Why We Abandoned the Pistol

How we evolved Wide Zone to fit our personnel.

I used to be a Pistol purist.

Everything we did, run game, play-action, drop-back, came from that look.

And it worked. We set school records, moved the ball consistently, and built our identity around it.

I thought that was how we’d always operate.

I’ve always believed your system should fit the players, not the other way around. So over the last three seasons, we kept Wide Zone at the core but shifted to shotgun with the back offset.

The results didn’t change. We still had a 2,000-yard rusher and broke the school record for passing.

In a past article, I broke down the pros and cons of Pistol vs. Offset.

Pistol vs. Shotgun: Which Backfield Set Gives You the Edge?

Now I want to zoom in. How does the alignment, Pistol or Sidecar, change the way Wide Zone functions?

Why We Loved Pistol for Wide Zone

Let’s start with why Pistol worked so well for us and why we stuck with it as long as we did.

When we first built this system, we had a run of traditional pocket QBs. Not dual-threat guys. We weren’t asking them to carry the ball 10 times a game. We wanted them to be point guards and distribute the ball and let our skill players do the work.

So our run game had to carry more of the load.

For us, that started with Wide Zone.

Pistol made that possible.

With his hips square to the line of scrimmage, the back could press the edge while staying downhill. It’s the cleanest way I’ve found to teach a patient, balanced run.

And it hides the back. In Pistol, the defense has to look through the quarterback to find him. That half-second delay matters. Linebackers and safeties who key the backfield get just enough hesitation built in, which slows pursuit.

Then there's play-action.

This might be the best part. With the QB and RB stacked, the fakes hit harder. The downhill mesh sells it. You get real movement from the second level, and that opens up space for the keeper game or big shots.

So Pistol gave us a lot:

• It protected our QBs

• It gave our backs freedom to read any gap

• It messed with second-level reads

• And it gave us a real play-action threat

If I had a pocket QB and a solid RB tomorrow, I’d go back to it.

But that hasn’t been our personnel, so we adapted.

Why We Made the Switch

I know what you're thinking.

If Pistol has all of those advantages why move away from it?

I asked myself the same thing.

For a long time, I was convinced Pistol was just better. It gave us everything we needed, and the results proved it. But one of the best things I’ve done as a coach is surround myself with people who challenge me.

During a coaches film session one week, one of my assistants looked over and said,
“We’re wasting plays by not letting this kid have the ball in his hands.”

And he was right.

Our quarterback wasn’t just a passer. He was athletic, smart, and could hurt teams with his legs. But in Pistol, the defense didn’t have to worry about that. They could load up to stop Wide Zone and ignore the QB keep.

Sure, we mixed in some keepers and play-action to keep them honest. But that was maybe four or five times a game. We were running Wide Zone 15 to 20 times. The math didn’t add up.

So we had a decision to make. Stick with a structure that had worked for years, or shift things slightly to give our current quarterback a real role in the run game.

I’d heard all the pushback.

“You can’t run Wide Zone from Offset.”
“The aiming point’s off.”
“It just doesn’t work the same.”

But we made the switch anyway.

How Wide Zone Changes in Sidecar

Let’s start with the fundamentals.