Hurry Up Offense at the End of a Game

[thewildrabbit]

the hurry up doesn't work if you cant run the ball

 

you can say the same for any offense but its even moreso with the hurry up

Not many get this..coaching staffs included.

 

The key to winning games is running the ball, moving the chains and controlling the clock when you need to. Running the ball also makes it immensely easier for the QB to do his job. Keeps the defense fresh, wears the other team out.

 

 

 

Most fans here look at this game and say that FJax was running well with a 5.2 ypc avg, all they needed to do was run him more. Sorta true, but the Patriots were keying on Spiller and determined to stop him, and they did! Spiller had a paltry 2.4 YPC avg. 17 carries for 41 yards. Yet this same player in Gaileys spread offense rushed for over 6 YPC last year.

 

Different scheme this year, different results. And yet...On the 3rd series for Buffalo, first down at the Bills 20. The Bills went 4 wide, and single back with Spiller in the backfield. (shotgun spread) EJ hands off to Spiller who runs for 8 yards. Then the Bills went to FJax.

 

I'll wager Bill Belichick went into that game thinking stop Spiller and make EJ beat us. Reasoning that because EJ had so little opportunity to play in pre season and hadn't faced a 1st string defense for four quarters, that he would make many mistakes. To his credit EJ didn't make that many mistakes and the Bills could have won that game. Save for the stupid mistakes by several other players and the inability to control the clock at the end of the game.

[BobChalmers]

 

The only reason to run the no huddle/hurry up offense is if it gives the offense an advantage, right? I mean I know this is basic stuff, but people in here are missing it. IF the defense is tiring out, or IF the defense is confused, or IF the play is moving so fast the defense can't make substitutions, or IF the offense is clicking like a well-oiled machine & moving down the field, then go with it TO GET MORE POINTS. Of course, NONE of the advantages I just listed were happening to the Bills and their hurry up offense in the 4th quarter on Sunday. And as already mentioned, THEY DID NOT NEED ANY MORE POINTS. Just kill the clock & win, period.

 

A major point of running the no-huddle is to give the offense an advantage by PREVENTING SUBSTITUTIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS.

 

Since you failed to list this, I assume you are unaware.

 

Marrone and Hackett have explained from the beginning that they are opting for a simpler offense run quickly that forces the defense to also stay relatively simple.

 

Sitting around at the line or in a huddle won't add any plays to the Bills' playbook, but it does give the defense time to substitute, etc, IE it makes it LESS LIKELY they will get first downs and points.

 

With almost 6 minutes left they needed first downs and points. The fact that they failed anyway is an execution problem - not a game-day clock management strategy problem.

[turbotype87]

Watching the game Sunday I noticed the offense in the last two drives in the 4th quarter looked to be way to conservative. You need to go for the WIN, Open up the offense. They couldn't get the running game going, So why try to run the ball? EJ Manuel in my opinion looks to be a work in progress. But I believe this kid is going to be a real good QB. But until the coaching staff learns to close out these close games with a win, It will be along season for the Bills players as well as us fans.

[K-9]

Watching the game Sunday I noticed the offense in the last two drives in the 4th quarter looked to be way to conservative. You need to go for the WIN, Open up the offense. They couldn't get the running game going, So why try to run the ball? EJ Manuel in my opinion looks to be a work in progress. But I believe this kid is going to be a real good QB. But until the coaching staff learns to close out these close games with a win, It will be along season for the Bills players as well as us fans.

 

To be fair, on their last possession when they ended up going 3 and out and punting to NE*, they tried a long pass on 2nd down that was incomplete. I think EJ might like to re-do the 3rd down play to Chandler, too. But I gotta believe that his coaches were telling him "don't turn it over here by forcing things." As EJ gets more confidence along with the coaches, that'll change.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Koufax]

I thought Chan Gailey used up all the stupid in the NFL, but it looks like Marrone outdid him with the hurry-up offense on the Bills' last possession of the game. I mean, even Gailey wouldn't use the two-minute drill when he was trying to burn clock with a lead. I hope Marrone isn't as stubborn as the last regime and will re-think this strategy. However, from what I saw from his coaching at SU, I think he will be just as stubborn as Gailey and the Stache were to change. He will die by the hurry-up play calling at the end of games, eventually drawing fans' ire and a firing from the Bills within 2 years.

 

Everyone else has said it, but I want to pile on.

 

We were NOT trying to run out the clock, and weren't in a position to. We were trying to get first downs and points. Our best chance of getting first downs and points is the hurry up. Maybe if they had picked up a few first downs, neared field goal range, and were faced with a DIFFERENT CLOCK MANAGEMENT SITUATION it would have been good to burn the clock. But I am definitely in full understanding and agreement of our offense.

 

We made some penalty mistakes, costly turnovers, and probably were one third down defensive stop or one third down conversion away from winning an important divisional game. Losing sucks, but I don't think it has anything to do with clock management, and New England had plenty of time to spare moving down field. Keeping the ball for more plays and yards, getting more points, or stopping them were our options to win at the end, not stalling for a few more seconds.

[Tiberius]

 

 

It's not absurd when you are only up by one point. They needed a FG at minimum to make NE* have to score a TD to win. Trying to score again at that point was paramount.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I'd of preferred to see them do both, can't they slow that offense down and stay affective? I know this is not my expertise, but it seems reasonable that they could run the "hurry up" while still running clock down, just get to the line and don't snap the ball.

 

A major point of running the no-huddle

Marrone and Hackett have explained from the beginning that they are opting for a simpler offense run quickly that forces the defense to also stay relatively simple.

 

Sitting around at the line or in a huddle won't add any plays to the Bills' playbook, but it does give the defense time to substitute, etc, IE it makes it LESS LIKELY they will get first downs and points.

 

With almost 6 minutes left they needed first downs and points. The fact that they failed anyway is an execution problem - not a game-day clock management strategy problem.

 

If you get to the line quickly the other team can't substitute. That ends arhat reason for not doing it

[K-9]

I'd of preferred to see them do both, can't they slow that offense down and stay affective? I know this is not my expertise, but it seems reasonable that they could run the "hurry up" while still running clock down, just get to the line and don't snap the ball. ...

 

No doubt there comes a time in the game when you do that. The Bills never reached that point in the game, unfortunately.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

I have more of a concern about using the no huddle the entire game rather than the last possesion we had. Why use the no huddle/up-tempo/quick play offense against Tom Brady? The idea is to keep Tom Brady on the bench as much as possible. Not give him more chances to put up points. The whole idea of a up-tempo/quick play offense is asinine in my opinion. Especially with a rookie QB and Tom Brady on the other side.

 

It would be interesting to find out how many times Tom Brady and the Patriots have lost a game while winning TOP. I'm willing to bet not many.

 

John in Jax brings up a good point.

 

No the idea is to score a bunch so the other team passes more so all the pass rush talent is doing what they do and not getting worn down by ground game...

[Tiberius]

 

 

No doubt there comes a time in the game when you do that. The Bills never reached that point in the game, unfortunately.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

And that time had come. This was obviously a mistake by a rookie coach and the fact that he and his quarterback are not 100% famillure with each other yet. This showed a lack of flexibility and I'd be shocked if this situation arose again that they just slow it down to eat clock while still staying aggressive

[John in Jax]

The only reason to run the no huddle/hurry up offense is if it gives the offense an advantage, right? I mean I know this is basic stuff, but people in here are missing it. IF the defense is tiring out, or IF the defense is confused, or IF the play is moving so fast the defense can't make substitutions, or IF the offense is clicking like a well-oiled machine & moving down the field, then go with it TO GET MORE POINTS. Of course, NONE of the advantages I just listed were happening to the Bills and their hurry up offense in the 4th quarter on Sunday. And as already mentioned, THEY DID NOT NEED ANY MORE POINTS. Just kill the clock & win, period.

 

A major point of running the no-huddle is to give the offense an advantage by PREVENTING SUBSTITUTIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS.

 

Since you failed to list this, I assume you are unaware.

 

Huh? You must have missed what I have bolded above. So no, I am not unaware. As George Costanza would say, "I am Aware, I am Aware!" LOL

[K-9]

And that time had come. This was obviously a mistake by a rookie coach and the fact that he and his quarterback are not 100% famillure with each other yet. This showed a lack of flexibility and I'd be shocked if this situation arose again that they just slow it down to eat clock while still staying aggressive

 

When did that time come? When we were up by 1 with 5:51 to go?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[8-8 Forever?]

Seems like there won't be a concenses on this. It will be interesting to see what Chip Kelly does with his hurry up in a similar situation.

 

On another note, did anyone else think the Bills started using their timeouts too late? Not that our D stopped them anyway, but I was expeting them to use the timeouts right after the 2 minute warning, especially after getting that penalty on NE*.

After what I saw from Philly last night, Marrone's expansion team can run the hurry up all day until they perfect it. That was an awesome display by the eggles last night. OMG.

[3rdand12]

To all the people who were calling for Chans head.I Learned a long time ago careful what you wish for. This guy could be even worse. He won't last 2 years.

i am just reading this intrigue and i already came upon this prediction.

I think it might be a bit early to call . But i am giving a full 3 years to have a go of it .

And that is based solely upon how mini camps OTAs training camp and preseason and the first game of the year under the ole belt after Sunday .

At this point i am smitten with Marrone and company. each coach has really got these guys playing football again.

I think Coach Marrone explained very clearly; he made his decision with conviction and after gathering facts. He spoke about it in the post game i believe. he knew exactly what he was doing .

Sure he could be worse than Chan. I loved Chan . he was screwed to begin with then broke down the last season when he lost the team.

I just cant imagine that happening , when i consider your point

[Tiberius]

 

 

When did that time come? When we were up by 1 with 5:51 to go?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I thought so, yes. Two or three first downs and kick a field goal while running clock would have been better than what we ended up with. Still, I'll give you, that either way they had to execute and had they scored a td they way they were going hurry the question would be academic

[FireChan]

i am just reading this intrigue and i already came upon this prediction.

I think it might be a bit early to call . But i am giving a full 3 years to have a go of it .

And that is based solely upon how mini camps OTAs training camp and preseason and the first game of the year under the ole belt after Sunday .

At this point i am smitten with Marrone and company. each coach has really got these guys playing football again.

I think Coach Marrone explained very clearly; he made his decision with conviction and after gathering facts. He spoke about it in the post game i believe. he knew exactly what he was doing .

Sure he could be worse than Chan. I loved Chan . he was screwed to begin with then broke down the last season when he lost the team.

I just cant imagine that happening , when i consider your point

 

You can't imagine Marrone losing the team? After that horrendous challenge and the unimaginative play calls? Players only buy in to the staff when they win. Marrone and co. have 2 bad years back to back, and the team is gone.

[K-9]

I thought so, yes. Two or three first downs and kick a field goal while running clock would have been better than what we ended up with. Still, I'll give you, that either way they had to execute and had they scored a td they way they were going hurry the question would be academic

 

That was the plan. However, the plays they ran and the result of those plays didn't provide that opportunity. So you are dealing in a hypothetical here. The reality, as stated numerous times, was that the Bills only had the potential to run an additional 26 seconds off of the clock based on the results of the plays they actually ran.

 

But being up one point with 5:51 to go is no time to be conservative. Marrone was dead on in what he said about wanting to score. Best way to do that is by running the offense your team is most comfortable running.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Cynical]

That was the plan. However, the plays they ran and the result of those plays didn't provide that opportunity. So you are dealing in a hypothetical here. The reality, as stated numerous times, was that the Bills only had the potential to run an additional 26 seconds off of the clock based on the results of the plays they actually ran.

 

Here's an issue. Everybody that keeps saying that extra 26 seconds would not have made a difference is dealing with a hypothetical.

We do not know what would have happened if those 26 seconds were off the clock.

The reality is the Bills left those 26 seconds on the clock, and made Tom Brady's job even easier.

 

But being up one point with 5:51 to go is no time to be conservative. Marrone was dead on in what he said about wanting to score. Best way to do that is by running the offense your team is most comfortable running.

 

What's that old proverb: Hope for the best, plan for the worst?

The best. Move the ball down the field and score

The worst: Fail to score and/or move the ball down the field. That means the defense, which is gassed at that point, has to go back on the field.

 

Marrone bet the house and farm on the "best" scenario. He had no plan for the worst.

The uptempo offense wasn't working all that well. The Bills defense was the bright spot of the day.

By sticking with the uptempo offense, and failing, Marrone left additional time on the clock.

In the end, he made Tom Brady's job easier and shortchanged his defense.

[Alphadawg7]

No, it's not true. Like I said last night, it's not brain surgery out there. LOL

 

The absolute BEST situation would have been for the Bills to hold on to the ball with a long sustained drive TIL THE END OF THE GAME (and score no points) when they got it with 5:51 to go. There can be NO argument on this; hold the ball and walk away with a win. It doesn't matter if the offense was going like gangbusters and firing on all cylinders.....oh btw, IT WASN'T.....just hold the ball, kill the clock, AND WIN. Thinking along those same lines, hold the ball as long as possible before you kick a FG to ensure that the Pats need to counter with a TD. The latter would leave the Pats little time to come back & win.

 

OK, so let's assume that the Bills offense was cookin' it, and the hurry up was working, and they could have walked down the field and scored a TD (I know, CRAZY assumption), WHY would they want to do that? All that would do is put'em by 8 (maybe 7 or 9 if they go for the 2-pt conversion), and then Brady & Co still would have the 4+ mins left to come back.

 

The only reason to run the no huddle/hurry up offense is if it gives the offense an advantage, right? I mean I know this is basic stuff, but people in here are missing it. IF the defense is tiring out, or IF the defense is confused, or IF the play is moving so fast the defense can't make substitutions, or IF the offense is clicking like a well-oiled machine & moving down the field, then go with it TO GET MORE POINTS. Of course, NONE of the advantages I just listed were happening to the Bills and their hurry up offense in the 4th quarter on Sunday. And as already mentioned, THEY DID NOT NEED ANY MORE POINTS. Just kill the clock & win, period.

 

What are you even talking about? DUH, holding the ball to the end of the game and scoring is the best choice...but the flaw is that IS NOT A CHOICE THE TEAM GETS TO MAKE...I mean what a hilarious statement. Ref to BB: "Hey Bill, Coach Marrone just told the refs he elects to keep the ball til the end of the game and kick a FG for the hell of it, hope thats cool"

 

You see there is this pesky part of football that requires you to run plays. And the Bills and Marrone would have loved nothing more than to continue to hold the ball. You act like they elected not to...I mean your whole post was ridiculous. They ran plays, the offense did NOT execute...ball goes back to NE.

 

All the Bills could have done is run 26 more seconds off than they did...26 seconds DID NOT lose us this game. Brady had more than a minute left when they started kneeling down to run clock down to kick FG. And he wasnt even in his 2 minute offense to get there. Plus they still had timeouts.

 

Marrone 100% made the right call...that call was put your offense in the best position to keep the ball and move the chains. Unfortunately, the players did not execute...and all it cost us was 26 seconds of not being run off a clock that had LITERALLY NO IMPACT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE GAME IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

 

Why is this so complicated for so many people to get? I mean there is like 97 threads on this

Edited September 11, 2013 by Alphadawg7

[Meatloaf Sandwich]

First down... Nm penalty, first down... Nm penalty, first down... Nm dropped pass

[K-9]

Here's an issue. Everybody that keeps saying that extra 26 seconds would not have made a difference is dealing with a hypothetical.

We do not know what would have happened if those 26 seconds were off the clock.

The reality is the Bills left those 26 seconds on the clock, and made Tom Brady's job even easier.

 

I really think this is a stretch. We've got a pretty good idea, based on what actually DID happen, that those 26 seconds were meaningless. Brady had 4:05 (vs. 4:31) to work with, the 2 minute warning, and all of his timeouts. The only impact I can see, based on what happened, is that the Pats* only take ONE knee to run clock vs. two, before they kicked the FG.

 

No matter how you slice it, sitting on a 1 point lead with 5:51 to go is NOT how you go about it. They needed first downs, a score, and the ability to force NE* to burn timeouts. They failed because they weren't able to execute the plays they ran. Not taking a potential 26 seconds off the clock after Spiller was stopped on first down had nothing to do with the outcome.

 

If you want to argue they should have tried different plays, etc., that's fine. I'm sure Marrone, EJ, and everyone else would like to rethink the plays they ran, too.

 

GO BILLS!!!