Hurry Up Offense at the End of a Game

[Donald Duck]

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.

 

My point is, you hope by the 4th quarter the opposition's D is getting winded, so no, its not the time to be letting them catch their breath.( in my opinion)

 

No huddle or not, extending the play clock between plays lets them rest.

Edited September 9, 2013 by dog14787

[Big Turk]

I felt like this immediately after the series yesterday, but upon further reflection, it was a question of execution more than it was running a hurry up offense at that point in the game. Had we huddled up and slowed it down, we would have burned only about 1 extra minute off the clock, if that. That was STILL plenty of time for Brady and Co. We needed first downs, huddle or not and the execution of the plays would have been the same.

 

I've done a complete 180 and I agree with Marrone. For good or ill, that is his offense and he felt like they needed more points and they weren't going to just sit back and settle. I can respect that.

 

I might question the playcalling a bit, but if Stevie hangs on to that pass, who knows how that changes things?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I mean we are who we are. At that point we would have had to run at LEAST 10 plays to even have any shot of running out the clock with NE having 3 timeouts and the two minute warning to stop the clock.

 

Also with NE having 3 timeouts it eouldnt have mattered at all if they went 3 and out running a no huddle or 3 and out running 38 seconds between plays. Now had they ran 6 or 7 plays this could have been an interesting discussion, but 3? No. Made no difference to the game outcome. If anything it gave the Bills a better chance to get the ball back if the Pats did score

[Ludwig van]

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.

 

^Finally someone is speaking the truth..

If we were ahead by 7 then I could see slowing down a bit

[firemedic]

I'll be Capt Obvious.........Some more EXECUTION and a "slow" hurry up would have won that game.

[K-9]

Having rewatched the game from the 5:51 mark when the Bills got the ball, I'm not convinced letting the play clock wind down to 1 before snapping would have made any difference at all. And they wouldn't have burned a minute more off the clock. More like 30 seconds.

 

They had an opportunity to save a grand total of 26 seconds as it turns out. After Spiller's first down run, they snapped the ball at 5:29 with 26 seconds left on the clock.

 

On 2nd down they passed incomplete, stopping the clock at 5:24 (vs. the 5:03 it could have been).

 

After the third down completion to Chandler, they let the clock run down to 4:38 with 3 seconds on the play clock before Powell punted.

 

So instead of getting it at 4:31, Brady would have gotten it at 4:05 had the Bills run the play clock down on Spiller's run on first down, which was their only opportunity in that series.

 

Given they had all three time outs plus the 2 minute warning AND even took a couple knees before kicking the FG, I don't see how Brady and his offense would have been too affected by that half a minute.

 

Execution was key. Not the pace of running plays. At least on that series.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[The Big Cat]

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.

 

Fair enough, but the time between snaps from first to second down was 22 seconds. Spiller's no-gain run couldn't have eaten more than 3 or 4 seconds, meaning the difference we're really arguing here, is--AT MOST--25, MAY BE 30 seconds, IF they would have snapped the ball on second down AS the play clock was expiring.

 

The clock stopped after second down and between 3rd and 4th was :42. So MAY BE they could have milked another 5 seconds, but all in all, this three page argument is not really over any consequential chunk of time.

 

Having rewatched the game from the 5:51 mark when the Bills got the ball, I'm not convinced letting the play clock wind down to 1 before snapping would have made any difference at all. And they wouldn't have burned a minute more off the clock. More like 30 seconds.

 

They had an opportunity to save a grand total of 26 seconds as it turns out. After Spiller's first down run, they snapped the ball at 5:29 with 26 seconds left on the clock.

 

On 2nd down they passed incomplete, stopping the clock at 5:24 (vs. the 5:03 it could have been).

 

After the third down completion to Chandler, they let the clock run down to 4:38 with 3 seconds on the play clock before Powell punted.

 

So instead of getting it at 4:31, Brady would have gotten it at 4:05 had the Bills run the play clock down on Spiller's run on first down, which was their only opportunity in that series.

 

Given they had all three time outs plus the 2 minute warning AND even took a couple knees before kicking the FG, I don't see how Brady and his offense would have been too affected by that half a minute.

 

Execution was key. Not the pace of running plays. At least on that series.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

HAHA, well, look who beat me to the exact same point by five minutes. :-)

[Rubes]

Having rewatched the game from the 5:51 mark when the Bills got the ball, I'm not convinced letting the play clock wind down to 1 before snapping would have made any difference at all. And they wouldn't have burned a minute more off the clock. More like 30 seconds.

 

They had an opportunity to save a grand total of 26 seconds as it turns out. After Spiller's first down run, they snapped the ball at 5:29 with 26 seconds left on the clock.

 

On 2nd down they passed incomplete, stopping the clock at 5:24 (vs. the 5:03 it could have been).

 

After the third down completion to Chandler, they let the clock run down to 4:38 with 3 seconds on the play clock before Powell punted.

 

So instead of getting it at 4:31, Brady would have gotten it at 4:05 had the Bills run the play clock down on Spiller's run on first down, which was their only opportunity in that series.

 

Given they had all three time outs plus the 2 minute warning AND even took a couple knees before kicking the FG, I don't see how Brady and his offense would have been too affected by that half a minute.

 

Execution was key. Not the pace of running plays. At least on that series.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Well done, sir.

[apuszczalowski]

Again, who knows how things would have gone if they played things differently.

 

The only facts that we have are that running the 'Hurry Up' late in the 4th didn't help them, and they gave the ball back to NE with more time then they could have if they had slowed things down a little.

With 30 seconds less time for Brady to work with, and a little bit of extra time for the Bills defence to catch their breath, who knows what may have changed. Maybe Brady can't run the clock down trying to set up the FG from the middle, who knows

 

Its never a bad thing to give the other team less time to try and score then giving them more time

[VADC Bills]

I'll be Capt Obvious.........Some more EXECUTION and a "slow" hurry up would have won that game.

I'm a bit surprised that most of the posters have a either or attitude. It was bad clock management and execution. We can throw in a lack of discipline all game long but the thread detailed the aspect of the hurry up offense on the last possession.

It was a winnable game that we managed to give away.

Edited September 9, 2013 by VADC Bills

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

 

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.

.

 

 

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.

 

Thank you. You get it.

 

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

 

You've got it all wrong. You burn clock by sustaining drives and moving chains as the Pats did on their last drive. Just as Pats began burning clock once comfortably inside FG range.

 

While Jauron ball would have meant trying to milk the clock with a third of a quarter left to protect a 1 poor lead against Tom Brady, as Marrone said, there were 5 minutes, 3 pats TOs and one point lead.

 

He was trying to score and trying to win the game.

 

It is absurd to suggest any other clock mgmt approach on the last drive would have in anyway changed the outcome. The fact was Amendola owned the bills on third down and the bills still don't have their own GO TO guy that will move the chains in crunch time.

[dave mcbride]

I agree that huddling would not have changed the execution of that one play.

However, you are using that failed execution to justify the strategy of the entire series.

 

You bring up that the Pats were within FG range with over a minute left.

 

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

1. 3-8-BUF 39 (1:20) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short middle to 80-D.Amendola to BUF 29 for 10 yards (23-A.Williams). Caught at BUF 30.
    
   
2. Timeout #1 by BUF at 01:08.
   

Now drop the extra minute that we could have burned:

 

Instead of the Bills calling TO at 1:08, the Patriots would have had to call TO at :08 in order to kick the FG.

Instead of kicking a 35 FG, the Pats would have been looking at a 46 yard FG attempt.

 

That one extra minute gave the Pats 11 extra yards, and the time to center up the kick for the PK.

 

Still think that one extra minute was nothing?

 

 

 

I will never understand the reasoning. The up tempo offense was NOT humming along,

The object was not to burn clock at that point but to get first downs. If the best way to do it is via the hurry up, that's what you do.

[artmalibu]

Would have worked just fine is SJ doesnt drop the ball.

 

Why was he so open?

answer- defense did not have time to adjust for that play.

 

When the coaches had a plan that allowed players to be in position to make plays and the players dont get it done, DONT look at the coaches.

[PaattMaann]

Would have worked just fine is SJ doesnt drop the ball.

 

Why was he so open?

answer- defense did not have time to adjust for that play.

 

When the coaches had a plan that allowed players to be in position to make plays and the players dont get it done, DONT look at the coaches.

 

as much as im in "adjust your gameplan to fit the part of the game" camp - cannot argue with this...SJ catches that and its probably a completely different discussion right now

[Donald Duck]

Would have worked just fine is SJ doesnt drop the ball.

 

Why was he so open?

answer- defense did not have time to adjust for that play.

 

When the coaches had a plan that allowed players to be in position to make plays and the players dont get it done, DONT look at the coaches.

 

 

what he said

[dave mcbride]

Would have worked just fine is SJ doesnt drop the ball.

 

Why was he so open?

answer- defense did not have time to adjust for that play.

 

When the coaches had a plan that allowed players to be in position to make plays and the players dont get it done, DONT look at the coaches.

That didn't happen on the last possession - that happened on the previous one. I think people are questioning the use of the no-huddle on the Bills final possession. I think they're wrong because I think it's the height of foolishness to go into a play-not-to-lose shell against the Pats. Plus there were over five minutes left when the Bills punted.

[The Big Cat]

Would have worked just fine is SJ doesnt drop the ball.

 

Why was he so open?

answer- defense did not have time to adjust for that play.

 

When the coaches had a plan that allowed players to be in position to make plays and the players dont get it done, DONT look at the coaches.

 

Would have been a first down, with the clock running, about 8 minutes to play, in New England territory, helping to set us up for a field goal that would have put us up 4. YEAH, it was a big !@#$ing drop.

[apuszczalowski]

You've got it all wrong. You burn clock by sustaining drives and moving chains as the Pats did on their last drive. Just as Pats began burning clock once comfortably inside FG range.

 

While Jauron ball would have meant trying to milk the clock with a third of a quarter left to protect a 1 poor lead against Tom Brady, as Marrone said, there were 5 minutes, 3 pats TOs and one point lead.

 

He was trying to score and trying to win the game.

 

It is absurd to suggest any other clock mgmt approach on the last drive would have in anyway changed the outcome. The fact was Amendola owned the bills on third down and the bills still don't have their own GO TO guy that will move the chains in crunch time.

So your saying that the Bills offence can't do this while trying to also kill some time off the clock? Theres not one person here (no matter what side they are on in this) who is saying that the Bills shouldn't have been trying to score. But would letting the play clock wind down a little more have hurt the Bills chances of doing this? Would it have changed their offence that much? If anything, I would say getting back to the LOS with the Hurry-Up then taking as much time off the play clock may have helped confuse the Pats defence more and mess witht heir timing because they would have been expecting a quick snap, it would have kept the defence from substituting and made the Pats defence hold themselves in position longer. Also by taking a few extra seconds who knows what Manuel or someone else on the offence may have seen fromt eh Pats defence that could have changed something

 

Again, no one really knows if it would have changed the outcome, but we know what did happen, Brady and the Pats had about 5 minutes to get themselves into position to score and take the lead, and give the Bills teh Ball back with no time left.

[apuszczalowski]

That didn't happen on the last possession - that happened on the previous one. I think people are questioning the use of the no-huddle on the Bills final possession. I think they're wrong because I think it's the height of foolishness to go into a play-not-to-lose shell against the Pats. Plus there were over five minutes left when the Bills punted.

How is trying to give the Pats less time to have a chance to score "playing not to lose"?

No one has ever said that they thought the Bills should not have been going for it and trying to score, the only thing being argued here is that they should have killed more clock so Brady would have less time to work with. An 8 point lead wasn't going to win the game either since the pats could still score a TD and go for 2 to tie the game

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

So your saying that the Bills offence can't do this while trying to also kill some time off the clock? Theres not one person here (no matter what side they are on in this) who is saying that the Bills shouldn't have been trying to score. But would letting the play clock wind down a little more have hurt the Bills chances of doing this? Would it have changed their offence that much? If anything, I would say getting back to the LOS with the Hurry-Up then taking as much time off the play clock may have helped confuse the Pats defence more and mess witht heir timing because they would have been expecting a quick snap, it would have kept the defence from substituting and made the Pats defence hold themselves in position longer. Also by taking a few extra seconds who knows what Manuel or someone else on the offence may have seen fromt eh Pats defence that could have changed something

 

Again, no one really knows if it would have changed the outcome, but we know what did happen, Brady and the Pats had about 5 minutes to get themselves into position to score and take the lead, and give the Bills teh Ball back with no time left.

 

An the root cause if the loss was poor run, dropped passes and a failure to move the chains. Fast TEMPO is their offense. Their offense is what they run when trying to score! Why is this so difficult to grasp?

 

If they march down the field I bet my lunch money they start burning clock once in field goal range.

[dave mcbride]

How is trying to give the Pats less time to have a chance to score "playing not to lose"?

No one has ever said that they thought the Bills should not have been going for it and trying to score, the only thing being argued here is that they should have killed more clock so Brady would have less time to work with. An 8 point lead wasn't going to win the game either since the pats could still score a TD and go for 2 to tie the game

If you've been playing no huddle throughout all of camp, in the preseason, and in the game because you think it's the best way to put points on the board, then it's your base offense. Switching to another pace for time strategy reasons means that you're not putting what you believe is your best foot forward. Moreover, let me repeat -- there were over 5 minutes left, which is an eternity when it comes to the Pats. How many times did the Bills go into shells in the last few years simply to lose on a final drive? If there's 2:30 left, then yeah, I can buy it. But with 5 plus minutes and the Bills at their own 20, you try and do your best to get first downs. Put the petal to the metal, and make it 28-20. That's really the only way to win in today's NFL, especially when your defense is so-so. Also, it's a lot easier to get a FG than it is to get a TD plus a 2 pt conversion.

Edited September 9, 2013 by dave mcbride