Thurman#1 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 If they plan on running the no-huddle offense effectively, Trent is going to be the ones calling the plays at the line of scrimmage. If they refuse to allow this, it will pretty much lose its effectiveness as it will take too long for the plays to get signaled in from the sideline. If the coaching staff is willing to trust Trent to run this offense, they need to trust him to RUN the offense...not just run plays that are called in....thats not the way the no-huddle offense is designed to operate... Kelly explained many times why the QB has to be the one calling the plays when executing this type of offense, and as one of the best to ever do it, I trust his opinion... I see this as just one more area where the coaches show they aren't up to par---they will want to run this offense, but not really allow Trent to run it properly...in the end it will end up not being as effective as it should be because of it... In Kelly's day they didn't have the helmet mikes. These days, the coaches could easily call plays for a no-huddle. If they wanted to. Not saying I necessarily want to see it, especially all the time. Don't think the o-line will be able to handle it, especially this year, every series. But the whole "it just doesn't work" thing is just flat-out wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 What Peyton Manning does is called a no - huddle offense. What more do you need to know? And sometimes he does indeed take all the clock he wants. Other times they go quick. They mix it up, the better to confuse teams and get them off-balance. [/quot This is an interesting way to use the T-Gun. The Bills now have the offensive weapons to dictate to the defense. The D makes the most substitutions between 2nd and 3rd downs. I would like to see the Bills use the no huddle right there. Of course if it's 3rd and one there is no need everyone knows what your going to do. But on third and 3 it makes it very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Two points: We went to 4 straight super bowls by calling about 5 different plays... That's incredible, and totally unbelievable for today's 3' thick playbook NFL. Another point, wouldn't this version of the no huddle be called the S-Gun? Imagine if it were called the RobertRoyal-Gun. That would be just silly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Two points: We went to 4 straight super bowls by calling about 5 different plays... That's incredible, and totally unbelievable for today's 3' thick playbook NFL. Another point, wouldn't this version of the no huddle be called the S-Gun? Imagine if it were called the RobertRoyal-Gun. That would be just silly! And it was those same "5 different plays" that kept them from winning one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 It was succesul because of the full compliment of players. Even Kelly has admitted they had a limited number of base plays. H e said the majic with it was that they had so many good players on the field that mismatches were easy to find. Thurman was also a huge part of the success. I do not think it works without him. I believe in the SB's the concept worked against the Bills. Defense was too tired out. I like the idea of change with the current offense. maybe it simplifies things. Sometimes I wonder if NFL coaches outsmart themselves with playbooks that are two feet thick. Put athletes on the filed and let them play. yeah, pretty much. I mean, the defense can know exactly what play is coming, but if their 3 of their players get hammered to the ground by the O-line before and then Thurman makes 2 or 3 of their other players look stupid trying to tackle him, it really just doesn't matter.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 for the record, our center Hangartner, is one of the smartest o-linemen in the league. We scored an unreal number one his wonderlic exam before he was drafted (like a 47 or something unreal). So he has the smarts for it, now whether or not we have the coaches is the question? Because we have the talent at wr and rb to create alot of mismatches- It will all depend on one thing-TRENT EDWARDS I am getting really tired of hearing people say that just because Hangartner was a backup in Carolina that he sucks. He in fact has started exactly 50% of his games in the NFL. It would be like saying that because Steve Young was Joe Montana's backup that he automatically sucked. It really has no basis in reality, and if we are to believe Jordan Black, their franchise left tackle, who went to management to try and renegotiate his contract so they could keep Hangartner, and then said that he was too important a player to their team to lose, he obviously must be pretty good at something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIE HARD 1967 Posted June 11, 2009 Author Share Posted June 11, 2009 I am getting really tired of hearing people say that just because Hangartner was a backup in Carolina that he sucks. He in fact has started exactly 50% of his games in the NFL. It would be like saying that because Steve Young was Joe Montana's backup that he automatically sucked. It really has no basis in reality, and if we are to believe Jordan Black, their franchise left tackle, who went to management to try and renegotiate his contract so they could keep Hangartner, and then said that he was too important a player to their team to lose, he obviously must be pretty good at something... I am excited about Hangartener... I think he will do the job well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I prefer a conventional offense that moves the ball down the field and eats up some clock. Let's see, I think that just described every offense that has ever won the Super Bowl. Certainly it described the offenses of the New York Giants, Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys (twice in a row), that beat the Bills in their 4 Super Bowl games. But forget ancient history. Let's talk about the modern game today. No team uses the lightning fast no-huddle offense as it's main scheme. Peyton Manning goes no huddle most of the time, but he stands up at the line of scrimmage and uses up almost the entire play clock while making adjustments and calling out audibles. That's it folks. Nobody else uses it more then as a change-up look every now and then. Perhaps a couple of series per game. And of those other 31 teams that don't use the no-huddle, one won last years' SB, and 11 others made the playoffs, while the Bills did not. What makes you think that running the no-huddle full time is the only way the Bills can improve beyond those putrid numbers you pointed out????? What makes you think that running a no-huddle full time wont/cant help the Bills improve on offense. As someone pointed out before. We havent made the playoffs in a while. Its not going to hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damj Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 What makes you think that running a no-huddle full time wont/cant help the Bills improve on offense. As someone pointed out before. We havent made the playoffs in a while. Its not going to hurt. Because it's false hope by inferior coaches who have run out of original ideas. The No-Huddle worked in the 90s because we had the collection of talent that could run it. If we had that level of talent now and it would work, fine, then run it ... but don't just try and sell me "We're going to run it now and we'll be good because it worked before". It's like politicians today ... these guys (and gals) are so brain dead and out of ideas on how to lead that they have 2 stock answers to every problem: 1.) We need economic development ... build a casino 2.) We need more revenue ... raise taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Yes, if, and only IF Trent Edwards can handle it mentally. IF he can process and call the correct play at the line on a consistent basis, then yes, this team has the weapons to finally create some havoc on opposing teams and pile on some points. It actually is pretty brilliant of an idea on paper. The offensive line is not proven yet, but what better way to take pressure off the young linemen, but with a quick, high-tempo, aggressive offense that keeps defenses on their heels? TO, Evans, Parrish, Lynch, Reed, Nelson, Fine, Jackson, and Rhodes? I feel pretty comfortable going to battle with those weapons. Imagine that, we actually have the potential to have an offensive offense this year (no pun intended). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 It actually is pretty brilliant of an idea on paper. The offensive line is not proven yet, but what better way to take pressure off the young linemen, but with a quick, high-tempo, aggressive offense that keeps defenses on their heels? But there is no cause and effect between a "fast tempo" and being "an aggressive offense". Nor between a "fast tempo" and "keeping defenses on their heels". And why would not having a huddle be the best way to develop a line that's never taken a snap together before and will, without a doubt, not be on the same page all the time? When Dan Orlovsky ran the 2 minute offense last year, it didn't translate into success and victories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damj Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Wouldn't this be called the E-Gun since it is nased on the last name of our QB, not the first name? Why?!? The K-Gun wasn't named after Kelly?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I am getting really tired of hearing people say that just because Hangartner was a backup in Carolina that he sucks. He in fact has started exactly 50% of his games in the NFL. It would be like saying that because Steve Young was Joe Montana's backup that he automatically sucked. It really has no basis in reality, and if we are to believe Jordan Black, their franchise left tackle, who went to management to try and renegotiate his contract so they could keep Hangartner, and then said that he was too important a player to their team to lose, he obviously must be pretty good at something... Who is Jordan Black? If you're talking about Jordan Gross, he just got a new contract so I find it extremely doubtful he re-negotiated anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Who is Jordan Black? If you're talking about Jordan Gross, he just got a new contract so I find it extremely doubtful he re-negotiated anything... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Black_...rican_football) Of course, Gross is the current Panther. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Black_...rican_football) Of course, Gross is the current Panther. Ahh, so Jordan 'Black' - this journeyman tackle from Jacksonville - is the "franchise tackle" who was supposedly willing to re-negotiate his likely minimum wage contract? I should have known! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Ahh, so Jordan 'Black' - this journeyman tackle from Jacksonville - is the "franchise tackle" who was supposedly willing to re-negotiate his likely minimum wage contract? I should have known! No, you had it right. Just sayin' that Jordan Black -- whom Aaron Schobel used and abused when the Chiefs played here a few years ago -- actually does exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpcolosi Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Does no one listen to me? the K gun was not named for Jim Kelly, it was for Keith McKeller!!!! AHHH!!! read Marv Levy's Book!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canbuffan34 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 One of the many reason the K-Gun was successful was the QB called the plays. They sensed the flow of the game better than the coaches. I don't see the point of a hurry-up/no-huddle if the coaches are going to call the plays. Actually, the article on twobillsdrive today states that Trent is going to be given more freedom to call more audibles in the huddle this year. A "handful of plays" however is not the same as what Kelly was. Jim was one of the few QB's that had the unique position of calling his own game on the field, based on what the defense was showing him in his pre-snap reads. IMO if this year's team were to run a "hurry-up or T-Gun offense" I hope for their sake its used sparingly or situational at best. We don't have the personnel or the coaching staff to successfully run such an offense with any kind of regularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts