The hurry up was instituted by Syracuse this year. I actually liked the premise of it when the Bills would do it, but thought you needed a great tailback to do it and the tailback had to be really good running and receiving, which the Bills had in Thurman Thomas.
But as I watched SU run the hurry up this year, I started to see the benefits of it and when I explored it further, I think it's the best idea now in football. Now if we can only get a coach that is truly committed to the 4-down offense (which I will get to in a bit), there could be a real revolution in the offense.
A lot of fans, players and coaches love those long play scoring drives. Rattling off 10+ plays and scoring a TD. However, there are a couple of issues with doing that.
1. Generally, the more plays you run on offense, the more likely somebody will screw up on that drive...get a holding call, false start, miss an assignment, etc. And that will stall out the drive.
2. The more plays you run, generally causes too much time run off the clock in the traditional huddle up offense. Even if you're a good team with a good scoring offense, those long drives eat up time and limit your possessions. And when you limit your possiessions, it makes it hard to pull away from your opponent. That's why guys like Jeff Fisher tend to hover around .500 ball. When their team is superior, they can't quite pull away since they tend to use time consuming drives. But, when his team is inferior, he can keep the games close.
That's also why the deep threat is so well liked in football. It gives teams the ability to score quickly to get back into games and to eliminate some of those time consuming drives.
The hurry up prevents that.
The assignments are simple and the team can rattle off these drives with lots of plays being ran, but little time being taken off the clock. So you don't have to worry about being a superior team and keeping your opponent in the game.
As far as penalties go, because the ball is getting snapped so quickly you don't have to worry about cadence issues. The assignments are easier, so other penalties are less likely.
Where Belichick originally got this idea was NOT from Chip Kelly.
It was from....
The Raiders.
Back in 2011 the Raiders played the Jets in Oakland. The Raiders offense had a powerful running attack, but a mediocre passing attack.
The Jets had a great pass defense that would confuse QB's with all of their shifting. It presented Tom Brady a great deal of trouble as well.
The Jets' run defense was decent, but questionable. And they relied on pre-snap shifts and disguises to defend the run.
If you watched that game, the Raiders would huddle up only briefly...then snap the back quickly.
And it worked.
McFadden ran for 171 yards and the Raiders didn't need to pass the ball that much. And when they did, the Jets couldn't make all of the shifts and disguises and the Raiders passing game was efficient enough to not lose the game for them.
THAT is where Belichick got it from. He tried it a little against the next Jets game.
And it also brings up another great facet of the hurry up. It allows a 2-back system to work because in a traditional offense a 2-back system often does not give either back enough carries to 'get in a groove.' Since you are running more plays, the backs will be able to split the carries, but get more carries for each of them.
And this is what really tires out defenses. Running plays. Not time on the field. Running plays.
***
A few year years ago NFL Films did a story on a Cal-Berkley Professor who did years of research and determined that in essence, an NFL team would be far better off going for it on every 4th down than the traditional 3-downs and then punt or kick a field goal.
Of course, coaches scoffed at the idea and for good reason. If it's 4th and 10 at your own 10 yard line, that's not a wise move.
However, I *think* the professor wasn't stating that it was optimal for an NFL team to go for it on every 4th down, it was just *better* for them than what they are currently doing.
Here's a graph from Advanced NFL Stats showing the distance to first down and whether an NFL team should go for it on 4th down.
Obviously, there are some things that I think need to be tweaked. Mainly the lack of reference to the score and the time.
This is where Belichick was wrong in going for it against the Colts on 4th and 2 deep inside his own territory. It's also where Barry Switzer was wrong going for it in the infamous Eagles game (yes, I'm still cursing Switzer to this day).
The problem with those situations is that for all intents and purposes, the next score...be it a TD or a Field, wins the game. It's almost like a sudden death overtime situation. And both situations, Belichick and Switzer, still had overtime to work with as it was in the 4th quarter.
So by going for it in those situations, the graph above says they made the right decision. But, it doesn't account for score and time left in the game. In the Belichick and Switzer situations where the next score, even if it was 1 point in Canadian Football Rules, wins the game. So by them going for it, if they don't get it they lose the game. If they do get it, they still have to drive and have time still working against them.
The same would be true if I were a coach with a 4th and 2 at my own 28 yard line, but I was winning by 21 points with 10 minutes left. The graph says to go for it, but I would be more inclined to punt. The opponnent getting the ball back and scoring isn't the problem. The problem is getting the opponent getting the ball back and scoring quickly. In fact, punt it away and the opponent scores a TD, but takes 5 minutes off the clock, that works in YOUR favor.
But other than that, I think that graph is a good indicator of when to go for it in most situations.
However, the real point is that the coach who fully takes into that graph will be at a HUGE advantage.
Meaning, when they call plays they think of it more along the lines of trying to get a first down in 4 plays instead of the standard 3 plays and kick away.
From a pure numbers standpoint, look at the advantage it provides:
Down & Distance......Yd/Play for 1st (3-down)......Yd/Play (4-down).......Diff1st and 10.........................3.3..................................2.5......................-24%
2nd and 10........................5.0..................................3.3........................-34%
3rd and 10........................10.0.................................5.0........................-50%
We have the obvious numbers perspective that the 4-down offense provides.
We have to remember, the average NFL offense gains roughly 5.4 yards per play.
However, that does not include penalties. So with the hurry up reducing penalties and a 4-down centric offense, you're putting the numbers MASSIVELY in your favor when the rest of the league is using a traditional huddle, then audible and a traditional 3-down offense.
But, from a SCHEME standpoint, I think the 4-down offense helps tremendously.
Let's say you have 3rd and 5 from your own 38 yard line. Typically teams pass out of that 99% of the time. And the defense knows it and throws in some type of nickel or dime package with blitzers or dropping 8 in coverage. All of which makes it harder for the QB and the offense.
Instead, a 4-down offense can have the offense dictate the terms.
If they throw a nickel or dime package, run the ball. Pick up 4 yards, get it to 4th and 1 at your own 42 yard line.
The graph says go for it.
Since you're using a hurry up offense, you can keep that nickel or dime package on the field and run it again. With success, the defense will eventually have to change. If they start putting in base 4-3 or 3-4 packages on 3rd and 8...throw the ball from the shotgun.
I think what is needed for the 4-down hurry outside the obvious having a good QB is:
1. A good tight end that can block and catch. He'll be needed for any adjustments the defense tries to make as the hurry up goes along.
2. 2 solid tailbacks. They will be running in and out. Syracuse does this with Smith and Tyson-Gulley.
3. Good YAC receivers.
Part of the beauty of the hurry up 4-down offense is that I don't think it requires great deep threats at WR. Nice if you have them, but a better short-to-intermediate route WR will do fine. And that will help you in the draft when the rest of the league is going after big deep threat WR's early in the draft and spending a lot of money on them in FA.
I suspect that the coach that fully commits to it will dominate the league for roughly 5 years. The rest of the league will catch up and copy it and then it's onto something new.
3JACK