OT: WSJ article on Fast Tempo offense in the NFL (edited)
This morning in the Personal Finance section of the Wall Street Journal there was an article on the NFL view of Oregon's (and now Philidelphia's) offense.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873248090045786363003502078…
I know the WSJ requires one to pay for access so here are some bits for anyone without a subscription.
As Kelly mans his first full week of NFL training camp, installing a high-revving Ferrari engine into the Eagles' offense, league insiders say there are exactly zero indications NFL referees will be willing participants in the Kelly era. The NFL, they say, has a long-standing pace at which they do things between plays and the referees "aren't going to change just to accommodate someone's offense," said Mike Pereira, a former NFL vice president of officiating who is now an analyst for Fox Sports.
"We have to make sure teams understand that they don't control the tempo, our officials do," said NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino. "We're going through our normal ball mechanics, we aren't going to rush [unless] it's in the two minute drill."
Blandino said he has talked to every NFL team coaching staff during the off-season to emphasize that there's no forcing the issue—the offense will not be able to snap the ball until the referees signals they're ready.
They further explored how Kelly was able to get PAC 12 officials to go faster so that his offense could go faster. The Ducks were actually 32% faster than the college average according to the WSJ. That is not going to happen in the NFL because the NFL has specific rules for changing out the ball after incomplete passes or out of bounds plays as well as the fact that the officials must be set before play can begin.
This will be big news down this way because the argument about HUNH (hurry up no huddle) and traditional game play is causing lots fun in the SEC.
Bret Bielema and Nick Saban says it is a safety concern if players and officials are not given an opportunity to get set. Gus Malzan obviously disagrees.
EDIT: Clarified HUNH. It may just be a local term down south.
and this has been something that many Eagles fans, which I am not, have been talking about.
The main question I hear is this, will the NFL change Kelly, or will Kelly change the NFL. I think that he will be at a pace that is faster than many NFL teams, but nowhere near Oregon's pace.
New England has kept up an up-tempo offense the last couple of years. I don't think it will be a problem.
That said, what does HUNH stand for? I've never seen that acronym before.
Sorry. It is Hurry Up No Huddle. As far as the Patriots this was also in the article.
The NFL's version of an up-tempo offense—as tepid as it may be compared to college—has caught on with a handful of teams, most notably the New England Patriots, which ran 74.4 plays per game last season, the most by an NFL team in two decades. By all accounts, the Patriots wish they could go faster. "Tom [Brady] always wants to go faster and faster," said wide receiver Matthew Slater.
But even that pace has stirred up controversy in the NFL. Jets linebacker Calvin Pace called the Patriots' up-tempo offense "borderline illegal" and Jet coaches have publicly complained about the Patriots breaking substitution rules.
"Mooooommmmmmmm, they're going too fast! It's not fair!"
I don't think the refs or the league should be under any obligation to bend their operation to accommodate Kelly's preferences. That said, tempo is (to a degree) relative, and I'm sure the Eagles will run a fast enough offense that defenses will hate it all the same.
The teams are the ones playing the game, not the referees. The team with the ball should be the ones controlling when it is snapped, and the referees should do everything in their power to facilitate the play. I don't see any reason why the referees can't move the ball to the correct spot (which will often be very close to where the previous play ended) in the time that the offense gets a play signal from the sideline, gets set in a formation, and calls a play. This whole article sounds like the NFL being obstinate just for the hell of it.
Also, I think this supposed "safety concern" of players tiring out and becoming more succeptible to injury is garbage. People lauded Bill Parcells for playing ball-control offense and wearing out the opposing defense when he coached the Giants; now a team tries to accomplish the same goal by different methods and it's a hazard? It's not the offense's responsibility to keep the defense fresh; if a defender is so tired that he can't use proper technique, then he (or his coaches) should take him out of the game.
Agree 100% about the health argument being garbage. If running uptempo is so dangerous, why aren't offensive players complaining as much as defensive ones? It's a lazy complaint defensive coaches like to trot out every now and again and is totally without merit.
As for your first point, I think it's more that the league is saying that they won't alter their operations because one guy wants them to. I don't think refs are intentially dragging their feet, simply that they have their protocol about how games are run and that they aren't going to make changes because of one coach. The refs work for the league, not the coaches. And it's not that the league is being difficult for no reason, they just aren't bending over backwards for one coach's desire for them to work faster.
*As far as I know, Kelly hasn't made any actual requests about the tempo of the game. This is more a discussion about a hypothetical complaint Kelly may or may not make in the future.
See, I think the refs should bend over backwards to avoid having an excessive impact on the game. If a team signs a lightning-fast WR, then maybe the officials in the defensive backfield should line up a couple steps deeper to ensure that they can stay on top of a play; they wouldn't just tell the WR to run slower. Same thing for speed between plays - this hasn't been an issue so far in the NFL, but if an offense wants to run at warp speed, the officials should do everything they can to allow that without sacrificing their accuracy or safety.
I guess this instance strikes me as sort of "these are the institutional boundaries within which you play the game." I have vague memories of a college coach making some kind of petition to change the commercial breaks during his games so that TV timeouts didn't mess up his uptempo offense*. This kind of strikes me as the same. Institutionally, this is how the league operates. Similar to (but admittedly not the same as) different rules for different leagues.
Of course, it sounds like it's a moot point, if the numbers LSA threw together a few posts down are accurate. Seems like the NFL can accommodate an offense as fast as Kelly's.
*This may have just been a rumor that was later proven false. I don't really remember the specifics.
I disagree that speed of play is an institutional boundary. Even with things like TV timeouts, there are written rules stating when commercial breaks should take place. If it's that important that there be a break between plays, either for player safety or for the refs to accurately spot the ball, then the NFL should make a rule that states that no play may start until there are 30 seconds or 25 seconds left on the play clock or something like that. If there's no rule to that effect, then it shouldn't be considered an institutional boundary.
I'm uncomfortable with the level of discretion this would require of the refs. What if Chip Kelly disagrees with a call the officials made... might that ref then take slightly longer to spot the ball in the second half? Even if he's not consciously trying to get back at Kelly, the ref might be more reluctant to make an effort to keep pace with the offense if he's allowed discretion as an institutional boundary.
Quit crying. Nut up. Play football.
Do you think it would be appropriate to call...the Wambulance?
Considering that Oregon's average offensive plays per game from 2009 to 2012 jumped from 68 to 81 plays per game, it will be interesting to see exactly how much this slows down for Kelly now that he is in Philadelphia. If it is any vague indication of pace, the Eagles also managed 332 first downs last year, whereas if you projected Kelly's totals at Oregon to a normal NFL schedule, it would be close to 440 first downs. By contrast, New England managed 444 first downs running 74 plays per game (as mentioned in the article), so if Kelly can even just be within earshot of that, I imagine he'll do just fine in Philadelphia.
Interesting article - I really didn't think about how the mechanics of pre- and post-play items (changing out the ball, spotting the down, etc...) would really slow down Kelly, but they likely will.
Those first down numbers are interesting. It's incredible that New England picked up roughly as many first downs per game as Oregon did, given that Oregon (like any major college football team) plays roughly half its schedule against teams that are hopelessly overmatched, whereas almost all NFL teams are at least competitive.