Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Conversations are moderated for civility. We ask that you please stay on topic. For more info, see our Community Guidelines ×
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum
Enter To Win 2 Tickets to Dolphins @ Colts | Sun 10/20 | 1:00 PM EDT

No Coast Vs No Huddle: Which Do You Prefer?

atapcl

By atapcl
in Colts Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

atapcl Active Roster

atapcl

Posted
Posted

The No Coast offense is methodical with a balance of runs and passes. Usually using 8-12 plays and burning 8-10 minutes off the clock per drive. One benefit is it gives the defense time to rest but it limits the number of opportunities the offense has because of the length of time of the drives. One mistake can really hurt the drive as Costonzo's face mask play did against the Raiders.

 

The No Huddle offense is faster paced giving your offense more plays because of the pace. It tires out the opposition defense more but puts your own defense back on the field quicker. It can catch the opposing defense off guard and with the wrong personnel on the field. Peyton runs it to perfection and the Eagles players seem to love it.

 

Luck can thrive in either. Love to hear from Colts family on which they feel benefits out team the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gavin Walk On

Gavin

Posted
Posted

your entire offense has to know audibles in those situations, signals, We cant run the no huddle as a basis for our offense, Our O Line has trouble figuring out who to block now, let alone if we were to speed the game up, The players need to communicate better and Andrew needs to get rid of the ball quicker under pressure

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coltsblue1844 Active Roster

coltsblue1844

Posted
Posted

Well...if we had good offensive linemen...which we don't...then I would say no huddle would be better in my opinion, as most successful teams run it... but our offensive linemen aren't very good...so we cant run either as effectively as we SHOULD be able to.  We have a stud QB, a HOF WR and lots of young talent, a young very good TE and as for RB, well it's hard to judge without anyone who can block for 'em...but if we had a solid O line...like Denver or SF has, we would be able to run whatever type of Offense we wanted, and be pretty dominant on that side of the ball.

 

The best example I can make of it is this... you remember those Pontiac Fiero's? the younger crowd might not know, but they can google it...well they're a far cry from a Ferrari...BUT you can buy a Ferrari or even Lamborghini body kit and put it on a Fiero body, and pretend that you have a high end sports car...when in reality, you are missing something very important

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atapcl Active Roster

atapcl

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Why do they have to be different? My understanding of the no huddle means you just call plays at the line. Any offense can be no huddle.

If you try to make the No Coast a no huddle it might limit the personnel groupings. With offensive substitutions the defense can also substitute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flash7 Team Captain

Flash7

Posted
Posted

I agree that you have to have solid communication to run the no huddle offense, especially across the O-line. However, the no huddle, in my opinion, actually will help a poor line be better. The defense cannot substitute out their tired D-linemen. As the offense continues its scoring drive, the defense continues to wear out, making it easier to finish longer drives. Also, if you have a team that's accustomed to the fast pace, they can stay fresh longer than the defense, and eventually gain a much bigger advantage as the pace of the game continues.

 

Think of it this way. Right now, the strength of our team is the offense, and Andrew Luck. This will help to put him in control, and give our offense more plays. If there's more plays for our offense, then you can argue that our best asset on the team has more chances to make something happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atapcl Active Roster

atapcl

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's a silly question.

1 you don't really know what Pep's offense is going to be. They had scoring drives of 2:47, 10:47, 5:20

2 the no huddle isnt a offense

1. It is similar to the West Coast even if people don't want label it. The drive times depend a lot on field position because most of the passes are designed for short, quick reads.

 

2. It is an offense since it is designed to score points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BOTT Walk On

BOTT

Posted
Posted

1. It is similar to the West Coast even if people don't want label it. The drive times depend a lot on field position because most of the passes are designed for short, quick reads.

 

2. It is an offense since it is designed to score points.

1 All modern offenses have west coast influences, that is nothing new. And I messed up the times, it was 6:17, 3:30, 5:49....and the starting field position was our own 11, 31, 20.....not exactly the 8-10 min drives u mentioned.

2 again, it's not an offense, plus, all offenses are designed to score points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atapcl Active Roster

atapcl

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I agree that you have to have solid communication to run the no huddle offense, especially across the O-line. However, the no huddle, in my opinion, actually will help a poor line be better. The defense cannot substitute out their tired D-linemen. As the offense continues its scoring drive, the defense continues to wear out, making it easier to finish longer drives. Also, if you have a team that's accustomed to the fast pace, they can stay fresh longer than the defense, and eventually gain a much bigger advantage as the pace of the game continues.

 

Think of it this way. Right now, the strength of our team is the offense, and Andrew Luck. This will help to put him in control, and give our offense more plays. If there's more plays for our offense, then you can argue that our best asset on the team has more chances to make something happen.

Thanks. I appreciate the logical reasoning and agree a lot with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atapcl Active Roster

atapcl

Posted
  • Author
Posted

1 All modern offenses have west coast influences, that is nothing new. And I messed up the times, it was 6:17, 3:30, 5:49....and the starting field position was our own 11, 31, 20.....not exactly the 8-10 min drives u mentioned.

2 again, it's not an offense, plus, all offenses are designed to score points.

1.Pep stated that the design is for short drops with quick throws which generally take longer to move the ball down the field.

2.Thanks for making my point in that all offenses are designed to score points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BOTT Walk On

BOTT

Posted
Posted

1.Pep stated that the design is for short drops with quick throws which generally take longer to move the ball down the field.

2.Thanks for making my point in that all offenses are designed to score points.

1 he said MORE short drops and quick throws.....which the Colts need compared to last year.

2 ok....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
funktacious2 Active Roster

funktacious2

Posted
Posted

I can't really say I know which one I think is better, but I do agree with one thing. These longer drives to seem to make them more valuable, and I'm wondering how this will affect us if we play a game where we end up being down by 10-14 points. Do we stick to the plan, and run these long, time consuming drives at risk of no points and time wasted? or do we run faster, riskier drives to give us more shots at catching up. Basically it's less slow, efficient drives vs more fast, higher risk drives. I feel like Pags is a "stick to the plan" kind of guy, but to be honest, it's not like we've seen a lot of games coached out of him because of his illness last year. I'm left to wonder how he handle these controversial situations where fans are left to wonder if a somewhat radical change in playcalling is necessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BOTT Walk On

BOTT

Posted
Posted

I can't really say I know which one I think is better, but I do agree with one thing. These longer drives to seem to make them more valuable, and I'm wondering how this will affect us if we play a game where we end up being down by 10-14 points. Do we stick to the plan, and run these long, time consuming drives at risk of no points and time wasted? or do we run faster, riskier drives to give us more shots at catching up. Basically it's less slow, efficient drives vs more fast, higher risk drives. I feel like Pags is a "stick to the plan" kind of guy, but to be honest, it's not like we've seen a lot of games coached out of him because of his illness last year. I'm left to wonder how he handle these controversial situations where fans are left to wonder if a somewhat radical change in playcalling is necessary.

The drives weren't excessively long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
funktacious2 Active Roster

funktacious2

Posted
Posted

The drives weren't excessively long.

I don't mean to make it sound that way. I feel calling them longer drives with an emphasis on efficiency sounds more accurate to my opinion, but my point was more to say that the playcalling seems to me to have the potential to be a liability in a situation where we need to match the pace of our opponent and a long drive ending in failure could really hurt us, because if we're down by say 14 points, we quite literally need success from our drives. I'm curious to see if in these situations we'd to keep the tempo the same or try to be more aggressive with it and land my scoring opportunities. It was clear with Arians that when we were down by a good amount, that he wanted to use an aggressive passing attack (obviously nothing uncommon for teams who are down by a few scores). I'm interested to see what we'll do with a new offensive coordinator and Pagano (who we've honestly not seen coach a whole lot yet.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BOTT Walk On

BOTT

Posted
Posted

I don't mean to make it sound that way. I feel calling them longer drives with an emphasis on efficiency sounds more accurate to my opinion, but my point was more to say that the playcalling seems to me to have the potential to be a liability in a situation where we need to match the pace of our opponent and a long drive ending in failure could really hurt us, because if we're down by say 14 points, we quite literally need success from our drives. I'm curious to see if in these situations we'd to keep the tempo the same or try to be more aggressive with it and land my scoring opportunities. It was clear with Arians that when we were down by a good amount, that he wanted to use an aggressive passing attack (obviously nothing uncommon for teams who are down by a few scores). I'm interested to see what we'll do with a new offensive coordinator and Pagano (who we've honestly not seen coach a whole lot yet.).

Can't say I'm too worried about that. There are enough weapons on offense to have a multi pronged attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pelt Team Captain

Pelt

Posted
Posted

I posted this in the "Any chance luck has a POOR season?" thread back on July 11th and I believe it still holds true:

 

"I would say that #2 would be the main reason, should Andrew's numbers equate to a slump.

 

There may be a bit of a learning curve involved for all, including Pep. Although he does have some years of NFL coaching under his belt, it may take a few games (Very few) for him to get acclimated to the various defensive schemes that are thrown at him.

 

I would also say that the somewhat new offensive line needs to get with the new system and gel rather quickly, as every thing else is obviously dependent upon that.

 

If the slump happens, I believe it will only happen for the first part of the season until that comfort level is achieved and everything starts firing on all cylinders. Then I believe they will be lights out for the remainder of the season and hopefully well into the playoffs."

 

I also stated in another thread that I thought that this would happen for about the first quarter of the season (Give or take a game).

 

It's just one game in and I believe it's entirely too soon to be jumping off the bandwagon for this offense.

 

I'd say that if there are still struggles by the time we get to the Chargers game, there should probably be cause for concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...