Here's one way to slow down up tempo offenses

[Ldlane]

Interesting article from Bleacher Report on the No Huddle and the NFL: (Goes into some X's and O's)

What NFL Teams can do to Counter the No Huddle Offense

From a tactical standpoint, defenses have to continue to throw various looks at offenses by utilizing various fronts like Belichick employed in the Super Bowl. This is done to keep the quarterback and blockers off balance.

The defensive coordinator should consider having his pass defenders give false looks more often before the snap, subsequently rotating or dropping his defenders after the snap to the desired coverage.

I had forgotten all about Sam Wyche's innovation.

 

[califbamafan]

Don't have a problem with faking injuries. If the offense can get away with bending the rules then the defense should have the same options. The more we see teams employ this strategy the more it will level the playing field back out.

 

[deliveryman35]

Why not simply go back to allowing the defenses to do what they used to could do before all the rule changes were implemented to boost scoring? That would solve a lot of the issue. We've put so many rules in to benefit the offense its pathetic.

Once the ball is spotted the team ought to be able to snap it when they want. But the ref should not spot the ball at a different pace for one team simply because of the style offense they run. It shouldn't matter to the ref what style offense is run. Part of the reason for the spotting of the ball and signaling "ready for play" by the ref is to allow both teams a fair shot at getting lined up. Much like the umpire signaling to the pitcher (in baseball) when he can throw a pitch.

Take into account all of the rules that favor the offense what realistically can defenses do to "adjust"? The rules are so imbalanced toward the offense it's pathetic. Rich Rodriguez even admitted such and admitted that his type offenses takes advantages of those rules. So what have we left the defenses to do to "adjust?".

I agree....at both the collegiate and pro level, we have seen more legislating against good defense and more rules created to favor the passing game and scoring points--especially in the last 30 yrs or so. I for one wish we would roll some of these rules back but that will never happen. This is because both the owners and the NCAA think the majority of their fans want to see more passing and points on the scoreboard.

 

[JBama_in_PCOLA]

I agree....at both the collegiate and pro level, we have seen more legislating against good defense and more rules created to favor the passing game and scoring points--especially in the last 30 yrs or so. I for one wish we would roll some of these rules back but that will never happen. This is because both the owners and the NCAA think the majority of their fans want to see more passing and points on the scoreboard.

As do I. But we know that wont happen because of player safety or making the game more popular.

 

[JessN]

If Alabama picked up the pace on offense, it would be very exciting to the fan base. AJ could spread the field with these WRs and destroy teams like VT. Nine punts, TJ under 100 yards, AJ under 50%, and no WR over 100 yards were not exciting. Kick returns for TDs were exciting. Clemson has beaten LSU and UGA in their past two games. Maybe they're on to something.

It's time for my annual "jerk" quote. I apologize ahead of time if this sounds jerk-ish, but there's no other way to say it:

The value of your entertainment dollar (or the dollars of others) is of no concern to me.

Football is already the most popular sport in the country, and it doesn't need to be tarted up any further to grab more fans. The singer Adele has tons of fans thanks to her talent -- I don't need to see her twerking Miley-style in order to appreciate her music. If anything, as football has moved away from complex innovation recently, and in doing so, the quality of fan it has attracted -- in terms of how well those fans actually understand what they're looking at -- has suffered.

In a later post, you said that the HUNH was based on execution and discipline. That's half-correct. Stopping it is based on execution and discipline, running it is something altogether different. It's a glorified single-wing offense with some salt and pepper on it, mostly in the passing game. Almost the entire running game is predicated upon reading a single defensive end. And yes, when I see a steady stream of trick plays, I tend to downgrade a team because overusing trick plays is an admission that you're not as good as the other guy.

It is most certainly NOT as complex as the Erhardt-Perkins offense that the majority of the NFL utilizes. For that matter, the offense Mike Shula used at Alabama had a thicker playbook than most HUNH teams.

And, I would dispute your assertion that it brings in recruits. It may bring in wide receivers, but Alabama's wide receiver recruiting has outpaced everyone else's for the last six years, so what is being lost here? Nothing. If anything, it's an advantage for Alabama to play offense (and defense) under the schemes it currently utilizes, because there's no sales job needed. You can point to 31 NFL teams (haven't seen Philly yet under Chip Kelly) and tell the kid, "You want to get prepared for the next level? Then hang up the Harry High School bit and come to Alabama, where we are a virtual minor league for NFL teams." Every other player at every other HUNH school has to eventually make that transition, so why not make it sooner rather than later?

Not to mention that we already see what the NFL does with HUNH QBs: They change them into pro-style QBs. Or they just go ahead and introduce them to Dr. James Andrews during the first week of camp.

 

[Ldlane]

Something me and another poster were talking about is that everyone is against this offense, but people are not winning championships with this offense. So that means that teams are already stopping it. The thing is that you can't send in multiple sub-packages against it, and that makes some people disgruntled.

 

[JessN]

Something me and another poster were talking about is that everyone is against this offense, but people are not winning championships with this offense. So that means that teams are already stopping it. The thing is that you can't send in multiple sub-packages against it. And that makes some people disgruntled.

What has people disgruntled is that the system allows mediocre teams to sometimes upset better teams through trickery and focusing on stamina manipulation rather than strength, overall team speed or raw talent. The entire reason the offense came into existence (primarily through the work of Rich Rodriguez, oddly enough, but also Urban Meyer at Bowling Green; the Malzahns and Freezes of the world just amped up the pace) was to allow teams of sub-par talent to match up with the larger schools who were paying them boatloads of money to come in and take a whipping on Homecoming.

Now that it's spreading to larger schools, it is reaching pools of better talent. I think people are grousing because the teams that recruit the best players, develop the best players and hire the best coaches feel they should not be vulnerable to an offense that attempts to exploit weak spots that were previously not at the game's core values of play. This is why Saban has talked about the injury potential of the HUNH, because the HUNH is focusing on stamina/exhaustion/cardio rather than the strength-speed-talent model. To put it another way, there's no shame in getting whipped by a bigger, more talented player, but getting beaten by someone who isn't in your league as a football player (and is only beating you because of a kooky system) is sort of rude.

Alabama has not had consistent trouble stopping these teams during Saban's tenure, but it's more about the ethos of what football really is that's in jeopardy. Upsets will always happen but the HUNH makes them more frequent.

And if you think HUNH is bad, Google "A11 offense" and look at that. It's outright manipulation of a loophole meant to be applicable to kicking formations, basically, and building an offense out of it. If that were to ever become widespread at the college level, I might seriously lose interest in the game.

 

[Ldlane]

Exactly! The A-11 is just crazy! Out here teams run it a lot because they just can't get the talent at the HS level (Which I blame on our State Athletic Association for practice limitations, etc...).

To me you still have to have a credible running game and defense to even pull an upset. Look at WSU, the only reason that they were beat last week is that they don't run the ball well and made more mistakes than the barn.

What has people disgruntled is that the system allows mediocre teams to sometimes upset better teams through trickery and focusing on stamina manipulation rather than strength, overall team speed or raw talent. The entire reason the offense came into existence (primarily through the work of Rich Rodriguez, oddly enough, but also Urban Meyer at Bowling Green; the Malzahns and Freezes of the world just amped up the pace) was to allow teams of sub-par talent to match up with the larger schools who were paying them boatloads of money to come in and take a whipping on Homecoming.

Now that it's spreading to larger schools, it is reaching pools of better talent. I think people are grousing because the teams that recruit the best players, develop the best players and hire the best coaches feel they should not be vulnerable to an offense that attempts to exploit weak spots that were previously not at the game's core values of play. This is why Saban has talked about the injury potential of the HUNH, because the HUNH is focusing on stamina/exhaustion/cardio rather than the strength-speed-talent model. To put it another way, there's no shame in getting whipped by a bigger, more talented player, but getting beaten by someone who isn't in your league as a football player (and is only beating you because of a kooky system) is sort of rude.

Alabama has not had consistent trouble stopping these teams during Saban's tenure, but it's more about the ethos of what football really is that's in jeopardy. Upsets will always happen but the HUNH makes them more frequent.

And if you think HUNH is bad, Google "A11 offense" and look at that. It's outright manipulation of a loophole meant to be applicable to kicking formations, basically, and building an offense out of it. If that were to ever become widespread at the college level, I might seriously lose interest in the game.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Exactly! The A-11 is just crazy! Out here teams run it a lot because they just can't get the talent at the HS level (Which I blame on our State Athletic Association for practice limitations, etc...).

Really? I thought it was banned from HS play in 08 or 09.

Thankfully, the NCAA rules already prohibit it in most instances.

 

[Ldlane]

They've altered it to fit the rulebook. But same concept.

Really? I thought it was banned from HS play in 08 or 09.

Thankfully, the NCAA rules already prohibit it in most instances.

 

[crimsonaudio]

They've altered it to fit the rulebook. But same concept.

Ahh, gotcha - thanks. I stopped thinking about it when it was 'banned', figured they had eliminated it entirely.

 

[B1GTide]

I don't see teams with sufficient talent/depth to win playing "conventional" football switching to the HU/NH as their base. Its advantages are outweighed by its disadvantages over the course of an entire football game if you have a great defense and solid special teams.

To JessN's point, I can see some teams just below that bar making the switch - and some already have. However, I don't think that it provides a competitive advantage any more. The best defensive minds in college football understand the need to address this in their recruiting, and have begun to do so. Within a few years, as the college football world begins to realize that it looks good but still has not produced a championship team, those second tier teams will shift again towards the model that wins. After all, it is still about winning championships for all but the bottom half of the division.

As issue - a tier two team built to defend the HU/NH may not be prepared to defend a dominant pro-set/downhill running offense. I don't think that a team like Alabama or LSU really has to worry about this, as you have enough talent and depth to match up with either from one week to the next, but most teams have to decide what they want to be and hope to get enough recruits to fit that mold. It will really muddy the waters and create odd results below the top tier in college football.

I guess that my conclusion is that the best teams will not be hurt by this scheme, but everyone else is made more vulnerable by it.

 

[B1GTide]

Ahh, gotcha - thanks. I stopped thinking about it when it was 'banned', figured they had eliminated it entirely.

It is essentially "banned" in college and NFL football, as this loophole doesn't exist in the same way. It is also "banned" by a change in the rules in HS football in many states, but not in all. I have seen it run once, and it is hard to watch.

 

[Ldlane]

It now abides by all numbering requirements at every level of football, without any numbers exchanged between plays. The ineligible numbered "anchors," like any ineligible receiver, can neither receive forward passes nor advance downfield before a forward pass is thrown across the line of scrimmage, but can catch lateral and backward passes, take handoffs, advance downfield prior to a screen pass to an eligible receiver, or even throw the ball if it is given to them.[10] Since the adjusted version of the A-11 offense abides by the numbering requirements, it is similar to the older Emory & Henry offense; as such, unlike the previous version, it is legal in most levels of football.

A-11

It is essentially "banned" in college and NFL football, as this loophole doesn't exist in the same way. It is also "banned" by a change in the rules in HS football in many states, but not in all. I have seen it run once, and it is hard to watch.

 

[B1GTide]

Thanks Ldlane - did not know it had continued to "evolve".

 

[Ldlane]

Coming from a "Coach's Point of View" (Basketball) if I have an undersized team and clearly the underdog, I'm gonna use all of the "junk" defenses I can use to gain an advantage and win the game. I won't take a loss for the sake of "purity of the game", just because others may not like it.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

What has people disgruntled is that the system allows mediocre teams to sometimes upset better teams through trickery and focusing on stamina manipulation rather than strength, overall team speed or raw talent. The entire reason the offense came into existence (primarily through the work of Rich Rodriguez, oddly enough, but also Urban Meyer at Bowling Green; the Malzahns and Freezes of the world just amped up the pace) was to allow teams of sub-par talent to match up with the larger schools who were paying them boatloads of money to come in and take a whipping on Homecoming.

Another aspect that makes people disgruntled is that it's like when we played football in the "open lot" as kids. One of the rules was "Ten Mississippi rush". Meaning no one could rush the qb until they counted 10 "Mississippi" and also the qb just couldn't take off running at the snap. The reason behind that is if we just allowed the man responsible for the qb to just run in at the snap of the ball then the game would be nothing more than putting your best athlete at that position and having him take off every play. Also, we didn't want the quarterback to be able to (at the snap of the ball) take off because then again, the game would be reduced to putting your best athlete at qb and when the ball is snapped he just takes off to the endzone. Excluding all the other guys who are going out for passes wanting to catch the ball. The game is reduced to a lesser state.

I think the same mindset exist for how the HUNHO is allowed to run. The goal (of the rules) SHOULD BE for competitive balance. Not to slant the competitive balance to one side or the other. When we allow teams to run at such hyper speeds that penalties aren't being called, refs aren't in place and the crux of the offense is snapping the ball faster than the defense can get into place the game has been reduced to a lesser state, IMO. We had a term in the "open lot" for people who did these type things. I'll clean it up so I can post it on the board. "Chicken Poo".

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Coming from a "Coach's Point of View" (Basketball) if I have an undersized team and clearly the underdog, I'm gonna use all of the "junk" defenses I can use to gain an advantage and win the game. I won't take a loss for the sake of "purity of the game", just because others may not like it.

And I agree you should. But that's not the point. The point is that when rules have been implemented to drastically shift the competitive balance of the game in favor of one side. Then a "glitch" or "loophole" is found to even further that competitive advantage. Then the game is being reduced to a lesser competitive state.

 

[USCBAMA]

Again, there are rules already on the books to address the concerns, they are just not being enforced. Some of these rules even include a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for a second offense. clemson intentionally ran up to the line while in the process of substituting with the intent of gaining an advantage over UGA multiple times. The rule book strictly forbids this. The refs were literally supposed to stop play long enough for UGA to substitute. If clemson got the snap off before refs could stop play, it's supposed to be a 5-yard penalty on clemson. If it happens a second time (or more) a 15-yard penalty. clemson easily did this 10-12 times during the game with no stoppage of play and no penalty. No need to change anything in the rule book, just enforce the frickin' rules.

And for those HUNH lovers bemoaning the "fake" injuries, you can't have your cake and eat it too. It can't be wrong for UGA to intentionally break the rules by faking injuries but be okay for clemson to intentionally break the rules by hurrying to the line while substituting, not being set for a full second, etc. If intentionally breaking rules to gain an advantage is wrong, then it's wrong for both teams.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Again, there are rules already on the books to address the concerns, they are just not being enforced. Some of these rules even include a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for a second offense. clemson intentionally ran up to the line while in the process of substituting with the intent of gaining an advantage over UGA multiple times. The rule book strictly forbids this. The refs were literally supposed to stop play long enough for UGA to substitute. If clemson got the snap off before refs could stop play, it's supposed to be a 5-yard penalty on clemson. If it happens a second time (or more) a 15-yard penalty. clemson easily did this 10-12 times during the game with no stoppage of play and no penalty. No need to change anything in the rule book, just enforce the frickin' rules.

And for those HUNH lovers bemoaning the "fake" injuries, you can't have your cake and eat it too. It can't be wrong for UGA to intentionally break the rules by faking injuries but be okay for clemson to intentionally break the rules by hurrying to the line while substituting, not being set for a full second, etc. If intentionally breaking rules to gain an advantage is wrong, then it's wrong for both teams.

I think a good time for them to start would be 9/14. All those techniques were used by TAMU the last game...