Scoring

[nzm136]

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.

1. No. Again, explosiveness doesn’t matter. Efficiency is all that matters. Tempo in and of itself is just a lever. It won’t change who wins or loses, only by how much they win or lose. That’s why tempo teams have more blowouts, and it’s why they get blown out more.

2. Yes - this point is actually true. Random chance impacts slow games more, which favors the less talented team (usually us).

3. A defense that runs around the field a lot will tire before an offense that runs around a lot.

4. You’re confusing explosiveness and efficiency.

 

[TheCusian]

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.

You have proof of this?

 

[TheCusian]

1. No. Again, explosiveness doesn’t matter. Efficiency is all that matters. Tempo in and of itself is just a lever. It won’t change who wins or loses, only by how much they win or lose. That’s why tempo teams have more blowouts, and it’s why they get blown out more.

Of course explosiveness matters. I get what you’re saying in that explosiveness and efficiency are not mutually exclusive - but they are important enough to break apart from each other when you’re trying to understand *how* offenses score. I don’t know why you’d ignore it as a metric. Every great team in modern CFB history will show superior offensive efficiency, often hallmarked by large gains.

3. A defense that runs around the field a lot will tire before an offense that runs around a lot.

Not true. Data shows that both the offensive and defensive efficiency lower at about the same rate.

4. You’re confusing explosiveness and efficiency.

You should probably explain what you mean.

 

[nzm136]

You have proof of this?

I have more proof than you have going the other way (and you, or the other guy I’m arguing with made the initial claim).

There’s a reason why time of possession of a commonly followed metric.

And, it makes logical and intuitive sense. If you’re willing to believe conventional football wisdom that defenses tire faster than offenses (which you’re apparently inexplicably not), then the style of play that grinds out the other team will stress the other team’s defense more.

 

[nzm136]

This is roughly 3rd grade math.

Assuming that there aren’t a freak number of onside kicks, bad punt catches, etc., two teams will have close to the same number of possession. So, the team that scores more points on their possessions will almost always win. That mathematical fact is true, regardless of how the team scores the points (deep bomb, pass TDS vs 1 yard rumbles), or how many possessions there are.

The number of possessions will magnify (or shrink) the end score differential (depending on whether or not it’s a high number), but it will not change the outcome.

Try it out if you don’t believe me. Team A scores 6 points per possession, and Team B scores 1 point. Now change the number of possessions that the two teams have (keeping them equal), and let me know what happens.

I have no idea how anything that I’ve written can be construed as even mildly controversial.

 

[RandomGuy]

I don't think either style is right, or wrong. I think tempo teams, also need the ability to grind it out. HCDB is still trying to improve there, for that reason.

Personally, I think it's demoralizing to have an opponent possess the ball for 6 minutes. Especially if they hold you to a 3 and out, and do it again. An efficient tempo team that scores quickly, will give it's opponent more chances. If they have a decent lead, AND possess the ability to grind it out? That's about as good as it gets.

 

[nzm136]

I don't think either style is right, or wrong. I think tempo teams, also need the ability to grind it out. HCDB is still trying to improve there, for that reason.

Personally, I think it's demoralizing to have an opponent possess the ball for 6 minutes. Especially if they hold you to a 3 and out, and do it again. An efficient tempo team that scores quickly, will give it's opponent more chances. If they have a decent lead, AND possess the ability to grind it out? That's about as good as it gets.

I agree. I personally don’t have strong feelings what style of play we have, so long as we win. In an ideal world, we’d also score a lot and not let the other team score very often.

Assuming we can get to the point where we consistently win, I’d mildly prefer a tempo team because I like blowouts (when my team is winning).

I’m just not going to invent bad math to try to justify my desires.

 

[RandomGuy]

I don't care how we win, either. I think there is a good reason that most Top 25 teams run the ball, more than they pass.(efficiency, TOP).

There are also stats that show tempo doesn't have as big an impact on TOP, as the grind it out crowd(me) would like you to believe.

I think there have been too many bad "run first" teams here, that have left many with a bad taste in their mouth. Bad football, is bad football. It shouldn't be an indictment of a team that can efficiently grind it out. Can we do that, yet? Nope. That's why it's been a focus. It's a fundamental part of the game. When we can efficiently use either philosophy, as the game demands, we're going to win alot of games

 

[nzm136]

I don't care how we win, either. I think there is a good reason that most Top 25 teams run the ball, more than they pass.(efficiency, TOP).

There are also stats that show tempo doesn't have as big an impact on TOP, as the grind it out crowd(me) would like you to believe.

I think there have been too many bad "run first" teams here, that have left many with a bad taste in their mouth. Bad football, is bad football. It shouldn't be an indictment of a team that can efficiently grind it out. Can we do that, yet? Nope. That's why it's been a focus. It's a fundamental part of the game. When we can efficiently use either philosophy, as the game demands, we're going to win alot of games

Honestly, as sad as the following is, I’m just happy that we’ve chosen a philosophy, and we appear committed to it. I feel like next year will be the first year in a long time where we won’t be trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. We’ll have players recruited for the system that we play, who know it, are excited by it, and who have bodies that fit it. I think that fact alone will tangibly improve our efficiency.

As you said, a bad team is a bad team, regardless of what style they play. Conversely, a good team is a good team, and I think that we’ll be good.

 

[RandomGuy]

I'll take tempo, all day, especially against more talent. Yeah, the defense is going to be scored on.

Although, we're built to play from ahead. Secondary is good, pass rush is good. If the offense had been more efficient, the last 2 games, the run defense would not have been an issue.

I think we're good for 8 games. Should help with recruiting and adding to the young talent. Tempo(plus scoring), is exactly what this program needed, imo.

 

[tbonezone]

hey tempo is great if you're moving the chains . if not you just put a load on the defense. depth we ain't got.

 

[TheCusian]

I have more proof than you have going the other way (and you, or the other guy I’m arguing with made the initial claim).

There’s a reason why time of possession of a commonly followed metric.

And, it makes logical and intuitive sense. If you’re willing to believe conventional football wisdom that defenses tire faster than offenses (which you’re apparently inexplicably not), then the style of play that grinds out the other team will stress the other team’s defense more.

I'm not sure I see the proof.

If a team plays slow and grinds down a defense, they will play less plays throughout the game. If a team plays fast they will have forced the defense to defend more possessions, which typically means more plays per game. Our plays per game have increased since Babers has taken over.

There is no discernible benefit to either the offense or defense by playing more snaps - both get tired equally. Unless one side trains and practices to take advantage of this. Offensive efficiency late in a game where the opposing defense is gassed is more potent, if you can pull it off. (The five elements of the optimal college football offense)

From that same article:

Simply put, if a team has a meaningful per-play advantage in net efficiency, it should seek to lengthen games (within reason) in order to reduce the variance of game outcomes.

The advantage always goes to the more efficient team. But playing more snaps is better for the more efficient team - it levels out the randomness. And as I said above - if you plan, train and practice to take advantage of the opposing defenses decrease in efficiency in the 4th Q - your advantage is that much greater.

Also, playing slow to rest your defense is a myth: Defense and Rest Time | Football Outsiders

 

[TheCusian]

This is roughly 3rd grade math.

Assuming that there aren’t a freak number of onside kicks, bad punt catches, etc., two teams will have close to the same number of possession. So, the team that scores more points on their possessions will almost always win. That mathematical fact is true, regardless of how the team scores the points (deep bomb, pass TDS vs 1 yard rumbles), or how many possessions there are.

The number of possessions will magnify (or shrink) the end score differential (depending on whether or not it’s a high number), but it will not change the outcome.

Try it out if you don’t believe me. Team A scores 6 points per possession, and Team B scores 1 point. Now change the number of possessions that the two teams have (keeping them equal), and let me know what happens.

I have no idea how anything that I’ve written can be construed as even mildly controversial.

It's not. It's common sense that the advantage goes to the more efficient team.

It isn't what we've been talking about. This is about what stresses a defense. Your take has been a slow "they know it's coming and can't stop it" stresses a defense more than a quick strike (explosiveness) or a drive with tempo.

Simply saying "possessions even out so it doesn't matter how you score" is not genuine. While it's true that any scoring drive puts pressure on a defense - my argument has been going up by 2 or 3 scores, regardless of the time left in the game - puts more pressure on a defense. 3rd grade sports psychology: It's easier to play with a 2 or 3 score lead than it is to play from behind.

This doesn't even get to the benefits your own defense gets from playing with a 2 or 3 score lead.

- Would you rather be down 7 at the half or down 21 in the middle of the 2nd Q?
- Do you trust your own D to hold a 10 point lead or a 24 point lead in the 4th Q?

 

[nzm136]

I'm not sure I see the proof.

If a team plays slow and grinds down a defense, they will play less plays throughout the game. If a team plays fast they will have forced the defense to defend more possessions, which typically means more plays per game. Our plays per game have increased since Babers has taken over.

There is no discernible benefit to either the offense or defense by playing more snaps - both get tired equally. Unless one side trains and practices to take advantage of this. Offensive efficiency late in a game where the opposing defense is gassed is more potent, if you can pull it off. (The five elements of the optimal college football offense)

From that same article:


The advantage always goes to the more efficient team. But playing more snaps is better for the more efficient team - it levels out the randomness. And as I said above - if you plan, train and practice to take advantage of the opposing defenses decrease in efficiency in the 4th Q - your advantage is that much greater.

Also, playing slow to rest your defense is a myth: Defense and Rest Time | Football Outsiders

Have you actually ever played football before? Good freaking Lord, offenses and defenses don't get tired equally.

The Best Offense in College Football Is Also the Laziest

There you go. That's an article about the Art Briles offense at Baylor (and the root of the current Syracuse offense). One of they key elements of the very offense that you're blindly defending is that the defense get more tired than the offense because it has to react to the offense. So, where offensive players can take plays off, defensive players cannot. And to be clear, I picked this article because it outlines the purest form of the style of offense that you're advocating. Also, you don't even have to go behind the pay wall to understand it.

But beyond that article, there are a myriad of other articles, forums posts, etc. where the concept of defense being harder than offense is thoroughly flushed out.

And to be clear, because this is clearly being lost on you, high beta offenses (score fast or fail fast offenses), don't have drives that last as long as traditional offenses, because they either score, or they get off of the field. A steady grind absolutely does tire defenses out. That's why our defense falls apart when we 3-out a couple of times in a row against physical teams (sound familiar?), even though we're 'better conditioned' (as per your claims many times over).

But regardless, an offense that scores quickly gives the opposing offense more time, and thus options, with which to respond. Again, that's just math, and, to be clear, it's been my position (and continues to be my position), that the difference is marginal. But gun to my head, I would rather have 59:20 to answer than 52:00.

 

[nzm136]

It's not. It's common sense that the advantage goes to the more efficient team.

It isn't what we've been talking about. This is about what stresses a defense. Your take has been a slow "they know it's coming and can't stop it" stresses a defense more than a quick strike (explosiveness) or a drive with tempo.

Simply saying "possessions even out so it doesn't matter how you score" is not genuine. While it's true that any scoring drive puts pressure on a defense - my argument has been going up by 2 or 3 scores, regardless of the time left in the game - puts more pressure on a defense. 3rd grade sports psychology: It's easier to play with a 2 or 3 score lead than it is to play from behind.

This doesn't even get to the benefits your own defense gets from playing with a 2 or 3 score lead.

- Would you rather be down 7 at the half or down 21 in the middle of the 2nd Q?
- Do you trust your own D to hold a 10 point lead or a 24 point lead in the 4th Q?

"This is about what stresses a defense. Your take has been a slow 'they know it's coming and can't stop it' stresses a defense more than a quick strike (explosiveness) or a drive with tempo."

Can you not read? My comment was, is, and will continue to be that efficient offenses stress the opposing defenses more than non-efficient offenses, and that style of play doesn't really have a material impact in and of itself. Unlike you, I am not on a crusade to defend a specific style of play.

I literally wrote "Worrying about style is pointless unless your name rhymes with “Alabama.” Efficiency and consistency are what matter." - Post #30

I also wrote post #39, where I again explicitly said that style didn't matter. And I made it very clear that I didn't have any inherent issues with pace offenses in post #57 and post #59.

'Explosiveness' does not matter. It's a stupid buzz word that's usually misunderstood. Efficiency matters. Again, it Team A scores 6 points per possession in a game, and Team B scores 1 point per possession in a game, then Team A *will* win the game if they have the same number of possessions. The number of possessions does not matter. I have absolutely no idea how you can't grasp this concept. The score differential will be (6-1)*#possessions each team has, and A will always win. The number of possessions will only increase the margin of victory by 5*#. In and of itself, it's a lever and nothing more.

"3rd grade sports psychology: It's easier to play with a 2 or 3 score lead than it is to play from behind"

I'm guessing you weren't on too many sports teams in the 3rd grade. 2-3 score leads only happen if you are more consistent and efficient than the other team. Otherwise, you're on the business end of the 2-3 score differential.

But if you really want to get into it, it's a lot easier to play down 14 if you've already scored 70 points in the game vs. being down 14 and not having scored any points yet. Scores don't occur in vacuums.

 

[RandomGuy]

I'm not sure I see the proof.

If a team plays slow and grinds down a defense, they will play less plays throughout the game. If a team plays fast they will have forced the defense to defend more possessions, which typically means more plays per game. Our plays per game have increased since Babers has taken over.

There is no discernible benefit to either the offense or defense by playing more snaps - both get tired equally. Unless one side trains and practices to take advantage of this. Offensive efficiency late in a game where the opposing defense is gassed is more potent, if you can pull it off. (The five elements of the optimal college football offense)

From that same article:


The advantage always goes to the more efficient team. But playing more snaps is better for the more efficient team - it levels out the randomness. And as I said above - if you plan, train and practice to take advantage of the opposing defenses decrease in efficiency in the 4th Q - your advantage is that much greater.

Also, playing slow to rest your defense is a myth: Defense and Rest Time | Football Outsiders

Man. That was an interesting read, if you like getting your geek on. 38000 drives analyzed. I do think there were some assumptions, but they were plausible. Good stuff.

I still prefer a ground and pound, if you are good at it. Its more about getting positive yards on each play, and eliminating at least 30% of plays, with no gain. Be cool to see a similar analysis.

All but a few teams in the top 25 run it more than they pass . I'm guessing, to lessen risk.

In the end, it may not matter what style. Your defense needs one more stop than theirs.

Thanks for the article. It was surprising.

 

[TheCusian]

"This is about what stresses a defense. Your take has been a slow 'they know it's coming and can't stop it' stresses a defense more than a quick strike (explosiveness) or a drive with tempo."

Can you not read? My comment was, is, and will continue to be that efficient offenses stress the opposing defenses more than non-efficient offenses, and that style of play doesn't really have a material impact in and of itself. Unlike you, I am not on a crusade to defend a specific style of play.

I literally wrote "Worrying about style is pointless unless your name rhymes with “Alabama.” Efficiency and consistency are what matter." - Post #30

I also wrote post #39, where I again explicitly said that style didn't matter. And I made it very clear that I didn't have any inherent issues with pace offenses in post #57 and post #59.

'Explosiveness' does not matter. It's a stupid buzz word that's usually misunderstood. Efficiency matters. Again, it Team A scores 6 points per possession in a game, and Team B scores 1 point per possession in a game, then Team A *will* win the game if they have the same number of possessions. The number of possessions does not matter. I have absolutely no idea how you can't grasp this concept. The score differential will be (6-1)*#possessions each team has, and A will always win. The number of possessions will only increase the margin of victory by 5*#. In and of itself, it's a lever and nothing more.

"3rd grade sports psychology: It's easier to play with a 2 or 3 score lead than it is to play from behind"

I'm guessing you weren't on too many sports teams in the 3rd grade. 2-3 score leads only happen if you are more consistent and efficient than the other team. Otherwise, you're on the business end of the 2-3 score differential.

But if you really want to get into it, it's a lot easier to play down 14 if you've already scored 70 points in the game vs. being down 14 and not having scored any points yet. Scores don't occur in vacuums.

Consider this a placeholder. I’ll respond when I get a bit. I won’t include personal jabs as a way to let you know *I like* discussing things like this with other ppl and respect your opinion.

 

[TheCusian]

Have you actually ever played football before? Good freaking Lord, offenses and defenses don't get tired equally.

The Best Offense in College Football Is Also the Laziest

There you go. That's an article about the Art Briles offense at Baylor (and the root of the current Syracuse offense). One of they key elements of the very offense that you're blindly defending is that the defense get more tired than the offense because it has to react to the offense. So, where offensive players can take plays off, defensive players cannot. And to be clear, I picked this article because it outlines the purest form of the style of offense that you're advocating. Also, you don't even have to go behind the pay wall to understand it.

But beyond that article, there are a myriad of other articles, forums posts, etc. where the concept of defense being harder than offense is thoroughly flushed out.

And to be clear, because this is clearly being lost on you, high beta offenses (score fast or fail fast offenses), don't have drives that last as long as traditional offenses, because they either score, or they get off of the field. A steady grind absolutely does tire defenses out. That's why our defense falls apart when we 3-out a couple of times in a row against physical teams (sound familiar?), even though we're 'better conditioned' (as per your claims many times over).

But regardless, an offense that scores quickly gives the opposing offense more time, and thus options, with which to respond. Again, that's just math, and, to be clear, it's been my position (and continues to be my position), that the difference is marginal. But gun to my head, I would rather have 59:20 to answer than 52:00.

Alright, let's dig in. Again, I'm not assuming you're dumb or haven't played sports or don't have a Wall Street Journal login. I'll leave that to you.

- I'm not blindly defending anything. Inefficient offense is crappier than efficient offense, no matter the tempo. What we're talking about is what puts more pressure on a defense - assuming both a run at the same level of efficiency.

- Plays run at tempo are designed to tire out the defense. In the drive it's meant to keep the D from subbing and catching them out of position. Over the course of the game, it's meant to make a defense defend more plays - so that by play 80+ they are whupped. So if your point is that the Briles style of offense is meant to tire out the D, than yeah. I'm with you. It's a feature. And it sounds an awful lot like that stresses a defense out.

- You keep making this rudimentary argument about tempo (the 3rd grade math argument) and assuming that I don't understand it. I do. I'm assuming that we have that base of knowledge and agree on it. Scoring fast, gives more time to the opposing team to respond. Right. I can do the math - and I've watched enough CFB to see it play out.

- Back the original question.

Slow methodical teams use clock to put pressure on a D. By shortening the game they are limiting your time to respond. There’s a mental advantage to doing what you want and the opposing D not being able to stop you. They are more open to random chance and by running clock limit thier own time to respond. Less margin for error, so effeciency become more important.

Tempo teams give their opponents more time to respond, but also leave themselves more time. There’s more margin for error. They also gain personnel advantages by limiting the opponents ability to sub. They can catch opponents out of breath or out of position. If you score quickly in succession, you can create all kinds of issues for opposing defenses and offenses (become more predictable). Tempo offenses can limit the effectiveness of a pass rush. They can also limit the ability of the opposing team to call plays. More reps in practice.

I there’s a trade off no matter what style you go with and I agree that it’s good that we are all in on one. It’s an identity that is working for us.

 

[upperdeck]

if were solid running in short yardage plays we would be 6-0 right now and everything else would be forgotten. fix that one thing and we can go a long way this year. we probably would be scoring 7-10 more per game and extend 2-3 more drives just by being better at short yards runs.

 

[bcubs9497]

I've no idea about pace, efficiency, or any of the above-argued stuff. I do know, however, that if I'm a DL, the last thing I want to do is go back out on the field and deal with 2 320lbs OL for 6 minutes after just coming off the field 2 minutes ago.