15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

This forum is for Football related topics only. Other topics will be moved to the appropriate forum.
User avatar
Roy McAvoy
Posts: 5878
Joined: November 2nd, 2011, 1:30 pm
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 1100 times

15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by Roy McAvoy » October 21st, 2019, 1:17 pm

Yowza. That HAS to change. At this point I'm all for abandoning the hurry up. I just don't see the pros outweighing the cons at this point.



User avatar
hipsterdoofus21
Mr. Buttface
Posts: 16365
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 9:39 pm
Has thanked: 927 times
Been thanked: 1467 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by hipsterdoofus21 » October 21st, 2019, 1:26 pm

I agree. I think it would help Love process the defense and prepare for the incoming pressure and possibly read any blitzes. He keeps dropping snaps because he knows he's got 2 seconds to make a decision, cause he knows he can't watch that ball come into this hands because he needs to use the time to watch for a DE or to see where he needs to throw it. Slow down, put guys in position to be successful, and give our defense a chance to catch their breath.
These users thanked the author hipsterdoofus21 for the post:
sdiggety



aggies22
Aggie Insider, Pick'em Champ - '18 Kickoff, '19 Weekly
Posts: 11062
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:17 pm
Location: Smithfield, Utah
Has thanked: 7069 times
Been thanked: 4648 times
Contact:

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by aggies22 » October 21st, 2019, 1:27 pm

That's good. The Offense should be well rested for this weekend.
These users thanked the author aggies22 for the post (total 4):
sam tingeyJSHarveyFloridaAggie13AggieFBObsession



AggieUprising50
Posts: 798
Joined: January 31st, 2015, 4:31 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 212 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by AggieUprising50 » October 21st, 2019, 2:10 pm

I think we should start off drives taking our time, letting Jordan Love get a good look at the defense, and get into a rythm. Then once we've gotten a couple of first downs, go fast!

This way, we can establish some good drives, give our defense some rest, but also get the use the tempo to our advantage when needed.

That's just my two cents though.
These users thanked the author AggieUprising50 for the post (total 2):
frankiesaysrelaxAGinNEIowa



Intermeddler
Posts: 2249
Joined: January 20th, 2011, 7:35 pm
Location: North Salt Lake
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 341 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by Intermeddler » October 21st, 2019, 3:18 pm

Good post. I like going fast generally, but this offense needs to change things up and this seems like the simplest material change we can make midseason.



stwinward
Posts: 468
Joined: August 31st, 2013, 9:35 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by stwinward » October 21st, 2019, 3:21 pm

IMHO fast only works when sustaining drives. The first 3 plays the defense is right with us. Later on they're gassed which can lead to breakdowns and scores.

When just going 3 and out repeatedly, it loses the advantage.
These users thanked the author stwinward for the post (total 3):
ProvoAggieAggieFBObsessionNavyBlueAggie



TrueBlueAggie123
Posts: 277
Joined: October 14th, 2013, 5:32 pm
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 101 times

15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by TrueBlueAggie123 » October 21st, 2019, 4:05 pm

GA mentioned today in the press conference that if the drives aren’t over 2 minutes against AFA, they will lose the game. I hope they slow it down and give Jordan time to pick apart the defense.



User avatar
JSHarvey
Posts: 1876
Joined: April 2nd, 2013, 12:45 pm
Location: Sandy, UT
Has thanked: 1138 times
Been thanked: 147 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by JSHarvey » October 21st, 2019, 4:26 pm

I don't think it is the speed per se, it is lack of sustained drives and touchdowns.

Taking 25 seconds to snap the ball isn't going to change how long Love has to get a pass off, that's a function of the protection AFTER the snap.

If we are talking three and outs then the difference in resting time for the defense in only about 75 to 90 seconds. Either fast or slow three and outs are going to kill the defense.

We need successful drives at whatever speed.
These users thanked the author JSHarvey for the post:
brian5562


"The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it." Lawrence Krauss

"Thinking is the hardest work there is, that's why so few people do it!" Henry Ford

User avatar
ViAggie
Posts: 12019
Joined: June 16th, 2011, 6:49 pm
Location: Temecula, California
Has thanked: 856 times
Been thanked: 560 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by ViAggie » October 21st, 2019, 4:28 pm

In hindsight we should have abandoned the hurry up for LSU and threw them off, we should have done the "slow it down"


Just another day in the (Aggie) Brotherhood

User avatar
lcrasmus
Posts: 1388
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 9:40 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by lcrasmus » October 21st, 2019, 4:38 pm

Roy McAvoy wrote:Yowza. That HAS to change. At this point I'm all for abandoning the hurry up. I just don't see the pros outweighing the cons at this point.
What HAS to change is points on the board. No one was complaining about drives under 2 minutes when they were ending in points last year.

If we keep the same offense, but run half as many plays, the assumption is we'll score... More? Or just hold the ball long enough to prevent the other team from scoring? If "win the time of possession battle by taking longer between plays" is your solution...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



BeNo
Posts: 800
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 4:38 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by BeNo » October 21st, 2019, 5:12 pm

Roy McAvoy wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 1:17 pm
Yowza. That HAS to change. At this point I'm all for abandoning the hurry up. I just don't see the pros outweighing the cons at this point.
Correct me if I am wrong gamefaqs - most our our TD drives were less than 2 minutes last year. Thinking 90%.



User avatar
newhouse9
Posts: 2592
Joined: January 11th, 2011, 2:58 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by newhouse9 » October 21st, 2019, 5:43 pm

BeNo wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 5:12 pm
Roy McAvoy wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 1:17 pm
Yowza. That HAS to change. At this point I'm all for abandoning the hurry up. I just don't see the pros outweighing the cons at this point.
Correct me if I am wrong gamefaqs - most our our TD drives were less than 2 minutes last year. Thinking 90%.
Last year we were scoring touchdowns. This year we aren't...ugh.



GameFAQSAggie
Posts: 6038
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 11:10 am
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 345 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by GameFAQSAggie » October 21st, 2019, 6:32 pm

BeNo wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 5:12 pm
Roy McAvoy wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 1:17 pm
Yowza. That HAS to change. At this point I'm all for abandoning the hurry up. I just don't see the pros outweighing the cons at this point.
Correct me if I am wrong gamefaqs - most our our TD drives were less than 2 minutes last year. Thinking 90%.
28 were under one minute. Don't know the under 2 minute number.









BeNo
Posts: 800
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 4:38 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by BeNo » October 21st, 2019, 6:42 pm

TrueBlueAggie123 wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 4:05 pm
GA mentioned today in the press conference that if the drives aren’t over 2 minutes against AFA, they will lose the game. I hope they slow it down and give Jordan time to pick apart the defense.
We are currently tied for last in time of possession at 25 minutes per game. AF is tied for 7th at 33 minutes. I am guessing they will get the balance during our game and end up with 35. For reference, San Diego is second at 35 minutes per game.



User avatar
dyedblue
Posts: 7942
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 4:21 pm
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 459 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by dyedblue » October 21st, 2019, 7:36 pm

At the current rate, Air Force will get 40+ minutes with the ball. The whole key is scoring against Air Force and getting them to chase points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


“The winning team has a dedication. It will have a core of veteran players who set the standards. They will not accept defeat.” --Merlin Olsen

hickaggie
Posts: 3301
Joined: November 15th, 2010, 10:13 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 272 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by hickaggie » October 21st, 2019, 7:57 pm

JSHarvey wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 4:26 pm
I don't think it is the speed per se, it is lack of sustained drives and touchdowns.

Taking 25 seconds to snap the ball isn't going to change how long Love has to get a pass off, that's a function of the protection AFTER the snap.

If we are talking three and outs then the difference in resting time for the defense in only about 75 to 90 seconds. Either fast or slow three and outs are going to kill the defense.

We need successful drives at whatever speed.
I agree. Whether our 3 and outs go 2 minutes or 30 seconds off the clock AFA is going to beat us if we don't sustain drives and win the field position battle. Tempo the hurry up. If they miss or drop a throw go huddle up talk about it, pat the receiver on the back and let the O line gather themselves and talk about assignments. If we get a 10 yard run with good push run up there and pound them like hell again with the same play, or a play action with deep ball or misdirection play. Its not one or the other, its keeping the defense off their heals and guessing. Thats what is missing. Some of its execution, some of its scheme, and lot of it is predictability.



QuackAttackAggie
Pick'em Champ - '12 Bowl; '15, '17 Weekly; '18 BB Predict the Score
Posts: 15998
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:08 pm
Location: Arlington, VA
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 745 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by QuackAttackAggie » October 21st, 2019, 8:09 pm

this was a point we used to brag about last year. most scores under 2 minutes. TOP is not a stat to worry about on its own. it didn't slow our defense down, so i'm not concerned. especially with TV timeouts these days, a 1 minute drive might as well be 10.



User avatar
Roy McAvoy
Posts: 5878
Joined: November 2nd, 2011, 1:30 pm
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 1100 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by Roy McAvoy » October 21st, 2019, 8:11 pm

QuackAttackAggie wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 8:09 pm
this was a point we used to brag about last year. most scores under 2 minutes. TOP is not a stat to worry about on its own. it didn't slow our defense down, so i'm not concerned. especially with TV timeouts these days, a 1 minute drive might as well be 10.
Gary is sure worried about it. He was telling anyone who would listen today.



QuackAttackAggie
Pick'em Champ - '12 Bowl; '15, '17 Weekly; '18 BB Predict the Score
Posts: 15998
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:08 pm
Location: Arlington, VA
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 745 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by QuackAttackAggie » October 21st, 2019, 8:15 pm

Roy McAvoy wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 8:11 pm
QuackAttackAggie wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 8:09 pm
this was a point we used to brag about last year. most scores under 2 minutes. TOP is not a stat to worry about on its own. it didn't slow our defense down, so i'm not concerned. especially with TV timeouts these days, a 1 minute drive might as well be 10.
Gary is sure worried about it. He was telling anyone who would listen today.
that's because the TOP is a symptom of our issues. my point is on its own, it isn't worth worrying about. e.g. if we are scoring on offense.



hickaggie
Posts: 3301
Joined: November 15th, 2010, 10:13 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 272 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by hickaggie » October 21st, 2019, 8:21 pm

Roy McAvoy wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 8:11 pm
QuackAttackAggie wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 8:09 pm
this was a point we used to brag about last year. most scores under 2 minutes. TOP is not a stat to worry about on its own. it didn't slow our defense down, so i'm not concerned. especially with TV timeouts these days, a 1 minute drive might as well be 10.
Gary is sure worried about it. He was telling anyone who would listen today.
And he's right the way the O has been playing but again AFA might only win by 10 vs. boat racing the Aggies if the offense eats up 2:00 minutes every 3 and out. On the other hand when the Aggies were lighting up the scoreboard last year it put AFA basically one fumble away from playing from down 2 scores where they are not good. It goes both ways. Slow or fast this offense needs to finish drives and put up points or at least flip the field to beat good teams on the road.



User avatar
dyedblue
Posts: 7942
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 4:21 pm
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 459 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by dyedblue » October 21st, 2019, 8:34 pm

Roy McAvoy wrote:
QuackAttackAggie wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 8:09 pm
this was a point we used to brag about last year. most scores under 2 minutes. TOP is not a stat to worry about on its own. it didn't slow our defense down, so i'm not concerned. especially with TV timeouts these days, a 1 minute drive might as well be 10.
Gary is sure worried about it. He was telling anyone who would listen today.
Maybe he should stop talking and start telling some action. It’s not like this showed up just this week or something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These users thanked the author dyedblue for the post:
JSHarvey


“The winning team has a dedication. It will have a core of veteran players who set the standards. They will not accept defeat.” --Merlin Olsen

BeNo
Posts: 800
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 4:38 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by BeNo » October 21st, 2019, 8:37 pm

BeNo wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 6:42 pm
TrueBlueAggie123 wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 4:05 pm
GA mentioned today in the press conference that if the drives aren’t over 2 minutes against AFA, they will lose the game. I hope they slow it down and give Jordan time to pick apart the defense.
We are currently tied for last in time of possession at 25 minutes per game. AF is tied for 7th at 33 minutes. I am guessing they will get the balance during our game and end up with 35. For reference, San Diego is second at 35 minutes per game.
I should have added this is across entire NCAA BCS..



User avatar
2004AG
Posts: 7710
Joined: November 16th, 2010, 11:42 am
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 542 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by 2004AG » October 21st, 2019, 9:37 pm

dyedblue wrote:
Roy McAvoy wrote:
QuackAttackAggie wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 8:09 pm
this was a point we used to brag about last year. most scores under 2 minutes. TOP is not a stat to worry about on its own. it didn't slow our defense down, so i'm not concerned. especially with TV timeouts these days, a 1 minute drive might as well be 10.
Gary is sure worried about it. He was telling anyone who would listen today.
Maybe he should stop talking and start telling some action. It’s not like this showed up just this week or something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You want him to stop giving interviews to media now ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



User avatar
dyedblue
Posts: 7942
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 4:21 pm
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 459 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by dyedblue » October 21st, 2019, 10:10 pm

No. I would like to see some sort of change coming off our bye weeks. He is the man in charge, I just don’t like to see him complain when he can effect change


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


“The winning team has a dedication. It will have a core of veteran players who set the standards. They will not accept defeat.” --Merlin Olsen

User avatar
2004AG
Posts: 7710
Joined: November 16th, 2010, 11:42 am
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 542 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by 2004AG » October 22nd, 2019, 8:42 am

dyedblue wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 10:10 pm
No. I would like to see some sort of change coming off our bye weeks. He is the man in charge, I just don’t like to see him complain when he can effect change


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He's being asked a question during interviews and he's answering the questions. I'm not sure what you expect him to say...."no comment"?



User avatar
JSHarvey
Posts: 1876
Joined: April 2nd, 2013, 12:45 pm
Location: Sandy, UT
Has thanked: 1138 times
Been thanked: 147 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by JSHarvey » October 22nd, 2019, 3:44 pm

2004AG wrote:
October 22nd, 2019, 8:42 am
dyedblue wrote:
October 21st, 2019, 10:10 pm
No. I would like to see some sort of change coming off our bye weeks. He is the man in charge, I just don’t like to see him complain when he can effect change


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He's being asked a question during interviews and he's answering the questions. I'm not sure what you expect him to say...."no comment"?
I think the idea is that Coach Andersen should tell Sanford to start calling plays that use our players to their best advantage. Watch the videos posted in this thread, our offense this year is predictable and not very effective.


"The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it." Lawrence Krauss

"Thinking is the hardest work there is, that's why so few people do it!" Henry Ford

SectionBAggie
Posts: 1324
Joined: November 6th, 2010, 9:04 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 141 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by SectionBAggie » October 22nd, 2019, 8:04 pm

Interesting that Nevada's only scoring drives came against the most rested first string and some well-rested backups. Maybe we should hope for shorter TOP rather than longer.



swordsman1989
Posts: 1168
Joined: December 26th, 2010, 8:43 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by swordsman1989 » October 23rd, 2019, 6:28 am

I hope the offense slows down a bit. It was great last year when we had a stronger O-line and better play makers at WR. I am no expert, but I do think slowing it down a bit will allow Love a few more seconds to scan the defense and be in a better position to process what they are doing. I think this would help with the decision making after the snap. As it is now, it seems he has no time to process the defense prior to the snap, and no time to make a decision after the snap. At least last year he had bit more time to make a decision after the snap because the O-line was better. I still think the occasional hurry up would be good, but make it situational, and after there appears to be some rhythm. The other thing is we are relying on the D more this year than last year. Even if taking 25 seconds between snaps does not improve the offense, or give Love more time to asses the opposing defense, it at least gives our D some more time to rest between drives, keeping them more fresh for later in the game.

That's my opinion, but I am not a coach. Maybe someone who is a coach can explain why so many coaches seem so insistent on sticking with a system even though it is clear that system is not functioning well. I get not making wholesale changes mid season, like going from a spread offense to a triple option, wishbone offense. But why insist on keeping a hurry up offense when it is easy to slow things down a bit. Also, this may be a bit too detailed, but I am wondering if the team or anyone else keeps data on the production of the offensive plays when the team lines up and snaps right away vs when they line up, then take a bit more time and look to the sideline. Does one tend to yield more yardage or have more success than the other?



NavyBlueAggie
Posts: 2281
Joined: November 5th, 2010, 9:28 am
Has thanked: 228 times
Been thanked: 280 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by NavyBlueAggie » October 23rd, 2019, 10:23 pm

In actuality, our hurry up offense is just not yet productive this season. I had hopes the "O" line would mature into solid production this season due to their size, foot speed and athletic ability, but that hasn't happened. Seems our defense is carrying the team this year.



NVAggie
SJSU Ultimate Loser Award Winner - Given to someone that should probably give up but won't.
Posts: 17911
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:09 am
Location: Where the sagebrush grows!
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 983 times

Re: 15 of our 17 drives against Nevada were less than 2 minutes.

Post by NVAggie » October 23rd, 2019, 10:42 pm

Injuries a long the line have really hurt us n



Locked Previous topicNext topic