One Fan's Thoughts on Fast Paced and No-Huddle Style vs. What Borges is Doing With Our Offense
There was a big deal made among our fanbase about how few plays we ran against Minnesota, 52. I was curious to know what bothered some of my fellow fans as to what bothered them so much about this number. Clearly the number is skewed a bit as Minnesota ran a 9+ minute drive early that ate up a ton of the clock. But still 52 is far less than the 75, 80, 90+ that some of the top programs in the country are able to run week in and week out. We did manage to snap 82 times against PSU, but that did include 4 OTs and a rather harried, crazy game as well.
I recall thinking at the beginning of this year while watching the first few games of the football season that Thursday night (including MSU) that I hadn’t really seen a team huddle that entire night. I was then a bit relieved to see our offense against CMU also participating in this no-huddle idea (I'm quite certain we no-hudddled or I guess it could have been considered just a quick huddle) . I think the relief was more of a macro “keeping up with the Joneses” idea than anything more specific or tangible. Now I know exactly the reasons why I think a no-huddle, faster paced strategy is not only optimal, but required to be successful in this day and age of college football.
Here are my various points/thoughts on why I believe this strategy is so effective, and conversely when not used why it is such a huge detriment.
1. Defensive substitutions – when you control the pace on offense you will control the pace of defensive substitutions/adjustments as well. This is even more important when playing us this year as our DLinemen seem to rotate in/out of a game nearly every play. The funny thing to me is that the very reason that we probably do this is to keep our guys fresh. But I would argue that having them play a down then immediately have to sprint off the field, or sprint onto the field then have to play a down actually tires them out more than if they just ran a play, stood there, then ran another play.
2. Another poster pointed out the differences between how Oregon runs a practice and Michigan. Our practices are slower paced with much more instruction. Theirs are fast paced with fast repetition. I would assume Oregon probably runs twice as many plays in any given practice as we do. This seems like an important advantage to me over the course of a season as the offense should become much more comfortable to a player with increased repetition, like with almost anything in life. I believe someone else pointed out that Washington has also picked up on this idea and I can only imagine those two teams are not alone.
The two items above are specific advantages to running a fast paced offense. But there is really another more important aspect to this. And to me the no-huddle aspect is far and away the most important.
I have always been annoyed when Peyton Manning comes to the line and spends 15 seconds barking out “Omaha” and other shit. Sometimes he’s actually changing the play just prior to the snap and other times it’s all just BS to get the defense to overthink and maybe change their call. But regardless of his intention he does this before almost every snap and uses up most of the play clock each time. What this does is gives him the last play call option against the defense every single time.
Similarly to how I feel watching Manning I get very frustrated watching NW line up quickly before every play then the entire offense looks over to the sideline. Their offensive coordinator is squeezing every drop of advantage out of each situation by calling the most optimal play based on down/distance/time/score and most importantly how the defense is set up. This is the poker equivalent of always playing from the button. This is a HUGE advantage.
Michigan and Borges however seems to have gotten away from the no-huddle idea that I was so relieved to see in the first game of the season against CMU (at least I believe we did some no huddle against CMU). When you break the huddle with the play clock quickly winding down it takes away every single advantage that teams like NW have created for themselves. Devin has zero time to make any real adjustments based on the defensive set, not to mention costly delays of game or burning costly timeouts to avoid them.
Here is a screen shot I saw posted somewhere of an OT play against PSU.
It was mentioned that this was a run to the short side of the field. So assuming that this was: a) not photoshopped, and b) a run to the short side of the field then, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? What play do you think NW would run if they came to the line and saw this being offered by the defense? I’m sure they would have about 20 seconds to decide what to do and it sure as fugg wouldn’t be a run to the short side.
I really like Brady Hoke. Early on he showed some balls periodically by going for it on short 4th downs where most likely Carr would have punted. I also thought RR was a real bonehead regarding a lot of the things that he did both on and off the field. But I don’t know man, we seem to have regressed right back in the Carr/Debord years on the offenseive side of the ball. RichRod might have been a lot of things, but from an offensive pace and strategy standpoint I was very satisfied. I don’t want to go around calling for people’s heads, but Beilein made the decision after I believe his third year to make some major changes because he was not happy and look how that turned out for our bball program.
With every other item where we struggle with the game couldn’t we at least get to a no-huddle or quick huddle most of the game and give our offense some sort of advantage to make up for everything else? If this was done against CMU then why can’t Borges just turn it back on again so he can opt to have Devin throw the ball to one of the two WRs standing all by themselves when the defense lines up like they did above? That is just absurd to not even give yourself the option to do so in those circumstances.
Go Blue.
October 15th, 2013 at 3:43 PM ^
I agree 100%, Hoke and Borges are behind the times on offense
October 15th, 2013 at 4:17 PM ^
This x 100. Al Borges is dated and deficient in EVERY aspect of his job. From the play calling, to the inability to develop QBs, to inability to buy his QB time to audible, to most importantly, his inability to effectively install a single element of his purported pro style offense.
QB as passer? Derp.
RB as runner? Derp.
Manball O line? Derp.
Over the top threat? Derp
The only thing that kept at talented Michigan team from being literally BLOWN OUT by a half scholarship PSU that got pummelled by INDIANA, was the one thing Al is moving Michigan away from - QB mobility.
The man is quickly making GERG look good in comparison.
October 15th, 2013 at 5:32 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 5:58 PM ^
he seems to have our worst rushing performance in history locked down.
October 16th, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^
GERG locked down the bottom half of the worst defensive performances by a modern UM team, if memory serves me right.
October 15th, 2013 at 3:49 PM ^
How can Dileo be so absent in Borgess pro offense? I know he only gets open and catches the ball.
October 15th, 2013 at 3:52 PM ^
Agreed, it would seem that they would actually rely on him too much when our O goes nowhere as opposed to hardly ever utilizing him.
October 15th, 2013 at 3:59 PM ^
to Borges' ideal - he's not 6'4", 215 lbs, nor does he run a 4.4 40. All Dileo does is get open and make plays, but in Borges' world that ain't good enough. WE NEED MANBALL IDEALS SO WE CAN AVERAGE 1 YD PER RUSH AND FOREGO OUR PASSING GAME.
October 15th, 2013 at 4:14 PM ^
I don't post much here but I think Borges wouldn't play Welker either. That is what is sad since Gardner is having trouble right now.
October 15th, 2013 at 3:59 PM ^
Yeah, this has been ridiculous. We've got AJ Williams out there blocking nobody and a guy who could be all conference with enough targets at the slot position sitting on the bench. Total mismanagement.
October 15th, 2013 at 3:58 PM ^
I'd like to see us make at least some sort of checks at the line and speed up our offense repetition wise, but I don't think Borges understands how to design an offense this way. Or at least he just really does not want to. I go back to Gruden's comments about how he didn't understand how Borges found the time to install the offense as we trotted out into our 47th formation of the day agaisnt South Carolina. That doesn't really lend itself to putting the offense on a checkerboard poster to be held up every play. Are Denard and Devin just so behind the curve at the QB position that they couldn't/can't handle making checks at the line? I sincerely doubt it, but I guess that's another possibility.
October 15th, 2013 at 4:20 PM ^
No huddle would be great, but I doubt Borges thinks such a thing is ethical. It'd be huge to do against teams like Michigan State and Ohio State. I am concerned if Hoke keeps Borges as to if Michigan will ever be particularly efficient offensively again during his tenure. If you think about it, more than likely 10 out of 11 starters on offense next year will be Borges's recruits.
October 15th, 2013 at 4:25 PM ^
I agree with what all of these posts, but like I said in another post, the defense also does some things that are maddening. Not being able to disguise a blitz, and once they tip their hand and the offense looks to their sideline and gets a play to exploit our tipped hand, we make no counter adjustments. Not throwing the book at a true freshmen qb playing his 6th game. The lack of a pass rush, even though our head coach and best coach(Mattison), coach the position.
The lack of any on the fly adjustments on both sides of the ball and lack of tempo on offense and the fact that our defense is totally out of wack when teams throw the up tempo game at us is infuriating.
October 15th, 2013 at 4:36 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 4:41 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 5:44 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 4:39 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 4:45 PM ^
After watching Phillip Rivers and the San Diego Chargers (not a fan, but watched the game closely) pick apart the Indianapolis Colts, I'm a huge proponent of the no huddle. It was awesome watching him get to the line with ~20 seconds damn near EVERY play (even when "not at the line" Rivers was close to the line already eyeing the Defense's formation and where the safeties were) and get a read for what the defense was going to do and either run their play or make at times mutiple checks/audibles to a different play. The destroyed a pretty decent Indianapolis Defense with Manball Power runs AND classic Rivers' style passing attack. The funny thing about the passing attack was that they went "far downfield" relatively few times but kept to shorter routes and routes that were just given to them,
I know Devin Gardner has not the football acumen that Phillip Rivers does. Probably not half. But dammit I have a feeling he's able to do more than he does yet he's being crippled by an offense that isn't allowing him much more than the occasional check down to a run up the gut...which usually gets TFL and 2 yards at the most, i.e. pointless.
October 15th, 2013 at 5:01 PM ^
You sort of touch on something I have wondered about in the last couple days - are we underutilizing Gardner and perhaps even these personnel? Are there things that have not been tried which might put them in a better position?
I said on Twitter that I would be interested in "Danger - Never Use" portion of Borges' playbook, just to see if there are things we might be able to do which work with the personnel we have. If we're going move towards WCO concepts, then pass to set up the run a little more often perhaps - stretch the defense vertically. Of course, it could lead to broaching the notion of bubble screens, for example.
In addition to that, if they've been surveying the landscape as has been mentioned here, then incorporate some of the spread and uptempo hybrid plays that the WCO teams utilize. If it is as they said and it is about production up front, then change begins with some experimentation. It will be interesting to see the response to learnings from the Penn State game certainly.
All that being said, all of this depends on what they feel we can realistically execute even if changes are made.
October 15th, 2013 at 5:13 PM ^
Maybe they could let Gardner keep the ball in a few of these instances and do a naked reverse. If you look at the pictures, you see EVERYONE going after the RB and Gardner sweeping away from the play with no one there. It may be that the pursuit is so vigorous because everyone has already seen the ball in the RBs hands when the picture is snapped, but if Gardner only has to beat one guy (or even two) with a head of steam, he might be able to do it. It would at least keep the defense a little more honest.
October 15th, 2013 at 9:07 PM ^
I haven't heard anyone mention this, but to me, possibly the absolute worse play call of the game was the 3rd down before our punt at the end of the game.
The play before we got the delay penalty that moves us back and apparantly out of field goal range. I don't blame the coaches for not passing here. Those 40 seconds were huge.
But we ran the same f'n play into the same stacked line for the 20th-something line and lost a couple more yards. Then punted from the 35.
If we didn't want DG passing, OK. But roll him out - preferably on a naked bootleg of some sort. The worse case scenario in those situations is loosing yards. But we're punting from the 35 f'm yard line - loosing 5 or 10 yards does NO DAMAGE and might actually be better. Upside is HUGE. 5 or 10 yards more and we try a FG. 1st down and game over.
Instead we chose a play with the only upside is no fumble and rejected one that was also fumble-safe but had tons of upside.
This drove me crazy. Can't get my head around it.
October 15th, 2013 at 6:52 PM ^
Yea the notion of Devin underutilized and not being put in the best position for him to succeed have been on my mind even going back to last year. It's just how I am, honestly, always looking/wondering if something can be better. I incidentally brought that up and you raise questions and concepts I've also wondered.
Such as...what's being held back in the play book? I feel I saw this Saturday though I'm not a Twitter user (liveblog maybe?) Anyway, I have a feeling quite a bit of the "playbook" is closed but I'm scared we'll never see it...and I don't understand why. I understand they're college kids and practice time is limited yadda yadda (though true limitations, they are) but why are other schools/teams able to seemingly do so much more, often times with much less. It's been said here by others here but the plays we do run are not cohesive and plays do not seem to complement one another. I saw last night, and Gruden explained this, San Diego utilize the Power Run and use a PLAY ACTION off of it! How novel! How..simple. But counter and constraint plays seem rare out of this offensive philosophy to my non-expert eye.
It will be interesting to see what happens next weekend and how this team and coaching staff respond.
October 15th, 2013 at 5:15 PM ^
I agree with you re: the no huddle, but I would settle for retaining the huddle, just done more efficiently. I'm no play calling expert, but it seems to me that if you can (i) arm your QB with the authority to audible to PA or a passing play when the defense lines up in an 8 man front, and (ii) figure out how much time the QB needs to make such an adjustment and then be sure to get to the line with at least that much time remaining, you can reap a substantial amount of the benefits provided by a modern no huddle offense.
It's probably not the end of the world if, every now and then, the huddle takes too long and you get to the line with insufficient time to check out of a play that's obviously going to be RPS'd just based on pre-snap reads. But it seems like this year, we run a Tecmo Bowl offense...we pick a play, and then we run that play regardless--partially because we only ever have 5-7 seconds on the play clock after we get set. When the opponent picks a play that is likely to crush what we're going to do, we're screwed. Which is why all the "tackle over" stuff is so annoying, but it goes the extra mile in telegraphing exactly what we're going to run.
October 15th, 2013 at 6:02 PM ^
Agree. I wouldn't actually expect them to disintegrate the Huddle. A huddle can be a benefit and plenty of teams, *cough Drew Brees cough*, line up in a huddle and do well! The huddle may be archaic but it has it's advantages. As you say, it can be tweeked and done in a more efficient manner (like the Saints do) and still utilized to gain it's advantages.
I'm with you though. The huddle itself can remain an integral part of the offense but a different system of playcalling etc. may be neccessary to "keep up with the Jonses" and allow our QBs the time to use their brain, assess a defense, and calculate a best possible way to beat a defense, in and play out (even knowing of course we're going to get RPS'd at times).
This all goes against what I say above. Again, I loved what Rivers did last night (and others like Brady and Manning do consistently). I just know it ain't happeing.
October 15th, 2013 at 5:02 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 5:48 PM ^
But a huddle vs. no huddle question seems irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is Michigan's offensive efficiency. Nobody would give two shits if Michigan were huddling and getting first downs. These two outcomes are not mutually exclusive.
I think the focus needs to come off the aesthetic and philosophical Lombardi horseshit (MANBALL!) for five minutes, because mainly, it just doesn't matter.
Be as Stanford, as Wisconsin, as Oklahoma, or as Minnesota Viking as you want to, but if you're starting guards are standing straight up after the ball is snapped, you're going to get your ass beat for a loss 9 times out of 10.
Huddling is the least of Michigan's problems right now. Poor fundamental blocking skills, tentative starting lineups, and bad playcalling are just killing the team's effectiveness.
I will agree that Michigan should run no huddle, if anything to reduce substitutions and allow a young QB more time to run audibles and check offs, etc. if needed.
October 15th, 2013 at 8:01 PM ^
maybe I didn't explain that part properly. My assumption is that when we actually huddle we break from it with about 10 seconds left, line up with 5, and continue to carry out whatever play we called regardless of the defense. If we do not huddle like NW for instance you get right to the line in a particular formation, the defense then has to line up as well. We then have time to either audible from the same set or make a quick set change and run a different play, all based on how the defense is lined up. This is giving us the last option which is a big advantage.
If we had plenty of time to make changes based on information given to us by the defense I could not care less if we actually go through the act of huddling. Of course if we score a TD on every play when we huddle then it wouldn't matter. It's gaining an advantage on the defensive set and having time to actual do something with that information that is my point. And when we huddle that eats up that valuable time.
October 15th, 2013 at 6:06 PM ^
Is comparing Gardner or any college offense to one that is run by Payton Manning. For goodness sake, I know the point people are trying to get at, but "I've seen Payton Manning do it" or "Look for Rivers ran last night" are awful examples.
There is this belief here that fast-paced no huddle is the cure to life's problems and huddling is equivalent to an awful disease, which I disagree with. I would like this team to get to the line a bit quicker, but I have no problem with huddling. I think if the offense was more consistent, you would see them run a bit more no huddle, especially after they pick up a first down and get some momentum. The problem is right now is that they rarely ever pick up momentum. It's a negative play or a big play, there is very little in between for Michigan. Borges and Hoke both will run no huddle, they have in the past at previous stops, but the offense needs to perform better for them to do that.
FWIW, it's not the fast pace that helps out Oregon to a great extent, it's switching it up. Fast pace has advantages, yes, but it isn't what drives them down the field. If this team is executing play incorrectly, especially on the OL, which they regularly are during games, then speeding up practices, running no huddle, and not allowing coaches or more experienced players to correct them during practice or between plays is not going to get those problems fixed. Continuing to do the things wrong in practice and then fixing them after isn't the solution.
I've been a Borges defender (some will call that a supporter, maybe give me the benefit and call it a passive supporter, but in my opinion, I've only defended his positions). I have no problem with people being critical of him, and I have been critical myself. The problem I have is people being willingly critical of him about things that they shouldn't be critical of him for, because someone else said it was so because of their preference. There is plenty out there right now to be critical of Borges, but at least pick things that make some sense.
October 15th, 2013 at 7:31 PM ^
If this team is executing play incorrectly, especially on the OL, which they regularly are during games, then speeding up practices, running no huddle, and not allowing coaches or more experienced players to correct them during practice or between plays is not going to get those problems fixed
I know it's ridiculous to compare and yearn for NFL quarterbacks. I guess for me, I come on here and express my thoughts on things like no huddle, more like LESS time in huddle and at times no huddle, because I've come to accept that the OL is a gigantic problem and the playcalling and playcaller seem to ignore that fact. So I've come to wish for concepts/schemes where our QB can come to the line and call out of a play that the OC has sent in and is set up to do nothing but fail (unless a defense makes a bonehead play, which, didn't happen vs a mediocre team this past weekend, it's probably not going to happen against Ohio and Sparty).
Again, I know plenty of the thoughts on here including mine are not the main issue with this offense. But we see enough other ideas and concepts that do work, on not so great teams even, that I think many here just wish our team would do a few extra seemingly simple things to better the output of our offense.
October 15th, 2013 at 7:51 PM ^
And there are some things I'd like Borges to do differently as well, including getting the QB to the LOS earlier (because he does give options, or has in the past, just like he's run a no-huddle in the past). I just have seen Manning's name come up more than a few times this week, which just seems... well, it seems a bit ridiculous.
October 15th, 2013 at 8:04 PM ^
LOL, I mentioned Manning because he is the best at what I'm describing and annoys the fuck out of me. Feel free to insert NW in any of my arguments, which you will notice I mentioned more than once. Love the lazy captain obvious issue you have with me daring to mention the best QB in the NFL in my post. You caught me!
October 15th, 2013 at 8:21 PM ^
Telling people not to compare what Michigan does to what the best NFL QBs do (because you weren't the only one that has done so) and then support the rest of my reasoning with much more information and logic relavent to the rest of your post, I find it humerous that you call out my criticism of you as "lazy". People shouldn't compare the two, it's as simple as that, there are other, better examples that can be used that aren't difficult to find without looking silly. But sure, go ahead an ignore the rest of what I wrote.
But if you're so upset by the fact that I said people shouldn't make an awful comparison, and you admit that it was an obvious issue in which I "caught you", then maybe you shouldn't make the lazy compasion in the first place.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:09 PM ^
yep, it is lazy. What was my point about Manning? This is my summary sentence at the end of that paragraph:
"What this does is gives him (Manning) the last play call option against the defense every single time."
Pretty sure NW which is a college program does exactly this every snap. So if NW and MANY other college teams do this then pretty sure Michigan can as well no matter who is the QB. THAT is where my comparison with Manning begins and ends. Really odd that you then take that one point and lazily debunk my entire post by trying to pretend I'm comparing a college QB to everything else that Manning does. Having the option to change a play at the line, that's it. Nothing more, you are wrong :)
October 15th, 2013 at 11:22 PM ^
And saying people shouldn't make that comparison wasn't only directed at you, but everyone else. Fine, Northwestern does it, then say them, not Manning.
The rest of my post had nothing to do with that comparison. And explain to me how the rest of my post is wrong please, I'd like to hear. I'd like to get to the LOS quicker, but they don't need to run a fast-paced offense to be successful. Lots of offenses don't and are very successful. But changing the pace would probably help them, because it keeps the defense working at different tempos and having to react differently each play. I never said college offenses couldn't change the tempo, a lot do. I just stated that people should quite trying to compare Manning to college QBs (not just with tempo, with audibles, with passes, with how he uses his eyes, his feet, etc, it's not logical). Then I said up-tempo isn't the end all be all road to success.
Anyway, tell me where I'm wrong and I'll give my defense.
October 15th, 2013 at 9:12 PM ^
eh, you're sort of wrong about much of this, but you wrote it well.
October 15th, 2013 at 9:27 PM ^
Care to explain what I'm wrong about?
October 15th, 2013 at 6:28 PM ^
A post critical of Borges? Thanks for your courage and originality.
October 15th, 2013 at 8:07 PM ^
Thanks for stopping by to add nothing to my informative post. Next time please don't forget the always snarkily funny face palm to your meaningless reply. That one is always a knee slapper!
October 15th, 2013 at 9:24 PM ^
I agree. NO MORE POSTING NEGATIVE ABOUT AL BORGES!
If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. That is what a real fan would do. That is what a real reader of a sports blog would do.
You all are negative nancies - you only look at the negatives.
October 15th, 2013 at 7:33 PM ^
I don't know if Carr scrapped it or if Moeller stopped running it during his last year. But it was designed to let the QB read the defense and make the appropriate calls. It wasn't Oregon fast, but it was effective. I don't know if they let Devin make any audibles or adjustments, but getting up to the line right away and scanning the defense for 10-15 seconds could be helpful.
October 15th, 2013 at 8:40 PM ^
winning the Sugar Bowl with RR's players.
October 15th, 2013 at 8:57 PM ^
+1 for including the OT screen shot.
To be honest, most of us who read this blog already know the points you made. You made them well, but not realy new info.
But including the screen shot and then considering what NW would do in that situation makes your point as strongly as possible. AND I AM SO FUCKING ENRAGED (again, about this game). The point is so valid that it is sickening. It just doesn't make sense.
On a side note, I'd like to see a counter-post to this OP - a thoughtful post that lists the real benefits of the huddle-up offense.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:14 PM ^
Thanks, not real sure there are any advantages to a huddle, but would love to hear someone try to sway me. I know in 4th grade huddling allowed us to draw plays in the dirt, or maybe take a quick whiz when we really had to go, so maybe that.....?
I'm pretty proud of myself regarding the outcome of my first post on this board in quite a while. Only one snarky flamer and one guy that tried to put words into my mouth/post. Other than that not a bad effort.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:35 AM ^
You said what you said, I said people (not just you) should stop comparing NFL greats to college players. That's all I said of that and then dropped it.
Advantages to a huddle:
- Allows for greater communication to potentially crack down on mistakes, not just from QB to others, but position to position. This helps young players in game, as experienced players can correct them without having them come off the field, which is particularly important for the OL.
- It gives the QB a chance to display leadership. Call it feelings ball, whatever, then how come so many NFL teams still huddle quite often and have the QB not just call plays, but also talk to the players? There is something here, even if it's marginal.
- It forces the defense to try to quickly align to the offense and not give them a chance to make corrections (this can be done with an uptempo offense as well, no doubt, but then if you get stopped on a three and out you're giving the ball immediately back and putting your defense on the field; this is a way to give your defense a break and not tipping your hand).
- A slower pace allows the offense to do a greater variety of personnel groups and sub players out more, allowing for more teaching moments. Sure, you can sub players out and not huddle, but then you lose the advantage of a no huddle, so sure, alright.
- You can make more complex play calls then you can out of a no huddle, including a great variety of motions and movements that you can't call from a no huddle because there is no way to properly communicate it. These motions and formation switches can mess with defensive communication and tip the defense just as much as lining up early in a no huddle can. It's just a different way of doing it.
Look, I like no huddle. I'd like Michigan to run no huddle if they could get into any flow on offense. If they were a more consistent offense I think they would run no huddle, like Hoke and Borges both did at SDSU, because why would they suddenly change what they've been successfuly doing? Because this is Michigan and they want to do things the hard way? I'm guessing that's not the answer. I'd like them to change tempo too. But for everyone simply claiming a huddle is archaic and pointless and serves no purpose and being adament about it (I have no problem with people asking the question seriously) because someone that they read told them it was so, well, that gets annoying. There are advantages to both no huddle and a huddle and neither is necessarily bad. But changing tempo would probably help, that is for sure, because it gives the defense more things to think about and more things to have to watch for.
Since you've tried to call me out several times now, I'll let people choose if they defer to your football knowledge or mine, which I hate bringing up as an argument in its own terms, but I feel it's gotten to that point. They are free to do either, I'm not all that worried about it, but some of the stubbornness on this board about how offenses should look is just as bad as the people claiming Borges is this or that because of his stubbornness. And before you try to twist my words to say that a huddle is easily the best, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is there is nothing wrong with huddling or no-huddle, switching up tempo (sometimes by not huddling) is what helps you out more. You can succeed with either, but one isn't the magical fix to the issues.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:28 AM ^
Post was great; I thought it a worthy one for sure.
But I will say getting into an internet pissing match, and maybe especially with SC, a resident guy with good football knowledge, is pointless and counter productive. He was calling everyone out, including myself, for mentioning Manning et. al. comparisons and not in as rude a manner as it may have seemed/you may have interpreted it. I would recommend not taking it so personal and as such an insult down the road. There's too much good than can come from these message boards (liked your OP and thoughts) that these passages back and forth to one another in rude ways ruins the good.
October 16th, 2013 at 2:09 AM ^
It's a throwback to an older day when football coaches sent the play in via a substituting player instead of using hand signals/signal boards/whatever the hell you wanna use.
I don't think people who are anti-no huddle realize that no huddling doesn't mean you go lightning fast and hike with 23 seconds on the playclocks. You can do what Mike Leach has always done and just leasurely (and I mean leasurely, because Leach's OL at Texas Tech were all massive 350+ guys. Don't make those guys run too fast) walk up to the line, look to the sideline for the play and have a chance for the QB to audible or receive an audible from the sideline if you're not comfortable with him doing that alone.
If you're offense needs a 20 second huddle for everyone to know the playcall, your offense is too complicated and you suck at your job.
October 16th, 2013 at 6:20 AM ^
There are so many advantages to running a no huddle, and putting Manning into this argument is fair. Reason being is he is at the line looking at what the defense is doing, and changes the play if need be.
Right now when we huddle and take that much time the defense is seeing what we are doing for a long time and we aren't at the line yet. They know our personel before we even break the huddle. This is an advantage to the defense.
We need to change this advantage in our favor. PSU did this to us and it worked everytime they did it. If a true freshman QB can pull it off, I would hope that our QB would be able to do it!
It's not about just putting bullets in the gun, it's making sure you have the right bullets for the job!
October 16th, 2013 at 10:50 AM ^
Don't worry about the negativity some people will complain about anything.