DMN: Should the Cowboys go all-out on hurry-up offense?

[WoodysGirl]

By rabramowicz
richard.abramowicz@gmail.com
7:49 pm on November 9, 2012 | Permalink

For two minutes and 28 seconds last Sunday, the Cowboys’ offense looked nothing like a rickety wagon mired in the mud. Instead it resembled a high-speed train zipping from one point to the next.

Operating in shotgun, without huddling his teammates, quarterback Tony Romo completed six consecutive passes as the Cowboys covered 78 yards and scored its lone touchdown in the fourth quarter of a 19-13 loss to Atlanta. The drive was as quick as it was unexpectedly efficient.

And while it didn’t sow the seeds for a victory, it did plant an idea in the head of tight end Jason Witten, who wondered aloud if the Cowboys should consider playing in hurry-up mode more frequently instead or resorting to that style only when they are trailing by a significant margin.

“The coverages change a little bit when you’re in those situations, but Tony honestly is as good as there is in those situations,” Witten said. “Maybe it’s something we look at.”

Only four days before, Romo was thinking along the same lines when he told reporters he liked how the Cowboys’ offense functioned when Dallas erased a 23-point deficit in its 29-24 loss to the New York Giants on Oct. 28.

Read the rest: http://cowboysblog.dallasnews.com/20...-offense.html/

[Eskimo]

I like the idea of the no-huddle offense.

However, I disagree with the notion that it should be run out of the 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE and 3 WRs). The problem is this offense is too heavy with guys who do only one things (WR = run pass routes only).

I think it is better to get another multi-threat player out there. I say replace a WR with a TE. That way you get 3 guys who can block (1 RB and 2 TEs) so you can run some max protect, you have 1 guy who can run the ball and you still have 5 potential receiving options. The problem when we run the 12 package is that we mostly use it to run the ball. Given that our TEs are only marginal run blockers but good receivers we are misusing this personnel grouping and the results bear this argument out. We need to use it as more of a passing offense where it can be hard to match up with. This would especially be true if Hanna were out there with his speed at the TE position.

It is a shame they haven't managed to get both Witten and Hanna on the field this year.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

I like the idea of the no-huddle offense.

However, I disagree with the notion that it should be run out of the 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE and 3 WRs). The problem is this offense is too heavy with guys who do only one things (WR = run pass routes only).

I think it is better to get another multi-threat player out there. I say replace a WR with a TE. That way you get 3 guys who can block (1 RB and 2 TEs) so you can run some max protect, you have 1 guy who can run the ball and you still have 5 potential receiving options. The problem when we run the 12 package is that we mostly use it to run the ball. Given that our TEs are only marginal run blockers but good receivers we are misusing this personnel grouping and the results bear this argument out. We need to use it as more of a passing offense where it can be hard to match up with. This would especially be true if Hanna were out there with his speed at the TE position.

[View Full Quote]It is a shame they haven't managed to get both Witten and Hanna on the field this year.

I keep waiting for this, too. Keep the guys out there who get where they're supposed to be, and let Tony find them.

[big dog cowboy]

Maybe not all the time but I would run it a few drives each game or within a few drives each game.

[sbark]

Is it purely the no huddle.......or who is calling the plays during no huddle, or the combination of both?

[Gibby!]

Wasn't there a time when Indy did something similar? They had a name for it, "offensive muddle" or something? Maybe it was Sugar Huddle or something agh, can't remember. I know they did it around their Superbowl run against Chicago.

[Reality]

There are several teams that use no huddle, especially in the second half of games to wear down defenses and to prevent substitutions. Usually teams that have weak defenses will not run it because it gives the other team the advantage in time of possession and play count, especially if the team is not scoring points on no huddle series. Teams that are efficient using no-huddle definitely gain an advantage over the other team's defense the longer they can maintain that efficiency and success.

#reality

[Clove]

I would go hurry-up until they find a way to stop it. Then I would switch it up just for a small amount of time, then go back to it. Hurry up that is, not the no huddle.

[ConstantReboot]

Romo is a momentum type of QB. It takes a while for him to get on a roll during each game. Maybe if we start out with a no huddle it gets Romo into that grove earlier. I've had it with the Garrett offense. I want something more up pace and unpredictable which throws defenses off balance like we were long ago. Garrett should throw his play book away and start over.

[Rack Bauer]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

I like the idea of the no-huddle offense.

However, I disagree with the notion that it should be run out of the 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE and 3 WRs). The problem is this offense is too heavy with guys who do only one things (WR = run pass routes only).

I think it is better to get another multi-threat player out there. I say replace a WR with a TE. That way you get 3 guys who can block (1 RB and 2 TEs) so you can run some max protect, you have 1 guy who can run the ball and you still have 5 potential receiving options. The problem when we run the 12 package is that we mostly use it to run the ball. Given that our TEs are only marginal run blockers but good receivers we are misusing this personnel grouping and the results bear this argument out. We need to use it as more of a passing offense where it can be hard to match up with. This would especially be true if Hanna were out there with his speed at the TE position.

[View Full Quote]It is a shame they haven't managed to get both Witten and Hanna on the field this year.

If not going hurry up out of "11" means OTree isn't out there then I'm all for it.

[theogt]

They should use whatever method keeps Jason Garrett from calling plays.

[Everlastingxxx]

Garrett tends to be late to the party and finding what works best for the offense. Romo was asking for this last week. He will also over exaggerated and run the hurry up too much allowing for quick 3 and outs and not giving the defense time to rest.

[THUMPER]

Originally Posted by Everlastingxxx

Garrett tends to be late to the party and finding what works best for the offense. Romo was asking for this last week. He will also over exaggerated and run the hurry up too much allowing for quick 3 and outs and not giving the defense time to rest.

The plays take WAY too long to come in from Garrett and then Romo has to make sure the players line up where they are supposed to and then we wait until the very last second to snap the ball, giving the defense the advantage of knowing exactly when to take off.

When we run the "no-huddle" or "hurry-up" offense, it takes all of those things out of the equation and we see MUCH better results. Taking Garrett out of the way and snapping the ball when the defense does not expect it makes sense to me. Evidently it makes sense to Romo and Witten too.

Lastly, I think it would give Garrett less to concern himself with and he can focus on managing the game and clock better. Maybe he can make sure the right people are on the field too, that might help a little.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Everlastingxxx

Garrett tends to be late to the party and finding what works best for the offense. Romo was asking for this last week....

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you got this from that network shot of Romo yelling at the sideline after that ineffective 2nd down draw against the Falcons.

Has anything actually been said publicly by Romo about wanting to run hurry-up as a base offense? Or are we just going to conclude he wants that the same way we were pretending last week that there's a rift between Garrett and Tony?

I did hear Jason Witten say this week that we might have to look into incorporating more hurry-up. They way he said it (bad poker face) made me think it might be a bigger part of this week's gameplan. I don't think it'll be our base offense, but we might try it a few times in the game when we normally wouldn't.

[nake]

Has anyone studied the difference in time of possession an all hurry-up offense would produce? It seems to me like it would keep the defense on the field more, if the other team was running a standard offense.

Maybe not, though. It depends on so many variables it makes my head hurt just thinking about it.