arrow-circle arrow-long-stroke arrow-stroke arrow-thick arrow-thin arrow-triangle icon 2 baseballCreated with Sketch. basketball calendar category check-circle check-square check comment facebook-circle facebook-icon facebook-rounded facebook-square facebook-stroke football instagram-circle instagram-icon instagram-square long-arrow-right rss-circle rss-rounded rss-square rss-stroke rss twitter-circle twitter-icon twitter-rounded twitter-square twitter-stroke user-group user

The Debate that Just Won’t Die.

By on July 25th, 2013 in Football 12 Comments »

Do hurry-up no-huddle offenses really cause more defensive injuries?

     Since last week’s SEC Media Days, it’s been a hot topic among coaches, media figures and bloggers across the country. In an otherwise routine series of press conferences, Auburn coach Gus Malzhan lit the fuse on the subject by saying, “to be honest with you, I thought it was a joke.” Arkansas coach Bret Bielema responded, “I’m not a comedian.” And the debate has raged on.

     We’ve seen a lot of opinions on the subject in the past week. I think I enjoyed West Virginia head coach Dana Holgorsen’s “get over it” take best. However, I’ve always had a healthy respect for Bielema’s hard-nosed Wisconsin teams, and I’m curious as to whether his claims have any merit. My answer for such things is typically to look at the numbers. However, the way injuries are reported, or really NOT reported in college football makes those numbers pretty much meaningless. I suppose one might try to work up a “games missed by starters” table, but how would you correlate it to exposure to hurry up offenses?

     There are some interesting statistics one can look at, though. The main argument that actually holds some water is that hurry-up teams run more offensive plays, and that more plays pretty much automatically means more injuries. We’ll debate whether this is true later on in this piece, but for now let’s assume that it’s true. From the official Auburn website, We can calculate that during Gus Malzhan’s tenure at Auburn as the offensive coordinator, Auburn ran 70.3 offensive plays per game in 2009, 67.7 in 2010, and 63.6 in 2011. Does that sound like a lot of plays?

     Consider critic Nick Saban at Alabama, a proponent of slowing the game down. During the same period, Saban’s offenses ran 67.6 offensive plays per game in 2009, 63.7 in 2010, and 66.5 in 2011. How about Bret Bielema at Wisconsin? His teams ran 70.8 offensive plays per game in 2009, 66.2 in 2010, and 66.9 in 2011. Last year, Bama ran 64.1, and Wisconsin ran 66.1.

     Averaging the yearly totals, Auburn ran 67.2 offensive snaps per game during that era, Alabama ran 65.9, and Wisconsin ran 68.0. Hmm. Bielema ran more snaps than Malzhan? Where was the concern for other teams’ defensive players? Seems that in fact there was no significant statistical difference in the number of snaps run by these three teams.

     Well, maybe Auburn put together more long drives, that kept the defense on the field for extended stretches? Nope. In fact, Auburn had a bunch of long touchdown plays in those years, which put the offense back on the bench after only a few snaps. In 2010, Auburn had 150 drives outside of overtime or half-ending clock-’ems. Only 18 of those drives ran 10 plays or more.

     So, now that we’ve eliminated the number of plays, and the length of drives from Bielema’s argument, the only conclusion left is that increased defensive risk is because the defense is not ready when a quickly paced offense lines up. There was an interesting piece run last week on The author compiled some stats that show that while “slow-paced” teams run 10 or more plays less than the “fast-paced” teams, they actually lose more starters to injury than fast teams. How can this be?

     I’d argue that when a traditional offense and defense meet, everyone is braced for impact, reads are surer on defense, and the speed and power of collisions on the field are greater. The no huddle teams tend to have more blocks and tackles made on the edges of the field, away from the crushing mass of offensive linemen. Ergo, it could be argued that the fast paced game is actually SAFER for players than traditional football!

     The jury is still out on the last argument, in my opinion. But the idea that Malzhan has caused a rash of injuries in the SEC with his offense is pure bunk, clearly. My final conclusion is this: Bret Bielema had better have his defense properly conditioned and trained, or they’ll give up a ton of yards in the fast-paced SEC West. History shows that Bielema will have his guys ready. Whining about the hurry-up won’t help him, but at least we are now pretty sure that his guys won’t be getting any more injuries than they would against old-school teams.


  1. uglyjoe says:

    Good stuff Acid

  2. Deep Blue Deep Blue says:

    I actually think that if there are more injuries, it comes from under-conditioned defenses. When players are tired, they’re more likely to make mistakes or end up hitting below the waist due to less momentum, which can cause injuries. I speculate that tired and/or frustrated defenses are more likely to resort to dirty tactics too. Of course these last two would result in more injuries for the offense instead of defense…

  3. War Eagle Girl War Eagle Girl says:

    Is there a LIKE button?

  4. MyAuburn MyAuburn says:

    Unbelievably job on the stats Acid. Will someone please mail Bret a block of cheese for that whine.

  5. Tiger on the mountain Tiger on the mountain says:

    DUDE! Good stuff.

    It became abundantly clear why Arky hired Bielema. The only woman that he will caught on a motorcycle is his wife-so there’s that. All of this bluster is likely an excuse to help the Razorback faithful have something else to blame other than lack of Bielema’s SEC chops for a lackluster year…..

  6. Third Generation Tiger Third Generation Tiger says:

    Is there any historical data that breaks out injuries by offensive players, defensive players, and special teams players? If so, that data could lead to some interesting conclusions.

  7. AubTigerman AubTigerman says:

    Finally some stats to completely debunk Bielema’s cries for changing the rules.
    Great post Acid!

  8. spanky says:

    I think the opponents of this system’s biggest gripe is that they do not have time to change players to match what the offense is showing on the field with their planned substitutions. But why should the defense have that advantage? It is a battle of game plans and one side should not be able to to say they have these people out there…give me a sec to find my people to match…ok now lets run the play. It is a game of chance and luck so put your best people freshest people out at all times and coach players to be good against any package.

  9. Todd92 Todd92 says:

    Good stuff Acid. Well done.

  10. Tigerstripe Tigerstripe says:

    I have to admit that I was selfishly hoping this Bielema debate would bait you into solving the riddle. So for your work, I thank you – this shall be my argument at the water cooler.

    Also…who are the injured that Bielema keeps referring to? Is it the offensive players who choose to run the HUNH system or is it the defense trying to defend it? My guess from his whining is that it’s the defense that he’s concerned with. Defensive injuries will be lessened when you stop the offense, making them punt, and controlling the ball on your side. That will lower the amount of offensive snaps the HUNH gets per game. Condition your defense and stop the offense – it’s still on you! It’s your responsibility to stop any offense that plays within the confines of the rules…

  11. audude audude says:

    As stated earlier, Bielema needs to show his data (he may or may not have) to support his opinion. Excellent job Acid. You are giving credence to what we knew to be right…you are “Speaking the Truth”.