Faster Offenses Lead To Weaker Defenses In The SEC

[LordVOLdemort]

That's absurd. There's no way our defense could become weaker.

I agree with him

 

[Orange_Crush]

(1) No huddle does not always mean up-tempo. You can no-huddle and stand over the ball while the play-clock ticks. The idea of no-huddle is to keep the D from substituting-- not necessarily to burn through clock time.

(2) The stats they use are in a conference that is very front-loaded with pro-style teams. Clock management is but one part of these teams, and the article is using it as an indicator. It's no accident that the best defenses are also the most talented defenses, recruiting-wise.

 

[VolsFan1972]

Is it really that hard to believe that in a game with 120 plays, more yards are gained than in a game with 100 plays? Total yards gained doesn't mean anything. The question them becomes margins and percentages...

 

[99gator]

I used to joke during the spurrier era that if we could play good defense when running three plays and punting in the 80's, why can't we play good defense after running 3 plays and scoring.

There are a number of factors here that can cause this these numbers.

One of them is when you play an Oregon most teams go in with a mindset that you are going to have to score more than you normally would because you are likely to give up more points than you normally would.

So, more thought and creativity is put into play calling.

 

[99gator]

Is it really that hard to believe that in a game with 120 plays, more yards are gained than in a game with 100 plays? Total yards gained doesn't mean anything. The question them becomes margins and percentages...

Yards per play

 

[MikeVol44]

That's not really a fair comparison....With Bama, Georgia, LSU, etc Defenses makes all other defenses look weaker by comparison, no matter what Scheme the Offense runs.

Or---maybe their style of smash-mouth, run it down your throat offense makes for time-consuming drives that keeps their front 7 well rested and hungry.....:salute:

It's a time-honored fact in the SEC--to win championships you must be able to run the ball when you want to and need to keep the other team off of the field. :salute:

 

[MikeVol44]

I used to joke during the spurrier era that if we could play good defense when running three plays and punting in the 80's, why can't we play good defense after running 3 plays and scoring.

There are a number of factors here that can cause this these numbers.

One of them is when you play an Oregon most teams go in with a mindset that you are going to have to score more than you normally would because you are likely to give up more points than you normally would.

So, more thought and creativity is put into play calling.

Very, very true statements--except for STANFORD..

 

[Orange_Crush]

Or---maybe their style of smash-mouth, run it down your throat offense makes for time-consuming drives that keeps their front 7 well rested and hungry.....:salute:

It's a time-honored fact in the SEC--to win championships you must be able to run the ball when you want to and need to keep the other team off of the field. :salute:

“When you throw a pass three things can happen to it, and two of them are bad.”

1962's time honored tradition.

 

[99gator]

Very, very true statements--except for STANFORD..

In 2011, the score was 53-30.

Oregon has been held to less than 27 points on only 3 occasions since 2010.

I have a strong feeling that the Stanford coaching staff never would have believed they had a chance by scoring 14 points at the end of 60 minutes.

 

[MikeVol44]

1962's time honored tradition.

Yeah--I believe that the 2011 and 2012 National Champion had a bruising running game, threw the ball sporadically, and STOMPED almost every team in their path on offense--and suffocated everyone else on Defense--and by the way--That's how we won our last NC....

By the way--the team that won the Super Bowl this year STILL plays the game that way--

And check out the 49ers--Harbaugh has gone back to a smash-mouth mentality and returned the 49ers to their winning ways--

Check out Stanford--

I remember Dan Fouts and Air-Coryell from the Chargers--probably the most prolific offensive system ever in the NFL--but they NEVER won a championship....

I realize that it's a lost argument to those guys out there who like to see 45-42 shootouts--

 

[sjt18]

Up tempo does not necessarily mean you snap the ball with 15 seconds on the play clock. It can mean that you quickly get to the line of scrimmage and then snap when you are ready to go. It compares somewhat to a pitcher that constantly changes speed to keep hitters off balance.

 

[MikeVol44]

In 2011, the score was 53-30.

Oregon has been held to less than 27 points on only 3 occasions since 2010.

I have a strong feeling that the Stanford coaching staff never would have believed they had a chance by scoring 14 points at the end of 60 minutes.

Stanford has won the game when they have played good defense and not had turnovers. Stanford put the ball on the ground 5 times in the 2011 game.

The teams who have beaten Oregon have played great defense, controlled the clock, and had success running the ball---Auburn, Stanford, LSU, etc....

 

[ItsAllVols]

Up tempo use is to take advantage of better conditioned players as well as to reduce personnel changes and the use of specialists on D. Imagine the use of an up tempo offense when Mt. Cody was playing for Bama. Dude would have been on the sidelines most of the game or DOA at the local hospital. Obviously Oregon is most famous for it because the tempo and scheme helped them compete well against the better programs with lesser talent. Once the better programs figure it out it provides less advantage.

I like up tempo with the roster Jones has to work with now. It's going to make it more difficult for opposing DC's to game plan this first season since they can only look at Cincy's past games to analyze schemes. Insert our better athletes and add a few wrinkles. Could get interesting.

I totally agree, but it seems that the NFL gets by using no huddle and quick snaps...why would it work there and not the in College...the KEY is if you have a high speed offense you also have to teach high speed Defense it goes together..as players move thru the ranks of playing any sport the common thread is the speed of the game at the next level...go figure...

 

[sjt18]

BTW, the most relevant stat is the one they did not mention- yards allowed per play. And as someone mentioned earlier, Bama and LSU would be successful on D regardless of what their O did.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yeah--I believe that the 2011 and 2012 National Champion had a bruising running game, threw the ball sporadically, and STOMPED almost every team in their path on offense--and suffocated everyone else on Defense--and by the way--That's how we won our last NC....

By the way--the team that won the Super Bowl this year STILL plays the game that way--

And check out the 49ers--Harbaugh has gone back to a smash-mouth mentality and returned the 49ers to their winning ways--

Check out Stanford--

I remember Dan Fouts and Air-Coryell from the Chargers--probably the most prolific offensive system ever in the NFL--but they NEVER won a championship....

I realize that it's a lost argument to those guys out there who like to see 45-42 shootouts--

So, for clarity's sake are you using these anecdotal stories to make the point that the game hasn't changed since 1962?

That was the point I was going after with that quote. Somehow, I'm inferring that you missed that point and thought I just somehow wanted to talk about how effective running the ball is, or isn't.

 

[BleedingOrangeFan]

Up tempo does not necessarily mean you snap the ball with 15 seconds on the play clock. It can mean that you quickly get to the line of scrimmage and then snap when you are ready to go. It compares somewhat to a pitcher that constantly changes speed to keep hitters off balance.

Seems like there is someone that i am thinking of that does that very well . . . . . oh yeah, his name is Peyton Manning!!!

 

[MikeVol44]

So, for clarity's sake are you using these anecdotal stories to make the point that the game hasn't changed since 1962?

That was the point I was going after with that quote. Somehow, I'm inferring that you missed that point and thought I just somehow wanted to talk about how effective running the ball is, or isn't.

First of all--I got the point you were trying to make.

Second of all, you DIDN'T get the point I was making--the more the game seems to change, SOUND FUNDAMENTALS NEVER change, and teams who are fundamentally sound, without relying on gimmicks, always win championships. SABAN gets it, and that's why he DOMINATES. He recruits athletes who fit that system, and that's why he will DOMINATE anywhere he coaches in the college game.

For clarity's sake--I didn't cite anecdotal stories about Super Bowl or NCAA champions. I was offering evidence to prove this point--2011 & 2012 Bama NCs PROVE my point--and 3 NC out of the last 4 removes any doubt about it.

Take a look at the Super Bowl and NCAA champions over the last 20-30 years--they all had a balanced offense, were able to run the ball and control the game when necessary, and played physical, shut-down defense.

I also think that the up-tempo game looks sexy and appeals to the fans of any team, BUT a team who can dominate a defense by running the ball, control the clock, and play suffocating defense will ALWAYS win championships--and that will NEVER change.

I hope our up-tempo offense will look more like the West-Coast Bill Walsh type of offense instead of Oregon's...Controlled passes, moving the chains, running the ball effectively, controlling the clock, and sustaining long drives. If it doesn't--we will win more games, but not compete for championships in the SEC...But, everything I've read about CBJ and watched from Cincinnati--I think that's the type of offense we will have. :salute: GO VOLS!

 

[Orange_Crush]

Take a look at the Super Bowl and NCAA champions over the last 20-30 years--they all had a balanced offense, were able to run the ball and control the game when necessary, and played physical, shut-down defense.

CBJ's teams have historically:

Been balance.
Been run-heavy in the balance.
Played physically.
Ranked well defensively within their division.

We do not disagree on those fundamentals, and I would be surprised if CBJ did.

The "fundamental" in question is no-huddle, quick-play offenses. The funny thing is that this is basically a discussion of how the plays are called in.

One can no-huddle and milk the clock-- see PM and the Colts' success.

The no-huddle basically limits the D's substitutions and forces them into personnel that the O would like to match against. This also creates fatigue in the opposing D. The no-huddle O can stand over the ball until the play clock expires if they want. They can run the ball to keep the clock running between downs. They can do anything that a huddled O can do, plus limiting defensive substitutions, thus Saban's problems with it.

So, the game's fundamentals may be very similar to those of year's past. But I believe that you have erroneously defined "how we call the plays in" as an unchanging fundamental that defines how successful a team can be in championships.

:hi:

 

[MikeVol44]

CBJ's teams have historically:

Been balance.
Been run-heavy in the balance.
Played physically.
Ranked well defensively within their division.

We do not disagree on those fundamentals, and I would be surprised if CBJ did.

The no-huddle basically limits the D's substitutions and forces them into personnel that the O would like to match against. This also creates fatigue in the opposing D. The no-huddle O can stand over the ball until the play clock expires if they want. They can run the ball to keep the clock running between downs. They can do anything that a huddled O can do, plus limiting defensive substitutions, thus Saban's problems with it.


Well, you must be a democrat because when faced with historical facts, you resort to changing the argument to suit your own opinion.

The up-tempo philosophy has been tried and failed to produce championships. Buffalo Bills, Cincinnati Bengals (Sam Wyche), Oregon Ducks, etc...etc....

Even our beloved Peyton LOST against more fundamentally sound teams (Patriots!). My point here is that the up-tempo offense--in my opinion--is a gimmick and is not fundamentally sound.

And, Saban may gripe about the up-tempo game, but his teams always BEAT THOSE TEAMS by playing the OPPOSITE TYPE of game!

I've italicized your comments that represent the THEORY behind the up-tempo approach. This is ultimately where we disagee--I believe this theory has been tried and proven to FAIL--you don't. It's okay--we can agree to disagree.

GO VOLS! :salute:

 

[Vol8188]

This is a horrible misrepresentation of the statistics.

Of course a slow snap teams gives up less yards per game. They play less snaps!!!!!

The number of yards your defense gives up is irrelevant to a no huddle team. What is relevant is: 1. Points per play 2. Yards per play 3. Forced turnovers 4. 3rd down %

Yards per game means nothing. If we score 50 a game, our defense will give up more yards. Because everyone will throw the ball to try and keep up with us, and they'll get more tries because we're playing fast.

Dumb article

 

[Orange_Crush]

Well, you must be a democrat because when faced with historical facts, you resort to changing the argument to suit your own opinion.

The up-tempo philosophy has been tried and failed to produce championships. Buffalo Bills, Cincinnati Bengals (Sam Wyche), Oregon Ducks, etc...etc....

Even our beloved Peyton LOST against more fundamentally sound teams (Patriots!). My point here is that the up-tempo offense--in my opinion--is a gimmick and is not fundamentally sound.

And, Saban may gripe about the up-tempo game, but his teams always BEAT THOSE TEAMS by playing the OPPOSITE TYPE of game!

(Editorial: Really? Always? You wouldn't stoop to hyperbole to prove a flawed point would you? It would be interested to see the % of traditional verses no-huddle teams that have beaten UA.)

I've italicized your comments that represent the THEORY behind the up-tempo approach. This is ultimately where we disagee--I believe this theory has been tried and proven to FAIL--you don't. It's okay--we can agree to disagree.

GO VOLS! :salute:

I never changed the argument.

My original post in this thread:

(1) No huddle does not always mean up-tempo. You can no-huddle and stand over the ball while the play-clock ticks. The idea of no-huddle is to keep the D from substituting-- not necessarily to burn through clock time.

(2) The stats they use are in a conference that is very front-loaded with pro-style teams. Clock management is but one part of these teams, and the article is using it as an indicator. It's no accident that the best defenses are also the most talented defenses, recruiting-wise.

I just gave the mindset behind the no-huddle, up-tempo offense, and pointed out that it:

1. Does not break any of the fundamentals that you listed.
2. Has the capability to control the clock/game as well as the huddled offense (i.e. In the no-huddle, you can go either quick, or slow, pass or run, etc...)

You are actually the one that changed the argument. Per the bolded, you went from perceived "facts" to "I believe" pretty fluidly.


So, per the bolded and underlined, your argument is:

1. I personally believe...
2. The fact that the Colts weren't undefeated proves that no-huddle is crap.

smh...

 

[bigorange]

The cbj groupies r not going to like u op!!!!!! Anything not pro second coming of the general cbj is frowned upon on this site...:crazy:

do you somehow post all of your replies from twitter? there's no character limit on VN, FYI

 

[VolFan37323]

BTW, the most relevant stat is the one they did not mention- yards allowed per play. And as someone mentioned earlier, Bama and LSU would be successful on D regardless of what their O did.

Bama and LSU are successful as long as they don't have to play 80 to 100 plays a game. You break those 2 teams down and they both only wanna play around 58 to 65 plays a game on Defense. It's a proving fact that when the game gets really fast they both struggle. Just look at the Texas A&M game for Bama and the Clemson and Ole Miss game for LSU.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Bama and LSU are successful as long as they don't have to play 80 to 100 plays a game. You break those 2 teams down and they both only wanna play around 58 to 65 plays a game on Defense. It's a proving fact that when the game gets really fast they both struggle. Just look at the Texas A&M game for Bama and the Clemson and Ole Miss game for LSU.

And, who was it? Utah St for Bama?

Update: Bama has lost to 4 spread (up-tempo?) teams and 3 pro-style teams in the past 5 years.

Florida
Utah
Auburn
TAM

 

[VolFan37323]

And, who was it? Utah St for Bama?

I think your talking about the UTAH game in 2008.