As the season draws toward a close, I am really wondering about the efficacy of hurry-up offense all the time.
Oregon, the mother of all blitzkrieg teams, has now officially fallen from grace with a thud. At the end of the year, the high-flying, 100 plays per game teams are not on top. And we are at 7-4.
Earlier in the year, I wondered about the toll such offense takes on the players. Run more plays, suffer more injuries--that's just statistical reality. Run your quarterback and he's more likely to get hurt. No accident, I think, that Kellen Moore did not suffer any serious injuries--we ran fewer plays per game and he never ran, at least on purpose.
When the offense is not working, as in the first half against SDSU, the speed seems even more of a liability. If you huddle and take time between plays, then even if you go three and out, the defense gets a 2-3 minute rest. But if you shoot off plays, bang-bang-bang, and don't get a first, an already tired defense has to come right back on the field.
Why does it have to be all-or-nothing? I can see advantages to the fast-break attack mode, but isn't there a time to huddle, to slow down, to control the ball? Alabama does it and they seem to do just fine (though I, like most of us, hate them).
Does someone who knows football better than me have any thoughts on this? It just feels to me like this is a kind of fad, and maybe one that, with Oregon's fading, has peaked.