Salguero - Flipside To Uptempo Offense

No its not. (points scored) = (expected points per play) X (plays run). As plays run decreases, so will points scored. The less points scored, the closer the game will be.

 

Actually you would want to slow down the tempo against a team that tends to be fast paced, not a team that tends to run with a slow pace.

Have you honestly never heard of this? You've never been watching a game and heard the commentators speak ad nauseum about how when you're facing Tom Brady, Peyton Manning or Drew Brees the best defense is to engage long drives, "shorten the game," and keep the opposing offense off the field? You've not heard this? Or you think it's just nonsensical hooey?

 

That makes no sense. What if the team you're playing is scoring at will? A close game has nothing to do with total amount points scored. It has to do with points in relation to each other. 28-29 is closer than 14-0.

 

Of course I have. Again, isn't it better to be a fast paced team having to slow down, then being a slow paced team having to speed up? Same reason a batter practice swings with extra weight on his bat.

The point is being able to adapt. Philbin has said it from day one. You, Stringer & Mando are screwing up because you think if a team is up tempo they are always up tempo and you're arguing like people are saying the offense is going to be all passing.

 

Right, but we are discussing whether a no-huddle offense is prudent when you are less efficient offensively than your opponent. The formula I used there is only applying to one team.

So you can make the formula:

(scoring differential) = (expected points per play diff.) X (plays run)

Thats going to show the relation between both teams.

 

Hey the better team is usually going to win no matter what kind of fancy machinations you come up with. My point is that on a day when Miami was gaining 4.8 yards per play and the Indianapolis Colts were gaining an UNHEARD OF 10.2 yards per play...we should have been absolutely blown the hell out of the water by a ridiculous number of points. Instead, we lost by 4 points and nearly won.

 

It makes sense to me.

 

One, I never said anything about up tempo meaning it would be all passing. Two, I already said that there are benefits to PRACTICING up tempo. Three, what I specifically argued against was being an up tempo offense all or most of the time, indiscriminately.

A little more careful reading of what I've posted would benefit you in this argument.

 

not necessarily. They'll have the same number of possessions but not the same number of plays. We could have a fast paced 10 play drive and then force a 3 and out. Not much time might come off the clock for those 10 plays, but the pace should take a physical toll to where the following drive or 4th quarter drives leaves you with a greater chance of popping big plays against a gassed defense. It's like a boxing match---- you physically wear your opponent down to where he's dropping his gloves in the later rounds. That's what I like about the up-tempo offense.

I'm not disagreeing with you about this quality example, but the Broncos defense allowed the offense to operate that way, no?
I agree, if you don't have the personnel, coaching, and physical conditioning to run an up-tempo offense, you shouldn't be running one, but I also don't think you need a Brady or Brees to execute one successfully either.

 

Well, there are a lot more circumstances to it. I certainly wouldn't want my coach assuming his team is better when it really isn't. I think self-evaluation is one of the most important things a coach needs to do. To be fair to Tony, his record was pretty decent when we had QBs other than Chad Henne starting. I think his strategies at times may not have been optimal, but at the same time he was working at a disadvantage most of the time at the QB position.

This season Joe Philbin very likely can have a QB that is better than the opposing QB, which will work in his favor.

 

Lol. And I said,

So maybe we both can do a better job reading?

Simple fact of the matter is Mando's article is about being an up tempo offense and why that is bad and you agreed with him for the most part. And you guys tried to prove your point by showing examples of teams not adapting. I'm saying there is nothing bad about being an up tempo offense., but I think there's a problem with not adapting.

 

Right. I'm not saying you will have X% more plays than your opponent. I'm saying if you run a faster paced offense the opponent will have more plays than they would have had if you are running a slower paced offense.

And as I pointed out before, the fatigue factor certainly is there, but will manifest itself in the efficiency of the offense.

You don't need a Brady, or Brees, or a QB of any subjective ability. All you need is an offense that will play more efficient than your opponents'.

In regards to the Broncos, I think their offense had just as much of an impact on the defense. Keeping the clock running by running the ball, limiting turnovers, etc. all will limit the points your defense gives up.

 

that's all I'm gettin' at b/c I'm not trying to say it would benefit every team to implement it.

But I think there are a lot of teams who aren't able to take advantage of this and run more plays b/c they don't have the appropriate personnel (outside of QB), aren't conditioned well enough, dont have the coaches with the knowledge or ability to teach & implement it (since there's a lot more to it than simply increasing snaps), or simply don't have that appropriate moment to implement it.

 

Your "bottom line" and reality are distant, distant cousins.

 

sorry, I meant to say I'm "not" disagreeing with you. I left out the not. lol.

 

Sure it is.

Armando:

Here he is using a game where we didn't adapt as proof up tempo doesn't work. Which is what I said he did.

Here's you:

I also said you agreed with him.

So how am I so far from reality again? I'm not.

 

so what you're saying is he would or wouldn't mary them?

 

I'm not sure why you are extrapolating it like that. He's essentially saying that uptempo doesn't work when your offense isn't as good as your opponents'.

 

Armando is railing against up tempo offenses in general not in certain circumstances. CK agreed. Unless there's some code I'm not privy too, I don't see where I'm misunderstanding the stances.

 

I think we're all trying to get a little too much into semantics here, myself included.

IMO the bottom line is: with the right personnel, coaching, conditioning, and environmental factors, is an up tempo offense the right direction for us?

Personally, I believe it is.... but that's just my opinion.

 

but he ignored certain factors that allowed him to skew his argument. I think that's what FinD was alluding to.

 

No, thats not what Armando is doing.

That doesn't sound like railing against up-tempo offense.

If anything, he's railing against the possibility that we will have an offense that is conducive to running an up-tempo offense (more efficient than our opponents).

 

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

 

I'm saying there is nothing inherently wrong with practicing and trying to be an up tempo offense. Like with every other thing in football if its not working for a given game then adapt.

During this I've had people tell me its not really a good idea because only 3 or 4 teams can do it and close games are only possible through slow tempo attacks.

 

You're not contradicting what I wrote in my initial response to Armando's article.

At all.

So yes, phinsational is exactly correct when he deems this argument to have devolved into 'semantics'

 

And yet:

Which is certainly saying that it just shouldn't be used by us ever, until we have an all time great QB. That is Armando saying we shouldn't even be trying an up tempo offense, which is him coming out against it overall for us.

Armando is basically saying up tempo offenses are bad as a rule of thumb.

EDIT: And if I'm wrong, and that isn't what Armando is saying, and he's really saying, that you shouldn't always use an up tempo attack because the other team may be better ....then why did we need a whole article and thread to be told don't use something if it doesn't work?

 

You better be able to get 1st downs or it doesn't matter what pace you like.

 

I completely agree with FinasciousD.
There's basically no downside to operating a high tempo offense during practice.
It's not like there's a law that states you have to go high tempo in games if you go high tempo in practice.

On the flip side, the benefits of it are immense:
1. Better physically conditioned offense AND defense.
2. Increased reps for offense AND defense.
3. Offense AND Defense better prepared for 2 minute drills.
4. Offense better prepared for overcoming a defecit.
5. Defense better prepared for preserving a lead [vs an offense in high-tempo, catch-up mode].
6. Offense will immediately be ready to operate at high-tempo pace as soon as the personnel is capable of being efficient.
Until then, we can practice fast, and slow it down if needed during game time.

 

If you read up to my initial response to Armando's article, I think point for point I pretty much said the same thing as you. I think this whole argument is semantics, presenting arguments in ways as to make it seem like there's disagreement when really there isn't much if any.

I have stated from the very start that I think there is almost no down side to practicing at this high tempo. The only down side I can think of to practicing this pace is teaching and interaction during the practices kind of goes to a minimum, but as I've said you can manage that through how you utilize the walk throughs and classroom segments.

 

Didn't much, and often unjustly, maligned Omar make this same point about 2 weeks ago?