Is the hurryup offense really good for us

[DaddyChad]

The assumption is that our defense would've sucked less if we had a less potent offense?

 

[vols72]

It was really dumb to run the hurry up once our D got so injured. Vandy feasted on that mistake and ran up, down, and through us. When your D is banged up the best solution is to have as many long grinding offensive plays as possible.

I honestly think we'll see a more balanced O this year. I think we huddle more and grind the clock more. I also think we will see more I formation and use the Tight ends more

 

[Booker512]

I think we need to go as slow as possible against Georgia Tech. Best way to defeat the trip option is to keep it off the field.

Run the ball. Grind down their defense. Let their offense stand and watch.

 

[ChattaTNVol]

So less than 1/2 second increase per play run. Alrighty then....we really picked up that pace.

All I know is what I thought I saw....a slower, more deliberate offense rarely ever went hurry-up.....which correlated with nearly 100 fewer offensive plays run for Tennessee over the course of the season.

Do you think those 100 fewer plays are related to the increase in our opponents number of plays by, I guess coincedentally, approximately 100 plays.

2014 892
2015 904
2016 1,000

We lost time of possession in a significant way and yet had one of the highest scoring offenses in school history.

I always thought fast paced high scoring offenses generally lost time of possession battles. When we played Oregon in 2013 we won the time of possession battle in a blowout 34:18 to 25:34. (I don't know where the other 8 seconds went in that game). They ran 76 plays and we had 67. Their pace was 20.05 seconds/play and ours was 30.61 seconds/play. (Makes for a long game for us ) We punted 9 times to their 3.

In time of possession in the SEC we were

2014 #5
2015 $6
2016 #11

I can only see a couple ways out of this - either score more/punt less or take more plays to score?

#Points:#Plays (#Plays/7 Points) PPG

2014 375:977 (18.24) 28.9 PPG
2015 457:988 (15.13) 35.2 PPG
2016 473:896 (13.26) 36.4 PPG

if we had taken 5 more plays/7 points (ala 2014) in 2016 to score the same number of ponts we had in 2016 we would have had 338 more plays on the year or an added 26 plays per game.

Punts/Game
2014 6.2
2015 4.8
2016 5.4

Last year against Bama we punted 10 times to their 4 times. They ended up with 76 plays in the game and we ended up with 63. That was definitely a slow game pace for us (26.92 seconds/play).

Turnovers Lost
2014 22
2015 12
2016 26

If I was properly motivated ($$) I'd dig up all the game by game data and calculate the pace of play for each game last year but my claim that the total # of plays for the year is influenced by a lot more variables than simply pace of play (tempo) remains. I definitely would not dispute the obvious fact that tempo can and will rise and fall over the course of even a single game.

 

[armchair]

We should slow our pace of offensive play against superior teams--meaning bama. And, as others have noted, it is stupid to run hurry up offense if your defense is weak or has been spending too much time on the field. Fairly logical, I should think.

 

[sameolvol]

Yep, it's for all those reasons.
I also agree on last year. Not sure the reason, new plan or circumstances.

Edit: We also get a look at the defense before making the final play call from the sideline.

Yep. I'm going to hoe the same row that you, KB and JP are taking. Adding my little:twocents:, although it makes me gag to mention this, but I've noticed how Kiffin's offenses, particularly his version at bama, was so fluid as to change pace according to the circumstances. When it was rough getting plays to work, his guys would slow it down, as in a chess game, then when the D appeared to be on its heels...gassed or losing the guessing game, or whatever, then the pace picked up. Players get much more tired (unless that dynamic's changed since I was playing way-back-when) when they're caught having to think before reacting, so............you know the rest, fellas. I think Butch was attempting to add that aspect into last year's squad. Lack of depth, apparently, pretty much stole that advantage from him and DeBord. Maybe we'll see some better pacing management this time around, starting with GT.

 

[Type Orange+]

The hurry-up is a beautiful thing to behold when an offense can exhaust and demoralize the opposing defense.

Otherwise it's merely a "I can't wait to punt" offense.

 

[Booker512]

We should slow our pace of offensive play against superior teams--meaning bama. And, as others have noted, it is stupid to run hurry up offense if your defense is weak or has been spending too much time on the field. Fairly logical, I should think.

Yep. And Steve Spurrier -of all people- actually did a lot of that in 2010-2013 at South Carolina. They had a top 25 defense for a few years and ole Steve leaned on it. Especially against Clemson. He went slow. Ate up the time of possession. Put a fresh D on the field when he had too. Clemson may have had guys like Tahj Boyd, Sammy Watkins and D.Hopkins etc....but they were spectators most of the game.

 

[vol-un-tear]

I was just wondering what everyone thought about us taking 70 plus snaps a game on offense.Yes I do know if we are moving the ball it is hard on defenses..But if we go 3 and out like we have before to me it is hard on our defense..And I think sometimes we give up big plays because of it..I think a mix of it would be good to give our defense some rest every now and then..

No our Defence needs time to rest.

 

[RollerVol]

we'll run whatever is the most useful at the present time...new sheriff in town...he'll use his tools in the most efficient manner depending on the situation...we really don't run the "hurry-up" anyway...

GO VOLS!

 

[Sarms58]

Hell I'm just not a fan of Butch's style of offense in general. Never have been and never will. I know full well he's not changing it and I know it can be a potent and explosive, but that doesn't change my opinion. That being said I hope we like hell we average 40 points a game this season.

GBO

Yea, I'm an old school run out of the I-formation kind of guy...I too hope we score 40+ points per game and go undefeated...but man, to be able to put William Howard behind a full back and dare the D to stop us on third and short....

 

[Coach_Z]

I know a great way to control the clock! It's called the flexbone option!

 

[Coach_Z]

I know a great way to control the clock! It's called the flexbone option!

Edit: Look, I understand the grumbling about HUNH offenses. But let's not be duplicitous and call GT gimmicky, and then turn around and call for a ball-control offense.

Personally, I like the HUNH. The tempo can keep defenses on their heels and take away time to adjust on the fly. Also, every play is an opportunity to score, so why not give yourself more scoring opportunities? After all, the purpose of the game is to score more points than the other team.

 

[CountVolcula]

Not for our D its not

The whole concept of football is to score but also control the ball. If you control the ball longer than your opponent, the majority of time, you will win the game.

With this HUNH, you force your defense to be on the field longer than necessary. This tires the D out and makes them more prone to injuries.

It really hurts when you go 3 and out in 30 seconds and then your opponent gets a long, time consuming drive on offense

Its not rocket science. Control the clock on O to give rest to your D so they can be fresh in the 4th

Its why we give up leads in the 2nd half

 

[jakez4ut]

(1) We didn't typically employ hurry-up in 2016. No-huddle, sure. But usually not Hurry-up.

(2) We didn't typically go 3-and-out last year. Our offense was usually pretty potent. 3-and-out was a bigger problem in 2015, and even more of one in 2014 and beyond. 2016 was statistically one of the best offensive years in the history of our program.

(3) The hurry-up offenses in 2016 were running 85+ snaps/game on O. Six teams ran at that pace, led by Houston.

(4) At 72.4 snaps/game, the Volunteers were #71 out of 128 Div I teams in number off offensive plays per game average. So actually we're one of the more relaxed pace teams out there. The game has generally picked up that much, for everyone.

So bottom line is, I don't think we're a hurry-up team at all (though we were more of one in 2015, at 77.6 snaps/game).


SOURCE: https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/plays-per-game

agreed, though i'm not so sure about the 3 and out. kinda depends on how you look at it. nice website link too.

couple things i see...

we were 98th nationally, 9th SEC in total TOP at 28:07 a game...that's another reason you could look at some of our defensive woes...they were on the field a lot. need to reverse that trend even if only by a couple minutes this season...we really didn't help the defense in this regard.

punts per play....93rd nationally, at .8/play. 3rd downs/game 90th at nearly 14/game, with only a 40% conversion rate.

we hit a 3rd down every 5.2 plays...and at a 40% conversion rate, we only converted those twice a game....more than a few possessions resulted in scores, so it's not gloom/doom here.

perfect segway to...

on the flip side, we were pretty potent scoring, coming in at 22 nationally at .481 points per play....which was 2nd in the conference, behind Bama.

i wish i could find some stats on 1st down...how many, yard per attempt etc...

cause what i see is an offense that was feast or famine. we weren't particularly good and sustaining drives, we either scored quick, or gave the ball back (turnover or punt), just about as quick. the eyeball test and my gut still tell me we weren't all that efficient on 1st down, and that's still the bigger problem...get to good down/distance on 2nd and 3rd down and move the chains. we just didn't do that much last year.

i still believe that this year's offense will make a concerted effort to put drives together. while still using the no huddle, and may try to hurry up as situation dictates.

but to the original question, no it isn't necessarily good for us...unless you can string together 1st downs. and we haven't shown that ability consistently.

 

[MikeVol44]

just adding in my :twocents:

In the 10 games we played in 2016 against the Power 5 teams--including our Bowl games...
(all data came from ESPN.com under teams and team stats for each game):

1. We ran less plays on offense in 4 of our 9 wins...in 2016...compared to only 1 of 9 in 2015.

2. We lost 1 (aTm) in which we ran more plays...7 TOs...

3. Our Defense gave up an increase of 134 yards PER GAME in 2016 against the Power 5 when compared to 2015. 501 yds/game vs 367 yds/game (2015).

4. Our Offense increased production by 55 yds/game in 2016 than in 2015 over the power 5...(We were NOT ALONE in having defensive woes in 2016).

5. VT gained more yards against us in less plays than OK did in 2015... (there goes your argument for losing because of injuries!!)...GAME 2...

We had all of our guys on defense for that game...and truly should have lost it except for VT's 5 TOs....

You can't be hypocritical and say we should've and would've beaten aTm except for our 7 turnovers and then DENY that VT should've and would've beaten us without their 5 TOs! :crazy::crazy:

The TRUTH is what everyone already knew before all this statistical mumbo-jumbo was thrown out here...

We were terrible on defense from the start last year and the season could've very easily ended up a lot worse than it did....

MOST folks forget that the rule changes concerning clock operation made way back when Fulmer coached are directly responsible for the implementation of the HUNH offensive approach....

He said they were going to result in radical changes to the game--and he was prophetic.

However, the HUNH has neither produced more Conference champions nor National Champions...(hasn't anyone learned anything from the Buffalo Bills under Jim Kelly?) How many of the Playoff teams have run the HUNH?

Clemson did run 99 offensive plays in the NC game against Bama...and they also controlled the ball for 34:44 and gained 135 more yards than Bama--and still almost lost the game....

It has only resulted in an overall increased pace of play--and we don't know yet if it has resulted in more injuries to players as Saban has claimed...

IMO--it's effective in certain situations and with good field position (mainly after gaining a first down) as a change of pace...

but it's garbage as an overall offensive scheme...:salute: (see Oregon Ducks)....

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Appreciate your analysis, Mike, and agree with most of it, except for this one point:

We had all of our guys on defense for that game...and truly should have lost it except for VT's 5 TOs....

Fact is, we had recovered from our slow start and were up by 2 touchdowns before most of VT's fumbles. They only had one fumble before we picked up a comfortable lead that we'd hold the rest of the game.

The other 4 fumbles were nice to get, but we were winning anyway.


As for translating that to the A&M game, I don't know. Haven't looked at it. Who was ahead before our first fumble, and how did the advantage shift as we went through those 7 fumbles? That'll answer the question.

All fumbles are not the same. Some have a HUGE impact on the game, some have practically none.

So it'd be interesting to see how our 7 fumbles affected the flow of the game, shifts in momentum, and direct scoring opportunities.


p.s. Don't disagree with your last section on HUNH ... but you know that's generally not what we run, right?

 

[Hairy Vols]

Lot of folks confusing no-huddle with hurry-up in here.

Shows how we should take some opinions when discussing the complexity that is a college offense.

 

[MikeVol44]

Appreciate your analysis,
p.s. Don't disagree with your last section on HUNH ... but you know that's generally not what we run, right?

The only thing that I know is that CBJ has always said that we want to play fast and that we want to wear other teams out with our pace of play.....He has also said (I may get the target # wrong...going from memory) that our target on offense is 90 plays per game.

And we rarely, if ever, gather in the huddle.

Label it whatever you want....but putting those facts together are the defining characteristics of the HUNH.

Where am I wrong? (honest question...no anger or sarcasm meant)....

 

[GAVol]

The only thing that I know is that CBJ has always said that we want to play fast and that we want to wear other teams out with our pace of play.....He has also said (I may get the target # wrong...going from memory) that our target on offense is 90 plays per game.

And we rarely, if ever, gather in the huddle.

Label it whatever you want....but putting those facts together are the defining characteristics of the HUNH.

Where am I wrong? (honest question...no anger or sarcasm meant)....

I'd say we're HUNH on most first down snaps and then no huddle (sometimes with tempo) after that.

 

[MikeVol44]

Appreciate your analysis, Mike, and agree with most of it, except for this one point:

Fact is, we had recovered from our slow start and were up by 2 touchdowns before most of VT's fumbles. They only had one fumble before we picked up a comfortable lead that we'd hold the rest of the game.

The other 4 fumbles were nice to get, but we were winning anyway.

Well...we see the facts very differently...which is okay...to me...

I know it is old news....but watch the VT game again and see how their fumbles played a huge part in their loss to us...

I say that their fumbles cost them as much as our fumbles cost us against aTm...We fumbled at least 2 scoring opportunities away to aTm when down by 14 points...

 

[MikeVol44]

I'd say we're HUNH on most first down snaps and then no huddle (sometimes with tempo) after that.

agree 100%...and that's exactly what CBJ has always said was his goal...to continually be HUNH requires great success on 1st down....in order to continue marching the ball down the field in a HUNH manner....

He's made that perfectly clear....

He's had to adjust his approach for various reasons....

 

[sameolvol]

One aspect we've all been leaving out is a pretty big "What if?" What if...say...last year's D wasn't at all devastated by injuries but, instead, began and remained healthy and deep throughout the season; everyone knowing what each-other's doing and, as a unit, the Vols' entire defensive squad was working as Coach Shoop had drawn it up before the injury pandemic...then maybe the defense would've forced the opponents' offensive units off the field much more quickly, making their defensive units do what, inevitably, Shoop's troops wound up doing week after week with that beleaguered team#120's defense. Get it? Speed up the tempo on THEIR defenses under THOSE circumstances, particularly following multiple 3 & outs, then such a tempo would make sense under those circumstances. Wouldn't it? Let's keep in mind the record-setting number of points scored by that squad. Add in a healthy defense, then the SECe crown was almost a certainty. And...who knows what else could've been? Maybe-just-maybe all those glitches won't pop up, Butch's past experiences have wisened up his X's and O's acumen, Coach Rok's magic has been...magic, our D-line and LB's remain deep and play at least up to expectations, then we'll appreciate the brick wall that Butch is constructing. GBO!

 

[VFL-82-JP]

The only thing that I know is that CBJ has always said that we want to play fast and that we want to wear other teams out with our pace of play.....He has also said (I may get the target # wrong...going from memory) that our target on offense is 90 plays per game.

And we rarely, if ever, gather in the huddle.

Label it whatever you want....but putting those facts together are the defining characteristics of the HUNH.

Where am I wrong? (honest question...no anger or sarcasm meant)....

What you've missed is the evolution of Butch's mindset on the subject.

Butch came into the job saying we want to play fast.

Over the past five years, he has gradually toned that down.

What he's been saying predominantly the last year or two is that he wants to have the ability to speed up or slow down to fit whatever situation we're in, to play complementary football (offense plays to help the defense, and vice versa).

We ran about 72 plays per game in 2016, far below the "90" target Butch had back in 2013 and 2014 (and we never got up to 90 even back then...I think one of those years, we were in the low 80s).

So we are a NH (no huddle) offense, but not a HUNH (hurry-up no huddle).

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Well...we see the facts very differently...which is okay...to me...

I know it is old news....but watch the VT game again and see how their fumbles played a huge part in their loss to us...

I say that their fumbles cost them as much as our fumbles cost us against aTm...We fumbled at least 2 scoring opportunities away to aTm when down by 14 points...

I did rewatch the game. Recently. Posted on here about it. Watching specifically for the impact of the Va Tech fumbles.

That's when I discovered what I mentioned in this thread, that we took over the game and had it well in hand before all but one of those fumbles.

So it's just my opinion, but I don't see the 5 fumbles being very significant in that game. The first one was, the one early in the 2nd Qtr. We were down, and that fumble was part of what helped us rally.

But the other four, not so much.

For instance, one of the fumbles (in the 3rd Qtr, I think) was pretty deep in their own end of the field. So they weren't going to score that series, probably. And then, after we got the gift, we missed a field goal attempt. So we didn't capitalize on it, either. That fumble was kind of a non-event. (pardon me if I get details wrong; going off memory).

I recall all the other 4 fumbles being kind of like that. Yes, fumbles, but no, didn't impact the game significantly in either direction.

In the A&M game, the 7 fumbles may have been key factors. I haven't rewatched that one specifically to test that idea.

But in the Va Tech game, they were pretty inconsequential.

That's how I saw it, anyway. Could be wrong.