Jump to content


Hurry Up Offense at the End of a Game


  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

#1 Bilbo

Bilbo

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 07:35 AM

I thought Chan Gailey used up all the stupid in the NFL, but it looks like Marrone outdid him with the hurry-up offense on the Bills' last possession of the game. I mean, even Gailey wouldn't use the two-minute drill when he was trying to burn clock with a lead. I hope Marrone isn't as stubborn as the last regime and will re-think this strategy. However, from what I saw from his coaching at SU, I think he will be just as stubborn as Gailey and the Stache were to change. He will die by the hurry-up play calling at the end of games, eventually drawing fans' ire and a firing from the Bills within 2 years.

#2 Max997

Max997

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,007 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 07:38 AM

the hurry up doesnt work if you cant run the ball

you can say the same for any offense but its even moreso with the hurry up

#3 K-9

K-9

    Long Timer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,688 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 07:48 AM

I felt like this immediately after the series yesterday, but upon further reflection, it was a question of execution more than it was running a hurry up offense at that point in the game. Had we huddled up and slowed it down, we would have burned only about 1 extra minute off the clock, if that. That was STILL plenty of time for Brady and Co. We needed first downs, huddle or not and the execution of the plays would have been the same.

I've done a complete 180 and I agree with Marrone. For good or ill, that is his offense and he felt like they needed more points and they weren't going to just sit back and settle. I can respect that.

I might question the playcalling a bit, but if Stevie hangs on to that pass, who knows how that changes things?

GO BILLS!!!

#4 SoggyHog

SoggyHog

    Practice Squad

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 234 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 07:50 AM

Are you talking about the "last" possession or when the Bills had the ball with 5 min left?  The last possession they had to use the hurry-up.  They were behind.  With 5 minutes left, I totally agree with using the hurry-up.  They had a 1 point lead and needed to score.  The Pats had 3 time-outs left, plus the 2 minute warning.  There was still alot of football left at that point.  No need to milk the clock given the situation.  If it was 1 minute left and they used the hurry-up, then I'd be questioning them.

#5 Cynical

Cynical

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 07:56 AM

View PostK-9, on 09 September 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

I felt like this immediately after the series yesterday, but upon further reflection, it was a question of execution more than it was running a hurry up offense at that point in the game. Had we huddled up and slowed it down, we would have burned only about 1 extra minute off the clock, if that. That was STILL plenty of time for Brady and Co. We needed first downs, huddle or not and the execution of the plays would have been the same.

I've done a complete 180 and I agree with Marrone. For good or ill, that is his offense and he felt like they needed more points and they weren't going to just sit back and settle. I can respect that.

I might question the playcalling a bit, but if Stevie hangs on to that pass, who knows how that changes things?

GO BILLS!!!

I don't care if the difference was 30 seconds.

In that situation, you burn the damn clock.

At the very least, by your amount, the defense would have gotten an extra  minute of rest.
Brady gets one minute less to work with.

Maybe it would have made no difference. But you do not just "give" them the extra time to do it when you have the lead.

#6 K-9

K-9

    Long Timer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,688 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:03 AM

View PostCynical, on 09 September 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

I don't care if the difference was 30 seconds.

In that situation, you burn the damn clock.

At the very least, by your amount, the defense would have gotten an extra  minute of rest.
Brady gets one minute less to work with.

Maybe it would have made no difference. But you do not just "give" them the extra time to do it when you have the lead.

I understand where you're coming from. And I had the same reaction immediately afterwards yesterday. But how does huddling help Stevie catch that pass and keep the clock running vs. dropping it and stopping the clock? Brady would have gotten the ball back with 4 minutes left, anyway. And he didn't even need that because they were in FG range with over minute left as it is.

We needed first downs. Huddling wouldn't have changed that, assuming the plays and the execution were the same. And I think we have to take that as fact because those were the real results.

All that said, I hope that when we ARE in that situation and we get a couple first downs to keep the clock moving, that Marrone will instruct EJ to run more clock before the snap. I just think with 5plus minutes left, up by 1, I can see where he was coming from after thinking about it.

GO BILLS!!!

#7 KD in CT

KD in CT

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,797 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:05 AM

View PostK-9, on 09 September 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

Had we huddled up and slowed it down, we would have burned only about 1 extra minute off the clock, if that. That was STILL plenty of time for Brady and Co. We needed first downs, huddle or not and the execution of the plays would have been the same.

View PostSoggyHog, on 09 September 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

With 5 minutes left, I totally agree with using the hurry-up.  They had a 1 point lead and needed to score.  The Pats had 3 time-outs left, plus the 2 minute warning.  There was still alot of football left at that point.  No need to milk the clock given the situation.  If it was 1 minute left and they used the hurry-up, then I'd be questioning them.

Oh look, people who actually evaluated the situation with their head instead of going off on emotional rants.  That wasn't allowed here yesterday.


Anyone who thought the Bills were going to win that game 21-20 needs to either take a lot fewer drugs or a lot more drugs.   The only way the Bills were going to win was by moving the ball and scoring on that drive.  The best way to do that was to run the same offense their rookie QB had practiced all week and run all game.   They lost the 4th quarter because they didn't execute, period.

#8 ORTON1QB

ORTON1QB

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 813 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:09 AM

To all the people who were calling for Chans head.I Learned a long time ago careful what you wish for. This guy could be even worse. He won't last 2 years.

#9 VADC Bills

VADC Bills

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:25 AM

View PostSoggyHog, on 09 September 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

Are you talking about the "last" possession or when the Bills had the ball with 5 min left?  The last possession they had to use the hurry-up.  They were behind.  With 5 minutes left, I totally agree with using the hurry-up.  They had a 1 point lead and needed to score.  The Pats had 3 time-outs left, plus the 2 minute warning.  There was still alot of football left at that point.  No need to milk the clock given the situation.  If it was 1 minute left and they used the hurry-up, then I'd be questioning them.
This was the explanation that Marrone gave in the post game interview. I disagree, just because you start managing the clock and get out of the no huddle doesn't mean you change the plays you call or your will to score. This make the other team burn their time outs so when they get the ball back they are pressed for time. I give Marrone a pass due to this being his first game as HC but this is just plain football common sense and a learning point. If he is saying that the only way the Bills can score is in the no huddle then we have a one trick pony that going mis-manage games at the end when we do have leads.

Edited by VADC Bills, 09 September 2013 - 08:29 AM.


#10 Offsides Number 76

Offsides Number 76

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:37 AM

They still could have run the no-huddle, rushed up to the line of scrimmage (forcing NE to keep personnel in), and taken the play clock down to :01 on those snaps, which is what should have happened.

#11 Cynical

Cynical

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:39 AM

View PostK-9, on 09 September 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

I understand where you're coming from. And I had the same reaction immediately afterwards yesterday. But how does huddling help Stevie catch that pass and keep the clock running vs. dropping it and stopping the clock? Brady would have gotten the ball back with 4 minutes left, anyway. And he didn't even need that because they were in FG range with over minute left as it is.

We needed first downs. Huddling wouldn't have changed that, assuming the plays and the execution were the same. And I think we have to take that as fact because those were the real results.

I agree that huddling would not have changed the execution of that one play.
However, you are using that failed execution to justify the strategy of the entire series.

You bring up that the Pats were within FG range with over a minute left.

If we assume nothing else changed between slowing it down and continue to run the uptempo offense, here's the minute difference:
  • 3-8-BUF 39  (1:20) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short middle to 80-D.Amendola to BUF 29 for 10 yards (23-A.Williams). Caught at BUF 30.
  • Timeout #1 by BUF at 01:08.
Now drop the extra minute that we could have burned:

Instead of the Bills calling TO at 1:08, the Patriots would have had to call TO at :08 in order to kick the FG.
Instead of kicking a 35 FG, the Pats would have been looking at a 46 yard FG attempt.

That one extra minute gave the Pats 11 extra yards, and the time to center up the kick for the PK.

Still think that one extra minute was nothing?

Quote

All that said, I hope that when we ARE in that situation and we get a couple first downs to keep the clock moving, that Marrone will instruct EJ to run more clock before the snap. I just think with 5plus minutes left, up by 1, I can see where he was coming from after thinking about it.

GO BILLS!!!

I will never understand the reasoning. The up tempo offense was NOT humming along,

#12 4BillsintheBurgh

4BillsintheBurgh

    I made it!!!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,003 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:48 AM

View PostCynical, on 09 September 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:


Still think that one extra minute was nothing?



I will never understand the reasoning. The up tempo offense was NOT humming along,

Yes, because the Pats* still had their timeouts.

#13 Cynical

Cynical

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:00 AM

View PostKD in CT, on 09 September 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

The best way to do that was to run the same offense their rookie QB had practiced all week and run all game.   They lost the 4th quarter because they didn't execute, period.

Execution of a play is not dependent on how fast the ball is snapped.

View Post4BillsintheBurgh, on 09 September 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:


Yes, because the Pats* still had their timeouts.

Which they did not even have to use, because the Bills gave them an extra minute instead.

#14 K-9

K-9

    Long Timer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,688 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:02 AM

View PostCynical, on 09 September 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

I agree that huddling would not have changed the execution of that one play.
However, you are using that failed execution to justify the strategy of the entire series.

You bring up that the Pats were within FG range with over a minute left.

If we assume nothing else changed between slowing it down and continue to run the uptempo offense, here's the minute difference:
  • 3-8-BUF 39  (1:20) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short middle to 80-D.Amendola to BUF 29 for 10 yards (23-A.Williams). Caught at BUF 30.

  • Timeout #1 by BUF at 01:08.
Now drop the extra minute that we could have burned:

Instead of the Bills calling TO at 1:08, the Patriots would have had to call TO at :08 in order to kick the FG.
Instead of kicking a 35 FG, the Pats would have been looking at a 46 yard FG attempt.

That one extra minute gave the Pats 11 extra yards, and the time to center up the kick for the PK.

Still think that one extra minute was nothing?



I will never understand the reasoning. The up tempo offense was NOT humming along,


If you're asking me if I'd rather have them try a 46 yarder, then yes.

No, the up tempo was not humming along and I don't think a huddle would have helped, either. It was about execution more than anything.

GO BILLS!!!

#15 Donald Duck

Donald Duck

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,754 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:03 AM

Myself personally, I for one wasn't to keen on our rookie QB running the no huddle, but I have to say after watching Manuel/Offenses 1st outing I've done a 180.

Everyone is questioning why the Buffalo Bills stayed with the no huddle at a point in the game when taking time off the clock would have been beneficial. Its all about endurance, and why the Buffalo Bills used the no huddle throughout the game.


Take your foot off the gas pedal when you have worked so hard to get to where you are, and your opponent is exhausted?  


no...

Edited by dog14787, 09 September 2013 - 09:08 AM.


#16 Mickey

Mickey

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,525 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:06 AM

View PostCynical, on 09 September 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

Execution of a play is not dependent on how fast the ball is snapped.



Which they did not even have to use, because the Bills gave them an extra minute instead.
If your view is correct, that a hurry up offense doesn't help an offense (outside of situations when you have to score quickly), then we shouldn't be running it ever, at all.

#17 Meatloaf Sandwich

Meatloaf Sandwich

    RFA

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 932 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:07 AM

Hurry up or not we didn't get a first down so even not doing hurry up you won't take time off the clock. You have it all wrong thinking conservative against the Pats.

#18 RunTheBall

RunTheBall

    This Team Might Have Some Sack!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 946 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:10 AM

With 5 minutes left we had to score points. It didn't matter whether we huddled or not, the fact that we had the ball twice with the lead, once in Pats* territory, and did nothing is what cost us the game. Every person in that stadium knew if Brady got the ball back he was going to march them down the field. The Pats had their timeouts and the 2 minute warning with 5 mins to go. The no huddle didn't cost us the game, lack of execution did.

RTB


#19 mattsox

mattsox

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:17 AM

View Postdistortions, on 09 September 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

I thought Chan Gailey used up all the stupid in the NFL, but it looks like Marrone outdid him with the hurry-up offense on the Bills' last possession of the game. I mean, even Gailey wouldn't use the two-minute drill when he was trying to burn clock with a lead. I hope Marrone isn't as stubborn as the last regime and will re-think this strategy. However, from what I saw from his coaching at SU, I think he will be just as stubborn as Gailey and the Stache were to change. He will die by the hurry-up play calling at the end of games, eventually drawing fans' ire and a firing from the Bills within 2 years.

If you love Gailey so much, go root for the team he's coaching now!

#20 Mickey

Mickey

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,525 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:20 AM

View PostCynical, on 09 September 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

I agree that huddling would not have changed the execution of that one play.
However, you are using that failed execution to justify the strategy of the entire series.

You bring up that the Pats were within FG range with over a minute left.

If we assume nothing else changed between slowing it down and continue to run the uptempo offense, here's the minute difference:
  • 3-8-BUF 39  (1:20) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short middle to 80-D.Amendola to BUF 29 for 10 yards (23-A.Williams). Caught at BUF 30.

  • Timeout #1 by BUF at 01:08.
Now drop the extra minute that we could have burned:

Instead of the Bills calling TO at 1:08, the Patriots would have had to call TO at :08 in order to kick the FG.
Instead of kicking a 35 FG, the Pats would have been looking at a 46 yard FG attempt.

That one extra minute gave the Pats 11 extra yards, and the time to center up the kick for the PK.

Still think that one extra minute was nothing?



I will never understand the reasoning. The up tempo offense was NOT humming along,
I don't think this analysis is correct.  The Pats took a knee twice before kicking that FG.  We got the ball with 5:51 left, nearly 6 minutes and the Pats had three time outs plus the two-minute warning. How would our running the ball three straight plays and punting have resulted in them having to kick from the 46?

View PostRunTheBall, on 09 September 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

With 5 minutes left we had to score points. It didn't matter whether we huddled or not, the fact that we had the ball twice with the lead, once in Pats* territory, and did nothing is what cost us the game. Every person in that stadium knew if Brady got the ball back he was going to march them down the field. The Pats had their timeouts and the 2 minute warning with 5 mins to go. The no huddle didn't cost us the game, lack of execution did.

RTB
Exactly, only the situation was actually even worse, our drive started with 5:51 to go. Thats nearly 6 minutes. 21 points was not going to win that game.