Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: The "hurry - up offense"

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    16,407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CajunRaven View Post
    Cam never called plays where the receivers stopped and came back to the ball. Everything was a go route. Once in a while you have to call the come back.
    If you watch, often times Joe improvised and put in his own "come back" route, since his WRs almost never got any separation just running down the sideline (they also frequently run stupidly down the sideline, not allowing themselves enough room to provide a better margin of error). Joe would slightly under throw those passes so only his WR could catch them. (It's different than when he under throws deep passes down the middle; those are just poorly thrown balls; it really only works on the sideline route when the defender has gotten behind the WR, rather than the WR getting behind the defender.) The WR would pull up slightly, or slow down slightly, and be in a position to actually catch the ball, which sometimes happened, sometimes not.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,879

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CajunRaven View Post
    Football is also a game of deception. Make the opponent think you're doing one thing when you're actually doing something else. Our play calling was all too predictable.
    The opposing defenses almost always seemed to know what plays were being called and where the plays were going.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,879

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by OriginalColtsFan View Post
    We'll agree to disagree. The rules have clearly been tilted towards the offense, and smart teams have caught on and taken advantage of that reality. IMO, you're living in a long gone reality. But hey...that's your choice.

    Peace.
    There is nothing wrong with disagreeing. None of us know all the answers. Otherwise, we'd be the ones making the calls. I was just speaking of thirty years experience both on and off the field. And the last time I ever talked to an NFL coach was about 15 years ago; so, you are right that the game has changed since then, but I don't think it changed as much to give up those principals.


    I don't watch much pro sports in recent years - gave up on the NBA years ago - so the NFL may be the next league that will lose me. The NFL is getting to a point where it isn't football anymore. If it gets rid of the kickoff as proposed, what's next?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    5,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AntiMoon View Post
    According to NST B Pollard threw an epic tantrum after the game because the defense hates the no huddle cause all it does is speed the defense's return to the field.
    If this is true I wonder if it would still be an issue to him it they were to win more in the hurry-up.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    16,407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NCBirdfan View Post
    There is nothing wrong with disagreeing. None of us know all the answers. Otherwise, we'd be the ones making the calls. I was just speaking of thirty years experience both on and off the field. And the last time I ever talked to an NFL coach was about 15 years ago; so, you are right that the game has changed since then, but I don't think it changed as much to give up those principals.


    I don't watch much pro sports in recent years - gave up on the NBA years ago - so the NFL may be the next league that will lose me. The NFL is getting to a point where it isn't football anymore. If it gets rid of the kickoff as proposed, what's next?
    Nothing has changed in terms of the one, most basic principle of football: Games are still won and lost in the trenches (with Big Ben being the possible exception because some of his biggest plays occur when his O-line has totally broken down and he manages to make something out of nothing, but he's the exception that proves the rule). And one of the reasons that the Ravens have floundered so much on offense is that they have not paid enough attention to their O-line. And now their D-line is failing as well, partly due to injuries, partly due to not replacing key players who have left. And tackling is another fundamental that has not changed -- bad tackling causes teams to lose games, as the Ravens have found out.

    But with regard to the rule changes...it's obviously affected things like kickoffs, coverage on D, and passing on offense. Teams still need balance, but it's the explosive plays that shift the scale towards the offense dominating the defense. Do you mean to tell me that when you watch Peyton or Brees score a TD in under 2 minutes you don't make the connection that THAT'S why they win? I remember the Boller years when 21 points was like the Promised Land. (Most of the time, the only way they GOT there was when the defense scored the points.) And even the announcers labeled certain teams the following way: "If this team falls behind by more than 2 TDs, there's no way they can score enough points to come back". That was the Ravens. And the Bills. And the Chiefs in later years. By the same token, back in those days, if the Ravens got ahead by 10 points, it was a lock. Nobody just marched down the field on them in the final 4 minutes of a game. But that was then, and this is now. And maybe it's all just a matter of preference; I happen to prefer a high scoring, up tempo kind of offense. But hey...it's all just opinions. And for the most part, I respect your opinions and the way you get your point(s) across.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Baltimore, Maryland
    Posts
    4,967

    Default

    another HUGE issue i had with Cam was his "secret playbook" that would only be brought out when we were behind and absolutely had to move the ball to win. Such as in Pittsburgh in 2011 or the AFC Championship game last year. Where were these plays during the other 58 minutes of the game?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OriginalColtsFan View Post
    NE also has an OC who works WITH, not AGAINST, his QB.
    Exactly, it's important for a QB to have a healthy stable working relationship with the OC, some of these knuckleheads (haters) can't comprehend that. The offense won't dramatically change but with the control freak gone (I won't say his name anymore LOL) Flacco and the other players on O can breathe and enjoy working with Caldwell. It's a breathe of fresh of air

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    16,407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SugarRay52 View Post
    Exactly, it's important for a QB to have a healthy stable working relationship with the OC, some of these knuckleheads (haters) can't comprehend that. The offense won't dramatically change but with the control freak gone (I won't say his name anymore LOL) Flacco and the other players on O can breathe and enjoy working with Caldwell. It's a breathe of fresh of air
    Here's something you all might find interesting. It's from Jason Cole, of Yahoo Sports, and it was posted yesterday:

    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--ke...GlvbnM-;_ylv=3

    Here are some highlights:

    "In short, Cameron is a control freak. He has been for years. Ask people who were in Miami when he served as Dolphins head coach for just one season (2007) and you'll hear stories about how it was actually easier for people in the building to deal with Nick Saban than Cameron. That is why, despite a pretty reasonable performance by Baltimore's offense against Washington, this move had to be made. Whether that was now or in the offseason, the Ravens were going to have to divorce themselves of Cameron if they eventually wanted to keep Flacco happy.

    Baltimore wasted years with one of the greatest defenses in the history of the game, winning only one Super Bowl largely because it lacked a great triggerman on offense. While it's hard to call Flacco great just yet, he's on a pretty good path. To junk him would be an outrageous gamble.

    So instead, do your best to make him happy."

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NCBirdfan View Post
    Time of possession is not just a meaningless stat. Teams that control the clock tend to be more successful. When an offense is on the field less, whether it is by scoring quickly, going 3-and-out, or turning the ball over, it puts stress on the defense; if it happens too often, the defense will eventually get tired and break down.

    Conversely, that is why coaches like long, clock-consuming drives from their offenses. When teams score quickly, opposing defenses are usually fresh the next time around. It has been proven that long sustained drives wear out the opponents' defenses. That is one of the main things an offensive coordinator tries to establish in a game. That is why teams that score frequently and quickly most-often also give up a lot of points.
    I think you're absolutely right.The Defense is atrocious and the less time they're on the filed the better.Nothing better than a nice 7:30-8 minute drive capped off by a TD.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
The Baltimore Sun Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278