5 reasons the Rams should run a spread offense

[RamFan503]

I just don't want to see that much of the actual hurry up used. No huddle? Sure. But you still need to chew up the clock on offense so your defense isn't right back out there. The last thing we need is to wear out our defense so that by the end of the game, the other team can score at will. I'm fine with and look forward to the ability to score quickly. I would love seeing a bunch of explosive plays. But I also want to see our offense be able to keep the defense off the field. Our offense needs to start rewarding the defense with long rests in between possessions. That will make the defense better and allow us to win tough games as well as hopefully some blow-outs.

 

[albefree69]

RamFan503 concerned about D fatigue:
I just don't want to see that much of the actual hurry up used. No huddle? Sure. But you still need to chew up the clock on offense so your defense isn't right back out there. The last thing we need is to wear out our defense so that by the end of the game, the other team can score at will. I'm fine with and look forward to the ability to score quickly. I would love seeing a bunch of explosive plays. But I also want to see our offense be able to keep the defense off the field. Our offense needs to start rewarding the defense with long rests in between possessions. That will make the defense better and allow us to win tough games as well as hopefully some blow-outs.

Announcers would remark about that frequently during the GSOT era but it didn't seem to hurt us all that much and we didn't even have a very good defense back then. Except in 99 of course.

I'm not worried about that at all. Schotty seems to like using short controlled passes to march down the field. I think the opposing D not being able to situationally substitute would be huge. We have a pretty good D-line rotation that would help in that area too.

 

[RamFan503]

RamFan503 concerned about D fatigue:
I just don't want to see that much of the actual hurry up used. No huddle? Sure. But you still need to chew up the clock on offense so your defense isn't right back out there. The last thing we need is to wear out our defense so that by the end of the game, the other team can score at will. I'm fine with and look forward to the ability to score quickly. I would love seeing a bunch of explosive plays. But I also want to see our offense be able to keep the defense off the field. Our offense needs to start rewarding the defense with long rests in between possessions. That will make the defense better and allow us to win tough games as well as hopefully some blow-outs.

Announcers would remark about that frequently during the GSOT era but it didn't seem to hurt us all that much and we didn't even have a very good defense back then. Except in 99 of course.

I'm not worried about that at all. Schotty seems to like using short controlled passes to march down the field. I think the opposing D not being able to situationally substitute would be huge. We have a pretty good D-line rotation that would help in that area too.

A) We didn't run the hurry up in '99 and we almost ALWAYS won the time of possession battle. Our defense benefited from the fact that our offense was on the field a LOT.

B) A no huddle is all you need to prevent the D from making substitutions. Being able to snap the ball at any time doesn't meant you have to. It's why I think Kelly's method was genius. Play is over, come to the line. Once the defense is set, scan the field and call the play. Full clock used AND no subs. Plus you will often see the defense they are putting up against you in time to call the play accordingly.

 

[RamsFanCK]

RamFan503 concerned about D fatigue:
I just don't want to see that much of the actual hurry up used. No huddle? Sure. But you still need to chew up the clock on offense so your defense isn't right back out there. The last thing we need is to wear out our defense so that by the end of the game, the other team can score at will. I'm fine with and look forward to the ability to score quickly. I would love seeing a bunch of explosive plays. But I also want to see our offense be able to keep the defense off the field. Our offense needs to start rewarding the defense with long rests in between possessions. That will make the defense better and allow us to win tough games as well as hopefully some blow-outs.

Announcers would remark about that frequently during the GSOT era but it didn't seem to hurt us all that much and we didn't even have a very good defense back then. Except in 99 of course.

I'm not worried about that at all. Schotty seems to like using short controlled passes to march down the field. I think the opposing D not being able to situationally substitute would be huge. We have a pretty good D-line rotation that would help in that area too.

A) We didn't run the hurry up in '99 and we almost ALWAYS won the time of possession battle. Our defense benefited from the fact that our offense was on the field a LOT.

B) A no huddle is all you need to prevent the D from making substitutions. Being able to snap the ball at any time doesn't meant you have to. It's why I think Kelly's method was genius. Play is over, come to the line. Once the defense is set, scan the field and call the play. Full clock used AND no subs. Plus you will often see the defense they are putting up against you in time to call the play accordingly.

Took the words outta my mouth...look out we got a savant over here lol

 

[albefree69]

RamFan503 expanded:
A) We didn't run the hurry up in '99 and we almost ALWAYS won the time of possession battle. Our defense benefited from the fact that our offense was on the field a LOT.

B) A no huddle is all you need to prevent the D from making substitutions. Being able to snap the ball at any time doesn't meant you have to. It's why I think Kelly's method was genius. Play is over, come to the line. Once the defense is set, scan the field and call the play. Full clock used AND no subs. Plus you will often see the defense they are putting up against you in time to call the play accordingly.

A) I don't remember us ever using no huddle. I was referring to our ability to score very quickly. Didn't give our D much chance to rest. Didn't seem to have much of a detrimental effect.

B) Too late, I already responded to that:

RamFan503 with an interesting tidbit:
The cool thing that Oregon did under Kelly was that they would do the no huddle, step up to the line so that the D had to come to the line without subs, then pull back and set up the play. Then they would come to the line and snap the ball with a couple seconds left on the play clock. No huddle - but it wasn't necessarily a hurry up. The only hurry up aspect really - besides the no huddle - was that they had so many big plays, they often scored very quickly. But each play took as long as any other kind of offense would have.

albefree69 responded:
That sounds very devious. I like it.

Try and keep up bud! :lmao: :cheers:

 

[Ram Quixote]

I just don't want to see that much of the actual hurry up used. No huddle? Sure. But you still need to chew up the clock on offense so your defense isn't right back out there. The last thing we need is to wear out our defense so that by the end of the game, the other team can score at will. I'm fine with and look forward to the ability to score quickly. I would love seeing a bunch of explosive plays. But I also want to see our offense be able to keep the defense off the field. Our offense needs to start rewarding the defense with long rests in between possessions. That will make the defense better and allow us to win tough games as well as hopefully some blow-outs.

What makes you think the Defense will be on the field for more than 3 plays at a time? :hehe:

Besides, if the quick drives are scoring drives, that's juice for a Defense.

 

[albefree69]

Ram Quixote using impeccable logic to refute the young guy:
What makes you think the Defense will be on the field for more than 3 plays at a time? :hehe:

Besides, if the quick drives are scoring drives, that's juice for a Defense.

:good1: lus1:

 

[RamFan503]

A) I don't remember us ever using no huddle. I was referring to our ability to score very quickly. Didn't give our D much chance to rest. Didn't seem to have much of a detrimental effect.

Rams time of possession 31:49 Opponent time of possession 28:10 Not sure where that other second went but that is a pretty sharp edge in time of possession to the Rams in 1999. Apparently, our D had more time to rest than not. FOR THE WIN!!! :wootwoot: :wootwoot: :wootwoot:

B) Too late, I already responded to that:

Fine then :neener: :neener: :neener: :7up:

Try and keep up bud! :lmao: :cheers:

Keep up indeed. :7up:

 

[RamFan503]

What makes you think the Defense will be on the field for more than 3 plays at a time? :hehe:

Besides, if the quick drives are scoring drives, that's juice for a Defense.

I'd be cool with that of course. I'm down with winning 56-0 any and every time. And while I'd agree that scoring drives are juice for the defense, I think most teams with an offense that can't stay on the field for decent chunks of time, end up with defenses that allow a lot of points as well. I honestly have never actually researched that but that's my story and I'm sticking to it until proven otherwise. In which case I will change the parameters of the argument. :sly:

 

[albefree69]

RamFan503 forgetting a crucial comment made by the old guy:
Rams time of possession 31:49 Opponent time of possession 28:10 Not sure where that other second went but that is a pretty sharp edge in time of possession to the Rams in 1999. Apparently, our D had more time to rest than not. FOR THE WIN!!! :wootwoot: :wootwoot: :wootwoot:

Do you recall this:

albefree69 recognizing that our great D in 1999 was an exception:
Announcers would remark about that frequently during the GSOT era but it didn't seem to hurt us all that much and we didn't even have a very good defense back then. Except in 99 of course.

:bahumbug: okeu: :baby: :neener:

 

[RamFan503]

RamFan503 forgetting a crucial comment made by the old guy:
Rams time of possession 31:49 Opponent time of possession 28:10 Not sure where that other second went but that is a pretty sharp edge in time of possession to the Rams in 1999. Apparently, our D had more time to rest than not. FOR THE WIN!!! :wootwoot: :wootwoot: :wootwoot:

Do you recall this:

albefree69 recognizing that our great D in 1999 was an exception:
Announcers would remark about that frequently during the GSOT era but it didn't seem to hurt us all that much and we didn't even have a very good defense back then. Except in 99 of course.

:bahumbug: okeu: :baby: :neener:

Not sure it ever bodes well having your defense on the field more than half the game throughout a 16 game season.

 

[albefree69]

RamFan503 added:
Not sure it ever bodes well having your defense on the field more than half the game throughout a 16 game season.

Everything else being equal I'd agree. Of course it really depends on how successful you are in the short time you do have the ball versus how successful the other team is when they have the ball.

I remember that in the loss to the Cheatriots in the SB we had the ball for 33:30 and they had it for 26:30. That huge advantage in TOP didn't work out very well for us did it?

I think the whole TOP thing had a lot more relevance when the NFL was a run first league. But...I'd rather have the TOP advantage than not have it going into the 4th quarter.

 

[CGI_Ram]

Think about it. Austin can obviously play outta the Wideout, Slot, and Running Back positions, Cook can line up at Tight End, Slot, or Wideout, and Kendricks can run outta Tight End or Fullback. The versatility in lining up in multiple formations with the same personnel group is astounding. If this doesn't mean we're gonna see a lot of hurry up, then I don't know what does.

Certainly a good case for the no huddle!

 

[CGI_Ram]

I just don't want to see that much of the actual hurry up used. No huddle? Sure. But you still need to chew up the clock on offense so your defense isn't right back out there. The last thing we need is to wear out our defense so that by the end of the game, the other team can score at will. I'm fine with and look forward to the ability to score quickly. I would love seeing a bunch of explosive plays. But I also want to see our offense be able to keep the defense off the field. Our offense needs to start rewarding the defense with long rests in between possessions. That will make the defense better and allow us to win tough games as well as hopefully some blow-outs.

Good point.

No huddle.

The goal is to prevent defense substitutions... not the same as hurry up.

 

[albefree69]

When I hear hurry up offense it always means some no huddle to me. Same thing with "the two minute offense." Basically running a no huddle except when there is an incompletion or someone goes out of bounds.

 

[Tailback]

With Huff, Addison, BJ Kelly, Keanon Lowe, and DAT catching what Marcus Mariota is throwing... I think the offense is going to look much closer to the Dennis Dixon Ducks instead of the Darron Thomas Ducks. I almost forgot Colt Lyerla, he is the Duck version of Gronkowski. The new WR coach from Duke has already been making a difference. Barring injuries this could be the best Duck offense ever.

Byron Marshall (who will be better than Kenjon Barner IMHO) and Thomas Tyner (freakishly athletic but a true freshman) will tear it up at RB but I don't see such a reliance on the running game as in the past. If the young LB's can step up, this could be the best Duck team overall ever.

Yes I'm in Oregon, Salem to be exact. Grew up in Warrenton. We may have crossed paths at some time, not many Rams fans in Oregon.

Looking forward to seeing them in action. My youngest is a Duck come Fall. Sure hope they don't have a drop off. Kelly's teams were always fun to watch - even more so than Belotti's. It'd be great if they take yet another step forward with the new regime.

We own a BBQ restaurant and brewery in Toledo, OR which is just east of Newport. If you are going to be out this way, look us up - <a class="postlink" href="http://www.pigfeathers.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.pigfeathers.com</a>

Being from Warrenton, I don't go to Newport often. In fact, I've been there three times in my 45 years as crazy as it sounds. If I go to the Coast, I go to Warrenton, Astoria, Seaside, or Cannon Beach out of habit. If I make a trip to Newport you can count on me stopping in to see you. My Mom was a seafood cannery worker (she worked at the Pacific Seafood plant that burned down) so we grew up eating the best of the best. There's nothing like the local ingredients you can get on the Oregon Coast.

 

[RamFan503]

Being from Warrenton, I don't go to Newport often. In fact, I've been there three times in my 45 years as crazy as it sounds. If I go to the Coast, I go to Warrenton, Astoria, Seaside, or Cannon Beach out of habit. If I make a trip to Newport you can count on me stopping in to see you. My Mom was a seafood cannery worker (she worked at the Pacific Seafood plant that burned down) so we grew up eating the best of the best. There's nothing like the local ingredients you can get on the Oregon Coast.

To be honest with you, there's not a lot of reason to go to Newport. If the weather is nice here in Toledo, it is sure to be cold and windy in Newport. I used to fish the Necanicum (sp?) a lot and have spent a fair amount of time in Seaside. I don't get up there near enough. Fun little town. At any rate, if you happen through, give me a buzz. I'll be traveling through Salem tomorrow but we're on a pretty tight schedule.

 

[nighttrain]

What makes you think the Defense will be on the field for more than 3 plays at a time? :hehe:

Besides, if the quick drives are scoring drives, that's juice for a Defense.

I'd be cool with that of course. I'm down with winning 56-0 any and every time. And while I'd agree that scoring drives are juice for the defense, I think most teams with an offense that can't stay on the field for decent chunks of time, end up with defenses that allow a lot of points as well. I honestly have never actually researched that but that's my story and I'm sticking to it until proven otherwise. In which case I will change the parameters of the argument. :sly:

So we alternate scoring drives of 1 play and 10, works for me
train

 

[RamFan503]

What makes you think the Defense will be on the field for more than 3 plays at a time? :hehe:

Besides, if the quick drives are scoring drives, that's juice for a Defense.

I'd be cool with that of course. I'm down with winning 56-0 any and every time. And while I'd agree that scoring drives are juice for the defense, I think most teams with an offense that can't stay on the field for decent chunks of time, end up with defenses that allow a lot of points as well. I honestly have never actually researched that but that's my story and I'm sticking to it until proven otherwise. In which case I will change the parameters of the argument. :sly:

So we alternate scoring drives of 1 play and 10, works for me
train

I'm down with that. :mrgreen: