Saban & Bielema behind the kill uptempo offense rule

[potzer25]

The poster made a claim that Saban used this as an excuse back in 2009, but the article suggests he made comments about the translation of the style to the pro game. 5 years ago very few teams were even considering the spread style being considered now. His comments were relevant and in no way contrary to what he feels is the reason to why he feels its a concern now. And the first round QB's that Mullen placed in the NFL(his point of contention for why it translated well) are both busts.

And your comments on Saban(or coaches) not wanting to adapt shows a lack of insight into the game. Saban(and other coaches) have adapted at each stage to get where they are today as Head Coaches. He has done fairly well against that style of play, not as well as against the tried and true old style of play, but still better than many coaches at that level. Funny how that high flying offense at Auburn needed a special teams play to Beat Saban, and a similar style defense at FSU beat you guys. He will adapt, much the same as he has his entire career and Malzahn will eventually head on down the road to the NFL(since its becoming the next big thing there)

you can't even justify the "means justifies the end" approach being taken here with a coherent argument.

saban does not like the recent trend in offenses. we all agree about that point. he has, on multiple occasions, given various reasons (hard to defend, player safety, etc.). he was suggested rules be looked at to change the pace of the game. he was at the rules committee considering a change. none of that is in dispute except for by delusional posters that consider anything suggesting saban has anything to do with this rule change as an attack.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Great defense is still being played against the spread. It is an allusion that it isn't because there are more total plays in a game now than there use to be. With more plays there are more yards and points surrendered. Yards per play is a better metric.

10 years worth of data says it has been consistent on the defensive side of the ball for elite defenses. In fact there was an uptick after the 40 second clock was put into affect. Kind of shoots a hole in the argument that it hurt defenses.

2004-1 team less than 4 ypp
2005-1 team less than 4 ypp
2006-1 team less than 4 ypp
2007-1 team less than 4 ypp
2008-2 teams less than 4 ypp
2009-3 teams less than 4 ypp
2010-1 team less than 4 ypp
2011-1 team less than 4 ypp
2012-1 team less than 4 ypp
2013-0 teams less than 4 ypp

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Maybe most those injuries occurred against HUNH teams? Maybe they got hurt in practice? Maybe very few got hurt against other slow teams? How does soley listing the number of injuries a team has and what style they play have to do with; if going against HUNH teams might cause more injuries? I don't get it?

The only constant in that metric is that those teams are the ones who were injured the most and their style of play. In fact, one side of the ball is completely decided by that team. So unless all their injuries were on defense, your point is moot. But you already knew that...

 

[BamaTee1]

I'm also in favor of looking into it. What I'm NOT in favor of, is making a new rule based on player safety when there isn't enough evidence to support the new rule.

As for the disadvantages to the defense. There are many other rules that can (and should) be changed to lessen the defenses disadvantage without messing with the hunh.

Also, if a defense is organized and paying attention, the hunh isn't all that difficult to figure out. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, defensive personnel changes are situational. Have the players you need ready to go and make your substitutions quickly. Being in the PAC, USC faces about 4-5 teams per season that run some version of the hunh and I don't recall any penalties due to trying to substitute to get the right players on the field.

That's what I've seen written several times, so take this with a grain of salt. I have a hard time believing that an Alabama or many other quality teams with quality coaches can't figure out how to do this on a regular basis. How do you line up situational substitutions when you don't know what situation you'll be in until after the play? Maybe that's one of the reasons why Saban hired Kiffen?

However, please keep in mind Saban mentioned it might be worth looking into and he is so damn powerful he created this firestorm. That is not his fault. That is the media's fault. 24/7 sports has created stories out of non stories. If they would have left it alone it probably wouldn't even be looked at but everytime we looked up they were writing a story about it. Also, keep in mind this is the very reason Saban does not respect much of the media! Not all but many.

I love my team, I love defensive football, I love my coach and because of what I just wrote I find myself in a sports message board defending that it should at least be looked into while reading nothing but insults of my team, our fans and our coach!

Good post by the way Trojanfan!!!

 

[BamaTee1]

The only constant in that metric is that those teams are the ones who were injured the most and their style of play. In fact, one side of the ball is completely decided by that team. So unless all their injuries were on defense, your point is moot. But you already knew that...

That's the only side of the ball Saban referred to!

 

[Hook'Em0608]

What is funny to me about all this is that the people arguing in favor of this rule consistently have dominate defenses and a bunch of national championships recently. Yet they need more defensive advantages? Spoiled rotten fan bases...

 

[Hook'Em0608]

The 2011 Alabama defense was one of the statistically greatest defenses of the modern era. How did they ever manage with all their disadvantages...

 

[BamaTee1]

What is funny to me about all this is that the people arguing in favor of this rule consistently have dominate defenses and a bunch of national championships recently. Yet they need more defensive advantages? Spoiled rotten fan bases...

And the truth comes out again!

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

you can't even justify the "means justifies the end" approach being taken here with a coherent argument.

saban does not like the recent trend in offenses. we all agree about that point. he has, on multiple occasions, given various reasons (hard to defend, player safety, etc.). he was suggested rules be looked at to change the pace of the game. he was at the rules committee considering a change. none of that is in dispute except for by delusional posters that consider anything suggesting saban has anything to do with this rule change as an attack.

You and I differ on the intent of this. He has stated on several occasions that he feels it is contrary to player safety. Its a written fact that he is on record saying so. He went before the committee and made the same statement. A fellow coach who is on the committee stated he felt that the reasons coaches are coming before the committee are due to player safety concerns. not defensive disadvantages. But you and all the other all knowing, all seeing fans on these boards are the final judgement on why Saban, Bielema and many others are against this style of play. No one can tell you different because you have read between the lines and formed your own "opinion", dont let the written "facts" get in your way.

Now, as for disputing him being there and why, I firmly believe he wanted to be there, and I still firmly believe its due to player concerns. No matter his reasons, he gets paid to do what he does, and apparently his "opinion" is weighted pretty heavily in college football or we wouldnt have so much butthurt every time he makes his "opinion" known. As long as he is my teams coach and he is looking out for the best interest of my team and the players on that team, then i am going to stand behind him 100%. Dont like that, too damn bad.

 

[BamaTee1]

The 2011 Alabama defense was one of the statistically greatest defenses of the modern era. How did they ever manage with all their disadvantages...

More and more and more teams are going to the HUNH. However, as I stated above about the truth, the issue is the issue regardless to how Alabama is doing. I've always said a strategic decision is either good or bad before the result is known. Example: 2nd quarter, team is on their own 30 and it's 4th and short. The other team is winning 13-3 and the coach decides to go for it. It doesn't matter if he gets it or not it's flat out stupid. He can't win the game on that decision but he could lose it. The issue is the issue regardless of results! It's people like you who have the power to get in Saban's mind and KNOW why he is saying it should be looked into! He didn't say anything about it after any loss?

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

What is funny to me about all this is that the people arguing in favor of this rule consistently have dominate defenses and a bunch of national championships recently. Yet they need more defensive advantages? Spoiled rotten fan bases...

This is a perception/reality based comment. Its your (and others)perception that its about defensive advantages, while the reality is that the comments states are about player safety concerns. You and others are reading into it what you want to see, but reality says something different. Whats funny is someone posted in here that many HUHN teams dont get lined up and snap the ball until after that 10 seconds rolls off anyways, so what are we really talking about here? How is it a disadvantage to the offense for them to play their normal style of play? Exactly.

 

[BamaTee1]

Stay quiet Nick Saban because when you talk EVERYONE listens! It's your fault!!!

 

[trojanfan12]

That's what I've seen written several times, so take this with a grain of salt. I have a hard time believing that an Alabama or many other quality teams with quality coaches can't figure out how to do this on a regular basis. How do you line up situational substitutions when you don't know what situation you'll be in until after the play? Maybe that's one of the reasons why Saban hired Kiffen?

Because situations are typically about down and distance as well as opponent tendencies. A coach can see what the down and distance is as the play is being blown dead. He knows right away whether he needs to substitute for a running or passing situation.


However, please keep in mind Saban mentioned it might be worth looking into and he is so damn powerful he created this firestorm. That is not his fault. That is the media's fault. 24/7 sports has created stories out of non stories. If they would have left it alone it probably wouldn't even be looked at but everytime we looked up they were writing a story about it. Also, keep in mind this is the very reason Saban does not respect much of the media! Not all but many.

I agree and that is why in an earlier post, I suggested that Saban never should have commented on it. Not that he isn't free to express his opinion, but because of how self-serving the statement appears. It's no secret that while 'Bama still wins most of their games vs. hunh teams, it is also true that those are the teams that give them the most trouble.

So, for Saban to speak out about it in the first place seems self-serving. To ask for the opportunity to speak before the very committee that is voting on the rule, just makes it worse.

I love my team, I love defensive football, I love my coach and because of what I just wrote I find myself in a sports message board defending that it should at least be looked into while reading nothing but insults of my team, our fans and our coach!

Good post by the way Trojanfan!!!

Remember, I'm a USC fan. USC has traditionally played the same type of pro-style football that 'Bama plays. So, we're not that different as far as the type of football that we like. I just don't want to see a rule enacted to take away the hunh unless there is evidence to show that it's a true safety issue for the players.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

This is a perception/reality based comment. Its your (and others)perception that its about defensive advantages, while the reality is that the comments states are about player safety concerns. You and others are reading into it what you want to see, but reality says something different. Whats funny is someone posted in here that many HUHN teams dont get lined up and snap the ball until after that 10 seconds rolls off anyways, so what are we really talking about here? How is it a disadvantage to the offense for them to play their normal style of play? Exactly.

It can't be anything but a defensive advantage. This whole thread is pretty much about fairness to the defense being able to substitute whenever they want (an argument I will listen to). The only data toward player safety being presented is on the side of it being more dangerous to run a slow down power offense. If you are being honest with yourself that makes sense too. It is a more physical brand of football with the play being focused on the middle of the field where it is congested. The spread focuses on the sidelines were WR's and DB's are less likely to make the huge hits because of already existing player safety rules. Player safety is an obvious farce on this topic. And the reason so many of us are irritated by Saban and fat hog with hot wife getting such a say at that meeting. They have a vested biased opinion on it. Why not doctors instead? Or league commissioners? You know, someone who could speak on behalf of all parties...

 

[BamaTee1]

Remember, I'm a USC fan. USC has traditionally played the same type of pro-style football that 'Bama plays. So, we're not that different as far as the type of football that we like. I just don't want to see a rule enacted to take away the hunh unless there is evidence to show that it's a true safety issue for the players.

Now why can't others post like you with logic and sense? Another good post! I see where you come from, but to ask someone to be aware of an innocent answer, and what might come from it, is a little much. Bandwagon and I differ in one area. I think it is just as much about keeping the defenses in the game and strategy as it is safety. I do think Saban is very concerned about the safety issue but I say 50/50 on reasons. In all honesty I believe in the intent of the rule but not the rule itself. I would much rather see them address this with a different rule. What that is I don't know. I like the idea of allowing defenses to substitute and not get chicken shit caught with a penalty because they have too many men and the ball is snapped.

The premise of most games is to win and, as they say, "may the best man(team win!" I realize there are upsets and strategy is a big part of the game but that strategy has to work within a structure and to not see the silliness of a team trying to gain an advantage by running to the line and maybe or maybe not snapping the ball to keep the other team from putting on it's best players for that situation is ridiculous. Add that to all the other rule changes is a bit much to me. That's my opinion. It might not be the consensus but it's a shame that type thinking is getting slammed in here!

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Stay quiet Nick Saban because when you talk EVERYONE listens! It's your fault!!!

LOL at acting like the most successful coach in college football not having a huge pulpit to speak from...

I mean nobody would listen to that guy. Especially when that guy goes to speak at the committee meeting with a bunch of no name tiny school coaches...

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Now why can't others post like you with logic and sense? Another good post! I see where you come from, but to ask someone to be aware of an innocent answer, and what might come from it, is a little much. Bandwagon and I differ in one area. I think it is just as much about keeping the defenses in the game and strategy as it is safety. I do think Saban is very concerned about the safety issue but I say 50/50 on reasons. In all honesty I believe in the intent of the rule but not the rule itself. I would much rather see them address this with a different rule. What that is I don't know. I like the idea of allowing defenses to substitute and not get chicken shit caught with a penalty because they have too many men and the ball is snapped.

The premise of most games is to win and, as they say, "may the best man(team win!" I realize there are upsets and strategy is a big part of the game but that strategy has to work within a structure and to not see the silliness of a team trying to gain an advantage by running to the line and maybe or maybe not snapping the ball to keep the other team from putting on it's best players for that situation is ridiculous. Add that to all the other rule changes is a bit much to me. That's my opinion. It might not be the consensus but it's a shame that type thinking is getting slammed in here!

There is no difference between substituting a different package for every offensive formation and the offense wanting to make you burn timeouts when they have the personnel advantage. Both are strategies and both are plenty fair. If you actually watched HUNH as long as I have you would realize it is really only run after a successful play. If the offense finds a mismatch they want to run it over and over again until you stop it or call a timeout. It's not like teams snap the ball every 10 seconds the entire game. Nobody does that. It is pure strategy the same as Saban putting in his nickel package. You want to take that part of offensive strategy away from them based upon player safety without data to back it. Lame...

 

[BamaTee1]

There is no difference between substituting a different package for every offensive formation and the offense wanting to make you burn timeouts when they have the personnel advantage. Both are strategies and both are plenty fair. If you actually watched HUNH as long as I have you would realize it is really only run after a successful play. If the offense finds a mismatch they want to run it over and over again until you stop it or call a timeout. It's not like teams snap the ball every 10 seconds the entire game. Nobody does that. It is pure strategy the same as Saban putting in his nickel package. You want to take that part of offensive strategy away from them based upon player safety without data to back it. Lame...

Scrap the 10 second rule and give each team an extra timeout or two and let them carry over if not used. There's your answer. Thread over!

 

[trojanfan12]

Now why can't others post like you with logic and sense? Another good post! I see where you come from, but to ask someone to be aware of an innocent answer, and what might come from it, is a little much. Bandwagon and I differ in one area. I think it is just as much about keeping the defenses in the game and strategy as it is safety. I do think Saban is very concerned about the safety issue but I say 50/50 on reasons. In all honesty I believe in the intent of the rule but not the rule itself. I would much rather see them address this with a different rule. What that is I don't know. I like the idea of allowing defenses to substitute and not get chicken shit caught with a penalty because they have too many men and the ball is snapped.

The premise of most games is to win and, as they say, "may the best man(team win!" I realize there are upsets and strategy is a big part of the game but that strategy has to work within a structure and to not see the silliness of a team trying to gain an advantage by running to the line and maybe or maybe not snapping the ball to keep the other team from putting on it's best players for that situation is ridiculous. Add that to all the other rule changes is a bit much to me. That's my opinion. It might not be the consensus but it's a shame that type thinking is getting slammed in here!

I agree with much of this. However, there a couple of points that I disagree with.

For the defense, I believe that there are other rule changes that can be made that would make for a more even playing field without messing with the hunh. The hunh is a strategy that works within the structure of the game. It just forces the defense to be more organized and quicker in what they do.

Remember, it's not as if the offense gets to make all of the substitutions that they want and the defense can't make any. If the offense substitutes, the defense gets to as well. If the offense does not substitute, the defense still can, but as I said, they have to be more organized and quick about it.

 

[romeo212000]

Scrap the 10 second rule and give each team an extra timeout or two and let them carry over if not used. There's your answer. Thread over!

I actually wouldn't be opposed to adding a timeout, but don't let it carry over.