Quick Strikes versus Clock Eating Drives

[GoldBlooded]

It is apparent that our team can strike quickly...and at will against a soft defense. But...things really started to turn around for us when our offense scored with long drives versus big plays. Defense gave up 35 points in 1st half...9 in 2nd half.

So...basically CPJ was able to fix our defense by calling a very different type of offense in the 2nd half. The guy may not be a defensive minded coach. But no doubt he is an offensive genius. And tonight...his offensive brilliance didn't only keep the offense rolling...it was a big crutch to our defense.

 

[cyptomcat]

You have to take these into account as well, clock eating drives:
1. have more plays, therefore fumbles are possibly more likely.
2. involve Nesbitt a lot more and get him beat up.

 

[gtfan088]

1.Our offense is good, but we aren't good enough to "choose" whether we want to score quickly or score late - granted, tonight may be the exception to that. You take the plays when they're there. I doubt we decided before Dwyer scored on that long run that we were going to make that drive a short drive by just scoring on the first play.

2. Our defense was just bad. We gave up touchdowns on the opening drive and after a 78 minute rain delay.

 

[floridajacket]

If it were only so easy as calling a "quick strike." You have to hold serve, as CPJ says, with the quick strikes, but the goal is still to score points. Unless the other side scores points EVERY time, which they shouldn't with a hint of defense, quick strikes are better.

 

[cajunjacket]

You have to take these into account as well, clock eating drives:
1. have more plays, therefore fumbles are possibly more likely.
2. involve Nesbitt a lot more and get him beat up.

+1

Was just about to say this. I will take quick scores any day. Just look at our defense. They actually improved the more they were on the field. They went from being a grade F to a grade D- by the end of the game.