God, let's hope so.

The d can use all the practice against an up tempo offense it can get with the Pats being the first game up.

 

'Fast' is good, but... I don't care if it's fast or slow. I just want the offense to be 'effective' and to 'score points'.

 

I'm not excited about all this tempo talk, really. It might be okay. It might be awful. It sounds good coming from Lazor, but let's be real this guy isn't Chip Kelly, Gus Malzahn, or Art Briles at this point.

More importantly, I want to see us commit to the run. And I want to see people catching the ball in more space, or catching the ball while moving vertically. Please ditch the ol' Sherman curls and hitches in tiny windows walking the sideline tightrope. Tempo doesn't mean anything if our guys are still struggling to find any RAC room and create big plays with the ball in their hands.

 

The concept of this particular tempo is about breaking the huddle, getting to the LOS, and snapping the ball ASAP, so the defense doesn't have time to adjust to the formation you deploy.

 

A lot of Tannehill's (and the team's) successes came in more uptempo, 2-minute style drives at the end of halves last year...so maybe this is just what they need.

 

The tempo Imo that Lazor is trying to instill has nothing to do with 2 min offense.

 

Right, I hear you. But let's not act like it's some perfect strategy.

-Has Tannehill ever played in an NFL offense where he doesn't typically pause and step back to see what the defense is doing?
-Can our bad OLine with 4 new starters ID their assignments without having the schemes called to them by Pouncey or Tannehill?
-Can we get by doing this without much pre-snap motion, which has been a suggested usage for Wallace?
-Can Lamar Miller, not the smartest player, recognize his responsibilities in a quick second?

I get that tempo works for other people. But those team usually have an ace head coach who has done it for years (Auburn, Oregon, Philly, Baylor), or an elite QB who has won Superbowls (Patriots, Steelers, Broncos).

Just saying that tempo does have its down-sides, and I don't think this coach or QB are at a point where we should instantly cheer about it. This offense had bigger problems than taking their time at the LOS...like getting away from the run and not building in RAC opportunities. If tempo can do those two things, sign me up. But those can be fixed without altering our basic routine in the game.

 

The combination of fast tempo and moving our big weapons around the field next year, should make it difficult for teams to defend Wallace and Clay according to their game plan.

That's what I'm hoping for... more pressure on the defense, stemming from speed and unpredictability. A basic concept for the big boys, but something that has been lost on our offense.

 

On the other hand everyone is caught up in this idea of pre-snap motion. Pre-snap motion is the antithesis of what you're talking about. Pre-snap motion and formation changes delay the hiking of the football.

Additionally one must remember there's usually a reason teams don't hurry to the line and snap it right away (unless it's short yardage). The offense is reading the defense during that approach to the line. They're reading how the defense wants to play them and the offense is making adjustments in turn, to put the ball exactly where the defense is weakest.

Hurrying to the line and snapping the ball implies that process is being skipped or at the very least severely truncated.

Nobody is inventing alchemy here. Everything has a cost-benefit to it.

 

Understand and understood, but isn't this what Lazor is trying to accomplish, I heard him articulate it in an interview the other day, the question was posed to him about tempo, hurry up, etc, he corrected the reporter and said, were going to be huddling and using the clock, we just want to have tempo once we break and and line up.

Whatta you think?

 

I think it could work or it could completely backfire. As is the case with most style choices on offense and defense.

I prefer a variable approach. And by variable I don't necessarily mean unpredictable. Something having a pattern (and therefore being predictable) is OK if it means adding just one more layer of things that the other side has to try and keep track of, inching them one step further toward what I believe was dubbed "helmet fire" by a poster recently.

I'm just saying nobody is inventing alchemy and everything has costs in addition to the benefits.

 

Yeah I think it's a real good discussion to try and discern, and what I mean is, why do we have to have players check what's going on with the defense, if the concept is deploying them with an automatic mission?...I feel stupid asking the question but isn't that the point, to just break the huddle and completely dictate to the defense and have them adjust to our deployment, I mean I would think you would have two plays ready to be called in case they don't care what you deploy and our going to do their thing, make the quick check, and go with the 2nd play if that's the case..

I've never claimed to be D-Pate, but I would think that convicted deployment once breaking the huddle eliminates the need for LOS audibles..this is what is progressive and new about this offense right, this is what chip and art and Gus are doing.

 

Why would hurried up tempo out of the huddle eliminate the need for audibles?

You hurry up to the line of scrimmage and the play call is a run to the right side and as you line up and get ready the defense is overloaded to that side. But you don't need to call an audible because....?

 

It's the same **** we heard (and saw in practice) when Philbin first got here.

 

Could you try and answer this..

Why do offenses wait for a defense to adjust to them?

What is the con to not waiting for them to adjust, break the huddle, get to the Los, and deploy your play?... All offensive players know their assignment...just execute and take in play adjustments out of the game?

 

When I first heard that Philbin wanted to be very fast tempo and/or no-huddle in 2012, I was more cautious than anything.

One of the principles of the HUNH is that you have to be better than average because if you aren't then you're just speeding the game toward its inevitable end (loss).

Miami isn't in the same place as it was then. They bought an expensive receiver in Mike Wallace. They have a decent second guy. Charles Clay has now proven himself a little bit. Ryan Tannehill is now in his third year. They have a veteran at tailback that had to get used to a very fast-paced approach in Denver.

The only drawback is they could have two rookies on the line. But it seems like Dallas Thomas has taken a lead over Billy Turner at left guard for the moment.

They're in a better position to try and go up-tempo than they were in 2012, for certain. But if their play designs, play calling and execution aren't sound then once again it'll just speed us toward a loss and wear out a defense which is really in my opinion showing cracks.

 

They're waiting for the defense to declare their intentions so they can put the football exactly where the defense is weakest.

 

No I get that, that's why I said have two plays always ready to go, but if we are dictating at warp speed once we break the huddle, how can a defense predict to overload one side if they are being dictated to.?

 

What exactly do you think an audible is, then? And how do you think you can communicate this "changing of the play" (which somehow isn't an audible) so instantly? Telepathy?

A defense can overload a side by virtue of down, distance, personnel grouping and their read on where everyone is lining up coming out of the huddle.

You're acting like the offense is going to go so fast from the huddle to the snap that the defense won't even have a chance to get set. But that's really just not the case. Yes they can still decide to overload a side once they see more guys going this way than that, and if you change the strength of the the formation by pre-snap motion that gives the defense a chance to respond with an alignment shift.

 

No matter how fast or slow you huddle and get to the LOS, it all comes down to calling the right play against the defense you are facing. Tannehill has to be able to quickly recognize the defense and if necessary, change the play in an effort to gain as many yards as possible. All the other elements of the offense, OL, RB's, and receivers have to be able to adjust quickly to ensure everyone on the offense performs their jobs on each play.

Perhaps getting to the line will give Tannehill more time to scan the defense and audible to a better play. If that is one of the benefits to getting to the LOS faster, I'm all for it. As has been stated previously, getting to the LOS faster will only be seen as a success if it leads to more points on the scoreboard. If that happens, every Dolphin fan will be happy with the new offense.

 

right,once again I get that, that's football 101, I'm just trying to understand the philosophy of running an offense with the tempo that he's specifically talking about, do you think he's thinking that he's not worried about the defense declaring?

 

one hand signal could change the play..

Maybe I'm caught up in trying to interpret what Lazor was saying, I could of sworn he was talking about breaking the huddle, and snapping the ball as quickly as possible during regular offense hours, thus completely dictating to the defense and not worrying about defense formations, I guess from what I'm hearing that's not possible, but I feel like there is something there that could be possible.

 

I think to be honest he's just trying to increase player urgency, efficiency and discipline. There will still be audibles. There will still be pre-snap reading of the defense. But he doesn't want guys loafing around or walking to their spots. Think of like old school football where everyone was formationing in unison.

 

Can players on both sides of the formation see said hand signal? Can your linemen see said hand signal with their backs turned to the quarterback, their hands on the ground and their butts in the air? Are all the skill position players constantly eyeballing the quarterback prior to the snap in case he makes one of these hand signals, rather than looking at the defense and deciding what they're going to run? At what point does the defense know that a kill signal is no longer coming, and therefore it's OK for them to read the defense?

I think the problem is that your instinct is to see everything Miami changes as a pareto improvement, which means a change that benefits without any cost. If your instinct is to assume that all changes carry both benefits and costs then your inclination is find the costs in addition to the benefits.

I'm not saying that "dictating to the offense" is not possible. I'm saying it has a cost.

 

Ok...

Last question, do you think it's possible to execute and win with what I was talking about, complete dictation?

 

I disagree with your assessment of why I'm asking the questions.

You just said that your not saying it won't work, so maybe that's what Lazor is saying while understanding everything is going to have a cost, but maybe the pros outweigh the cons, in his mind..

 

Short answer: no.

 

From what I understood there will be plays where a player is sent in motion, but this will be done at a fast pace and the ball could be hiked at any second . Basically I think they just want to speed up the whole pre-snap process, not necessarily skip it altogether.

 

I'd also like the defense to be 'effective', "hold leads" and "win games".

Who knows, if those two things happen, we might just "make the play-offs". Maybe then we can rejoice in rah-rah articles grounded in reality.

 

Lol..ok..appreciate the thoughts..

I happen to think possibilities are there out of the spread offense.

 

I don't know any offensive approach that doesn't make any adjustments based on what the defense is showing. At least, not on the college or pro level. Probably not even high school. Pee wee, yes.

 

Like I said, have a couple plays in the pocket, just be creative in the way you spread the word, but don't compromise your tempo.

 

This is what I understood as well, and I think it is possible, to a certain degree. When the offense in an unpredictable situation, dictating to the defense is much easier (ie. 1st and 2nd downs, leading the game, etc) but when it is put in situation where it is more predictable (ie, 3rd and long, trailing the game) it is much harder to dictate, because the defense will know, to a certain extent, what the offense will do. So, I personally think this type of offense will work very well if we score early and often and the game is under control.. however, I just don't know how well we'll do if we are down on the scoreboard and have to win a game in the 4th quarter.

 

So be aggressive, but also be smart. Attack the quarterback on defense, but make sure you don't have any holes in coverage. Dictate to the other team's defense, but hit them where they're weakest. Have a fast tempo, but avoid bad plays.

Sounds easy. I should be a coach.

 

no..

Your jokin around but you might be the one not looking at this with an open mind.

 

You asked a question about "complete dictation", which to me means you're not making any adjustments based on what the defense is showing. No I don't believe that works. I believe the offense should be making adjustments based on what the defense is showing from the moment of the huddle to the moment the whistle is blown and the play is over. The only thing that should constrain that is what your players are able to handle. If they can't handle all of the adjustments you dial it back and live with the results.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. How you manage to describe an approach where you have "a couple of plays" in your pocket that you pick and choose based on the defense and communicate to your offense as being a "complete dictation" approach is certainly well beyond me. You're describing what was already happening, and couching it in terms of "change". What exactly is the change, then? That Lazor wants to do it faster? Every coach wants that process to happen faster. It happens as fast as it can within the constraints of the players' ability to make those reads, communicate what they need to communicate, and execute.

It's sort of like emphasizing footwork on a quarterback. They ALL do that. Every team, every coach. If you have a coach that is boasting about how footwork is probably more important to him than other coaches, you probably have a coach that's full of sh-t.

The proof is how far they'll go, and what they'll give up, in order to get what they want. That's when you start to see what the real differences are. And those are the things I'm looking for.

 

As I remember it, there were reports of a blazing fast offense in Philbin's first off-season. Similar things were said.

 

Tempo means speed, or pace. You take the same steps when double timing, you just take them twice as fast. Mistakes get amplified. But, that will be true for both sides of the ball. Communication has to happen quicker, reads quicker, everything quicker. If your offense has been operating that way all season you should have the advantage.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Want to know more about the fast tempo philosophy, here's a good article that explains Malzahn's offense (he also calls his NASCAR...lol. So do I)
http://www.americanfootballcoaching.com/gus-malzahn-tulsa-hurry-up-no-huddle-offense/

Like i said yesterday, he's a Tony Franklin disciple, as is Chip Kelly. Everyone took his core spread principles and tweaked them to make it their own

When i talk about modern day spread offense. This is what i'm talking about.