We [Auburn] are committed to running the football. In this league, you have to run the...

We [Auburn] are committed to running the football. In this league, you have to run the football.

...

We do concentrate on trying to throw the football vertically down the field. We are a no-huddle team. Our goal is to snap the ball within five seconds after the referee puts it down. If we do that, and we get first downs, we'll average 10 to 15 more plays than our opponents.

Really it's about numbers. We're getting more plays than anybody else.

Auburn OC Gus Malzahn discusses his team's strategy at the 15th annual Wade Office Equipment L'Arche Football Preview.

almost 3 years ago kleph 19 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Gus is a good coach...

if he can get his players to execute, he should be successful…
but I can’t help to think that a strong defense would be very quick to shut it down…
maybe back to HS he should go…
no ill will here tho…let me stress that…

enjoy...

by SpockJenkins on May 29, 2009 8:51 AM CDT reply actions

Gus Malzahn knows a lot more than me, but I don't understand this.

Won’t you get more plays than you opponents if you make first downs (which I know he said), regardless of when you snap the ball? I can see some advantages to a quick snap, namely preventing the defense from getting rest and/or adjusting at the line. But I just don’t see how snapping the ball quickly gets you more plays. It adds more plays to the game, sure, but whether that translates to more plays for the quick snapping offense depends on a lot more.

Somebody get Michael Lewis on this.

by Nick's Hat Band on May 29, 2009 11:33 AM CDT reply actions

This makes no sense...

Clearly Malzahn is right that the no huddle will end up getting his team more snaps per game, but so what? Total snaps per game does not matter. It doesn’t matter how many snaps you get, ultimately when your possession is done you have to give the ball back to your opponent. That’s the exact same reason why time of possession is so irrelevant… ultimately, no matter how long you keep it, the rules of the game force you to give it back to your opponent, and ultimately they end up getting the ball the same number of times you do. As a result, in the end it doesn’t matter how many more plays you get, or how long you keep it, what matters is drive efficiency, specifically points per drive.

As an added note, I will also add that I’m not overly convinced that the no huddle is optimized in a run-heavy offense. It seems to me that a no huddle is inherently more suited to a wide open passing game. Furthermore, it seems to me that if you are consistently going to be running the football into the line, the defense can really slow the game down just by sitting on the ball carrier and being slow to get back up. It’s much easier to do that in a pile of ten guys on an interior run than it is with two guys — a wide receiver and a DB — when the offense tries to hurry it up after completing a curl route.

by outsidethesidelines on May 29, 2009 11:49 AM CDT reply actions

granted, time of possession doesn't mean that you are winning...

or will win the game…but TOP does mean that you’re keeping your opponents offense off the field…and that means that they (hopefully) can’t score as many points as you…I get what you’re saying, but time of possession is far from irrelevant…

enjoy...

by SpockJenkins on May 29, 2009 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions

Is it?

… time of possession is far from irrelevant…

Is it?

I mean that’s easy to say, but I have yet to really see anything that indicates there’s much of a link between time of possession and winning football games. Look at Florida and Oklahoma last year, for example, they finished 64th and 77th, respectively, in time of possession.

Again, I just see no link. Yes you keep the opponent’s offense off the field while you have the ball, but again, the structure of the game guarantees that they will get the ball just as many times as you will. The only way you can break that is by either getting an onside kick, or by gaming the clock at the end of the half to get a “free” possession as time expires.

by outsidethesidelines on May 29, 2009 1:03 PM CDT reply actions

I think a no-huddle is most effective

in a balanced offense because you catch the defense with the wrong personnel and or scheme and you can take advantage. Look at the Jim Kelly/Thurman Thomas Buffalo teams.

As for TOP, I don’t think anyone can say holding the ball X:XX minutes gives you a XX % chance of winning. But I think TOP is really important in that a big differential in TOP will matter late in the game. How often, prior to 2008, did we talk about the lack of depth on the front seven? That was a problem because those guys get tired. Stringing together a couple of first downs can really recharge a defense. Multiple 3 and outs can suck their will to live.

But TOP is something you have to look at in the context of the game as it can be overvalued like any statistic. What if your offense scored on every play? They’d be last in TOP and number of plays run. They’d get less “chances” than the other team every game. The defense would constantly be exhausted. But I think anyone would be glad to make that trade.

by Nick's Hat Band on May 29, 2009 1:14 PM CDT reply actions

The

whole “theory” behind the no huddle isn’t necessarily number of plays or TOP, it basically seeks to accomplish two ends: 1. Prevent the defense from making substitutions/adjustments 2. Wear down the defense over the course of a game

So I don’t see where it matters if you are a run based no huddle or pass based, you can accomplish both ends either way. So basically what I’m saying is that I don’t see the point in what GM said.

"A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." -H. L. Mencken

by Bens4vcobra on May 29, 2009 1:55 PM CDT reply actions

well, my confusion over what he was saying is partly the reason i posted this. my question had to do with his insistence there will be an emphasis on the running game which seems completely counter to the idea of a “hurry up” type of approach.

by kleph on May 29, 2009 3:14 PM CDT reply actions

I know and I'm not really knocking Malzahn.

I just don’t see how a no-huddle/early snap gets you “more plays than anybody else.” Now if the goal was to run as many plays as you can in certain amount of time, I’d understand. But that, as OTS noted, is not how the game works. If you run three plays and don’t make 10 yards, typically you have to punt — regardless of how fast you snapped the ball on each play.

by Nick's Hat Band on May 29, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions

well, i didn't post it to mock the guy...

…we have plenty of fodder for that with the HC anyway.

but i honestly am trying to understand what these comments might mean. i don’t think he’s being disingenuous but, like JD notes below, it sounds like he’s going down a path that other’s have already tried and failed with that offense. i’ll assume he’ll have better cooperation from the coaching staff than franklin was given but the level of talent he has to work with isn’t any better and likely a good bit worse.

by kleph on May 29, 2009 7:02 PM CDT up reply actions

I agree...

… I’m not trying to be an instigator, but it just doesn’t make sense to me. I mean seriously, who has ever heard of a hurry-up run-heavy offense? This is a first, to my knowledge.

Again, I just don’t see how it’s possible. I mean yes you can obviously do it, but how are you going to go gain from it? You aren’t going to catch anyone out of position by running the ball into the line, only to turn around real fast and run it into the line again. That’s easy to recover from and get lined up again. It’s not like with a wide-open passing offense where you have to scurry 28 yards downfield after the offense hits a big play on a post pattern. I mean yes I guess you could catch people off guard a bit after big running plays, but how many big running plays can an offense with a shitty line and no elite tailbacks really expect? Hell, last year Auburn had all of one rushing attempt of over 20 yards last year in conference play. Is that really how they are going to make the no-huddle work?

I don’t know, this just all seems totally pointless to me. I just cannot see how you would even theoretically gain by doing this.

by outsidethesidelines on May 29, 2009 11:56 PM CDT up reply actions

And...

… aside from the fact that I cannot even see a theoretical gain from this, I can definitely see a clear down side. Three and outs are bad enough, but how much fun do you think their defense will have when the offense goes three and out in hurry-up mode?

If I’m a defender, I’m not too happy about that. The offense clearly isn’t going to be very good regardless, and if that comes to fruition, it will only make matters worse.

by outsidethesidelines on May 30, 2009 12:00 AM CDT up reply actions

to a point, i think there’s a bit muddying the waters going on here. are you going to run? HECK YEAH! are you going to pass? HECK YEAH? it was a public forum and bama coaches were there.

but i’m betting there’s a grain of truth or two to be found in there as well. remember it’s this conflict between running and the no-huddle spread that led to his woes in fayetteville while his ability to balance the two was the hallmark of his success in tulsa. and seeing how he chooses to approach the prospect of facing the SEC west in general and Bama in particular is downright intriguing.

obviously, we have one of the most fearsome returning defenses in the country but utah showed a way to attack it. forcefully. and in the air. get us off balance early and run up enough of a score that the untested offense can’t catch. then, obviously, go to the run and hold on for dear life. moreover, given the franklin debacle, i doubt any OC in the plains is going to admit to being a spread aficionado without some kind of qualifier for quite some time to come.

still, this seems to be of little direct import for us because we face auburn at the end of the season. their lack of depth should be rearing its head by then and the likelihood of pulling off such a speedy gameplan is low. by that time our offense will be substantially better and more likely to mount a late comeback not to mention we’ll have a full season of gametape to break down by then.

by kleph on May 30, 2009 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions

I don't think it matters to us...

I think if they go to a run-heavy offense, that’s ideal for us because that is what we are designed to stop. I mean if they want to try to run inside on Cody and company all afternoon, that sounds great to me.

And honestly, for that matter, let them throw it if they want too. Only good things will come of us defending 20+ Kodi Burns’ passes a game.

Bottom line, regardless of what they do offensively we should handle it with no problem. Their offensive line sucks, and we should control them if they try to run it right at us. Likewise, they have no passing game and our pass defense is going to be pretty dang stout. I really do not see them having success against us either way. They couldn’t get a single point last year, and unless we really hand them some with mistakes on our end, they shouldn’t score too many more on us in 2009 either.

by outsidethesidelines on May 30, 2009 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions