thebandit27 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I love Jim, but the reason the no huddle worked was Kent Hull So am I to believe that the reason Indy and New England have success with their no-huddle is because they have Jeff Saturday and Dan Koppen? Sorry dude, not buying it. It comes down to QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufcomments Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I love Jim, but the reason the no huddle worked was Kent Hull Thanks for having my back on that one Jim Kelly without Thurman and Kent Hull is like a peanut butter sandwich with jelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufcomments Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 So am I to believe that the reason Indy and New England have success with their no-huddle is because they have Jeff Saturday and Dan Koppen? Sorry dude, not buying it. It comes down to QB. You make a good point but Kent Hull made the protection calls at the line and without Thurman the Bills dont go to those 4 Super bowls You think Saturday and Koppen didnt help Brady and Manning? come on now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 You make a good point but Kent Hull made the protection calls at the line and without Thurman the Bills dont go to those 4 Super bowls You think Saturday and Koppen didnt help Brady and Manning? come on now... I'm not sayin' you're wrong, but hear me out... New England won the Superbowl in 2001 with Mike Compton and Damien Woody rotating at center and left guard, and then won it again in 2004 with Russ Hochstein substituting for an injured Koppen at center. Indianapolis made the playoffs with Saturday missing significant time last year, and a rookie 7th round pick from the University at Buffalo starting in his place. Now flip the script, and assume that either New England or Indianapolis loses Brady/Manning...do they still make the playoffs, let alone win a Superbowl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach55 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I love Jim, but the reason the no huddle worked was Kent Hull The reason the no huddle worked is Kelly called the plays and took what the defense gave him. In addition, the play-calling was overly simple which allowed the players to play. The pass blocking schemes were man blocking and in a rapid play pace, the D-line would not be able to generate a consistent play rush. The run blocking was also overly simplistic. With a spread out defense due to the passing threat, the Bills rushing consisted primarily of draws and the Counter Trey. The draws and screens (which the Bills ran very well) held back blitzing backers, forcing the defenses to play reserved. The great thing about the offense was that Marchibroda instilled an offensive scheme that exploited the talents of the players while hiding their weaknesses. Even though that line had many pro-bowlers, from a talent perspective they were not materially better than average (outside of Hull who IMO shoud be in the HOF). But due to the system and good coaching/playcalling, the average line played well above their raw ability and consistently looked great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 The reason the no huddle worked is Kelly called the plays and took what the defense gave him. In addition, the play-calling was overly simple which allowed the players to play. The pass blocking schemes were man blocking and in a rapid play pace, the D-line would not be able to generate a consistent play rush. The run blocking was also overly simplistic. With a spread out defense due to the passing threat, the Bills rushing consisted primarily of draws and the Counter Trey. The draws and screens (which the Bills ran very well) held back blitzing backers, forcing the defenses to play reserved. The great thing about the offense was that Marchibroda instilled an offensive scheme that exploited the talents of the players while hiding their weaknesses. Even though that line had many pro-bowlers, from a talent perspective they were not materially better than average (outside of Hull who IMO shoud be in the HOF). But due to the system and good coaching/playcalling, the average line played well above their raw ability and consistently looked great. your assessment of the OL is correct. The same OL struggled to sustain a running game when playing out of a normal formation because they weren't that good. However, by utilzing the no huddle they were able to exploit their superb conditioning to offset their lack of talent. Parcells is doing the same thing in Miami with the Wildcat. He is making an offense with no NFL calbier WRs into a dangerous weapon. Dick does the opposite- he takes the most dangerous Lee Evans and neuters him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts