Roy Williams (UNC basketball coach) likes his teams to run. I recall seeing an interview where he explained that his theory is that the more plays there are, the higher the chance that the better team will win. The less possessions there are, the more that luck / flukey plays / a hot streak / etc plays into things. Since he typically has the better team, he wants more possessions to minimize those factors.

If this theory transfers to football, then having more possessions (which our tempo is designed to do) is bad for the worse team (which is us in most games these days). There was a time when fast paced offenses were novel and thus an advantage but that time is quickly passing (no pun intended). Should we slow down the pace, particularly when a heavy underdog, until we become highly efficient at executing the offense?

please note that I'm not questioning the offense itself, just the tempo aspect

I think it works a little different in football. The faster you run the more opportunity there is the other team is out of position which I think is the whole idea.

I'm beginning to wonder whether our fast tempo offense has been wearing down our defense during practice and causing injuries???

HungryCalBear;842188243 said:

---

I'm beginning to wonder whether our fast tempo offense has been wearing down our defense during practice and causing injuries???

---

Doubt it. Our defense has been plague with strange injuries this year dating back from last year. Forbes chronic back problem, Scarlett's extremely rare infection, and too many academic dropouts

I answer to title .... Yes.

I think the OP makes a good point. I think, at least for now, there are times when we should slow it down.

Seems like giving an opposition with a semblance of an offense the ball so many times against our D is a questionable strategy near-term

I think that all of you WANNABE coaches should go out and coach at a program other than some youth league and then come back and express an opinion based on knowledge and experience.

mdcspe69;842188266 said:

---

I think that all of you WANNABE coaches should go out and coach at a program other than some youth league and then come back and express an opinion based on knowledge and experience.

---

+1
No secrets about the Franklin offense.

One of the main downsides of our offense is the resulting extra number of plays on defense. It's like playing 14, 15 or more games' worth of plays on D over the course of the season instead of 12, and that is a big issue given our lack of depth on defense.

I think Franklin's offense would work better with a more aggressive D, as opposed to a bend or break defense, which would keep it on the field too long.

HungryCalBear;842188243 said:

---

I'm beginning to wonder whether our fast tempo offense has been wearing down our defense during practice and causing injuries???

---

Oregon doesn't have this issue...

I think it is a really good question. When you have the worst D in the conference, and one of the worst in the nation, speeding up the game is probably not a good strategy. I like the offense they run, but when you look at the D, I think you can make a case that this year we should be slowing it down more and trying to run some clock and sustain long drives. This will be the worst defense in the history of Cal football.

boredom;842188236 said:

---

Should we slow down the pace, particularly when a heavy underdog, until we become highly efficient at executing the offense?

---

And how are the Bears supposed to become 'highly efficient at executing the offense' if we're not running the offense the way it's designed to be run?

I like the uptempo offense, it's entertaining and basketball analogy makes some sense if not perfect. Cal just needs max reps running it to make things second nature.

IF there's a liability, the Oregon game might be a good example. Going against an excellent up tempo team makes playing the clock/slowing it down difficult. (And there were times slowing the game might have helped.) Either you have to beat them at their own game of speed and many plays, or you go to a power game like Furd.

Of course you can build a killer defense but that's not so easy. Not sure if the 4-3 is the right D to stop/slow the up tempo.

Cal79;842188434 said:

---

And how are the Bears supposed to become 'highly efficient at executing the offense' if we're not running the offense the way it's designed to be run?

---

exactly. this is a short term problem. for the long run, we need the offense to have experience running the offense the way it was designed.

I get the argument. The more plays that are run, the better chance there is that the better team will win. At this point, we're not going to be the better team probably for the rest of the schedule. In addition, I would imagine the extra plays puts a burden on the team's health. With the number of plays run, I bet we're effectively playing an extra game over the course of a season. You'd think the team who played one less game would be fresher.

Having said all that, the answer is no. We hired Dykes for his high tempo offense, and it makes absolutely no sense to ditch his system after 4 games. We knew there would be a transition period despite the simplicity of the offense due to the youth on the team and breaking in a new QB. We just need to practice some patience and keep hope alive.

Franklin is on record as saying this offense was built for undermanned teams. I can see that. I just think our defense needs to match our offense. Attack on defense mainly so the other team's defense will have to get back on the field sooner. Don't sit back on defense and allow 10 play drives all games. Of course don't do what we have done either: sit back on defense and allow 2 play drives.

yes we should run this scheme. our offense is the strength. you want them to get as many opportunities as possible

Minus what we saw last week in the monsoon... 30+ points a game, out of the box, with a true freshman QB, is pretty damn impressive. Two of those games were against a 25 and top 5 teams. Hanging 34 on tOSU doesn't happen all that often.

We really need to run the ball better, at least 150 a game, and if we can up our passing game (completion %) just even a few more points, we'll win our share of games for sure... And that's with a D that has its share of challenges.

The fast-temp offense is the only thing I like about this team. Take that away and it's Tom Holmoe football again.

Cal89;842188502 said:

---

Minus what we saw last week in the monsoon... 30+ points a game, out of the box, with a true freshman QB, is pretty damn impressive. Two of those games were against a 25 and top 5 teams. Hanging 34 on tOSU doesn't happen all that often.

We really need to run the ball better, at least 150 a game, and if we can up our passing game (completion %) just even a few more points, we'll win our share of games for sure... And that's with a D that has its share of challenges.

---

I'd really like to see us utilize the "inside receivers" (formerly TEs) to block and attack the edges. There was some talk of "jumbo sets" before the season began. I'd like to see some series with that, run at a fast pace (would have been good for rainy weather). Similarly, while I'm not a huge fan of the wildcat, it seems like running some series with Boehm mostly running last Saturday would be a way to deal with the weather. Couldn't have been worse than trying to have Goff, even Kline mostly complete passes to receivers.

I do hope that in the future, if we anticipate inclement weather, we go in with an appropriate game plan.

BeachyBear;842188505 said:

---

The fast-temp offense is the only thing I like about this team. Take that away and it's Tom Holmoe football again.

---

Holmoe eventually had pretty good defenses (with Lyle Setencich at DC). It was his offenses stunk.

Combine those defenses with this offense and we would be pretty damn good.

HungryCalBear;842188243 said:

---

I'm beginning to wonder whether our fast tempo offense has been wearing down our defense during practice and causing injuries???

---

Remember, the defense practices against the SCOUT TEAM offense. It is not about pace (unless that is relevant) but about assignments and reads.

BeachyBear;842188505 said:

---

The fast-temp offense is the only thing I like about this team. Take that away and it's Tom Holmoe football again.

---

In fairness to Holmoe, at one point, our D was pretty stout under his watch. Remember the Hit Squad and Deltha O'Neal?

YuSeeBerkeley;842188517 said:

---

In fairness to Holmoe, at one point, our D was pretty stout under his watch. Remember the Hit Squad and Deltha O'Neal?

---

Yeah, when you have your best offensive player and top scorer on the team never taking an offensive snap.

beelzebear;842188444 said:

---

I like the uptempo offense, it's entertaining and basketball analogy makes some sense if not perfect. Cal just needs max reps running it to make things second nature.

IF there's a liability, the Oregon game might be a good example. Going against an excellent up tempo team makes playing the clock/slowing it down difficult. (And there were times slowing the game might have helped.) Either you have to beat them at their own game of speed and many plays, or you go to a power game like Furd.

Of course you can build a killer defense but that's not so easy. Not sure if the 4-3 is the right D to stop/slow the up tempo.

---

I don't think the up-tempo beat Cal vs Oregon. It was the 5 turnovers and the Oregon offense.

calumnus;842188515 said:

---

Holmoe eventually had pretty good defenses (with Lyle Setencich at DC). It was his offenses stunk.

Combine those defenses with this offense and we would be pretty damn good.

---

A Sonny Dykes offense and a Lyle Setncich defense... I know I've seen them somewhere... but I must have blocked it out of my memory...

Yes, this can lead to more snaps for the defense, but ultimately, which is better, a 2 minute touchdown drive or a 7 minute drive that yields zero or 3 points? Slowing down the offense reduces its ability to score (which is the #1 purpose of an offense).

Yah, we had good defense and boring-as-f*ck football, even on the rare occasions when we won. The question was about slowing the tempo on our offense. I don't think there's an offense in football that played at a slower tempo than the Tom Holmoe offenses. I do recall Boller wasn't half bad at kicking the football, that was mildly amusing, assuming one wasn't attached to the whole "winning football games" thing.

UrsaMajor;842188653 said:

---

Yes, this can lead to more snaps for the defense, but ultimately, which is better, a 2 minute touchdown drive or a 7 minute drive that yields zero or 3 points? Slowing down the offense reduces its ability to score (which is the #1 purpose of an offense).

---

serious question - why does slowing down the offense reduce it's ability to score? Assume that we can still quickly snap it if the defense doesn't look set or well adjusted to what we're going to run. We can still line up quickly and not let them substitute if we want to.

boredom;842188236 said:

---

If this theory transfers to football, then having more possessions (which our tempo is designed to do) is bad for the worse team (which is us in most games these days). There was a time when fast paced offenses were novel and thus an advantage but that time is quickly passing (no pun intended). Should we slow down the pace, particularly when a heavy underdog, until we become highly efficient at executing the offense?

please note that I'm not questioning the offense itself, just the tempo aspect

---

No it is not designed to maximize our number of possessions. Our tempo is designed to wear out opposing defenses. It is designed to maximize our chances of scoring on any particular drive, not necessarily to give us more possessions.

Increasing possessions is a secondary effect of our pace, but not the main reason we run our offense this way.

BerlinerBaer;842188876 said:

---

No it is not designed to maximize our number of possessions. Our tempo is designed to wear out opposing defenses. It is designed to maximize our chances of scoring on any particular drive, not necessarily to give us more possessions.

Increasing possessions is a secondary effect of our pace, but not the main reason we run our offense this way.

---

I can see an argument for the wear down the defense component (though I would think that as more and more teams play this tempo that defenses will get used to it) but why would playing high tempo "maximize our chances of scoring on any particular drive"? Let's say the 2nd drive of the game, how does our tempo help us score?

I'm of the belief / understanding that the increased offensive pace is beneficial, for two reasons.

1. Working at such a pace can make for a rhythm, one that when it's clicking, it can become an unstoppable mass or inertia. I tend to think of Brazilian soccer... If you ever had a friend quickly feeding you basketballs while you shoot, you've probably gotten into a "zone" at times, draining bucket after bucket. As soon as you shoot, the next ball is coming to you, right at chest level... Once a ball is delayed, or is dished down to your knees, the rhythm is broken.

2. It can make for a competitive advantage over the defense that is not as physically fit; and over the course of the game, it can fatigue them. Just like being stronger or faster can make for edge, so can stamina...

So, it's not just about tiring the D.

With respect to the number of plays, that too is of course beneficial for the offense. Heck, I'd include that as #3... I'd put that as the most important thing actually. With a finite amount of time, unlike baseball, the more snaps a team can get, there are simply more opportunities to score. I'd prefer having on average 100 snaps over 70...

boredom;842188885 said:

---

I can see an argument for the wear down the defense component (though I would think that as more and more teams play this tempo that defenses will get used to it) but why would playing high tempo "maximize our chances of scoring on any particular drive"? Let's say the 2nd drive of the game, how does our tempo help us score?

---

It is designed to minimize defensive substitutions, catch the defense off guard, and wear them out. I'm with you that the defense probably won't be worn out until the second half but the first two points are still valid throughout the game.

The hurry-up offense prevents the D from changing personnel to counter what they think might be coming. We can catch defenders out of position or pick on mismatches. One example would be if they had only 4 DBs out there to counter a run up the middle but then next play we line up 4 WRs and beat a poor LB on a wheel route.

boredom;842188885 said:

---

I can see an argument for the wear down the defense component (though I would think that as more and more teams play this tempo that defenses will get used to it) but why would playing high tempo "maximize our chances of scoring on any particular drive"? Let's say the 2nd drive of the game, how does our tempo help us score?

---

If you get a good play and then line up quickly and run another play, not only does the defense not get to substitute, but they are still reeling mentally and physically from the first play. Think of it as a boxer with great speed who throws a lot of punches. If he lands a punch and then follows it up quickly with another (and another and another), that second (and third and fourth) punch does not have to be a great punch to land and do damage. Or when a baseball team "gets to a pitcher" and rallies, hit after hit. The offense gains momentum and energy while the defense loses confidence and concentration.