Faster Offenses Lead To Weaker Defenses In The SEC

[MikeVol44]

I never changed the argument.

My original post in this thread:


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...

Can't resist the temptation to chase 'em all around the parking lot one more time.....

The FACTS are simple and I will type slowly:

There has only been ONE undefeated team in the history of the NFL to win the Super Bowl--do you care to go back and look at their team to see how they played the game?

Being a Super Bowl champion is what counts...I NEVER said that the Colt's no-huddle was crap--but the facts are clear--when ANY no-huddle team runs into a team that plays very physical on offense, runs the ball effectively, and plays suffocating defense--THE NO-HUDDLE GETS POUNDED!!! The Colts are the only exception to this rule when they beat the Bears--who weren't very good on offense that year.

Marv Levy's Buffalo Bills were 100 times better than ANY team the Colts ever put on the field, but they were pounded when they ran into teams with a physical offensive philosophy and who played suffocating defense--Giants, Redskins, and Cowboys twice! Parcells and Belichick showed everyone how to stop the Bill's no-huddle, hurry up offense. The Bills won a lot of games, but no championships! That's not opinion, Jack, that's historical NFL reality!

Simply stated, the no-huddle, "hurry-up" offensive philosophy has been attempted at every level of the game, does lead to a bunch of wins, but ultimately has only 1 championship to show for it--and is just a temporary gimmick that will not last.

I offer these bona fides as the FACTUAL EVIDENCE on which I state my opinion. :salute:

 

[MikeVol44]

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.

yeah, look at that A&M game--after the first quarter, bama outplayed and outscored A&M 24-9 over the next 3 qtrs--and should have won the game if their OC would not have lost his mind and tried to pass the ball into the end zone.

Plus, it's so easy to forget that Bama had played LSU in a very physical and emotional game the week before at LSU...A&M had the good fortune of catching Bama at the right time on their schedule, and Bama still should have won that game...

So, A&M had two great drives in the first qtr, one turnover from alabama, and then did basically nothing for the rest of the game....:salute:

We'll see what happens this fall in College Station.....:salute:

 

[Burger]

yeah, look at that A&M game--after the first quarter, bama outplayed and outscored A&M 24-9 over the next 3 qtrs--and should have won the game if their OC would not have lost his mind and tried to pass the ball into the end zone.

Plus, it's so easy to forget that Bama had played LSU in a very physical and emotional game the week before at LSU...A&M had the good fortune of catching Bama at the right time on their schedule, and Bama still should have won that game...

So, A&M had two great drives in the first qtr, one turnover from alabama, and then did basically nothing for the rest of the game....:salute:

We'll see what happens this fall in College Station.....:salute:

Why can't we have a fast pace no huddle offense with a shut down defense?

 

[thebjd]

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

They have also demolished both types of team. The team with the better players usually wins. Three of the spread teams had Heisman QB's and all four were top ten teams.

 

[thebjd]

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.

Didn't LSU beat A&M and after trailing 12-0 early really dominated them to win easily?

 

[Vol8188]

Why can't we have a fast pace no huddle offense with a shut down defense?

You absolutely can, and we will.

 

[Burger]

You absolutely can, and we will.

I agree with you on this one, but I'm asking that guy.

 

[photovol]

In football, the best athletes win the game 95% of the time. Now, it's high time the Vols recruit (it seems to have started for 2014) these players so we can remove ourselves from being ranked next to last in the SEC. This Tennessee Football program has been a joke for the last 6-7 years and I'd love to see Neyland Stadium once again feared by our oponents.
Go Vols

 

[MikeVol44]

Why can't we have a fast pace no huddle offense with a shut down defense?

That's the context of the OPs post and the reference article--those two almost NEVER coexist. It just doesn't seem to work out that way. :salute:

 

[Burger]

That's the context of the OPs post and the reference article--those two almost NEVER coexist. It just doesn't seem to work out that way. :salute:

Is it because they don't have enough talent on defense? That was the problem with Coryell, Jones( SMU) , Moore( colts), Mike McCarthy(11-12), and almost all other spread coaches. Oregon had a pretty damn good defense last year though.

 

[MikeVol44]

Is it because they don't have enough talent on defense? That was the problem with Coryell, Jones( SMU) , Moore( colts), Mike McCarthy(11-12), and almost all other spread coaches. Oregon had a pretty damn good defense last year though.

I really don't know.

The Buffalo Bills were the best team ever at running the hurry-up no huddle offense (yes, better than Manning and the Colts). They had a GREAT defense, and Bruce Smith was REGGIE WHITE good. They won a TON of games for 3 or 4 years, but NO championships.

When they came up against more traditional, physical teams on both offense and defense--they lost. They could have won the SB against the Giants except for the missed FG. They also had more TOs in those championship games.

What has happened to Oregon when they have played physical teams who could match their speed? They've lost more than they've won (LSU, Auburn, Stanford when they didn't turn the ball over).

Everybody likes to think that A&M showed the way in how to beat Alabama--but A&M caught Bama after their road game with LSU, and got a key TO in the 1st quarter of that game. But both Bama and LSU dominated A&M last year after the first quarter (bama outscored them 24-9 in the last 3 qtrs of that game and should have won) with a PHYSICAL run game and suffocating defense.

But look at Alabama, LSU, and other physically dominant teams--they line up and take your heart from you by brutalizing you for 4 quarters of smash-mouth football on both sides of the ball. They have a good passing game that is EFFECTIVE not because of TEMPO, but because teams MUST focus on stopping their run game first. Play-action is VERY effective in that kind of offense--and TEMPO has nothing to do with it!!!

The example that I like the most is the 49ers under Bill Walsh. They controlled the game with a physical running game and effective passing, while playing very physical defense. I hope that's what we look like.

Ultimately, TEMPO never guarantees anything--and that's the point. :salute: GO VOLS!

 

[governmentmule]

when i look at the numbers and the championships,there is a correlation that you can't ignore,the tempo of the game does affect the defensive numbers,weather it is just from a stand point of the offense controlling the line of scrimmage or not,it is a proven recipe in the SEC for winning championships,other than the freakishly good quarterbacks in a system that helped them and they are Tebow at Fla,Newton at Auburn ,Manziel at TAM,Manziel still has not proven they are capable of winning it all and Newton was a one year wonder,i do think it matters,I'm hoping that CBJ eats up a lot of clock and does some smash mouth running,i believe that aspect of the game will help him do well for the mighty Vols

 

[Coach Punk]

I really don't know.

The Buffalo Bills were the best team ever at running the hurry-up no huddle offense (yes, better than Manning and the Colts). They had a GREAT defense, and Bruce Smith was REGGIE WHITE good. They won a TON of games for 3 or 4 years, but NO championships.

No, they were not. They played in the crap-fest 80s/90s AFC where there was one halfway decent team a year. And that was the annual sacrifice to the NFC’s Super Bowl champion. There were blowouts back then, not like today.

When they came up against more traditional, physical teams on both offense and defense--they lost. They could have won the SB against the Giants except for the missed FG. They also had more TOs in those championship games.

So, basically, if Norwood had made that kick your entire premise would make no sense. Gotcha.

And about that undefeated team in the NFL? Their offense? Carbon copy of everybody else’s. Only they had a bunch of good defensive players and three good running backs. So, talent had nothing to do with it, it was just the system. Except it was about the talent.

What has happened to Oregon when they have played physical teams who could match their speed? They've lost more than they've won (LSU, Auburn, Stanford when they didn't turn the ball over).

You keep bringing up semantics. Stanford DID turn the ball over a bunch of times. That’s the point of Oregon’s defense, in case you didn’t know. Slow down the opponent, make them make mistakes.

Everybody likes to think that A&M showed the way in how to beat Alabama--but A&M caught Bama after their road game with LSU, and got a key TO in the 1st quarter of that game. But both Bama and LSU dominated A&M last year after the first quarter (bama outscored them 24-9 in the last 3 qtrs of that game and should have won) with a PHYSICAL run game and suffocating defense.

And should have won. But didn’t. Just like Norwood should have made that kick. But didn’t.

But look at Alabama, LSU, and other physically dominant teams--they line up and take your heart from you by brutalizing you for 4 quarters of smash-mouth football on both sides of the ball. They have a good passing game that is EFFECTIVE not because of TEMPO, but because teams MUST focus on stopping their run game first. Play-action is VERY effective in that kind of offense--and TEMPO has nothing to do with it!!!

Except that is the very exact thing that it is: tempo. However, unlike an up-tempo team, they play a down-tempo pace. Their passing game is set up PRECISELY because they run the ball in a slow, calculated, methodical way.

The example that I like the most is the 49ers under Bill Walsh. They controlled the game with a physical running game and effective passing, while playing very physical defense. I hope that's what we look like.

Seriously? Really?

Bill Walsh had a saying, “there’s only three things that can happen when you run the ball, and two of them aren’t good.” Well, not really, but he was one of the guys who got the rap of being pass-happy. So it’s a little funny to see somebody use that guy as an example of being a run-first kind of guy.

Ultimately, TEMPO never guarantees anything--and that's the point. :salute: GO VOLS!

Nothing ever does. The football is oblong; it bounces how it bounces.


AND BY THE WAY, Stanford runs a smashmouth system. USF will install a smashmouth system this fall. No team in the SEC runs anything like a smashmouth offense. Because you run the ball a lot does not mean you are a smashmouth team. The SEC, in fact, is going the other way.

 

[MikeVol44]

No, they were not. They played in the crap-fest 80s/90s AFC where there was one halfway decent team a year. And that was the annual sacrifice to the NFC’s Super Bowl champion. There were blowouts back then, not like today.



So, basically, if Norwood had made that kick your entire premise would make no sense. Gotcha.

And about that undefeated team in the NFL? Their offense? Carbon copy of everybody else’s. Only they had a bunch of good defensive players and three good running backs. So, talent had nothing to do with it, it was just the system. Except it was about the talent.



You keep bringing up semantics. Stanford DID turn the ball over a bunch of times. That’s the point of Oregon’s defense, in case you didn’t know. Slow down the opponent, make them make mistakes.



And should have won. But didn’t. Just like Norwood should have made that kick. But didn’t.



Except that is the very exact thing that it is: tempo. However, unlike an up-tempo team, they play a down-tempo pace. Their passing game is set up PRECISELY because they run the ball in a slow, calculated, methodical way.



Seriously? Really?

Bill Walsh had a saying, “there’s only three things that can happen when you run the ball, and two of them aren’t good.” Well, not really, but he was one of the guys who got the rap of being pass-happy. So it’s a little funny to see somebody use that guy as an example of being a run-first kind of guy.



Nothing ever does. The football is oblong; it bounces how it bounces.


AND BY THE WAY, Stanford runs a smashmouth system. USF will install a smashmouth system this fall. No team in the SEC runs anything like a smashmouth offense. Because you run the ball a lot does not mean you are a smashmouth team. The SEC, in fact, is going the other way.

Your comment that there are no smashmouth teams in the SEC is beyond being just plain stupid. :crazy::loco:lol::tease2:


San Francisco 49 SB Champions Bill Walsh System:

Year rushing attempts passing attempts

1981 560 517
1984 534 496
1988 527 502
1989 493 483


so much for your "pass-happy" analysis of Bill Walsh's philosophy....

Let me type slowly--TEMPO doesn't dictate anything--be it fast or slow--being able to control the clock by physically dominating your opponent at the line of Scrimmage DOES!

That's how Alabama wins--and that's how Tennessee has always WON! If you can do that from the No-huddle--so be it. However, the historical and statistical evidence doesn't support the no-huddle, hurry-up approach on offense.

 

[MikeVol44]

when i look at the numbers and the championships,there is a correlation that you can't ignore,the tempo of the game does affect the defensive numbers,weather it is just from a stand point of the offense controlling the line of scrimmage or not,it is a proven recipe in the SEC for winning championships,other than the freakishly good quarterbacks in a system that helped them and they are Tebow at Fla,Newton at Auburn ,Manziel at TAM,Manziel still has not proven they are capable of winning it all and Newton was a one year wonder,i do think it matters,I'm hoping that CBJ eats up a lot of clock and does some smash mouth running,i believe that aspect of the game will help him do well for the mighty Vols

Well, I would ask you a question: Is it the "speed" at which the offense operates that allows them to control the line of scrimmage, or is it the "physicality" of their offensive line in dominating the opponent's DL?

Those Fla teams TEBOW played on put a lot of OL in the NFL. :salute:

 

[Orange_Crush]

Is it because they don't have enough talent on defense? That was the problem with Coryell, Jones( SMU) , Moore( colts), Mike McCarthy(11-12), and almost all other spread coaches. Oregon had a pretty damn good defense last year though.

That was my rationale earlier in this thread. Traditionally, early-adopters of the spread were teams that struggled in recruiting-- they went to spread/hurry-up to level the playing field. Being programs that struggled getting talent, and seeking to implement an offensive philosophy to close the gap, one guess where all the talent was put...

It would stand to reason why spread/hurry-up teams have struggled defensively.

I don't buy that hurry-up inherently teaches bad habits on defense, because the hurry-up teams that have struggled defensively have struggled against everyone, not just traditional offenses. Just looks at all the MAC shoot-outs between spread/hurry-up teams.

It comes down to talent and coaching, no matter what offensive philosophy a team implements.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Let me type slowly--TEMPO doesn't dictate anything--be it fast or slow--being able to control the clock by physically dominating your opponent at the line of Scrimmage DOES!

That's how Alabama wins--and that's how Tennessee has always WON! If you can do that from the No-huddle--so be it. However, the historical and statistical evidence doesn't support the no-huddle, hurry-up approach on offense.

Wasn't it you that argued with me for an entire day when I was making basically the exact same point? lol

You still seem to be missing the point that CBJ runs a run-heavy offense, btw...

 

[Orange_Crush]

Well, I would ask you a question: Is it the "speed" at which the offense operates that allows them to control the line of scrimmage, or is it the "physicality" of their offensive line in dominating the opponent's DL?

Those Fla teams TEBOW played on put a lot of OL in the NFL. :salute:

It depends on the schemes. Oregon controls the line of scrimmage mainly through speed, misdirection/confusion, and wearing the defense out through tempo and limiting substitutions.

Others line up and smash-mouth.

 

[Burger]

That was my rationale earlier in this thread. Traditionally, early-adopters of the spread were teams that struggled in recruiting-- they went to spread/hurry-up to level the playing field. Being programs that struggled getting talent, and seeking to implement an offensive philosophy to close the gap, one guess where all the talent was put...

It would stand to reason why spread/hurry-up teams have struggled defensively.

I don't buy that hurry-up inherently teaches bad habits on defense, because the hurry-up teams that have struggled defensively have struggled against everyone, not just traditional offenses. Just looks at all the MAC shoot-outs between spread/hurry-up teams.

It comes down to talent and coaching, no matter what offensive philosophy a team implements.

Exactly, Neyland's Maxims do not say thou shall line up in power I.

 

[governmentmule]

Well, I would ask you a question: Is it the "speed" at which the offense operates that allows them to control the line of scrimmage, or is it the "physicality" of their offensive line in dominating the opponent's DL?

Those Fla teams TEBOW played on put a lot of OL in the NFL. :salute:

it is a bit of both,the hurry up and wait ,if you will call it that,it really helped Fla,but that was because Tebow was geared for that offense,there is no doubt about that

 

[Coach Punk]

Your comment that there are no smashmouth teams in the SEC is beyond being just plain stupid. :crazy::loco:lol::tease2:


San Francisco 49 SB Champions Bill Walsh System:

Year rushing attempts passing attempts

1981 560 517
1984 534 496
1988 527 502
1989 493 483


so much for your "pass-happy" analysis of Bill Walsh's philosophy....

Let me type slowly--TEMPO doesn't dictate anything--be it fast or slow--being able to control the clock by physically dominating your opponent at the line of Scrimmage DOES!

That's how Alabama wins--and that's how Tennessee has always WON! If you can do that from the No-huddle--so be it. However, the historical and statistical evidence doesn't support the no-huddle, hurry-up approach on offense.

I had a whole table of run/pass ratio data but really, what’s the point? They called Bill Walsh pass-happy, in a derogatory way, in the 80s and early 90s. It happened, I’m sorry you don’t believe me. It doesn’t matter what the statistics say, it’s the knock people put on him and the 49ers.

Tempo will dictate lots of things. I’m not sure what’d difficult to understand about that.

 

[Vol8188]

Your comment that there are no smashmouth teams in the SEC is beyond being just plain stupid. :crazy::loco:lol::tease2:


San Francisco 49 SB Champions Bill Walsh System:

Year rushing attempts passing attempts

1981 560 517
1984 534 496
1988 527 502
1989 493 483


so much for your "pass-happy" analysis of Bill Walsh's philosophy....

Let me type slowly--TEMPO doesn't dictate anything--be it fast or slow--being able to control the clock by physically dominating your opponent at the line of Scrimmage DOES!

That's how Alabama wins--and that's how Tennessee has always WON! If you can do that from the No-huddle--so be it. However, the historical and statistical evidence doesn't support the no-huddle, hurry-up approach on offense.

Alabama wins because they have more talent than their opponent. Not because of ball control. Tempo and the passing game are two great talent equalizers in football.

Look at Baylor, Texas A&M, or even Louisiana Tech from last year. Or how about the last time Kentucky beat Alabama? They sure as hell didn't do it through ball control and playing great defense.

 

[thebjd]

That was my rationale earlier in this thread. Traditionally, early-adopters of the spread were teams that struggled in recruiting-- they went to spread/hurry-up to level the playing field. Being programs that struggled getting talent, and seeking to implement an offensive philosophy to close the gap, one guess where all the talent was put...

It would stand to reason why spread/hurry-up teams have struggled defensively.

I don't buy that hurry-up inherently teaches bad habits on defense, because the hurry-up teams that have struggled defensively have struggled against everyone, not just traditional offenses. Just looks at all the MAC shoot-outs between spread/hurry-up teams.

It comes down to talent and coaching, no matter what offensive philosophy a team implements.

Hurry up teams have had issues with talent parity as well on defense. The spread that has been in the NFL was the pass-happy version and though is great in padding QB stats has not been a template for championship football. Photo evidence is attached.
There hasn't been an NFL team to my knowledge that has attempted an up-tempo read-option type offense. Your example of the Colts was a good on as far as a no huddle being used to control substitutions moreso than trying to get extra plays on offense. They were no-huddle but not always or even most of the time a hurry up offense.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

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.

Yes but THOSE are the teams you have to beat if you want to win the SEC. So if you think about it, it really is a fair comparison IMO.

 

[Other_Guy]

I don't see why up tempo is "so flawed" but let's face it, whether its that or the spread (sometimes up tempo itself) Bama doesn't do well against them.