MRW Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Not sure why your so focused on Hurry up. No I am not looking at hurry up. Not looking at hurry up, and still not looking at hurry up. Does that help? Yes they're are inherent problems with running plays quick, and No not thinking hurry up. You hike the ball quicker on average, and tend to get more 3 and outs, and not I am not thinking hurry up, since that actually tends to get less 3 and outs, since defenses play that differently. There are very few teams that run the No-Huddle only, but just looking at cases where no huddle was run by teams over 70 percent of time, doesn't look good for time of possession. My calculations have them at 25.4 minutes on average on games that were close, 23.1 minutes on games they lost, and 28 minutes on games they won. Colts had most of the victories on this list, but even with their consistent offense, the time of possession isn't great when run No-Huddle most of game. Thanks, I understand better what you're saying now (and thanks for taking the time to bring in actual stats! Unlike me and TMQ). But looking at a time per play breakdown I come up with Buffalo - 28.58 sec, NE - 28.935 sec. Not so different, and I'm skeptical that a 0.35 second difference per play amounts to a big difference in TOP as compared to the simple disparity in # of plays run.
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Its constantly caused time of possession disparity, not sure why that is so confusing to you. Hate the offense, the defense was exhausted by end of 3rd quarter, and No-Huddle has allot to do with that IMO. It isn't confusing to anyone but you. The pats had a disparity in TOP because they ran more than twice as many plays. I'm not sure how that can be confusing to anyone. What killed our TOP was drives ending on penalties and dropped passes. The no huddle had Belichik flummoxed all night and he knows he escaped with a win thanks to Tom Brady and Leodis McKelvin. Plain and simple. Please try not to sound so completely facking stupid.
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Its not confusion, the No-Huddle and hurry up are not the same offense. Only similarities are that they run plays faster, and they get your defense on field faster. The Hurry up doesn't stand over the ball as long as hurry up, and ignores the running game, so its different in those regards for sure. If you cant constantly move the ball and run a no-huddle, this is what games look like time of possession wise. Actually think this will be one of higher time of possessions bills with have this year against the better teams, and think the Bills defense played way over their heads most of the game to keep them in it with that pop gun attack. See here you are talking like you know something again and then making statements that make your blazing ignorance extremely obvious. The no huddle does not have ANYTHING to do with how fast plays are run, !@#$tard. The point is that you can snap the ball at any time so that they are forced to leave the same package in the game...you know what this is pointless. Some people just don't have the capacity to understand simple concepts.
timba Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 TOP was definitely in the Pats* favor but the large 14 minute difference was not caused by the no huddle. What ended up killing the TOP was the poor timing of drops and penalties. The drops by Shawn Nelson, Lee Evans, and Terrell Owens were all for first down. There were two first down runs by Freddy Jackson that were called back because of penalties and put the O in ridiculous situations to make a first. That is 5 drives friends. When we did sustain a drive, our numbers were comparable to the Patriots.
rstencel Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Tell you what, if the Bills can win one time of position battle with any team that will finish with a winning record, I will conced that the No-Huddle doesn't have much of an affect on it. Till then however I am sticking with my theory on it.
rstencel Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 TOP was definitely in the Pats* favor but the large 14 minute difference was not caused by the no huddle. What ended up killing the TOP was the poor timing of drops and penalties. The drops by Shawn Nelson, Lee Evans, and Terrell Owens were all for first down. There were two first down runs by Freddy Jackson that were called back because of penalties and put the O in ridiculous situations to make a first. That is 5 drives friends. When we did sustain a drive, our numbers were comparable to the Patriots. Right, its not just the offense. I think the defense not getting time to rest between times on field is main cause for time of possession however. There are going to be specific reasons from game to game that offense can use as to why each drive failed, and if they clean them up and keep improving every week, they may be able to make it successful. However I just don't feel like they have the personnel to run this team successfully enough to be able to win time of possession battle, and with it their share of games. Not just talking offense but defense, due to fact they are undersized and rely on speed an penetration so much. As far as the sustained drives that we didn't have. that is problem with this type of offense IMO. There aren't allot of long time consuming drives. Its either quick score of get off the field quick. And no I don't feel that way because comparing it to Hurry Up. More mental thing I think, where players are on the line so much that they get desperation feeling on every play, rather than going to huddle and calming down between plays. I do hope I am wrong, but that what I think.
stuckincincy Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 You know, I see the no huddle get blamed a lot for the TOP disparity. But if the Bills went out, huddled up, and had the same three and outs they had early in the game, how much of a difference would it make? It's fashionable to say that the no huddle is at fault but if Owens/Evans hang on to those passes in the first half, drives stay alive, and TOP is a lot closer. That's not a question of huddling or not. The no-huddle as a more or less steady formation is best used by an experienced offense, with a mature OL. It's not for a team with a jumbled line, with rookies and new players, especially so with the noisy din of a road game. Forget this "hurry-up" aspect. It's fine on 3rd and 1. Otherwise, get your young OL on the same page, make sure your skill players know what's what - instead of trying to get that set by, trying to bark out over a howling crowd. Add in trying to shout plays from a shotgun while in the enemy's home field...
MRW Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 The no-huddle as a more or less steady formation is best used by an experienced offense, with a mature OL. It's not for a team with a jumbled line, with rookies and new players, especially so with the noisy din of a road game. Forget this "hurry-up" aspect. It's fine on 3rd and 1. Otherwise, get your young OL on the same page, make sure your skill players know what's what - instead of trying to get that set by, trying to bark out over a howling crowd. Add in trying to shout plays from a shotgun while in the enemy's home field... Yep yep, that's the potential problem I see cropping up with the no-huddle. But the focus on TOP is a red herring IMO (unless it's just used as a stand-in for offensive ineffectiveness and inability to sustain drives).
dollars 2 donuts Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 You know, I see the no huddle get blamed a lot for the TOP disparity. But if the Bills went out, huddled up, and had the same three and outs they had early in the game, how much of a difference would it make? It's fashionable to say that the no huddle is at fault but if Owens/Evans hang on to those passes in the first half, drives stay alive, and TOP is a lot closer. That's not a question of huddling or not. I'm absolutely right there with you, MRW. Someone please tell me whether you thought we had a great number of 3 and outs last year and whether they helped our defense by huddling up. While you are at it tell me what opposing defenses we played saw us huddle up and said to their sideline, "we don't need anybody, we're good, keep the guys on the sideline."
stuckincincy Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Yep yep, that's the potential problem I see cropping up with the no-huddle. But the focus on TOP is a red herring IMO (unless it's just used as a stand-in for offensive ineffectiveness and inability to sustain drives). [/quote TOP is not a red herring. It's real, in most cases.
MRW Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 TOP is not a red herring. It's real, in most cases. Yeah, you're arguing against a point I'm not making as far as I can tell. All I'm saying is that the TOP difference was not due to the no-huddle, at least not in the simple sense that the Bills were rushing plays out noticeably quicker than the Patriots.
rstencel Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 I'm absolutely right there with you, MRW. Someone please tell me whether you thought we had a great number of 3 and outs last year and whether they helped our defense by huddling up. While you are at it tell me what opposing defenses we played saw us huddle up and said to their sideline, "we don't need anybody, we're good, keep the guys on the sideline." Well if they cant move the ball either way, there not going to win many games anyway. So if think they are still that bad, doesn't really matter what type of offense they run. I just feel like they have potential to be more consistent now the they actually have 2 good WR's and a capable TE. Last year they had 1 good WR and an extra blocker playing TE.
Mickey Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 You know, I see the no huddle get blamed a lot for the TOP disparity. But if the Bills went out, huddled up, and had the same three and outs they had early in the game, how much of a difference would it make? It's fashionable to say that the no huddle is at fault but if Owens/Evans hang on to those passes in the first half, drives stay alive, and TOP is a lot closer. That's not a question of huddling or not. Also, Schobel's pick six had as much to do with the TOP disparity and number of plays as did the no huddle. We had just as many possessions as they did. I think the number of plays is meaningless as far as the no huddle is concerned. What does matter is that our possessions are short, time wise, even when they are successful in terms of scoring so that our defense gets less time to rest.
rstencel Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Yeah, you're arguing against a point I'm not making as far as I can tell. All I'm saying is that the TOP difference was not due to the no-huddle, at least not in the simple sense that the Bills were rushing plays out noticeably quicker than the Patriots. And that is a good point. I just feel the No-Huddle leads to that type of disparity. Its only a minute or two different per drive in itself, but the extra couple of minute the defense looses in rest between trips to the field adds up over course of game, and leads to defenses tiring out late in games, where the disparity in time of possession gets compounded. Plus feel the No-Huddle isn't type of offense that leads to allot of sustained drives, so that is where think that the offense is at fault mostly.
MRW Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Also, Schobel's pick six had as much to do with the TOP disparity and number of plays as did the no huddle. We had just as many possessions as they did. I think the number of plays is meaningless as far as the no huddle is concerned. What does matter is that our possessions are short, time wise, even when they are successful in terms of scoring so that our defense gets less time to rest. The Bills' final scoring drive to go up by 11 was 14 plays and took 6:11 off the clock. The first touchdown drive was quick but that was because they got big chunks of yardage to get down in scoring range - only 6 plays, 3:17, 68 yards. The number of plays is not irrelevant, it in fact accounts for the TOP disparity. NE converted on third downs and sustained drives, the Bills (especially early) did not. The more I look at the actual drives from last night, the more I don't see the no-huddle being at fault.
rstencel Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Also, Schobel's pick six had as much to do with the TOP disparity and number of plays as did the no huddle. We had just as many possessions as they did. I think the number of plays is meaningless as far as the no huddle is concerned. What does matter is that our possessions are short, time wise, even when they are successful in terms of scoring so that our defense gets less time to rest. Agree with what you said, but that play was like the 2nd play of that drive, wasn't it? The fumble at end had more to do with than that, but at start of 3rd quarter was already way off skew.
Cornerville Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 If the defense could stop a 3rd down play, they'd be a lot less tired in the 4th quarter. How many long drives did the Pats* have, that the Bills' defense let them have because they can't breakup a 3rd down pass when everyone knows its a pass? You just described the Bills of the last 10 years
rstencel Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 The Bills' final scoring drive to go up by 11 was 14 plays and took 6:11 off the clock. The first touchdown drive was quick but that was because they got big chunks of yardage to get down in scoring range - only 6 plays, 3:17, 68 yards. The number of plays is not irrelevant, it in fact accounts for the TOP disparity. NE converted on third downs and sustained drives, the Bills (especially early) did not. The more I look at the actual drives from last night, the more I don't see the no-huddle being at fault. They did seem to be allot more deliberate on that drive. Did look to me like they were concentrating on taking time off the clock on that drive. If every drive was that deliberate, and they took that much time between snaps, wouldn't be so down on it, most likely. I think they have a better offense than last year, and they won the TOP battle several times last year, even with allot of 3 and outs. If they can show they can do the same with this offense then they will convince me, however I don't see it happening. There will always be specifics can point to as to why, but until they show it on field, I will keep coming back to it most likely. The Patriots weren't great in first half at converting first downs compared to 2nds half if remember it right. I feel if the Bills had been able to give their defense more rest in first 3 quarters, their pass rush in 4th quarter wouldn't have been so non existent, and they wouldn't have marched down the field so easily. I know if they would have converted more 3rd downs wouldn't have had to worry. I feel if they were huddling they would have. Do you think TO would have been catch-less in first half if they were huddling. I think that if they were huddling, the receivers would have been able to make adjustments between plays, due to being able to get on same page with QB, and they would have been more consistent. It is all theory though, and it may have actually been worse.
rstencel Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 See here you are talking like you know something again and then making statements that make your blazing ignorance extremely obvious. The no huddle does not have ANYTHING to do with how fast plays are run, !@#$tard. The point is that you can snap the ball at any time so that they are forced to leave the same package in the game...you know what this is pointless. Some people just don't have the capacity to understand simple concepts. I don't get what you are basing you theory of No Huddle doesn't have affect on how fast plays are run. Its true that sometime they wait and audible and plays take as long, but is also true that often they don't. I have spent weeks collecting data during the offseason and cant find any data that shows that teams running the no huddle don't run plays faster. The total plays run in game are higher, and their time of possession is more often than not lower. Doesn't mean they loose the games do to it, but does mean more plays are run during the course of game on average. And there are rules that allow them to substitute if you have. So whenever you run someone out, you have to allow them time to run someone out to counter it. So while you are right there are some advantages as far as limiting substitution, the disadvantages of not huddling out way them IMO. Not sure why have to resort to name calling however. Yes I repeated multiple times not talking about hurry up, but that was only because you seem to be hung up on that for some reason. As far as not having ability to understand simple concepts, I hardily disagree. There is a ton of data that goes against your argument, as far as time of possession goes. I am not saying that the No-Huddle cant be affective if run efficiently. I am saying I don't think this team can run it that way. I am of opinion they should shorten the games not lengthen them, due to personnel they have. They have a very undersized defense, and the longer they are out there, the more worn down they get, and more likely that other team will be successful against them.
SF Bills Fan Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 A valid point here. I can recall a few points when the no huddle was effective in keeping the Pats on their heels and they were reeling. There was a big gain with Jackson that I recall think "this is working". Trent was effective with some good audibles. It almost seemed at times like they ate up as much play clock as they would have if they huddled. Edwards was just making the calls at the line. I was nervous at points because I though delay of game as looming. They only showed the clock ticking once. Anyone else feel that way?
Recommended Posts