The Hurry Up Offense

[ATL1]

I hope CPJ rethinks his stance on implementing it into his offense. It was very effective for Duke and Auburn this year and with a system like Tech's I think it would be deadly even if it's just timely implemented.

Just think of how painful the Two Minute Drill is for Tech to execute. Now there could actually be a plan for that. I understand in part his reasoning but after watching it for other teams like Oregon, Auburn, and Clemson burning Tech with it, maybe it's time to rethink it.

 

[gtdrew]

The tough part is the changing of personnel. CPJ would have to do a LOT differently in his playcalling procedure to go no-huddle. I think there's positives and negatives to it. It can leave your defense in a very vulnerable position, but scoring quickly seems to be the way the NCAA is going. I'd like to see more playcalling at the line like some other teams do, where they get set, then look to the sidelines for the real playcall. Clemson does a lot of that.

 

[gtg936g]

I think part of the no huddle premise is to create personnel mismatches, and snap the ball before the defense has lined up. A lot of what we do is based on reading the defense, based on how they line up. It would put a lot more of the play decisions on Vad. I am not sure he is ready for it yet. I would rather him spend his time at this point getting the option offense down as well as Tevin did.

 

[AE 87]

I think a big issue is our D. We just haven't had the depth or consistency on D (or O for that matter) to expect them to play more snaps. I think CPJ tried to sit on our lead vs U[sic]Ga as it was. They only had nine drives in regulation and scored on all four of the second half. We on the other hand could only score on 1 drive of the second half. The offense now is fairly efficient. Limiting the number of drives is typically in our favor.

 

[Boomergump]

I hope CPJ rethinks his stance on implementing it into his offense. It was very effective for Duke and Auburn this year and with a system like Tech's I think it would be deadly even if it's just timely implemented.

Just think of how painful the Two Minute Drill is for Tech to execute. Now there could actually be a plan for that. I understand in part his reasoning but after watching it for other teams like Oregon, Auburn, and Clemson burning Tech with it, maybe it's time to rethink it.

ATL, I think there are some opportunities to do this, but it depends greatly on a lot of factors.

The advantages of going hurry up: 1. Limits the ability of the defense to substitute based on down and distance creating mismatches sometimes. 2. Gasses the opponents defenders making them less effective. They can't sub out and they have to play a lot of snaps quickly. 3. Confuses the defense and limits their time to get lined up correctly against changing formations. This disadvantage of hurry up is that if you are unsuccessful, you are putting your defense right back on the field. More than likely, they will play at least 20 more snaps a game if you choose to play this way.

Now, lets look at GT. Most teams don't sub against us based on down and distance anyway. They might play their safeties back a few steps on 3rd and long, but that is about it. Also, when you consider the small number of formations we run compared to most teams, we lose the time based confusion advantage anyway. They are most likely playing assignment football out of a simple and repeating alignment. I have seen games played against us with a single alignment ONLY, with the exception of pulling corners towards the hashes when we go bunched. They are going to get lined up against us, fast or slow. So, you can see, some of the advantages of this philosophy evaporating, given our system. Now, the one huge advantage would be the fatigue factor. We are already a punishing and tiring offense to defend. If we are able to be successful going fast, I feel this factor would be even greater for us than for some teams. If we end up running a lot more diamond type stuff mixed in and add some formations, then hurry up might start to look more attractive to me. We have shown defensive improvement this season, but let's be honest, our defense has been hanging by a thread. Going hurry up on offense now, IMHO would not be wise given the state of the defense. If we can somehow make the defense the strength of the team, then I say let's give it a shot, but not until then.

 

[ATL1]

Bryan Cook's offense at Cal Poly So&So was a hurry up.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2012/10/24/2274036/cook-continues-to-cater-offense.html

Boom I hear you and it's something that I wouldn't make our necessary bread and butter but definitely a change of pace, maybe to pick of the offense and keep the defense on it's heal, or even in the case of UGA to mash on the gas. Thinking of how Auburn, Oregon, and even Ohio St. ran hurry up with suspect defense and it has yielded them conference championships. Just saying it's something that I would love to see implement at least as a 2 minute offense.

 

[floridajacket]

I think a big issue is our D. We just haven't had the depth or consistency on D (or O for that matter) to expect them to play more snaps. I think CPJ tried to sit on our lead vs U[sic]Ga as it was. They only had nine drives in regulation and scored on all four of the second half. We on the other hand could only score on 1 drive of the second half. The offense now is fairly efficient. Limiting the number of drives is typically in our favor.

This is my thought as well on the no-huddle offense and run vs. pass-based offense in general. A no-huddle, pass-based offense maximizes the number of points you score but also the number of points your opponent scores, assuming the opponent's offensive points per drive remains the same. To be effective, no-huddle offenses need to increase points per drive and not just total number of points.

Having more depth than your opponent is the main factor that works in favor of the no-huddle and passing vs. running. The points per drive goes up as the number of plays goes up, as we saw with how our defense broke down late in the UGA game. Whether you are ahead or behind also makes a big difference in deciding whether to do a hurry-up offense. As long as your points per drive is the same between no-huddle and regular offense, it makes no sense to go no-huddle with the lead.

It is possible that for Auburn or Oregon, their points per drive goes up enough with their speed that it offsets giving their opponent more drives when they are up. They are also helped and not hurt by their depth. I'm not sure I see the case for GT going no-huddle in general, with the execution our plays require and how our depth would work against us.

I would be interested, though, in implementing some sort of two minute drive either as a surprise tactic earlier in the game or when we fall behind like the Clemson game.

 

[steebu]

Boomer's listed a bunch of good points and floridajacket mentions depth. One thing we haven't thought about is the practical implementation of a hurry-up style of offense. For simplicity's sake, we can assume hurry-up typically infers no-huddle, which is important to this discussion.

PJ likes to substitute players in with the play - he does not like to use hand signals, although he says we have them for hurry-up situations.

If you run no-huddle and substitute, the other team is allowed to substitute as well; the umpire stands over the ball in order to give the defense a chance to counter your substitution thus negating any hurry-up advantage you might have. Sure, you're still running a bit faster but you lose the "zip" of a fast-break style offense.

You could certainly go quick huddle and break with no subs (like an open huddle), but regardless PJ must fundamentally change how he sends in plays. If we see sandwich boards with four quadrants of random pictures during spring ball, we'll know something's up.

 

[bat_082994]

I don't think that we will see the implementation of a hurry-up offense until there is a change at HC. The way that CPJ calls plays and sends in substitutions simply would not allow it the way it is now.

 

[AE 87]

I think that if we got good at option reads, we could hurry up in 2min situations.

 

[steebu]

I'm not so sure that the whole, "this offense is terrible in the 2 minute drill" isn't mostly perception. We already get branded as a triple-option offense ("we only run the dive and the triple!") and wishbone teams traditionally didn't pass well so I'm not surprised the pundits and TV folks say what they do.

I don't recall except maybe once or twice where we ran out of time running the 2-minute drill. There were plenty of times where our execution failed us. Vad overthrew Robbie on a post in the waning moments of the UGA game that would've put us up 27-7. Tevin misfired against UGA in 2010. Joshua and Bebe couldn't connect on 4th and 10 against UGA in 2009. I don't really worry about our 2-minute offense from a pacing standpoint too much; I'm much more concerned with how well we execute it.

 

[AE 87]

I'm not so sure that the whole, "this offense is terrible in the 2 minute drill" isn't mostly perception. We already get branded as a triple-option offense ("we only run the dive and the triple!") and wishbone teams traditionally didn't pass well so I'm not surprised the pundits and TV folks say what they do.

I don't recall except maybe once or twice where we ran out of time running the 2-minute drill. There were plenty of times where our execution failed us. Vad overthrew Robbie on a post in the waning moments of the UGA game that would've put us up 27-7. Tevin misfired against UGA in 2010. Joshua and Bebe couldn't connect on 4th and 10 against UGA in 2009. I don't really worry about our 2-minute offense from a pacing standpoint too much; I'm much more concerned with how well we execute it.

I agree. I think the triple left triple right repeat then pass we ran in the spring game would add an extra to keep a d on its toes,

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

It is amazing that good blocking will make any offense look good. Oregon looks good until they run into a defense they can't block. So does Baylor and Texas Tech, just to name a few.

 

[Eric]

Good posts in here guys.

 

[awbuzz]

It is amazing that good blocking will make any offense look good. Oregon looks good until they run into a defense they can't block. So does Baylor and Texas Tech, just to name a few.

Yep, execution of blocks makes the difference.

 

[ramblin_man]

I think I would rather see the current team excute the spread option with fluency and precision rather than just speed up the play calling. Truth be known that if we can't consistently execute it at its current pace/rate then it would only get even more difficult if you tried to execute the same system at a faster pace thus putting additional pressure on our own personel to rush their decision making which would lead to greater confusion and frustration. Now once we get this current system down then heck yeah CRANK up the intensity and rate of the game to increase confusion/frustration on our oppenents!

 

[augustabuzz]

Hurry up works well when you have more athletes than the competition. It will get you killed when the opposite is true.

 

[slugboy]

I don't think you need more athletes than the competition, but I think you have to execute reliably. Executing more plays also means more opportunities for mistakes. If the defense makes them, you get big plays. If you're not ready to make the right play, you fumble, throw a pick, or miss a block, and leave the field early.

You do want to have more endurance than the other team, at least through each series. It doesn't look like we're fitter than the other teams based on our second half and overtime failures this year.

 

[JazzyD95]

One of our biggest advantages is the ability to limit opposing teams possessions and rest our defense. If we went hurry up we negate both of those. We don't have the talent/depth to run with good teams in a high possession game. Our defense would get tired(UGA game), and our offense wouldn't necessarily be able to capitalize on every possession to keep up. The way we are now is great for our current talent base, as we limit possessions for both teams and limit the opportunities for us to **** up.

 

[AnotherBee]

Running the hurry-up is a little like a fighter jet on afterburners. It's great when you have more fuel than your opponent does. As others have said, our best defense is our offense minimizing plays our opponents can run. Unless we're throwing Pick-6s, they aren't scoring when we have the ball. Add a lack of depth on defense and this points to a few things.
If we take as an example that we would score touchdowns just as often running the hurry-up as when we aren't, unless we need points quickly (2 minute drill) or we have vastly more depth, we don't gain anything by the hurry up. I would like a tactical hurry up offense that we do when we're running from the Flex and it is clear that their D isn't stopping us. We're going to run from the Flex until they stop us (classic CPJ), and if we don't substitute they can't either without a time out.