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

[Dodger]

While head coach Jason Garrett concedes that it is a reasonable question, he said there are other considerations that need to be taken into account before making a seismic shift in approach. If the Cowboys were to implement that strategy, would the opponent defend the Cowboys the same way early in the game as it did at the end?

How vulnerable of a position would the Cowboys’ defense find itself in if the offense sputtered on successive possessions and was unable to stay on the field for a sustained period? Would the element of surprise accompanying the hurry-up offense be removed if it were used habitually? And would a team not conditioned to move at a fast pace run out of gas before the end of the game?

Uuuugh.

So Garrett has to research it, write a thesis on it, and perform a case study before he considers it?

He doesn't have to run that offense the entire game, just when they feel they can gain an advantage over the defense. But more than once a game would be preferable. And speaking of defense, the Cowboys defense is just what you want to run a fast paced offense. They lead the league in 3 and outs, and they can hold their own for good chunks of the game.

Buuut....I suppose he'd rather just continue doing what he's doing...because, hey...it's working after all....

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Dodger

Uuuugh.

So Garrett has to research it, write a thesis on it, and perform a case study before he considers it?

He doesn't have to run that offense the entire game, just when they feel they can gain an advantage over the defense. But more than once a game would be preferable. And speaking of defense, the Cowboys defense is just what you want to run a fast paced offense. They lead the league in 3 and outs, and they can hold their own for good chunks of the game.

Buuut....I suppose he'd rather just continue doing what he's doing...because, hey...it's working after all....

Is there reason to think hurrying up is going to help us make route adjustments better? Or to hold onto the ball better on critical third down passes? It might, if the mistakes are coming because players are over thinking things. I suppose it's possible, but I think it's unlikely.

[Dodger]

Originally Posted by Idgit

Is there reason to think hurrying up is going to help us make route adjustments better? Or to hold onto the ball better on critical third down passes? It might, if the mistakes are coming because players are over thinking things. I suppose it's possible, but I think it's unlikely.

No, it won't.

Here's what I'm thinking: right now teams are playing coverage and taking away anything deep. They're forcing the Cowboys to methodically drive down the field, knowing that sooner or later they're going to make a mistake. And sure enough, they do, either a penalty, turnover, whatever.

If the Cowboys can occationally catch the defense in a set where their offense has an advantage or mismatch, that's when they should go hurry up to keep the defense from adjusting and to hopefully score as soon as possible...BEFORE someone makes the mistake that ends the drive.

[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.

[Cajuncowboy]

I've been saying to do this for two dang years.Romo is at his absolute best when he doesn't have to think and run through the play before hand. The guy we have to take out of the game is Garrett. Just let them play backyard football.

[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.

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by Dodger

Uuuugh.

So Garrett has to research it, write a thesis on it, and perform a case study before he considers it?

He doesn't have to run that offense the entire game, just when they feel they can gain an advantage over the defense. But more than once a game would be preferable. And speaking of defense, the Cowboys defense is just what you want to run a fast paced offense. They lead the league in 3 and outs, and they can hold their own for good chunks of the game.

Buuut....I suppose he'd rather just continue doing what he's doing...because, hey...it's working after all....

Really does seem like the definition of over thinking things.

If it doesn't work, so be it. It's not like he has to be wed to doing it.

Or how about they mix it in a couple plays at a time. Get the defense into the personel that you want and then don't allow them to substitute out of it.

Sitting here and throwing out hypotheticals like, "will the defense behave similarly" or "does the surprise effect get diminished" is wasted brainpower. Those are answers that you can't get unless you actually try the approach.

If it doesn't work, the team really isn't any worse off unless they force the issue and continue to do something that doesn't work.

If it does work, the team improves by leaps and bounds.

[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.

[cowboyschmps3]

Go no huddle offense every time we have a chance!!

[ShiningStar]

until the first interception than we all scream "WHY DID WE DO THAT?"


you can do all the offenses you want, but you are going to realize our offense is predictable and bland and if something starts working we're garaunteed to give up on it.

[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.

[ksadler1]

Originally Posted by ShiningStar

until the first interception than we all scream "WHY DID WE DO THAT?"

Does it really matter if it happens while they are in a hurry-up offense or a huddle offenese? If our WR's can't run the correct routes and Romo keeps forcing things, the INT's are going to happen either way. At least in the hurry-up it gives us an advantage by making their D tired and unable to sub players.....

[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.

[ShiningStar]

[quote=ksadler1;4833512]

Originally Posted by ShiningStar

until the first interception than we all scream "WHY DID WE DO THAT?"


Does it really matter if it happens while they are in a hurry-up offense or a huddle offenese? If our WR's can't run the correct routes and Romo keeps forcing things, the INT's are going to happen either way. At least in the hurry-up it gives us an advantage by making their D tired and unable to sub players.....

if it did that why dont all the offenses do it? it also mentally tires out our guys because they have to keep thinking at a fast pace. makes for mistakes. it might work a drive or two but at some point u have to slow it down.