Hurry Up Offense at the End of a Game

[FireChan]

 

 

If you love Gailey so much, go root for the team he's coaching now!

 

Yeah Gailey turned Spiller into a consistent performer. Remember 6.3 YPC? Where was that yesterday?

[The Big Cat]

The Bills needed at least two first downs on the drive beginning with 5:51 to go. They were up by a single point. Trying to score, trying to run their offense and their game plan was the right thing to do. Execution was just downright lousy.

[yungmack]

The "should have burned the clock" complaint has showed up in several threads & several articles. To me this is pure nonsense. There was well over 4 minutes to play, the lead was 1 point. If the Bills had used the full amount of time for each play & still gone 3 &out, there would have been about 3 minutes left, give or take, plenty of time for the Pats to score. That was the scenario Marrone was facing. The real problem wasn't how much time they took but failure to get a first down (or a score). In other words, as already mentioned above, the problem was execution. Had they made a couple of first downs and at least kicked a field goal, they would likely have won.

[4BillsintheBurgh]

Execution of a play is not dependent on how fast the ball is snapped.

 

 

 

Which they did not even have to use, because the Bills gave them an extra minute instead.

Point being the extra minute did not matter because they had the timeouts and would not have used them until closer to the two minute warning anyway. The only advantage of taking more time in this case was to help the defense recover. If NE* would have scored quicker we would have had more time at the end of the game. But they managed to dink and dunk the rest of the time off the clock.

 

We needed to be two scores out before employing the slowdown against a good team.

[KD in CA]

Execution of a play is not dependent on how fast the ball is snapped.

No it's not dependent on it, but it's certainly impacted by it. You can't change the rhythm of your offense without having an impact on execution.

 

 

Exactly, only the situation was actually even worse, our drive started with 5:51 to go. Thats nearly 6 minutes. 21 points was not going to win that game.

This is the entire case right here. 21 points was not enough with 6 minutes left. They needed more points so they ran the offense they'd run all day.

 

People can't possibly have watched the Bills or Tom Brady play football for the last 10 years and not understood that reality.

[The Big Cat]

The "should have burned the clock" complaint has showed up in several threads & several articles. To me this is pure nonsense. There was well over 4 minutes to play, the lead was 1 point. If the Bills had used the full amount of time for each play & still gone 3 &out, there would have been about 3 minutes left, give or take, plenty of time for the Pats to score. That was the scenario Marrone was facing. The real problem wasn't how much time they took but failure to get a first down (or a score). In other words, as already mentioned above, the problem was execution. Had they made a couple of first downs and at least kicked a field goal, they would likely have won.

 

If Stevie makes that grab--again, I don't mean to harp here, but let's be serious--then it's first and ten at the New England 45ish, with about 8 and a half minutes to go and the clock running. One more first down, and they're in field goal range, probably 6 minutes to go. Even if the drive stalls then, they get a decent look at a field goal with about 4 minutes to go. They make that, and New England HAS to score a touch down, something they only did when turnovers put them in the red zone (or damn close.

 

So, even though Spiller's execution on the first down run, and the bad pass on second were poor examples of "execution," under much easier circumstances, simple execution would have made a win much more probable.

[Cynical]

I don't think this analysis is correct. The Pats took a knee twice before kicking that FG. We got the ball with 5:51 left, nearly 6 minutes and the Pats had three time outs plus the two-minute warning. How would our running the ball three straight plays and punting have resulted in them having to kick from the 46?

 

Go back and re-read the discussion between K-9 and me, because your interpretation is way off.

 

I never said "run 3 straight plays".

 

You seemed to have missed this:

 

"If we assume nothing else changed between slowing it down and continue to run the uptempo offense, here's the minute difference:"

 

That was in the quote you replied to.

[chris heff]

 

 

Yeah Gailey turned Spiller into a consistent performer. Remember 6.3 YPC? Where was that yesterday?

As far as head coaches go Gailey was a good offensive coordinator. By his own admission he did not pay attention to the defense.

[Nasty]

I don't mind the hurry up and you can still burn clock by using it, didn't you see the patriots run it to perfection. Hurry up to the line and wait until the clock runs down, no need to huddle, the defense can't substitute and if they do you hike it anyway for a free play because they would have too many men on the field and if they don't sub you just let the clock run down to within 5 seconds then hike it. We were just stuck on the mentality of hurry up to the line and hike it as fast as you can so the defense wont be set.

[The Big Cat]

Go back and re-read the discussion between K-9 and me, because your interpretation is way off.

 

I never said "run 3 straight plays".

 

You seemed to have missed this:

 

"If we assume nothing else changed between slowing it down and continue to run the uptempo offense, here's the minute difference:"

 

That was in the quote you replied to.

 

I think the difference is, we use(d) the hurry up because it's the tempo we (our rookie quarterback) is used to.

[apuszczalowski]

I love this place, For years people here have eben screaming about how important time of possession is and how you can't win when the other teams offence is on the field way more then your own offence. Now TOP doesn't matter cause they want to play with an 'Up tempo/no huddle Offence'

 

For almost his entire career, theres one thing that everyone around the NFL knows about the Pats and Brady, the best way to beat them is to keep Brady off the field. Now that doesn't matter, everyone thinks the key is to try and just outscore them.

Even on TV the announcers were astonished that the Bills would continue to waste no time on offence and the last thing you want to do is give the Pats plenty of time with the ball again to score.

 

The sole reaon they lost wasn't because of the 'Up Tempo/no huddle offence', but the decision to not try and take more time off the clock was a big part of the reason. Even if they had executed things perfectly and scored on that drive, with the time this offence was taking on the field it still would have given the Pats plenty of time to come down the field and score. The Pats had the ball on offence for 38 minutes in the game. The Pats were almost handing the game to the Bills on multiple occasions, but the Bills offence just seemed to want to give the game back to them.

 

I'm not saying "Fire Marrone/Hackett" or "Dump the 'Up Tempo/No Huddle' Offence", but this coaching staff will need to learn to adjust during the game and not be so stubborn about what they are going to run all the time if they want to make the step up and play with the big boys. This game is all about adjustments, and its not like the offence was playing spectacular all day and were moving the ball at will against the Pats. Theres a time where its appropriate to slow things down and take some time off the clock, its what BB and the Pats did on that last drive to ensure they would put themselves in line for a chance to win the game and give the bills little to no time left when they get the ball back.

[PaattMaann]

There is a big difference in time management at the end of the 4th quarter, playing with a lead (albeit, one point) and throughout the rest of the game - we needed to run the clock down and still execute - I dont think anyone is saying we should have went for three plays of running inside and then punted...

 

it all comes down to execution for sure, but that does not mean you cant milk the clock while executing - every offense should be able to slow the clock down, no huddle or not - as some one posted above, if the offense can only operate out of a one-trick no huddle offense then something needs to change

 

Starting from 8 minutes left, the players did not execute and the coaching staff could have reacted differently and slowed the game down....this was one we should have won, but even after decompressing I still cannot see the argument for staying no huddle with 4 minutes left, yes we needed to score, as well as leave the Pats with as little time left as possible (big difference operating an offensive possession with 4 minutes left or 2)

[apuszczalowski]

Go back and re-read the discussion between K-9 and me, because your interpretation is way off.

 

I never said "run 3 straight plays".

 

You seemed to have missed this:

 

"If we assume nothing else changed between slowing it down and continue to run the uptempo offense, here's the minute difference:"

 

That was in the quote you replied to.

Yup, the point to all of this is that if you wear a little bit more time off the clock, even if you wind up going 3 and out, atleast the opponent isn't given even more time on the clock for a come back. Could having burned an extra 30+ seconds off the clock helped? Maybe, but its not like saving that time by running the "hurry-up" helped the Bills at all.

[xsoldier54]

Are you talking about the "last" possession or when the Bills had the ball with 5 min left? The last possession they had to use the hurry-up. They were behind. With 5 minutes left, I totally agree with using the hurry-up. They had a 1 point lead and needed to score. The Pats had 3 time-outs left, plus the 2 minute warning. There was still alot of football left at that point. No need to milk the clock given the situation. If it was 1 minute left and they used the hurry-up, then I'd be questioning them.

This. Bottom line, if Stevie catches that third down pass, Buffalo wins. It wasn't the hurry up, it was the execution.

[boyst]

I gotta run. Just woke up....

 

 

Why would we go to the huddle when we had never done it. Brady got his head in the game with about10 min left. It was clear ne had a plan. One they are successful. Play the clock and let Brady bring it down field.

[Donald Duck]

I love this place, For years people here have eben screaming about how important time of possession is and how you can't win when the other teams offence is on the field way more then your own offence. Now TOP doesn't matter cause they want to play with an 'Up tempo/no huddle Offence'

 

For almost his entire career, theres one thing that everyone around the NFL knows about the Pats and Brady, the best way to beat them is to keep Brady off the field. Now that doesn't matter, everyone thinks the key is to try and just outscore them.

Even on TV the announcers were astonished that the Bills would continue to waste no time on offence and the last thing you want to do is give the Pats plenty of time with the ball again to score.

 

The sole reaon they lost wasn't because of the 'Up Tempo/no huddle offence', but the decision to not try and take more time off the clock was a big part of the reason. Even if they had executed things perfectly and scored on that drive, with the time this offence was taking on the field it still would have given the Pats plenty of time to come down the field and score. The Pats had the ball on offence for 38 minutes in the game. The Pats were almost handing the game to the Bills on multiple occasions, but the Bills offence just seemed to want to give the game back to them.

 

I'm not saying "Fire Marrone/Hackett" or "Dump the 'Up Tempo/No Huddle' Offence", but this coaching staff will need to learn to adjust during the game and not be so stubborn about what they are going to run all the time if they want to make the step up and play with the big boys. This game is all about adjustments, and its not like the offence was playing spectacular all day and were moving the ball at will against the Pats. Theres a time where its appropriate to slow things down and take some time off the clock, its what BB and the Pats did on that last drive to ensure they would put themselves in line for a chance to win the game and give the bills little to no time left when they get the ball back.

 

 

with all due respect, the Bills worked the entire game in an effort to wear down their opponent, and you are suggesting they should change strategy at the end when endurance becomes a factor?

 

I disagree

[Cynical]

No it's not dependent on it, but it's certainly impacted by it. You can't change the rhythm of your offense without having an impact on execution.

 

What rhythm? Again, it's not like the up tempo offense was humming along all day long. If it was, I would have agreed with the decision.

.

People can't possibly have watched the Bills or Tom Brady play football for the last 10 years and not understood that reality.

 

If watched Tom Brady over the past 10 years, you know the best way to beat him is him sitting on the bench, especially in crunch time.

 

The Bills not only failed to execute, they handed Brady extra time to beat us.

 

Yup, the point to all of this is that if you wear a little bit more time off the clock, even if you wind up going 3 and out, atleast the opponent isn't given even more time on the clock for a come back. Could having burned an extra 30+ seconds off the clock helped? Maybe, but its not like saving that time by running the "hurry-up" helped the Bills at all.

 

Thank you. You get it.

 

with all due respect, the Bills worked the entire game in an effort to wear down their opponent, and you are suggesting they should change strategy at the end when endurance becomes a factor?

 

I disagree

 

Except it did not work. The Pats D was not tired. Our D was.

[apuszczalowski]

with all due respect, the Bills worked the entire game in an effort to wear down their opponent, and you are suggesting they should change strategy at the end when endurance becomes a factor?

 

I disagree

How are they wearing down their opponent when the opponents D was only on the field for a little over 20 minutes? Unless the plan is to wear down the opponents offence by letting them stay on the field most of the game. The only ones getting worn out was the Bills defence.

 

The point is that there are times when you need to adjust to the game situation and change your plan, the offence needed to give the defence some extra time on the bench. Instead they did the absolute worst thing they could do, go 3 and out while giving the Pats offence more then enough time to get into FG range.

 

If the plan is to wear down the other team for the end of the game, the Bills did a horrible job of it. no one is saying they should have gone to a huddle and changed the play calling, which even if they did, its not going to completly change what the offence can do, what people are saying is that they can stay no huddle and still wear the clock down a bit while keeping the opponents defence on the field and not letting them get substitutions. Its not like going from a "no Huddle/hurry up" to letting some time expire on the play clock before hiking is like changing to a completly different offence.

[Cynical]

I think the difference is, we use(d) the hurry up because it's the tempo we (our rookie quarterback) is used to.

 

Which is probably true, but please don't tell me Marrone is a complete idiot and has never anticipated/practiced at a slower tempo for when the time calls for it.

[Bills Fan since '64]

We may have lost the game, but as Dan Dierdorff said 46 times, "we're defining who we are." We hurry up when you get rewarded for going slow.