Why not start with no huddle/hurry up offense?

[Catz Rock]

We always seem to do very well with the "no huddle" or "hurry up" offense. I think our pass first offense is well suited for this strategy, thus making me wonder why we don't use it more often. I tried to think of all the advantages and disadvantages, but am sure I forgot a few.

Advantages:
1) Wears down the defense by limiting the opposing teams ability to sub fresh personnel (especially the pass rush).
2) Forces the defense to go with more of a multi-purpose scheme for all downs.
3) Wears down the defensive, giving Lulay more time to pass and possibly bigger running lanes?
4) Score faster and more often?


Disadvantages:
1) Wears down the offensive personel quicker.
2) Could result in our defense spending more time on the field.
3) By forcing them to use a more multi-purpose defense, it would limit Travis's ability to take advantage of certain types of defensive schemes.
4) Increases the likelihood of more turnovers due to fatigue.
5) If we score more often, we increase the amount of squib kicks and I know how some of you feel about that!

[Cat Pride]

5) If we score more often, we increase the amount of squib kicks and I know how some of you feel about that!

That's great

The worst thing that comes out of the no huddle/hurry up offense is that we dont necessarily give our defense the chance to rest. That isnt a problem if the O is getting points (TDs not FGs as EWU can attest).

[CARDIAC_CATS]

We always seem to do very well with the "no huddle" or "hurry up" offense. I think our pass first offense is well suited for this strategy, thus making me wonder why we don't use it more often. I tried to think of all the advantages and disadvantages, but am sure I forgot a few.

Advantages:
1) Wears down the defense by limiting the opposing teams ability to sub fresh personnel (especially the pass rush).
2) Forces the defense to go with more of a multi-purpose scheme for all downs.
3) Wears down the defensive, giving Lulay more time to pass and possibly bigger running lanes?
4) Score faster and more often?


Disadvantages:
1) Wears down the offensive personel quicker.
2) Could result in our defense spending more time on the field.
3) By forcing them to use a more multi-purpose defense, it would limit Travis's ability to take advantage of certain types of defensive schemes.
4) Increases the likelihood of more turnovers due to fatigue.
5) If we score more often, we increase the amount of squib kicks and I know how some of you feel about that!

I bet you will see some of it this week. It has worked the last 2 times we have played Portland State. They usually have BIG agressive DT's, but they tend to wear down late in the game (especially when we are going no huddle).

[DriftCat]

I think the biggest disadvantage is that if we dont have sustained drives our D could be on the field alot (we definately do not want that). But, with Lulay at the helm, I think we would be able to put together some nice drives. I say go for it.

[tetoncat]

I think they try to see if a normal offense can get us points and establish some sort of run. It also gives them a chance to see what the defense is doing and then they adjust, go to no huddle and tear them up at the end of the game. This has worked well. If we do not drop the two passes and have the other interception we would have been up 21-10 at least last week. Then when we go no huddle we blow them out. With ISU if Travis does not through that interception, we go down the field and score we are up 17 and the game is over. The offense is fine if we cut down on mistakes.

[MSUcantouchus]

I would like to see us take the ball first instead of defer tomarrow. We seem to give up alot of rushing yards on the first drive. I think the team would mentally benefit if we took the ball first and drove down and scored. PSU will be quicker to abandon the run if they get down early. If we could score on the first drive hold them to 3 then score again to make it 14-3 we would force them to change their gameplan away from running every play.