Can We Ever See A Fast Tempo Hurry Up Quick Snap Offense Before the Defense......

[yjnkdawg]

can get set in a JoeMo offense. The answer is that appears we won't. In the beginning I thought this check with me offense was unique, and the greatest thing in the offensive college football world, and would help us get our offense to the next level. It still could, but the jury is still out on if it will work in the SEC. It seems to work some, but it seems more times than not it just gives the Defense more time to adjust and gives more opportunities for us to have a false start, or a rushed play with the play clock almost on zero before the ball is snapped, or in some cases reaching zero. Aranda ate our lunch last year, and his defensive schemes dictated what our offense would do. His objective was to keep the ball out of our running backs' hands, and make Fitz win the game. Let's see how it works this year? Hopefully, better for us. I just don't think letting that play clock run down to 5 seconds or less, unless you are trying to run time off the clock, before you snap the ball does anything to confuse the defense. It looks to me like there are too many check with me's before the ball is snapped, and actually gives the defenses time to adjust better, but maybe it doesn't. I hate to say I like anything relevant to the Auburn football program, but right now I think I like Malzahn's offensive schemes and play calling better. This is pretty far fetched but heck, I may even like Rick Rod's offensive schemes better before it is all over, but right now that was just a "quick thought", and after further deliberation, I'm definitely not ready to cross that bridge. However, to sum it up I wish JoeMo would vary his offensive playing calling to confuse the defense more (quick hurry up to the line and snap the ball quick, or hurry up to the line, but don't do a quick snap, but don't let the clock run down below 10 seconds before you (JoeMo) decide what play you want to run).

[msstate7]

Wish next week we'd enter the game with 15 scripted plays that we're running no matter what as fast as we can possibly run them. We'd probably surprise tenn, and get an early td to set the tone

[Tbonewannabe]

One thing in the Saints-Cowboys game, Dak was changing the play and with only a few seconds left the Saints backed out of their blitz. It was so loud that Dak was having problems changing the play and caused him to have no time to adjust. It is like we put ourselves at a disadvantage most of the time. I will say that we are at least snapping the ball with around 10 seconds left most of the time as opposed to 2-3 seconds last year on every damn play.

[yjnkdawg]

Wish next week we'd enter the game with 15 scripted plays that we're running no matter what as fast as we can possibly run them. We'd probably surprise tenn, and get an early td to set the tone


I think with the check with me concept that the really good SEC DC's can out scheme it even with an experienced quarterback who knows how to run JoeMo's offensive scheme. I hope I'm wrong there. And I agree with what you said.

[dantheman4248]

The problem with the offense is we let the defense dictate what we do period. And then when we adjust they shift. Then we are set up with a play that is for sure not the best play and have to rely on our talent to beat them.

This offense shouldn’t be about shifting formation alignment, but rather routes at the line. That’s where we are screwing ourselves. This is where I thought Tommy being in the offense would be good. Reading at the line and adjusting the WR routes to beat the play. Not moving the whole damn formation and having too little time to re-read the now shifted defense.

I agree with 7 that I would like to see scripted plays to start. I also would like that to be the “check with me” going forward. No more formation shifts.

[Tbonewannabe]

Another thing, that play down to the 6 inch line. You go fast and either run a QB sneak (not happening with Joe so whatever) or you spread out wide and run up the gut. That was one thing I liked about Mullen was you could essentially go 5 wide on the goal line and now the QB just has to pick which Oline is winning their 1 on 1 battle and run behind him. You do that with hurry up so you have the Dline who just ran down 40 yards and is gassed. Either force the D to call timeout or at worse you run into the back of your Oline for no gain.

That shit isn't rocket surgery but it seems like Joe wants to make everything into a chess match. Sometimes you just let your big guys hit their big guys and see who wins.

[yjnkdawg]

Another thing, that play down to the 6 inch line. You go fast and either run a QB sneak (not happening with Joe so whatever) or you spread out wide and run up the gut. That was one thing I liked about Mullen was you could essentially go 5 wide on the goal line and now the QB just has to pick which Oline is winning their 1 on 1 battle and run behind him. You do that with hurry up so you have the Dline who just ran down 40 yards and is gassed. Either force the D to call timeout or at worse you run into the back of your Oline for no gain.

That shit isn't rocket surgery but it seems like Joe wants to make everything into a chess match. Sometimes you just let your big guys hit their big guys and see who wins.



I agree. If you are on the 6" line, the only check with me should be should I (the quarterback) keep the ball or hand it off to the running back. Pretty simple, and to try to make that into more sophisticated play calling can turn into a cluster fest, and no touchdown. Which it did.

[vindastra]

...It seems to work some, but it seems more times than not it just gives the Defense more time to adjust and gives more opportunities for us to have a false start, or a rushed play with the play clock almost on zero before the ball is snapped, or in some cases reaching zero. Aranda ate our lunch last year, and his defensive schemes dictated what our offense would do. ..


Noob question.

Why does running the clock have a higher propensity for false start? Shouldn't running the clock actually increase offsides from the defense?

[Tbonewannabe]

I agree. If you are on the 6" line, the only check with me should be should I (the quarterback) keep the ball or hand it off to the running back. Pretty simple, and to try to make that into more sophisticated play calling can turn into a cluster fest, and no touchdown. Which it did.

That is actually the beauty of Mullen's short yardage is you don't have to substitute so you don't give the defense the opportunity. You don't need 2 TEs and a fullback. You just spread the field so either the defense leaves a man uncovered or you have one on one coverage for all of your WRs while only having 6 in the box. You don't lose yardage unless your Oline just gets blown up. I think Joe out thinks himself when sometimes simple is the answer.

[Cooterpoot]

Not with Jo coaching. It’s less plays, for bigger plays & it’s stupid.

[Tbonewannabe]

Noob question.

Why does running the clock have a higher propensity for false start? Shouldn't running the clock actually increase offsides from the defense?

If you run the clock down then the defense knows you have to snap the ball when it gets down to a few seconds or take a delay of game. It kind of takes the guesswork out of it.

[yjnkdawg]

Noob question.

Why does running the clock have a higher propensity for false start? Shouldn't running the clock actually increase offsides from the defense?


I think because the offensive linemen have to stay in their stance longer while they are also having to decipher the check with me changes. Don't see it increasing any defensive line of scrimmage penalties. If you were trying to draw them off sides, then your quarterback would do a hard count.

[Maverick]

I wish you people would shut up with the "it allows the defense to dictate what we do" crap. What does any offense do? They try to take advantage of where the defense isn't. It's the name of the game. What happens in a read option? Oh, that's right.... the defense dictates who gets the ball! Come on people.... Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't feel like there is much check with me when Tommy is in so maybe it's just a matter of knowing the offense better....

[TUSK]

I can’t speak for all teams, but the check with me approach is the absolute worst option vs Bammer, imo.

Snap it as fast as you can, chunk it, & hope ya hit it.

[lastmajordog]

worked for om for a couple years...

[KOdawg1]

I think everyone realizes this except for Joe, who unfortunately is the only one that matters.

When you look at something systematically, you have to have more postives than negatives for it to be successful. And the negatives of this offensive scheme out-weigh the positves by far.

-The defense dictates what you do
-The defense has a chance to catch their breath while your OL is squatted down for 30 seconds at a time
-Hard to get in a rhythm
-Miscommunication from the sideline

Positves? I struggle to find any

[yjnkdawg]

I wish you people would shut up with the "it allows the defense to dictate what we do" crap. What does any offense do? They try to take advantage of where the defense isn't. It's the name of the game. What happens in a read option? Oh, that's right.... the defense dictates who gets the ball! Come on people.... Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't feel like there is much check with me when Tommy is in so maybe it's just a matter of knowing the offense better....



Maybe last year Aranda didn't dictate what our offense would do. However, what he did do was to bait Fitz into making the reads and calls for him to keep the ball most of the time. Aranda looked at our passing attack as basically non-existent. His philosophy going in to the game was if MSU scores it will have to be the quarterback doing it with his legs, because we are not going to let their running backs beat us, and we don't fear their passing attack. So maybe it wasn't dictating what the offense did, but it sure seems similar. And that's a fact on what Aranda's plan against us was.

Yeah, I noticed that Tommy was making some of his own reads too. We still don't know how this offense is supposed to function when all the pieces are there. Garrett is still learning on the go, and he should be a great quarterback at MSU.

[yjnkdawg]

I can’t speak for all teams, but the check with me approach is the absolute worst option vs Bammer, imo.

Snap it as fast as you can, chunk it, & hope ya hit it.


I agree TUSK, and if OM hadn't run that Freeze offense, didn't have those NFL type receivers, and throw in some good breaks for OM and bad ones for Bama, then OM wouldn't haven't won in 2014 and 2015, or lost the 2016 game in a close shootout, 48-43.

[NCDawg]

I think everyone realizes this except for Joe, who unfortunately is the only one that matters.

When you look at something systematically, you have to have more postives than negatives for it to be successful. And the negatives of this offensive scheme out-weigh the positves by far.

-The defense dictates what you do
-The defense has a chance to catch their breath while your OL is squatted down for 30 seconds at a time
-Hard to get in a rhythm
-Miscommunication from the sideline

Positves? I struggle to find any


I struggle to find any, also; however, I don't think Moorhead will change anything. He strikes me as a guy that thinks his system is the correct way and nothing will change..

[chef dixon]

He has been preaching explosive plays for 2 years now and to that I LOL

[Cooterpoot]

For Moorhead to be a guru, he’s the only guy in football that wants fewer plays as an offensive guy. Chunk plays vs elite teams are damn near nonexistent. Yet, that’s the plan. We play four corners while the rest of the football world is running and gunning. For the life of me, I don’t understand how Cohen couldn’t understand that.

[trojandawg]

He wants the explosive play and thinks sustained drives are not as reliable but I disagree it's high risk and you have more of a likelihood of going three and out.
We try to spread the field vertically and rely heavily on all positions every play.

I preferred Mullen's system of spreading the field horizontally to create running lanes and getting athletes the ball in space.

Ours we jumble up the package and end up with 11 guys in the box and try to run right in to it and Moorhead claims they stopped the run. Instead of trying multiple things to open it up with misdirections, sweeps, screens, actual option plays, he just abandons it or tries to run rpo to a receiver who isn't open or by the time he checks the play three times he has confused everyone including himself. His play calling also has 0 rhythm. Good play calling is almost like a good song. It just flows down the field. Ours looks like someone driving a stick who has no idea how to drive one or someone playing a guitar who has no clue how to play But just knows sortof how to play a few chords. Just doesn't look or sound right. The offense just doesn't flow and he over complicates it. Which is bad considering it looks incredibly easy to beat and defend.

[TUSK]

worked for om for a couple years...

No

[dawgday166]

Not with Jo coaching. It?s less plays, for bigger plays & it?s stupid.

Have I missed something?

We getting bigger plays with this offense too. I didn't realize that was supposed to be part of this offensive package ***

I was kinda thinking this was the slow-down, delay the game (or delay of the game) offense ****

[NCDawg]

He wants the explosive play and thinks sustained drives are not as reliable but I disagree it?s high rusk and you have more of a likelihood of going three and out.
We try to spread the field vertically and rely heavily on all positions every play.

I preferred Mullen?s system of spreading the field horizontally to crest running lanes and getting athletes the ball in space.

Ours we jumble up the package and end up with 11 guys in the box and try to run right in to snd Moorhead claims they stopped the run. Instead of trying multiple things to open it up with misdirections, sweeps, screens, actual option plays he just abandons it or tries to run rpo to a receiver who isn?t open or by the time he checks the play three times he has confused everyone including himself. His play calling also has 0 rhythm. Good play calling is almost like a good song. It just flows down the field. Ours looks like someone driving a stick who has no idea how hot drive one or someone playing a guitar who has no clue how to play a so. But just knows sort of how to play a few chords. Just doesn?t look or sound right. The offense just doesn?t flow and he over complicated it. Which is bad considering it looks incredibly easy to beat and defend.

Good post.

[pilldawg]

When you have little depth on defense. With our defense the best football strategy is to try and control the clock and shorten the game. With last year?s defense, I totally agree with uptempo offense.

[trojandawg]

When you have little depth on defense. With our defense the best football strategy is to try and control the clock and shorten the game. With last year?s defense, I totally agree with uptempo offense.

Not scoring is bad for the defense: having no rhythm and going three and out is bad for the defense. Turning the ball over is bad for defense.

[Cooterpoot]

When you have little depth on defense. With our defense the best football strategy is to try and control the clock and shorten the game. With last year?s defense, I totally agree with uptempo offense.

We had defense last year. Same bullshit.

[Maverick]

Maybe last year Aranda didn't dictate what our offense would do. However, what he did do was to bait Fitz into making the reads and calls for him to keep the ball most of the time. Aranda looked at our passing attack as basically non-existent. His philosophy going in to the game was if MSU scores it will have to be the quarterback doing it with his legs, because we are not going to let their running backs beat us, and we don't fear their passing attack. So maybe it wasn't dictating what the offense did, but it sure seems similar. And that's a fact on what Aranda's plan against us was.

Yeah, I noticed that Tommy was making some of his own reads too. We still don't know how this offense is supposed to function when all the pieces are there. Garrett is still learning on the go, and he should be a great quarterback at MSU.

Same thing could have happened in Mullen's offense....

[TrapGame]

He wants the explosive play and thinks sustained drives are not as reliable but I disagree it?s high rusk and you have more of a likelihood of going three and out.
We try to spread the field vertically and rely heavily on all positions every play.

I preferred Mullen?s system of spreading the field horizontally to crest running lanes and getting athletes the ball in space.

Ours we jumble up the package and end up with 11 guys in the box and try to run right in to snd Moorhead claims they stopped the run. Instead of trying multiple things to open it up with misdirections, sweeps, screens, actual option plays he just abandons it or tries to run rpo to a receiver who isn?t open or by the time he checks the play three times he has confused everyone including himself. His play calling also has 0 rhythm. Good play calling is almost like a good song. It just flows down the field. Ours looks like someone driving a stick who has no idea how hot drive one or someone playing a guitar who has no clue how to play a so. But just knows sort of how to play a few chords. Just doesn?t look or sound right. The offense just doesn?t flow and he over complicated it. Which is bad considering it looks incredibly easy to beat and defend.

A lot to agree with here. Good post.

[Kingbarkus]

I agree. If you are on the 6" line, the only check with me should be should I (the quarterback) keep the ball or hand it off to the running back. Pretty simple, and to try to make that into more sophisticated play calling can turn into a cluster fest, and no touchdown. Which it did.

It is ridiculous to do what we did on the 6 inch line. We do the opposite of what needs to be done. If you watch the Saints, whenever there is a big play down near the goal, they hurry up to prevent defensive substitutions and Brees either sneaks or runs a quick play. Even in our offense we should be able to line up in shotgun, and use either the QB (6'4" guy) or Hill to power in. Your momentum (QB and RB) should be flowing toward the goal line.

[Tbonewannabe]

He wants the explosive play and thinks sustained drives are not as reliable but I disagree it's high risk and you have more of a likelihood of going three and out.
We try to spread the field vertically and rely heavily on all positions every play.

I preferred Mullen's system of spreading the field horizontally to create running lanes and getting athletes the ball in space.

Ours we jumble up the package and end up with 11 guys in the box and try to run right in to it and Moorhead claims they stopped the run. Instead of trying multiple things to open it up with misdirections, sweeps, screens, actual option plays, he just abandons it or tries to run rpo to a receiver who isn't open or by the time he checks the play three times he has confused everyone including himself. His play calling also has 0 rhythm. Good play calling is almost like a good song. It just flows down the field. Ours looks like someone driving a stick who has no idea how to drive one or someone playing a guitar who has no clue how to play But just knows sortof how to play a few chords. Just doesn't look or sound right. The offense just doesn't flow and he over complicates it. Which is bad considering it looks incredibly easy to beat and defend.

The only thing is that the teams that have competed with Bama did so by vertical passing. Most teams just aren't going to beat Bama with 10-14 play drives. You aren't going to be successful enough times in a long drive to get TDs against Bama. You occasionally hit on a game like 2017 but even then Bama's LB corp was dealing with a lot of injuries. It is high risk high reward. Dak in 2014 is the only time we competed with a normal Bama team and even then we were down 12 with less than 2 minutes in the game.

I am not saying Joe's offfense or more importantly how Joe runs the offense is what we need. I do think explosive plays are how you compete when you don't have a talent advantage. Oddly enough, Mullen seems to be throwing the ball more vertically now which is more similar to his Dak offense. Mullen does play to his players strengths most of the time (Holloway offense excluded).

[fishwater99]

We had defense last year. Same bullshit.

^^^This

[Lord McBuckethead]

SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE 1" LINE, ANYWAY.

[trojandawg]

The only thing is that the teams that have competed with Bama did so by vertical passing. Most teams just aren't going to beat Bama with 10-14 play drives. You aren't going to be successful enough times in a long drive to get TDs against Bama. You occasionally hit on a game like 2017 but even then Bama's LB corp was dealing with a lot of injuries. It is high risk high reward. Dak in 2014 is the only time we competed with a normal Bama team and even then we were down 12 with less than 2 minutes in the game.

I am not saying Joe's offfense or more importantly how Joe runs the offense is what we need. I do think explosive plays are how you compete when you don't have a talent advantage. Oddly enough, Mullen seems to be throwing the ball more vertically now which is more similar to his Dak offense. Mullen does play to his players strengths most of the time (Holloway offense excluded).

so you are saying it's better to be lucky than good if you want to beat bama? what about the rest of the games? you seem to be basing our future offense on ole miss 2014, 2015 (cheating got ridiculous talent at receiver for 50/50 balls, and some crazy lucky plays), Clemson ridiculous talent all over the field and methodical running and passing, auburn which had a good running game and some luck. That's about it that's beat bama. Ridiculously lucky ole miss and auburn teams and a team that recruits right there with Bama for extremely talented receivers.

The problem with our offense is the scheme and the play calling. not necessarily the play called but the timing of the play called. no rhythm what so ever.