Is the hurryup offense really good for us

[MikeVol44]

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).[/QUOTE

The change for me is that I'm not trying to win an argument here....and have no problem with your very last statement.....it's an obvious truth!

From the data I gathered from ESPN.com about our 2015 and 2016 seasons....and assuming that it was accurate...

I had us running 75 plays per game in 2015 and 70 plays per game in 2016...(just adding passing and rushing attempts for the game)...Got it on an excel spreadsheet if you wanna see the breakdown....

I firmly believe that the decrease in plays is more of a factor of a pathetic defense who couldn't stop anyone in 2016 (except TTU)....

I also think that CBJ has been forced to change and adapt to the physicality and speed of facing SEC defenses...and has been very slow to adjust and adapt to big-boy football....which makes him just like the rest of us....stubborn and hesitant to admit when we are wrong! LOL...lol:lol:lol:

So, at the end of the day....we actually agree but get to the same conclusion from different perspectives...and you're correct--I must've missed CBJ's admission to a different goal on offense. :hi:

 

[MikeVol44]

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.

Well....I'd only draw your attention to a couple of things...

1. I agree that the VT fumble at the beginning of the 2nd half didn't mean anything...

2. The VT fumble at our 21 yd line when the score was 31-17 certainly did matter.....We couldn't move the ball and punted...and then

3. VT fumbled the punt and we recovered at their 43 yd line...we then scored to put the game out of reach at 38-17...

So....yes....IMO.....being down 31-17 and fumbling with a 1st and 10 at your opponents' 21 yd line certainly changes things....

And then fumbling a punt when it's 31-17 and you are going to get the ball back at midfield with almost the entire 4th QTR to play certainly matters, too!

Once again, just a difference in opinions....and I'm certainly glad that we won that game....but IMO...we committed those same types of turnovers against aTm... :salute:

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Well....I'd only draw your attention to a couple of things...

1. I agree that the VT fumble at the beginning of the 2nd half didn't mean anything...

2. The VT fumble at our 21 yd line when the score was 31-17 certainly did matter.....We couldn't move the ball and punted...and then

3. VT fumbled the punt and we recovered at their 43 yd line...we then scored to put the game out of reach at 38-17...

So....yes....IMO.....being down 31-17 and fumbling with a 1st and 10 at your opponents' 21 yd line certainly changes things....

And then fumbling a punt when it's 31-17 and you are going to get the ball back at midfield with almost the entire 4th QTR to play certainly matters, too!

Once again, just a difference in opinions....and I'm certainly glad that we won that game....but IMO...we committed those same types of turnovers against aTm... :salute:

So Mike, your argument is that the fumble by the team that was already down 2 TDs, to the team who grabbed the momentum early in the 2nd Qtr and never gave it up for the rest of the game...

...that fumble was significant because it changed the score from a 2 TD lead to a 3 TD lead?

And when was that? Some time in the 4th Qtr?

See, I don't count that as significant. Especially since the game was never in doubt after we got the 2-TD lead.

 

[MikeVol44]

So Mike, your argument is that the fumble by the team that was already down 2 TDs, to the team who grabbed the momentum early in the 2nd Qtr and never gave it up for the rest of the game...

...that fumble was significant because it changed the score from a 2 TD lead to a 3 TD lead?

And when was that? Some time in the 4th Qtr?

See, I don't count that as significant. Especially since the game was never in doubt after we got the 2-TD lead.

I guess that I'm just stupid for thinking that VT fumbled away any chance to get back into the game in the second half...

Say VT doesn't fumble on our 21 in the 4th QTR with 10 minutes to go in the game and scores to make it 31-24....would that be significant? Only down to your opponent by 7 with about 10 minutes to go in the game?

And you honestly expect me not to think that fumble right there had a significant impact on the game? :crazy::crazy:

Trying to remain friendly here....but whatever....man...

Like I have said before....we just see factual events differently...

 

[Blazer2100]

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..

If we play against the direction that college football has been headed over the last several decades, we will have a severe statistical offensive disadvantage with little upside on the defensive side as far as stamina/fatigue. In lieu of that, our defensive staff trains the defense to "load up" each play to play hard for the length of the play, reload, and repeat. I don't think our offense this year will play to score every play, so the defense shouldn't worry too much about the snap count.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I guess that I'm just stupid for thinking that VT fumbled away any chance to get back into the game in the second half...

Say VT doesn't fumble on our 21 in the 4th QTR with 10 minutes to go in the game and scores to make it 31-24....would that be significant? Only down to your opponent by 7 with about 10 minutes to go in the game?

And you honestly expect me not to think that fumble right there had a significant impact on the game? :crazy::crazy:

Trying to remain friendly here....but whatever....man...

Like I have said before....we just see factual events differently...

You make a persuasive argument. If there WERE a 2nd fumble that was significant in that game, that woulda been it.

But watching the game, and feeling the momentum, and seeing where the teams were...I just don't think it was.

It's ok if we disagree on this one. :hi: