The Hurry Up Offense works, so why don't we use it more?

[Franisdaman]

From HawkCentral:


Iowa’s up-tempo offense was the one thing that did click Saturday, just as it did against Northwestern on Oct. 1 before vanishing for three weeks.

The Hawkeyes picked up some pre-halftime momentum, going 51 yards on eight plays in 54 seconds in hurry-up mode to set up Miguel Recinos’ 47-yard field goal to cut the margin to 7-6.

The hurry-up clicked the second time it was tried, too, in the fourth quarter. Beathard completed five consecutive passes to lead Iowa’s march into Wisconsin’s red zone.

“It doesn’t allow the defense to get set,” McCarron said. “That was the biggest thing.”

As Wadley put it: “If it works, why not keep doing it?”


the whole story: http://www.hawkcentral.com/story/sp...m-wadley-riley-mccarron-cj-beathard/92532392/

 

[David1979]

They definitely need to keep doing it. It is the only time they have been able to do much in the passing game.

 

[Fools_Rush_In]

We have a terrible game manager as a coach. Why would they keep doing what works?

 

[kcgolfer]

Because old GD and old Kirk, can't think fast enough.

 

[bagdropper]

Probably because no offensive philosophy truly works 100% of the time. And adding a bunch of 90 second possessions to a game places an awful lot more pressure on your defense if the offense is not working efficiently.

NW earlier this year, their offense was not working. Their possessions were a whole lot of 3 and out, and those were very, very quick TOP's. Therefore their defense was on the field an awful long time in the losses.

That's my guess anyway.

BTW, I do want to see Iowa pick up the case more often in games. My most hated penalty in football is the delay of game...there is no damn excuse for them in my book.

 

[Franisdaman]

Probably because no offensive philosophy truly works 100% of the time. And adding a bunch of 90 second possessions to a game places an awful lot more pressure on your defense if the offense is not working efficiently.

NW earlier this year, their offense was not working. Their possessions were a whole lot of 3 and out, and those were very, very quick TOP's. Therefore their defense was on the field an awful long time in the losses.

That's my guess anyway.

BTW, I do want to see Iowa pick up the case more often in games. My most hated penalty in football is the delay of game...there is no damn excuse for them in my book.

that damn time out cost us 4 pts because CJ had Riley for a TD; instead we had to settle for the FG

 

[hawkandroll]

that damn time out cost us 4 pts because CJ had Riley for a TD; instead we had to settle for the FG

Wasn't the TO to stop a Delay of Game penalty too? And wasn't that after a penalty to begin with, so they should have had time to get the next play off? I can't remember exactly how it went down, but I think that was piss-poor clock management again.

 

[Franisdaman]

Wasn't the TO to stop a Delay of Game penalty too? And wasn't that after a penalty to begin with, so they should have had time to get the next play off? I can't remember exactly how it went down, but I think that was piss-poor clock management again.

you are 100% correct in what happened

here's the sequence of events:

0-7 score, 6:34 to go, Wisky gets off a terrible, unreturnable punt; Iowa, however, gets called for a 10 yd holding; instead of being at the Wisky 34, they are at the Wisky 44; on this same drive, at the 4:29 mark, Iowa had a 3rd and 1 and was going to QB sneak for a 1st down; Kittle however, got caught moving, resulting in a 5 yd penalty;


FOUR POINTS LOST RIGHT HERE: 0-7 score, 4:01 to go, 3rd and 6, after the above penalty, Iowa somehow could not get the play off in time, resulting in an Iowa time out; unfortunately it cost us a TD, because Wisky was in an all out blitz and CJ had Riley one on one and Riley was heading for 6; Iowa settles for the FG

 

[hansenhawk]

It's something we have thought about implementing from time to time, certainly, and it's something we might look at doing a bit more of certainly in the future.