How long till M adopts the no-huddle?
How much success will Chip Kelly and the Eagles have to have this year to get Borges/Hoke to adopt the no-huddle? Do they have to get to the Super Bowl like San Francisco last year? Would it even happen then?
I understand feeling comfortable in the huddle, but with Gardner's last-second audible at the goal line and Hoke's “Anything under five (seconds), I’m getting nervous” statement, you'd think they would be interested in improving the time to get set. Especially in their "Nascar" mode.
Edit: Specifically, I'm talking about being able to get to the line quicker in order to make checks to beat the defense. I'm not referring to the high-tempo or variable-tempo offense Chip Kelly runs. I brought the Eagles question here because it's been suggested many times on this blog that the coaching staff will adopt things that have shown results in the pros.
Edit2: Whew, rough crowd. Got a good discussion going, though, so oh well! Thanks guys.
September 10th, 2013 at 2:55 PM ^
First 2 drives of the Central game were all no-huddle. It's in the playbook as an option when warranted
September 10th, 2013 at 2:58 PM ^
September 10th, 2013 at 3:05 PM ^
September 10th, 2013 at 3:14 PM ^
And even "scripted" plays aren't necesserily run in a specific order. Maybe if things go perfectly and you march right down the field, they are. But if you go incomplete on a 1st down, followed by a 1 yard run on 2nd, you're not sticking with your next play in the "script" if it's an off-tackle run.
Scripting is more about having a certain number of plays you want to run early and set up your game plan.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:29 PM ^
September 10th, 2013 at 3:34 PM ^
How do you report people? Or do mods just take care of this crap?
September 10th, 2013 at 3:36 PM ^
You don't say...
September 11th, 2013 at 7:35 AM ^
Borges and Hoke refer to it as NASCAR
September 10th, 2013 at 3:04 PM ^
Thanks for the insight!
September 10th, 2013 at 3:03 PM ^
September 10th, 2013 at 3:03 PM ^
September 10th, 2013 at 3:05 PM ^
You mean shield.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:04 PM ^
Hoke and Borges ran a lot of no-huddle at SDSU, at least the last year (the only year I've watched film of).
They haven't run nearly as much of it at Michigan; I think personnel concerns were the reason for that. But it's obviously something they're comfortable with, if they think it's the right choice.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:05 PM ^
September 10th, 2013 at 3:06 PM ^
I would like them to go no huddle. It forces the defense to show its hand and allows the offense to pick the play it wants. Rees did that to Michigan all game. Northwestern, Nebraska, and OSU will do the same thing every play.
Nothing about the no huddle requires fast tempo. It's just that teams that want to have high tempo run the no huddle to increase tempo. You can easily line up without a huddle at 30 seconds, wait 20 seconds (including audible), and then snap at 10 seconds.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:16 PM ^
Yes, this is exactly what I'm referring to. You can keep the moderate tempo to rest your defense and have time to make an audible.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:06 PM ^
As said above, they did it during the CMU game. And it's not just scripted plays, they can do it whenever they want. While I, like Brian, like the offense getting up to the line earlier most often, there is also nothing especially wrong with getting the the line late. It doesn't let the defense adjust and communicate as much or as completely as they otherwise would.
Michigan will use tempo to their advantage when they feel it's the right thing to do. They are still working on it though, and in a game where Michigan's D was on the field quite a bit, the last thing they needed was an up-tempo 3 and out, especially when the offense was moving the ball at the tempo they were. It's as simple as different philosophies.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:11 PM ^
Well, I'm not talking about up-tempo specifically, just the no-huddle part. Maybe my question was misphrased about the Eagles/Kelly, since their system modifies tempo to keep the defense off-balance.
Getting to the line late is kind of a double-edged sword. Sure, it gives the defense less time to adjust, but it also limits the offense's ability to make a check at the line.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:22 PM ^
Instead of starting from the assumption that Hoke and Borges are poorly informed and will eventually choose to run no-huddle when they see clear evidence of its well-known superiority, maybe a useful question would be:
Why haven't they run the no-huddle a lot at Michigan, when they'd run it so much before they got here? Why go away from something they'd had so much success with?
September 10th, 2013 at 3:30 PM ^
I didn't know they ran it a lot at SDSU. That is a big question.
The first year they were here (big example is the Iowa game), they had the "Nascar" offense that was lining up with 10 seconds on the play clock. Perhaps they didn't have the time to teach it properly.
September 10th, 2013 at 4:12 PM ^
There used to be video of a couple of their games (the bowl game against Navy and one other, I think Utah) up on youtube but they're gone now (third party infringement blah blah). Both games were a steady diet of no-huddle. There was also a set of picture pages put up on their offense right after the Hoke hiring and they showed the team at the LOS with the play clock barely started.
I don't know what made them decide to run it there, or to not run it here. But there must have been some difference between the two situations; it's not just a principled devotion to the huddle.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:21 PM ^
It just depends on how Michigan wants to work the defense. They can do either, they just prefer the huddle right now. I don't think the no-huddle is as much of an advantage as some make it out to be. I do think it is a small advantage, but don't think a huddle is dinosaur-football either.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:36 PM ^
Can you expand on why? I find the argument for going no-huddle compelling, but I also think the dismissive tone people use in regards to huddling (Brian refers to it as feelingsball, I think) is a little ridiculous. Would love to hear a good defense of it since I like to believe our coaches are super duper smart and all that. As far as I can see, the spread (shield?) punt and no-huddle are the only complaints of the spread zealot crew.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:44 PM ^
I do think there can be some leadership benefit to huddling, however minor it is. There is something about coming together, having a leader call a play, and then breaking together.
I think there is something to be said about not letting a defense sit there and make whatever adjustments and communication they want.
All the while, your OL and the rest of the team sits in a stance waiting for a play to start. There can be some negatives to "hurry up and wait". So if you aren't using it for tempo purposes, it has positives and negatives.
There is something about having your own tempo once you get to the line. Line up, start your U-back in motion, let the defense adjust and make a quick audible out or run the play. If you audible includes flipping the side you run the play, why do you need 30 seconds to do that? Keep the tempo at the line.
Now, like I said, I prefer more no huddle. I think there are benefits to doing some no huddle things and getting to the LOS. I typically wish even with a huddle that for the most part Michigan got to the line with 20 seconds or so on the play clock rather than 10 unless they are trying to quick count to catch the defense before they can communicate and adjust. But I also think you should mix it up between no huddle and huddle. I think there are benefits of both. And I don't necessarily think it has to be a out dated idea to do one rather than exclusively the other. I think Michigan is in the process of getting to the point to do both depending on the situation. I think they are currently working on other things they find more important. I do think they will get to the point of mixing it up though depending on their goals.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:47 PM ^
Thanks.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:46 PM ^
The spread/shield/whatever punt is better. There is clear evidence to support that it increases net punt yardage, reduces big returns, and reduces the number of punt blocks.
As for the huddle, I'm a believer in doing what you know as an offense and a defense. Alabama has clearly shown you can hammer teams offensively with a traditional two back offense and Oregon has shown you can do the same with a spread. If you recruit to the right system and coach it well, I don't think there are right answers.
However, the huddle is, in my view, archaic. You huddle to get everyone on the same page and hide your call from the defense. Back in the wishbone/wing-t days, that was really useful, because teams ran the same damn formation every play and defenses didn't really substitute for down, distance, and tendency.
Today, especially for a team like Michigan that wants to be multiple in its sets, I would prefer the defense have to show its formation against me and only substitute when I want to substitute. Going no huddle allows our tight ends/h backs/fullback types to line up all over, creating real problems from a personnel standpoint for a defense. Furthermore, the communication problem is largely fixed. Michigan could have 50 separate wristband cards if it wanted to and change them before each series and during each timeout. Then, they could call a unique play package with an untraceable number at the line each time without any risk of tipping the call based on verbiage.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:53 PM ^
You make a compelling argument. The spread/shield thing is really frustrating.
As for no-huddle, it seems like it might require a deeper/more sophisticated understanding of the offense by all offensive personell. Since Borgess apparently ran it more at SDSU, maybe he's worried about the Gardner's ability to make more complex audibles and/or the other players' ability to understand and adapt?
It does seem like getting in your stance so much earlier would put extra mental and physical stress on your linemen, but since so many teams do it, it must not be that big of a deal.
September 10th, 2013 at 4:25 PM ^
That was my suspicion the last two years--for all DR's wonderful talents, processing a lot of high-speed visual information didn't seem to be one of his skills. (Lest this be misunderstood, I'm not criticizing his intelligence. This is just one cognitive component, that he seemed to have a weakness with. I have it too, for what it's worth.) We didn't see a lot of true option football, either.
Gardner seems better at that particular piece of the game and if I was right about what was going on I wouldn't be surprised to see more no-huddle this year.
Of course it's also possible that the problem wasn't with the QB's reads but with the communication to and understanding by other players on the O. I do remember some people making veiled comments after seeing practice that 'we "have no idea what they're working with." I won't pretend to know what that was about but I do have the clear sense this staff had a lot of teaching to do when they got here. Maybe huddling was a necessary control, to make sure everyone was on the same page.
September 10th, 2013 at 4:05 PM ^
There's a reason you don't line up all bunched on a kick off. I still think Michigan is trying to implement that but they are only comfortable with it against certain looks at this point. They are trying to teach both (or I think they will be from here on out), but still trying to learn it themselves to a degree.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:23 PM ^
Leaving the huddle late also can hurt the offense. If Michigan walks up to the line and sees a defense that will kill their play, they may not be able to adjust either. Basically, it's 50/50 cost/benefit. Furthermore, it allows the defense to substitute at will rather than only when the offense decides to substitute.
The last point in particular hurts Michigan. The long-term plan is to have a lot of tight end / u-back / fullback types who can line up in multiple spots and do multiple things. Most of Michigan's opponents cannot do that on defense. They need to bring in personnel packages for specific situations because they don't have really the dynamic athletes who can play run and pass really well. You want to force a big linebacker to split over Jake Butt or a smallish safety to tuck in close as a third linebacker. The huddle hurts this advantage, in my opinion.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:25 PM ^
It seemed like they started out with a little of the "NASCAR" sets in the CMU game - pistol formation, shotgun reads and some spread formations mixed in as well. I am fairly sure, however, the base set for Borges is and likely shall always be the I-formation (sometime the power "I" with two TEs, it seems) with the QB under center.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:08 PM ^
-5 Years
September 10th, 2013 at 3:09 PM ^
Hoke wants to control the clock and keep defense off the field. Still possible to score many points (100 in two games) and not run no-huddle. Minimize opponents possessions by controlling the clock and sustaining long drives while punching the other team in the mouth.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:18 PM ^
Time of possession is more important. After the RR era, I appreciate clock control more than ever. 3 and outs are hell on the defense. Furthermore, we dont seem to have any problem scoring at the pace we're going.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:32 PM ^
There's no rule that forces quick snaps when you run a no huddle. High tempo teams run the no huddle as a means to speed up, but you don't have to move quickly.
Regardless, that time isn't as significant as you think. Say you shave 15 seconds off each play on a 12 play drive. That adds up to 3 minutes over the course of a very long drive. That's much less time than you'll spend resetting chains, waiting for commercials, etc. The real goal should be, as you mentioned, being able to execute effectively on offense. I posit that if a no huddle system is better for offensive execution, it probably keeps your defense off the field for longer in aggregate than a system that snaps the ball with one second left on the playclock. Games take about 3.5 hours, but time of possession totals 60 minutes. If you score after one play every time, then you get three minutes off for commercials and another two farting around getting the extra point and kickoff set up. The game takes longer, giving the defense more rest.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:38 PM ^
September 10th, 2013 at 3:40 PM ^
September 10th, 2013 at 3:45 PM ^
Afraid of change. Must not waver. Oh no; change has taken over. My World is crumbling before me.
September 10th, 2013 at 4:01 PM ^
Change is only going to happen when there is no other choice.
Michigan's offense has scored 100 points in two games.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
September 10th, 2013 at 4:28 PM ^
Just because something isn't broken doesn't mean you can't improve upon it.
September 10th, 2013 at 5:00 PM ^
Rather control the clock and run the football pretty much every down and only pass when necessary.
September 10th, 2013 at 5:44 PM ^
That is all fine and good, but what happens when the opposing defense doesn't allow you to do so?
September 10th, 2013 at 6:02 PM ^
Allow Michigan to control the clock? I mean as long as the offense is efficient enough to score and run the Michigan Way, there should be no worries.
Unless they're in a slug match. Then it is time to throw it around a little bit.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:43 PM ^
I like the idea of the no huddle. I understand that we have used it this season but I would like to see a sustained no huddle throughout the game. With defenses tiring out much quicker than their counterpart it makes sense to exploit that. However, isn't it more likely that the coaches would look to what has the most success in college as opposed to the pros? The prototype that Michigan is emulating is that of Alabama or, as some would call it, a return to traditional Michigan football. The Eagles will be an interesting case study this year and since the NFL is a copycat league we'll know next year whether or not Kelly's offense has taken hold.
September 10th, 2013 at 4:16 PM ^
The power run game is fading in the NFL. A lot of chatter this week about the passing yards vs. rushing yards around the leauge. Whether it's due to the front seven on D being too athletic to run against, or OCs just wanting to pitch it around, the running game was a non factor this first week of the NFL.
College is still about who has the better skill and execution. If M's coaches recruit the way they have, they'll run whatever they want to run, and not many teams will have much say in the matter.
September 10th, 2013 at 4:26 PM ^
The difference in the pass game from a defensive stand point is like college basketball to NBA. In the college game you can hand check, you can bump cutters, etc. In the NBA you can't do any of that, especially in the regular season.
Now, on top of that, you have QBs who have a lot more practice time, can watch a lot more film, and therefore be all around better at executing regardless of defense. On top of that, you have the biggest, fastest guys in the world jammed into a small area with equally as much time to learn technique and things, and you see why it can be difficult to run the ball.
Now, I disagree that the run is a non-factor in the NFL. It still plays a role, just a lesser role. But in the college game, where players very much struggle to tackle in space, where guys don't have technique locked down and are still growing into their bodies, and where routes can be bumped anywhere on the field, it all equates to a run game being more important. To what degree can widely vary, but it's not the NFL for sure.
September 10th, 2013 at 4:19 PM ^
Michigan's offense looks better than it has in a decade -- see red-zone efficiency and passing game and balance, among other things -- and you again pull the I-Love_Oregon_NeonSpread out of the air?
I hope Michigan never goes no-huddle, except for the occasional "Nascar."
September 10th, 2013 at 4:36 PM ^
For some fo the quantifiers on this site to begin charting the length -- in terms of time and yardage -- of Michigan's drives. Personally, I love their methodical, huddle and ball control-oriented offense. I think that tires a defense out, and frustrates the heck out of them.
Alabama defeats teams. I think that's the sort of attitude Hoke wants: we'll not only be victorious, but we'll beat you.