), but don't talk to the kids hardly at all (and then it seems like it's mostly just joking around). And this year, the QBs are calling their own plays, while the defense is being called by the MLB or Safety (I'm not sure which). It seems the emphasis is on team-building more than anything else. I know the coaches told parents to plan summer vacations as usual, and for the players to make practice/games when they could. As a parent, I like the break in intensity.

I've seen very few teams that stick with their standard playbook 100%. I say that because of the number of times I've seen the drag play across the line of scrimmage...that route is never there in a real game.:rolleyes: One exception in the past (I haven't seen them this year), is SA O'Connor. In previous years, the QB even took snaps from under center, with the RB, more often than not, running to his blocking assignment.

[Irving79]

if you use the basketball type plays and have a special 7on7 playbook and have any kind of athletes at all you will most likely win alot of your games, no doubt. but in the long run that does not help your situation in the fall AT ALL. you should play to win the game of course, but within the contraints of your own offense and defense, otherwise its pointless.

Hey, didn't we play you??? Kidding. You know our circumstances. What choice do we have? Are we supposed to run our Friday night routes??? All three??? Then we'll have no surprises left for the fall. :confused:

Last year at state, we got crushed by some teams that we had severely out classed, athletically. They were running screens and rubs with kids that would might never get on the field in real football. It was all good. They did it with precision and discipline we didn't have. They played the game as it is meant to be played (to win). Try telling 17-18 year old kids that we're not going to give them every chance to win and that it's all about preparing for the fall.

In my honest opinion, this is about skills development. I can't even say timing because the timing and game circumstances don't match-up with real football. It also helps develop chemistry and hopefully winning attitude &mindset. Something some teams struggle to find in their regular program. I say go for it. You made it to state. Try to win it. If your team/players learn a little about running routes, catching on the run, identifying &connecting with receivers, and covering in the process, then BONUS!

See y'all in collie station!

[forest99]

Well I cant completely agree with that because the timing on most routes should be the exact same for one thing. wr should be set where they normally are and qb is throwing the ball from the same spot he would during a real game, baring being moved out of the pocket due to pass rush. second I never said dont try to win the games, obviously I tell my kids to try to win also, just within certain limits. Your goals are to win with your own stuff. I understand yall have a little different situation because you do run the wing t alot during the season. but I have also seen yall throw the ball and I'm sure there are some passing plays in the playbook. Now obviously in certain down and distance situations I think that using 7on7 style plays are a must, just dont overuse them.
As far as the teams that beat yall with guys who wont even see the field your just proving my point. HOW is that helping those kids or the team for the upcoming season in the fall???

[Rockets8805]

this is my ? i only played one off season of 7 on 7, and when i played, we ere coached by our normal coaches. we worked on our 7 on 7 stuff @ school, then we would all carpool w parents to these tournaments, but it was dome as a team, with coaches coaching and everything. is it a rule now that coaches can't be involved???

[Irving79]

Well I cant completely agree with that because the timing on most routes should be the exact same for one thing. wr should be set where they normally are and qb is throwing the ball from the same spot he would during a real game, baring being moved out of the pocket due to pass rush. second I never said dont try to win the games, obviously I tell my kids to try to win also, just within certain limits. Your goals are to win with your own stuff. I understand yall have a little different situation because you do run the wing t alot during the season. but I have also seen yall throw the ball and I'm sure there are some passing plays in the playbook. Now obviously in certain down and distance situations I think that using 7on7 style plays are a must, just dont overuse them.
As far as the teams that beat yall with guys who wont even see the field your just proving my point. HOW is that helping those kids or the team for the upcoming season in the fall???

Before I respond to the quote; Rocket, yes there are specific rules (UIL, I believe) which limit the actual coaches involvement with the 7 on 7 program. Some follow them more closely than others. In a nutshell, the coaches are not supposed to coach the team in practices. On gameday, the coaches are not supposed to have contact with the players during the game, but are free to speak with them before, after, and at halftime.

As for the similarities to the actual game, and whether teams should use their fall plays or playbooks, the primary thrust of my point (which I didn't do a good job of initially expressing) was "who cares". 7 on 7 is a skills training tool turned into a sport. If you have an offense that is conducive to the incorporation of its playbook into 7 on 7, all the better. If you run a Wing-T, then forget about it. You'd better come up with something that works. I joked about the having (3) routes. Our offense has several routes. It just looks like we only have (3). And, to that end, the 7 on 7 team runs those routes. They didn't, and most don't, invent the routes for 7 on 7. A 5 and out is a 5 and out. The only thing the 7 on 7 team does is change the choreography.

The above issues are not limited to the Wing-T. There are several other offenses that would not be well suited for 7 on 7 competition. However, in the Wing-T, most of our passes begin with a substantial roll-out. If employed, the roll-out would eat up a considerable amount of the 4 seconds alotted. 86 the rollout and the QB is not in the same spot when he throws. The only reason the Wing-T offers any potential for success through the air is because teams are stacked against the run and must honor the threat that the QB will run in lieu of passing. That threat doesn't exist in 7 on 7.

Timing is a delicate thing. My assertion that it is different, even in more pass-friendly offenses, is based on the fundemental difference in QB's perspectives between the two games. In 7 on 7, you get 4 seconds. You don't have to dodge traffic, move to establish better sight lines (passing lanes), or anything. You just have to beat the clock. Get it off in 3.99 and you are fine. Within that 3.99, you can wait for a routes to develop fully because the only thing chasing you is the clock. In regular football, heck, you may get 7 seconds (depending on how you respond to the rush and circumstances). Or, you may get 1.4.

Lastly, I never suggested that you or anyone is not in pursuit of victory. I believe that you are a competitve person (in a healthy way). Again, 7 on 7 is a skill training tool turned into a game. Games (as my generation knows them) are meant to be won. My point there was that the kids want to win. If gimmick plays and junk (non-standard) offenses give you an advantage, and the players know it, try telling them you're not going to run them... Particularly when the alternative is an offensive scheme that you know going in is not going to give you a chance for victory. As for the teams we saw last year and the benefit to those players, I guess I'm just not cocerned about whether that helps them during the fall. That's what their coaches must get figured out.

[has09]

Regardless of weather 7 on 7 helps your regular offense (in some cases it does) but in many it doesn't. For the benefits far outweigh the negative.

1. Defense, your DB's get put in situations where all the cards are against them. They have to work on positioning and not using their hands and ball skills. All invaluable on Friday night.

2. Intangibles, the intangibles of team chemistry and learning how to win are huge....

Those 2 things alone, coupled with the possible offensive benefits make it a worth endeavor and someone mentioned this also. The kids LOVE it, it's fun. I can't tell you how many kids go to schools where they don't do SQTs who would LOVE to have a chance to play in just one tournament.

[RangerFan]

I am a die-hard Jesuit fan, but I haven't seen much 7-on-7 this summer. I do know the Rangers play in a Monday Night League and a Wednesday Night League. I also know the coaches don't coach the kids at all. A common complaint of the parents and players is that at tournaments, lots of other schools' coaches coach all the time, which is a UIL no-no. Jesuit tries hard to follow all UIL rules, so they let the QB call the plays and the MLB/FS call the coverages. I did ask a Jesuit coach three questions:

1 Did they ever use a tall OL in 7-on-7? No, but he's betting they thought a tall (6' 3) TE was an OL. To his knowledge, no OL has ever played 7-on-7 at Jesuit.
2 Do they run picks and rubs? They run plays where a WR drags across and where two rceivers cross underneath, but so does every other team. he laughed when I told him it was a Wylie fan complaining, because Jesuit beat Wylie at Wylie tournament this summer.
3 Do they run their own offense and defense? Yes, and it really helps this year because the Rangers are now a no-huddle, spread team. In the past, they focused on only plays they ran without a TE and a FB, which they used alot before this spring. Now, they are 4-5 WR's all the time, so 7-on-7 really helps. Defensively, they use their LB's, which hurts some against teams playing with 5 WR's on the field.

My thoughts: 7-on-7 is as beneficial as a school wants to make it. According to the Jesuit coach, 7-on-7 helps keep the boys interested, helps build leaders and depth at some positions, and helps players learn how to compete. I think with so many sports becoming year-round sports, 7-on-7 helps keep kids "on the fence" interested in football over the summer. I love it, and I wish it was around back in the 70's. We just went to Thackery Park and played touch/tackle and drank beer afterwards. Now, it is organized and beer-free.

[panamamyers]

Play to win.
Always.
If it's a competition, then I'd rather be winning than losing.
You can practice on your plays in 7 on 7 practice. When game time rolls around, you play to win.