Hurry Up offense

[read option]

I’d like to see us go more hurry up. I think it will help keep the D off balance which will smoke and mirrors improve 1) push from our OL, 2) the deception of the read and either RB handoff or QB keeper as well as playaction, 3) allow for quick outs, quick slants, and different screens and dump offs that pick up a quick 3+ yards on any given play.

I think when we huddle up and line up, the D can key on our basic O, struggling OL, average WRs, and average QB. Not that the hurry up cures all, but it would help mask some of the negatives and create some positives without doing much different (which I have little to no faith our offensive coaching is capable of).

 

[RuSnp]

I think part of the reason the D was as good as it was last year was because the offense operated slowly and held the ball. If we speed up on O we might get some undesired side effects.

 

[LotusAggressor]

I’d like to see us go more hurry up. I think it will help keep the D off balance which will smoke and mirrors improve 1) push from our OL, 2) the deception of the read and either RB handoff or QB keeper as well as playaction, 3) allow for quick outs, quick slants, and different screens and dump offs that pick up a quick 3+ yards on any given play.

I think when we huddle up and line up, the D can key on our basic O, struggling OL, average WRs, and average QB. Not that the hurry up cures all, but it would help mask some of the negatives and create some positives without doing much different (which I have little to no faith our offensive coaching is capable of).

A hurry up offense won't compensate for not blocking people and dropping accurately thrown passes. You can't minimize the lack of ability to execute fundamentals. All it will do is bring the punter out faster.

 

[ashokan]

"Hurry-up" can be a misleading name.
A hurry-up an be an offense than runs plays quick and gasses the defense.
It can also be a team that lines-up quick and then delays running a play - thus eating the clock.
RU's "look at me" offense is the latter version and works better for current needs

 

[kupuna133]

I would say we don’t need a hurry up offense but we need an offense that plays with pace. Look at what longo did this weekend. He didn’t always hurry up but made sure to play with urgency and tempo. There were times he went quick and times he milked it late into the play clock. But one thing he did do was manage player packages well. He didn’t substitute when he wanted to play with a quicker count. He knew what he wanted to do 3 plays from each call minimizing substitutions allowing his O to have a schematic advantage over the defensive personnel.

 

[rutgersal]

Hurry up our 3 and outs? Hell No. terrible idea which will leave our defense gassed. Hurry up makes sense, when your offense is operating with significant proficiency and skill. We are having huge problems just catching the ball. Have to master the fundamentals first.

 

[Brisket and Bourbon]

Hurry up means losing 77-7 instead of 42-7 🤭

 

[beaced]

I’d like to see us go more hurry up. I think it will help keep the D off balance which will smoke and mirrors improve 1) push from our OL, 2) the deception of the read and either RB handoff or QB keeper as well as playaction, 3) allow for quick outs, quick slants, and different screens and dump offs that pick up a quick 3+ yards on any given play.

I think when we huddle up and line up, the D can key on our basic O, struggling OL, average WRs, and average QB. Not that the hurry up cures all, but it would help mask some of the negatives and create some positives without doing much different (which I have little to no faith our offensive coaching is capable of).

If you mean hurry up and get an offense. The
N I am all for it

 

[RRRRUUUU]

My 2c:

Offense worked when they added new concepts each week earlier in the season. They stopped expanding it, and so teams adjusted to what they see on paper, and we refuse to add anything to give us an edge. It is beyond predictable at this point.

 

[LotusAggressor]

I would say we don’t need a hurry up offense but we need an offense that plays with pace. Look at what longo did this weekend. He didn’t always hurry up but made sure to play with urgency and tempo. There were times he went quick and times he milked it late into the play clock. But one thing he did do was manage player packages well. He didn’t substitute when he wanted to play with a quicker count. He knew what he wanted to do 3 plays from each call minimizing substitutions allowing his O to have a schematic advantage over the defensive personnel.

Wisconsin was gouging RU with the running game. He didn't have to reinvent the wheel offensively.

 

[kupuna133]

Wisconsin was gouging RU with the running game. He didn't have to reinvent the wheel offensively.

Exactly. He has a system and plays to his strengths. Part of that system is creating schematic advantages either through the air or on the ground. Wisconsin gashed us primarily when we brought in additional backs to match up with their personnel. Then kept them on the field to run. The inverse would work also with catching the d with their run package in and going pass heavy.

 

[LETSGORU91]

I’d like to see us go more hurry up. I think it will help keep the D off balance which will smoke and mirrors improve 1) push from our OL, 2) the deception of the read and either RB handoff or QB keeper as well as playaction, 3) allow for quick outs, quick slants, and different screens and dump offs that pick up a quick 3+ yards on any given play.

I think when we huddle up and line up, the D can key on our basic O, struggling OL, average WRs, and average QB. Not that the hurry up cures all, but it would help mask some of the negatives and create some positives without doing much different (which I have little to no faith our offensive coaching is capable of).

We did hurry up. Right off the field after three downs. That's not my ideal offense.

 

[Anteid]

just fix the interior of the offensive line and Greg Schiano should work with the defense more by shuffling some players around, he did that in 2005 and 2006 so why not now.