ferentz says going 3 and out running the no huddle will put our defense right back on the field with no rest. That sounded like a good reason to me until i actually thought about it. If we run our regular offense we snap the ball with about 5 seconds on the play clock. If we go 3 and out doing this we will give our defense roughly 10 minutes of rest with the amount of time it takes to run the 3 plays, the 2 special teams plays, and the two commercial breaks. Now if we run no huddle the amount of rest the d gets would be the same other then after 1st and 2nd down we would snap the ball with around 20 seconds on the play clock instead of 5. 3rd down wouldn't change because if we were punting we wouldn't hurry up to snap the ball. That means a 3 and out running no huddle would give our d 30 seconds less rest then the 10 minutes they would get not running it. I really don't care if we run it or not but 30 extra seconds of rest is either a bogus excuse or ferentz has just never really thought it through. Hopefully its not the later cause as a head coach its your job to think everything through
reason for not running no huddle
- Thread starter PCHawk
- Start date
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Could it be more clear? Playing "not-to-lose"
Hawkfromnorwalk
Well-Known Member
And when you have a defense that is good, this plan works perfectly...
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
In real time that makes sense. But in game time, this would increase the total number of possessions and therefore lead to a tired D. Just shooting from the hip.
True but i think 15 play drives wear out a D worse then number of possessions. Also its the lack of possessions for each team that allows teams like Minnesota to hang around and pull off wins.
Exactly, if he is so concerned about a tired defense, shift away from the cover-2 soft zone. The bend don't break wears the defense down more than anything as evidenced by a years worth of Clayborn and Ballard sucking wind on the sideline as opponents marched up and down the field.
zhawkzrule
Well-Known Member
You can run the no huddle/hurry up and still take the same amount of time off the play clock, you run the play, go line up at the line while the plays are signaled in and you let the play clock run down, this doesn't the the D sub in and out freely and you dont loose any more time, if it comes to a situation where we need to sub personal then by all means do it but you can still then hurry and line up, but that doesnt mean you have to snap the ball and run plays every 15 seconds like the uptempo style.... still puts pressure on the opposing D, everytime we've run the hurry up we move the ball down the field, I'm sure there were a couple 3 and outs, but not any more than happens when we run the normal O, and again whats that result in and extra 30 seconds to minute of rest?
hawkeye12345
Well-Known Member
I have lost all respect for Kirk Ferentz. The guy has no clue what it takes to win in todays football environment. He is a throwback to the golden old days where 3 yards and a cloud of dust were the way to win football games. If you're worried about your D being too tired then maybe you shouldn't try and destroy them in the offseason and send 20% of the team to the hospital!??!?!
Just watch other teams on Saturdays and you will see no-huddle offensive schemes that get to the line to prevent Ds from changing out personnel. The play is then signaled in from the sidelines either by hand signal or giant boards. The play clock still gets down into the single digit level on many occasions but the Ds are exhausted.
QUIT TRYING NOT TO LOSE - IT ISN'T WORKING.
Just watch other teams on Saturdays and you will see no-huddle offensive schemes that get to the line to prevent Ds from changing out personnel. The play is then signaled in from the sidelines either by hand signal or giant boards. The play clock still gets down into the single digit level on many occasions but the Ds are exhausted.
QUIT TRYING NOT TO LOSE - IT ISN'T WORKING.
exactly. then we could call plays based on the personnel they have on the field instead of them bringing in the personnel to match who we have in. Makes you wonder if kirk thinks KOK cant handle it
tm3308
Well-Known Member
This. A 3 and out is pretty much the same no matter what. The no-huddle/spread just adds up over time. I don't think it wise for us to go exclusively to the no-huddle, but I would still like to see us implement it at times. There's not as much harm in that.
Adding up to more possessions is a good thing when you're playing an inferior opponent. I dont care if we run a no huddle or not but i think when we play teams like minnesota we should be trying to get more possessions a game. On the other hand when we play teams like ohio state its not a bad idea at all to limit the amount of possessions
hawkfan8691
Well-Known Member
Wow, you should be banned for that comment
Our offense has problems, big problems in my mind. Not the least of which is the inconsistency of point production from game to game.
Having said that I am just wondering how running more no-huddle last Saturday would have solved the points production? I cannot believe that Coker would have had a better day running the football by going no-huddle and based on the series where he was begging to come out of the game for a rest and they wouldn't let him I can't help but think he needed the huddle offense as much as anyone.
The lack of no-huddle had absolutely no bearing on the outcome of last week's game. The inability of the offense to score more than 21 points (and the missed FGs should have only been an afterthought) was the problem and to me it was play selection inside the 20 not the fact we were huddling up.
iahawk72
Having said that I am just wondering how running more no-huddle last Saturday would have solved the points production? I cannot believe that Coker would have had a better day running the football by going no-huddle and based on the series where he was begging to come out of the game for a rest and they wouldn't let him I can't help but think he needed the huddle offense as much as anyone.
The lack of no-huddle had absolutely no bearing on the outcome of last week's game. The inability of the offense to score more than 21 points (and the missed FGs should have only been an afterthought) was the problem and to me it was play selection inside the 20 not the fact we were huddling up.
iahawk72
zhawkzrule
Well-Known Member
If we run some no huddle, then the Minnesota D isn't able to keep changing out the D Line and get their pass rushers in and keep them fresh as much as they were blitzing, so yes it could have had an outcome on the game.
Just out of curiousity, when do you run 'some' no huddle in that game? Marcus Coker and the running game WAS your offense (until they got in the redzone and then they abandoned the run). The no-huddle would not have benefited the running game, specifically Coker who needed the rest between runs. Plus, the longer you keep Minnesota's defense on the field, which you do with the running game the better it should be (in theory) for Iowa's defense and Iowa's offense.
Believe me, there have been times this season and there will be more I am sure where the no-huddle were/would be a good strategy. I just don't see, based on how effective Iowa's game plan was in moving the ball, eating up yards and clock where no-huddle would have made sense. If it can be explained how no-huddle would have increased the likelihood of more points I may be willing to concede it makes some sense. But running no-huddle for the sake of running no-huddle doesn't make much sense.
iahawk72
Believe me, there have been times this season and there will be more I am sure where the no-huddle were/would be a good strategy. I just don't see, based on how effective Iowa's game plan was in moving the ball, eating up yards and clock where no-huddle would have made sense. If it can be explained how no-huddle would have increased the likelihood of more points I may be willing to concede it makes some sense. But running no-huddle for the sake of running no-huddle doesn't make much sense.
iahawk72
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
While watching the Minny game, didn't you think to yourself that 21 points wasn't enough to win?
IMO, Iowa needs to run some no-huddle ONLY to get off more offensive plays, to help Iowa score more points than this year's Iowa defense allows.
IMO, Iowa needs to run some no-huddle ONLY to get off more offensive plays, to help Iowa score more points than this year's Iowa defense allows.
Does everyone on here actually forget what happens after the game? Our offense got us in the redzone our last 6 possessions, only scoring on 3. All 3 of those drives ended with passing plays. We didn't need the no huddle, we needed a FG kicker who could make some FG's. We had 9 drives on the day, 6 of which got to the redzone, with all 3 of those 6 ending when we tried passing. The 3 drives drives that didn't get to the redzone ended by Vburg throwing it for 4 yards on 4th and 6, Vburg throwing it for 4 yards on 3rd and 8, and Vburg throwing it 3 straight times on checkdowns, then scrambling for 9 yards. Really, should we have been running the no huddle at all? I'm sorry but our QB wasn't very good at finding open WR's on the day, and it's become a pattern on the road.
