Scoring

[nzm136]

Generally agree. But it’s not just time that matters. *How* you score matters. A short drive provides pressure in that the threat of scoring every time you have the ball is more possible. It’s harder to sustain drives and DCs would rather have lots of chances to stop an offense.

The best offenses are effecient (can move the chains effectively) and explosive (big plays). If you can do those things at tempo, it creates even more pressure on opponents.

I disagree. Relentlessly pounding the ball down the middle in a “you know exactly what we’re going to do, but you failed to stop it the last 15 straight times” kind of way puts just as much (or more) pressure on another team as an explosive offense.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer an offense that can score quickly AND grind it out (Incase we get into a clock management issue), but I’d still strongly prefer an offense that gets 7 every drive, irrespective of how they do it.

 

[721Comstock]

I disagree. Relentlessly pounding the ball down the middle in a “you know exactly what we’re going to do, but you failed to stop it the last 15 straight times” kind of way puts just as much (or more) pressure on another team as an explosive offense.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer an offense that can score quickly AND grind it out (Incase we get into a clock management issue), but I’d still strongly prefer an offense that gets 7 every drive, irrespective of how they do it.

Don’t get me wrong, but I’d still strongly prefer hooking up with a supermodel every time I go out.

Our expectations are pretty similar.
And just as realistic.

 

[CuseOnly]

I disagree. Relentlessly pounding the ball down the middle in a “you know exactly what we’re going to do, but you failed to stop it the last 15 straight times” kind of way puts just as much (or more) pressure on another team as an explosive offense.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer an offense that can score quickly AND grind it out (Incase we get into a clock management issue), but I’d still strongly prefer an offense that gets 7 every drive, irrespective of how they do it.

Grinding it out on 25 play drives gives many more chances for the D to stop them. Ten play drives over the course of a minute or 2 are demoralizing.

That puts pressure on a coaching staff, defense and offense of the opponent to keep up. IT also gets in their heads.

 

[nzm136]

Grinding it out on 25 play drives gives many more chances for the D to stop them. Ten play drives over the course of a minute or 2 are demoralizing.

That puts pressure on a coaching staff, defense and offense of the opponent to keep up. IT also gets in their heads.

No. Your theory rests on efficiency being a variable. It isn’t. Everyone agrees that efficiency is important. The question is whether it makes sense to sacrifice efficiency for explosiveness.

And again, there isn’t any more pressure than a slow, but inevitable offense. In fact, there is less pressure, as there is more time to respond. That’s just math.

As for the demoralization component, to each their own, but I have a hard time seeing a quick score as more demoralizing than a team scoring after walking down the field by running the same play 15x in a row. Both scenarios create the same thought of “$&?!, we can’t stop them.”

 

[nzm136]

Don’t get me wrong, but I’d still strongly prefer hooking up with a supermodel every time I go out.

Our expectations are pretty similar.
And just as realistic.

That’s kind of my point. Worrying about style is pointless unless your name rhymes with “Alabama.” Efficiency and consistency are what matter.

 

[nzm136]

The job of the offense isn’t to score. It’s to score when it has the ball. Those sentences look extremely similar, but they are very different.

Secondary to scoring when they have the ball, the offense’s jobs are to have time-consuming drives (to give the D a rest, to keep the other offense out of rhythm, and to grind down the other team’s defense), and to consistently gain yards (to give the defense room to work with, and to position the offense to score in future possessions).

 

[CuseOnly]

The job of the offense isn’t to score. It’s to score when it has the ball. Those sentences look extremely similar, but they are very different.

Secondary to scoring when they have the ball, the offense’s jobs are to have time-consuming drives (to give the D a rest, to keep the other offense out of rhythm, and to grind down the other team’s defense), and to consistently gain yards (to give the defense room to work with, and to position the offense to score in future possessions).

That entire last paragraph is meathead football to a T.

We should hire Shafer back for you or maybe you would prefer The Dazzler?

Scoring quickly does put pressure on the other team in the same way that an up temp offense puts pressure on a defense.
HUNH pressures a defense to stop you without rest and substitution, and defeats the defense a series at a time.

Meathead football relies on slow "3 yards and a cloud of dust" methodical dries to wear a defense out as the game goes on.

I personally like to see opposing defenses break down every possession so we score on each, not an accumulation of boring drives and maybe by the end of the game they break down.

 

[qdawgg]

That entire last paragraph is meathead football to a T.

We should hire Shafer back for you or maybe you would prefer The Dazzler?

Meathead football is losing games you could have won. Or losing games by 20-30 points and saying, at least we didn’t play meathead football.

 

[CuseOnly]

That entire last paragraph is meathead football to a T.

We should hire Shafer back for you or maybe you would prefer The Dazzler?

Meathead football is losing games you could have won. Or losing games by 20-30 points and saying, at least we didn’t play meathead football.

No, it isn't.

Meathead football is a style of play and a mentality. Line up and beat my man meathead style, run the ball, pound the rock.

Read my edited post.

 

[qdawgg]

No, it isn't.

Meathead football is a style of play and a mentality. Line up and beat my man meathead style, run the ball, pound the rock.

Read my edited post.

I was replying to what I originally read.

 

[721Comstock]

That entire last paragraph is meathead football to a T.

We should hire Shafer back for you or maybe you would prefer The Dazzler?

Scoring quickly does put pressure on the other team in the same way that an up temp offense puts pressure on a defense.
HUNH pressures a defense to stop you without rest and substitution, and defeats the defense a series at a time.

Meathead football relies on slow "3 yards and a cloud of dust" methodical dries to wear a defense out as the game goes on.

I personally like to see opposing defenses break down every possession so we score on each, not an accumulation of boring drives and maybe by the end of the game they break down.

HUNH can have the same effect of a grind-it-out O - over the full course of the game.

Go back and watch our VaTech upset win - our O had tired their D out, and we were controlling the end of the game.
To a lesser extent, it also "worked" with the Clemson win last year.
And I'd say also w/ the FSU win this year.

But as was said, the real key is - D can't substitute situationally, or at all really.
Keeps them on their heels, as long as the O keeps moving the chains.

So - ideally - you'd get both;
tiring the D out on each drive, and cumulatively over the course of the whole game, especially as the # of plays goes up and up beyond what they're used to facing in most games.

 

[dollarbill44]

I go by the eye test... and seeing the last 5-6 quaters of play, our run def has been awful. No sugar coating it. Babers n co. needed this bye week to shore up this problem, for starters.

Your OP is asserting that our scoring is so good, that we will win more... and now, you say that our offense, which scored 30+ on pitt, cost us the game, more than the D. So... which is it?

The vaunted "eye test."

 

[nzm136]

That entire last paragraph is meathead football to a T.

We should hire Shafer back for you or maybe you would prefer The Dazzler?

Scoring quickly does put pressure on the other team in the same way that an up temp offense puts pressure on a defense.
HUNH pressures a defense to stop you without rest and substitution, and defeats the defense a series at a time.

Meathead football relies on slow "3 yards and a cloud of dust" methodical dries to wear a defense out as the game goes on.

I personally like to see opposing defenses break down every possession so we score on each, not an accumulation of boring drives and maybe by the end of the game they break down.

Your post summarized stupid football to a T. Like most people who use the term “meathead,” you profoundly misunderstand the game, and/or you aren’t making winning the game your top priority.

Your analysis consists of constant cherry picking and goal post moving that culminates in your last sentence, where you again confuse pace with efficiency.

I honestly can’t tell if you’ve consumed enough Kool Aid to inhibit rational thought, or if you would rather lose than be bored. But, to be clear, my #1 priority is winning. I’d rather win 2-0 than lose 75-77.

 

[nzm136]

HUNH can have the same effect of a grind-it-out O - over the full course of the game.

Go back and watch our VaTech upset win - our O had tired their D out, and we were controlling the end of the game.
To a lesser extent, it also "worked" with the Clemson win last year.
And I'd say also w/ the FSU win this year.

But as was said, the real key is - D can't substitute situationally, or at all really.
Keeps them on their heels, as long as the O keeps moving the chains.

So - ideally - you'd get both;
tiring the D out on each drive, and cumulatively over the course of the whole game, especially as the # of plays goes up and up beyond what they're used to facing in most games.

None of the above matters unless you move the ball, hold on to the ball, and, most importantly, score when the offense has the ball.

Everything that you’re describing is one of many different styles to do those 3 things. There is no one, singular way to accomplish those goals, and style points do not win games.

Since stylepoints don’t win games, saying that option A is better than option B is dumb, unless it moves the needle in either magnitude (expected points/yards/time per drive) or consistency (standard deviation) of the above. Given that this entire back and forth started by a poster writing that he though ‘explosiveness’ was important in an of itself (separate from efficiency), the 3 buckets of things that matter aren’t being impacted.

 

[CuseOnly]

Your post summarized stupid football to a T. Like most people who use the term “meathead,” you profoundly misunderstand the game, and/or you aren’t making winning the game your top priority.

Your analysis consists of constant cherry picking and goal post moving that culminates in your last sentence, where you again confuse pace with efficiency.

I honestly can’t tell if you’ve consumed enough Kool Aid to inhibit rational thought, or if you would rather lose than be bored. But, to be clear, my #1 priority is winning. I’d rather win 2-0 than lose 75-77.

In what post did I confuse pace with efficiency exactly?

I specifically mention pace because it stresses a defense more than a plodding offense.

I am making the assumption that efficiency is the rule for both styles of offense. AND with that assumption, the faster no huddle, no substitution stresses the defense on every series moreso than the slow plodding meathead offense.

You are inserting efficiency as some kind of differentiator, when it is not. The goal of every offense is to be efficient. That is a constant if you want to be successful on offense.

The only one confused is you.

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[orangmannc1]

Shows how close SU is being 6-0. The Clemson game was heart breaking.
Frustrating how close.

 

[SmilinBob]

What is actually a good thing is that SU is 2 plays from being 6-0 and the 4 wins were under control and there was no doubt who won those games. That's a big step forward and to now win those close ones to take another step forward.

 

[PhatOrange]

Clemson dominated us and if not for their turnovers win the game going away. And even so it was a great effort to be a 4th down stop away from winning the game.

 

[TheCusian]

None of the above matters unless you move the ball, hold on to the ball, and, most importantly, score when the offense has the ball.

Everything that you’re describing is one of many different styles to do those 3 things. There is no one, singular way to accomplish those goals, and style points do not win games.

Since stylepoints don’t win games, saying that option A is better than option B is dumb, unless it moves the needle in either magnitude (expected points/yards/time per drive) or consistency (standard deviation) of the above. Given that this entire back and forth started by a poster writing that he though ‘explosiveness’ was important in an of itself (separate from efficiency), the 3 buckets of things that matter aren’t being impacted.

You’re unable to see your own bias.

1.Tempo provides more possessions for both teams. This is good for the offense that is more effecient AND/OR more explosive. So, if you think you can on average be the more effecient or explosive offense you should go fast.

2. If you play ball control and hold the ball to limit possessions, you still benefit from effecient offense - but you’re more at risk to random turnovers (weird crap) and a team that can score quickly.

3. The idea that more possessions inherently hurts a defense is false. More plays and possessions tires out everyone. The advantage goes to the team who trains for it.

4. Explosiveness is an important metric. There are teams that can’t string drives together consistently but have big play potential. There are defenses that are good at stopping drives but bad at stopping the big play (us, until Pitt). Data and eyeballs back this up.

 

[upperdeck]

clemson dominated us so much that if we had held them on the 4th down play they would have had thier season low in yds and they had thier season low in pts.

 

[TheCusian]

Hmm. 2 out of 5 are upcoming games...

 

[PhatOrange]

clemson dominated us so much that if we had held them on the 4th down play they would have had thier season low in yds and they had thier season low in pts.

well part of that is because of their lost possessions due to the turnovers.

 

[Faegan]

 

[nzm136]

In what post did I confuse pace with efficiency exactly?

I specifically mention pace because it stresses a defense more than a plodding offense.

I am making the assumption that efficiency is the rule for both styles of offense. AND with that assumption, the faster no huddle, no substitution stresses the defense on every series moreso than the slow plodding meathead offense.

You are inserting efficiency as some kind of differentiator, when it is not. The goal of every offense is to be efficient. That is a constant if you want to be successful on offense.

The only one confused is you.

You confused it in your last sentence.

“I personally like to see opposing defenses break down every possession so we score on each, not an accumulation of boring drives and maybe by the end of the game they break down.”

You are assuming that fast paced offenses are inherently more efficient than traditional offenses because they’re faster. That is, by definition, confusing pace and efficiency.

And no, successful faster offenses don’t stress opposing defenses more than successful traditional defenses, and mathematically speaking, tempo offenses are (marginally) easier for opposing offenses to match.