Hurry up offense and lack of DL depth

AlistarWills

All-American
Jul 26, 2006
4,768
2,083
187
I've wondered that with our lack of DL depth and how it sort of bit us vs Clemson last year, at what point would it be worth abandoning going fast in order to give the D more time on the sideline. I know there are advantages to keeping personnel on the field and not allowing the opponent to sub. Would it be beneficial to "go fast" but run the play clock down, in order to allow the D to sit on the sidelines?
 

AlexanderFan

Hall of Fame
Jul 23, 2004
11,076
7,524
187
Birmingham
100 plays, 100 plays, 100 plays. One first down from our offense, one more flipping third down conversion in the second half and we aren't even discussing this. We played 7+ lineman last year and had a record number of sacks. No depth issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CrimsonForce

Hall of Fame
Dec 20, 2012
12,757
94
67
How many times does the Clemson game have to be rehashed? We lost that game for a multitude of reasons. Let's move on from it but to answer the question as it applies to this year I'd say it doesn't matter if the offense is playing fast or slow. If the players execute the plays that'll result in first downs and keep the drive going. Simple as that. Doesn't help if we play slow and still go three and out..
 

BamaMoon

Hall of Fame
Apr 1, 2004
20,931
15,930
282
Boone, NC
I've wondered that with our lack of DL depth and how it sort of bit us vs Clemson last year, at what point would it be worth abandoning going fast in order to give the D more time on the sideline. I know there are advantages to keeping personnel on the field and not allowing the opponent to sub. Would it be beneficial to "go fast" but run the play clock down, in order to allow the D to sit on the sidelines?
I think it was pointed out that Sark was sending in the plays at an even faster rate during the NC game than Kiffin had earlier in the season. Can't remember if it was JessN or someone else that tracked this but seems like we were snapping about 5 seconds quicker. In hindsight, it probably was the difference in the game if it otherwise plays out the way it did.

But at this point, it's water under the bridge.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,527
39,615
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
How many times does the Clemson game have to be rehashed? We lost that game for a multitude of reasons. Let's move on from it but to answer the question as it applies to this year I'd say it doesn't matter if the offense is playing fast or slow. If the players execute the plays that'll result in first downs and keep the drive going. Simple as that. Doesn't help if we play slow and still go three and out..
This is more or less it. However much of the clock you use up, three and outs speed the game up, give the ball back to the other offense and puts the defense back on the field. I do disagree that there's nothing to be learned from the Clemson game. I'll guarantee you that CNS is still rehashing it. He's as much as said so...
 

BamaMoon

Hall of Fame
Apr 1, 2004
20,931
15,930
282
Boone, NC
This is more or less it. However much of the clock you use up, three and outs speed the game up, give the ball back to the other offense and puts the defense back on the field. I do disagree that there's nothing to be learned from the Clemson game. I'll guarantee you that CNS is still rehashing it. He's as much as said so...
Yep. I think it also was evident that while Sark is a good offensive mind and had a good understanding of what Kiffin had been doing, he was a little rusty at playcalling for that game and, more importantly, was probably not taking the time to see what Clemson was doing on defense and adjusting his calls to their soft spots. Seems like they were a step ahead of us and often sniffing out the direction of our plays before the ball was snapped.

So, yes, we can be sure CNS and Daboll have looked at that to learn from it.
 

RTR91

Super Moderator
Nov 23, 2007
39,407
6
0
Prattville
I think it was pointed out that Sark was sending in the plays at an even faster rate during the NC game than Kiffin had earlier in the season. Can't remember if it was JessN or someone else that tracked this but seems like we were snapping about 5 seconds quicker. In hindsight, it probably was the difference in the game if it otherwise plays out the way it did.
In the first 14 games of the season, Alabama averaged taking 26.6 seconds per play. Against Clemson, it averaged 23.0 seconds per play. Only twice (Kentucky at 23.8 and Mississippi State 22.8) was Alabama under 24 seconds per play.

Alabama had 34 rush attempts against Clemson. During the other 14 games, Alabama averaged 43.2 rush attempts. Arkansas (34) and MSU (31) were the only games at or below the total from Clemson.

We doubled the 14 game average (9.6) of incomplete passes against Clemson (18). That's probably the biggest reason for the time difference.

Sark was quick to call the play into Jalen and not change it, though. Lane would wait until about 10-15 secondsl eft on the play clock before deciding what to run, which led to Jalen and the offense rushing. Sark just called a play the moment the guys lined up.


But at this point, it's water under the bridge.
Exactly.
 

AlistarWills

All-American
Jul 26, 2006
4,768
2,083
187
I wasn't really trying to rehash Clemson, just using it as an example. We've all said for years that a hurry up score quick offense puts the D behind the 8-ball with time on the sideline.
 

RollinTider1335

All-SEC
Jun 12, 2010
1,460
0
0
Spring Hill, TN
100 plays, 100 plays, 100 plays. One first down from our offense, one more flipping third down conversion in the second half and we aren't even discussing this. We played 7+ lineman last year and had a record number of sacks. No depth issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
THANK YOU!!!! THANK YOU!!!! THANK YOU!!!! THANK YOU!!!! THANK YOU!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

teamplayer

Hall of Fame
Jul 31, 2001
7,571
2,329
282
cullman, al, usa
I wasn't really trying to rehash Clemson, just using it as an example. We've all said for years that a hurry up score quick offense puts the D behind the 8-ball with time on the sideline.
It seems clear to me that your intent was more focused on this year and that the Clemson game was only used as an example. I think some people just do not want to relive that memory. I'm more like you, though. I know that those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. To focus on your question, I think we have put more emphasis on returning to our ball control roots in order to help rest the defense. Doing this helps to avoid another team running 100 plays against us THIS YEAR because that would probably mean we would lose, which we do not want to do this year or any other year.
 
Last edited:

TideMan09

Hall of Fame
Jan 17, 2009
12,187
1,156
187
Anniston, Alabama
I do miss our ground n pound rushing offense that chewed up the TOP & perfectly complimented Coach Saban's D like we ran when Mark Ingram was playing here..
 

TiderJack

Hall of Fame
Jul 9, 2010
12,224
6,249
187
Inverness, AL
I do miss our ground n pound rushing offense that chewed up the TOP & perfectly complimented Coach Saban's D like we ran when Mark Ingram was playing here..
I miss it too but times have changed and Coach Saban realized it. We could still do this against just about anybody and get easy W's but against the top echelon teams we would/could come up short with this style.

TBH, I am not sure how fast we are playing as far as the play clock is concerned. RTR91 did stats from last year and I would assume it is close. I think the lesson learned is you can go fast against lesser opponents and wear them down and slow it down a little more against the upper echelon teams to keep the D off the field late in games.
 

RT27

All-American
Aug 13, 2017
2,301
130
82
I've wondered that with our lack of DL depth and how it sort of bit us vs Clemson last year, at what point would it be worth abandoning going fast in order to give the D more time on the sideline. I know there are advantages to keeping personnel on the field and not allowing the opponent to sub. Would it be beneficial to "go fast" but run the play clock down, in order to allow the D to sit on the sidelines?
Losing Bo in clemson game killed our ability to control the ball and clock in second half. I am no whiner but had BO been able to play and pound they never would have had the ability to get later scores. We could have run more clock, running it for 1st downs.
 

IMALOYAL1

All-American
Oct 28, 2000
3,927
246
187
Birmingham AL
I forget what game this year, but our tight end broke open uncovered just as our runningback missed picking up his man to give Jalen time for a very well called play.
How can our defensive line be as good as it has the past two years? Our overall team will still win as long as they execute.
 

Ole Man Dan

Hall of Fame
Apr 21, 2008
8,982
3,421
187
Gadsden, Al.
A Fast Three And Out is a Fast Three And Out, and your Defense is back on the field before they are rested.
What I always liked about the ole 'Three Yard And A Cloud Of Dust' is the Defense has time to catch their breath before trotting back onto the field.

I do admit that you can go fast and sometimes put the other team back on their heels. It works.
My favorite kind of football is the Down and Dirty, old fashioned kind, that runs it down their throats. BUT...
If you get much behind, it's harder to catch up.
I've always liked the time consuming drives...
They make the other team antsy...
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.