It makes sense. Which is why we need to make sure the best-executing QB starts. It's also why consistency will win out over a QB making big plays and negative plays like a rollercoaster. A Garrard is a better fit to move the chains than a Matt Moore type, imo. As for Tannehill... maybe he can run it. He's run it before. I think the key factor will be the QB with the best sense of timing and ball placement. Big arm is less critical. finally, Tanny offers something the other two don't... the occasional first down via his legs. That alone could keep our D off the field more.
hopefully our defense will also execute better this year though. if you can run a fast paced offense down the field, then have the defense force a 3andOut or a turnover and put THEIR defense right back on the field for another fast-paced session, you could gas their defense very quickly as well. Like was said, it goes both ways, and all depends on execution
.... that, and you have to have a coach capable of actually implementing it, an offense that's susceptible to it (IE: good fit), which includes being either physically conditioned for its rigorousness or display enough to become conditioned for it, which not every team has. Not to mention there can't be any weak links; every starter has to be able to keep up, including massive 340 lb linemen. On top of that there has to exist an appropriate window & situation to install it.
Is he referring to the season opener against New England? because what I recall about that game, wasn't as much about offensive execution, as our key players being absolutely winded, and physically ill-prepared. Perhaps the most glaring aspect was that our defensive backfield was totally incapacitated due to cramps, which was largely why NE was having a field day making those big plays. Considering what Daboll had to work with, I don't have any complaints with his efforts, nor the offensive production he managed, given the limited off-season he had to install his offense. That said, I can't help but believe we've upgraded the offensive side and direction of this team, specifically in the areas of coaching experience, and organizational leadership.
Exactly Cali. Not to mention that evertime we would use that face paced offense to get a lead Sparano would go ultra conservative. We would end up with 2 our 3 three and outs to ends the game and have teams every opportunity to come back. It want that they tired, the playcalling changed.
Talk about a sportswriter creating crap. So let me get this straight an up tempo team is a bad thing and to prove it, he uses the first game last year when our defense was NOT up tempo? Lol How anyone can defend these writers anymore is beyond me...especially this Jet loving douche bag.
.... and about the following quote: A fast-paced offense isn't something you try some in camp as if you're mixing it into your regular offense; it needs to become your offense. You either take on the identity or you don't. So in that sense, it is new.
Uhhhh, if you want contunuity, if you want to really run the offense with speed, if you want accuracy/ball placement, if you want to use your moving pocket effectively, if you want the signal caller to have exp in the offense, if you want velocity without compromising accuracy, if you want true execution of an inordinate amount of plays, not sure how you can deny the rookie who's made for it...The good thing about this is, the vets aren't stupid, if they had any bad practice habits, or any other level they could possibly get to, they better find it now, because there is a rookie on their *** that's wants to bury them, and is without question now pushing them. Vet has to produce a 4 and 2 record at the bye, or they lose the job..
The other thing is your Wr's have to catch the football as a single drop can literally kill a drive in this style of offense.
I completely agree with Armando. He's not coming out with any breaking discovery. If you research coaching points from the college coaches that have been implementing these offenses, you will see a pretty widespread concept that you should not run this sped up offensive attack unless your offense is above average. If you are below average then increasing your play counts merely speeds your path to disaster. The idea of speeding up your offense and having more plays is if you have a good offense then more plays means more chances to score touchdowns. It reduces the chances of the inferior football team with the inferior execution winning the game because of one big play or a lucky break here or there. In only 60 minutes of football, that can happen, the "any given Sunday" principle. Up tempo means more plays, which is essentially is like turning your 60 minute clock into an 80 minute clock, which reduces the chances of the inferior team randomly being ahead by the time the clock strikes twelve. If you ARE the inferior team then speeding up the offense, adding plays, extending the clock...really just speeds your way to the inevitable result. When I have talked about liking the Dolphins' up tempo practices, the reason I like them so much isn't because I think the Dolphins are going to hit on some magical formula by running up tempo during the games. That's been done before, there's nothing new about that. I think there are so many other benefits to this. More reps means more film for evaluation. It means more teaching. It means better FOOTBALL conditioning that perhaps you don't get just from doing wind sprints and the like. And yes, when the occasions come up where the Dolphins are appropriate in their decision to run up tempo during games, it'll be old hat for them. They should run like a well-oiled machine in those situations. You won't lose because they weren't prepared or because there wasn't communication, players felt too rushed, etc. You'll lose in those situations if you don't have the talent to make the plays but not because of lack of preparation. The faster pace also helps the coaches keep a sense of urgency and be good at seeing and making calls when bullets are flying everywhere. The up tempo in practice also prepares the defense for facing that kind of attack. It increases their communication as well, increases their stamina, their mental toughness, etc. Overall with the entire team it should get them really good at just executing positive plays. But if this up tempo in practice is going to translate to constant indiscriminate up tempo during the games...well, those Jeff Ireland fans out there had better hope they are right that he has indeed filled this roster up with a lot of unrecognized but highly talented players. If not, we're in for some long Sundays. The only real other down side I can come up with for the up tempo practices is the quality of teaching has to be more poor because there has to be less interaction between coaches and players during the practices themselves. But you can control that by having your coaches do hyper accurate film analysis of their positions after the practices and I like how the new CBA has done away with two-a-days and replaced them with essentially a morning performance practice followed by an afternoon teaching walk through. It gives the coaches a chance to dissect the practice film, figure out where players screwed up and need their teaching, and then circle back and teach it in the afternoon.
Sparano is impressing Rex with a fast paced tempo running game. No joke I watched a clip of Rex bragging about the run heavy offence saying they haven't used Tebow for one wild cat play yet as if to say they will be. Hope the fast pace that the Phins D is practiceing in prepares them better for the Jets and Pats pace.
Mando is correct about the QB but another important point he overlooked. In a fast paced offense your weapons, WR'RB'TEs need to have their assignments burnt into their minds. When we fluttered last year it was pretty evident some of them had no clue what they were supposed to do or where they were supposed to be. Fast paced is also fast thinking. That was lacking last year. Maybe because they did not practice it enough? not sure if it was that or if our players just kinda zoned out on their responsiblility due to the fast pace. NE and Indy have ran it for years, like second nature to them
Was going to post pretty much what CK just wrote. Faster pace = more possessions. Having more possessions only works if you are better than your opponent on a per-play basis.
They also have team/position meetings each nite, while at the hotel, for a few hours and I am sure it is gone over again.
Yeah, but I think that's usual though. The two-a-day setup where you have the practice and then the walk through, that's the new development. That to me is where you create the opportunity to take the approach Miami is taking by running the morning practice at hyper speed and essentially making every practice a performance event, and then circling back at the walk through to tell everyone what they did wrong and give them coaching points on getting it corrected. Classroom as well. Point being, in order for the Dolphins to do this and be effective with it, those walk through and class room sessions have to be more productive than with other teams. Other teams that run practices slow enough to get coach interaction right there on the field may find that the walk through and class room aren't quite as valuable, maybe even a little repetitive.
The probability is that you will lose. Thats not necessarily what will happen though. If you are the worse team, limiting the total plays run will mean you keep the game closer. The closer the game, the more impact variance will have (i.e. fumble recovery).
Right but then the flipside would be true and that the more plays you have the more chances you have to score and the less chance the other team has too score. I truly think this is all over analyzing to be honest. Personally I think it begins and ends at, playing fast wears the other team down.
Bottom line, if your receivers are better conditioned then their corners, and your Qb cn keep the tempo and be accurate when he has to, you can make plays. Remember Philbins philosophy, football is a simple game.
Not necessarily. If you run the ball and play run defense, which shortens the game, and you focus on not making mistakes, you can beat a lot of teams that are actually better and more talented than you.
Sure, but you can't control just how many plays you run. If you are running more plays, the opposing team will run more plays. That certainly is a factor, but I think that will manifest itself in whether you are more effective than your opponent on a per-play basis. I think a good example to look at is the Denver Broncos last year. Their offense was very bad on a per-play basis. It was in their best interest to keep the game limited to as few possessions as possible. That way they could manage the game, and try to get much larger share of plays run. If their opponent had 7 possessions for the game, and they managed to get 9, then invariably that could make up for the lack of efficiency. But if their opponent had 13 possessions, and they had 18, I'm not sure those three extra possessions would be able to make up for the lack of efficiency.
That's where I think you're making the mistake. I don't see how speeding up the game and running more plays results in "less chance" for the other team to score. That's not the case. You're also giving them more chance to score, by speeding up the game.
Mathematically speaking...I believe the most a "possesssion differential" can be during a game is two. If you've got 18 possessions then the other team has at least 16 and at most 20. I'm just doing that in my head but I think it's valid. Can anyone verify on a napkin or something? LOL.
And I'm not saying I don't believe this would work for Miami. I think they have the chance to be more efficient offensively than a lot of their opponents this season. Raiders, Jets twice, Cardinals, Jags, Seahawks, Titans, Colts, Bengals, 49ers, Bills twice. I don't look at any of those teams and think we can't be a more efficient offense. That doesn't mean we will be. The Colts could end up being great. The Bills could be very solid. But right now I'm not necessarily fearful of those offenses. The only team I see on our schedule that right now I would say our best bet would be shortening the game would be the Pats.
LOL. I was thinking more along the lines of total plays than possessions. Probably should have phrased it differently. You can actually win the possession game by more than 2, but that would be due to onside kicks. I don't want to open that can of worms though (I think teams should go for a lot more onsides)
......or you end up with Peyton Manning beating us despite him only being on the field for 15 minutes.
Except like the time we played Indy and we had the ball like 45-ish minutes and still lost. And didn't something similar happen a game or two later against the Saints? Point being, the negatives you are referring to are random variables that can't really be accounted for and on top of that, you aren't counting them all. What if the team your playing against is less conditioned? What if they have a great offense but fold in a fast paced game? What if their QB is having a bad day? etc. Not too mention you can have a fast paced up tempo offense and still run the ball.
but don't you have to be a team that's successful in this area of the game? That's no different than the tempo thing I would think. What I mean is, why would you want to limit plays and get into a close game with a team who's better in the impact variance aspect of the game? Wouldn't that give them the edge?
IMO, if you have a defense that's stout & well-conditioned along with solid special teams, then your offense seeing an additional 20% more snaps [thus more opportunities to score] isn't a bad thing unless the offense is putrid, poorly coached, and poorly conditioned.
No, because its not a skill. Its a matter of chance. Recovering a fumble for example, is based on chance. You want to keep the game close, then hope you get lucky. If you are losing by 20 points, recovering a fumble isn't going to win you the game. If you are losing by 3 points, it absolutely could.
Also, let's be realistic here, if we had to slow down the tempo to stay with a slow but better team then fine we can do that. Isn't that infinitely easier than being a slower paced team and having to all of sudden be a face paced team to keep up with a fast paced opponent?
Well its always going to be based on the relation of your offensive efficiency compared to your opponent's. So if your defense is very good, theoretically it is easier for your offense to be more efficient than your opponent, and you would want to run more plays.
There are unique characteristics of teams that make up tempo a potentially good strategy even if you are not the better team. You brought up a good one, which is conditioning. Some teams might not be able to hold up to the pace because of conditioning. Personally, I believe that most teams (not run by Cam Cameron) focus pretty hard on conditioning and so there isn't a ton of differentiation in the league where it concerns conditioning. That makes it difficult to leverage minute differences in team conditioning. It can rarely be done, except in exceptional situations. One of those is actually relevant to Miami and that is extreme high heat and humidity, like what you find in Miami at 1pm. That's a proven environment where conditioning differential is exacerbated to a degree that makes it impactful to games. Otherwise, it's hard to leverage differences in conditioning. It's a case where success begets success. You're not actually tiring a defense out with your pace unless you're creating a lot of first downs. If you're not doing that, then you're doing the opposite, keeping the opposing defense fresh as a daisy...while exposing your own defense to an ability to get worn down themselves. And hence I go back to the exact point that Stringer and I have raised. You disagree. That's fine. I take it for what it is. I happen to know that a lot of coaches agree with Stringer and I on this, though.
Completely agree, but IMO it's a prime example of how a team can apply that approach remarkably and still lose b/c at the end of the day, no matter how much a team slows the game down, Manning is essentially still afforded the same number of possessions as his opponent [barring onside kicks, special teams turnovers, and last drive, end-of-game stuff].
