Polar Opposites - Harbaugh vs Kelley Offensive Philosophies

There can be said that you can divide NFL offensive philosophies into 2 schools - precision vs speed.

Camp 1 - PRECISION - This camp dominates NFL offensive philosophy and is based on the ideal of dialing up the perfect play to counter the defensive alignment expected. The OC calls the play he expects to work versus the defense he expects (via tendency study) the DC to play. But since a defense can't be know for sure until the team line up for the play, the offense builds in adjustments and audibles to account for the alignment presented. Some teams with guys like Manning and Brady can have a lot of flexibility to adjust at the line - but the point is the same - get the offense in the perfect play versus the defense. Clearly, teams with veteran experience in the same offense can be more complex in their adjustments.

JH / Roman take this philosophy to a more extreme end - they call 2 plays in the huddle, then the QB calls the perfect play after he has a clear picture of the defensive alignment. Again, it is an attempt to get the perfect play run.

Camp 2 - SPEED - This camp uses a fast paced offensive tempo - no-huddle or muddle huddle - to quickly line-up. They use the initial formation alignment to get a read on the defensive scheme, and then use formation adjustments to get into a preferable alignment versus the defensive scheme presented. Most point out that this keeps the defense from substituting and tires the defense out. That is true, but as importantly, it keeps the defense playing a more simplified scheme. This gives the offensive an ability to more quickly decipher the defensive schemes and begin to take advantage of them. This also gives the offense an ability to set-up big plays against a more basic defense.

RESULT - A precision based offense and philosophy that demands perfect execution is more rigid and hard to adjust. Hence, it might be pretty logical that an extreme version of such a philosophy would perform well at the beginning of games, but its effectiveness might fade as the other team figures it out and adjusts - a la the 49ers first half versus second half results? Conversely, a speed offense is figuring out the simplified defensive scheme it is facing early in the game and by the second half is seizing on its knowledge - a la the Eagles second half results?

WHY don't more teams run the speed based offense - similar to Bills of the 1990s and Eagles of 2014? On one hand, I believe many offensive coordinators believe that running a speed offense requires all the players to be more knowledgeable of the plays. But I think this is misguided because it is based on the OC assumption that to run his offense, the players have to have his depth of plays memorized and well enough to make the right adjustments to the defense. Secondly, I believe many OCs assume they know best and are more comfortable with themselves in control - a la the bias for the precision philosophy. After all, to be an OC and coach, you must have a healthy dose of confidence in your knowledge and abilities.

The second reason is the reality that the up-tempo offenses work well when they are not the standard that other teams face BECAUSE they are in fact simpler than they appear. The speed offense uses motion and formation s**ts, but in an effort to keep the players playing fast, the actual plays run from various formations are not as diverse - they have to be based on fewer total concepts to keep the players all on the same script as adjustments are rapidly made. Given an entire season of film and the extra time in the first round and before the superbowl, opposing teams can better prepare and thwart these up-tempo offenses - or at least that has been the case in the past - a la the 1990s Bills.

So which is correct? It depends on the players on a team and their experience. But a team like Denver seems to be able to blend the two concepts pretty effectively.

I thought of the potential of this matchup early on as well. Should be an interesting game. I thought about the Stanford/Oregon games when Jim Harbaugh and Chip Kelly were coaching at each school. Hopefully we come out on the winning end of this.

To answer your question, the philosophy that wins is the team that actually wins. It really all depends. I don't think any one scheme is better than the other, though I do have my preferences. I just hope that Ertz doesn't have a big game. When we passed on Fleener in 2012, I wanted Ertz in 2013. It would really suck to get dominated by a guy Harbaugh coached knowing we needed (and technically still need) a no. 2 TE.

Thanks for a very interesting post.

Adding to it I feel the best offense I ever saw was when Mike Shanahan was our OC.

It was a long time ago but it seemed it was a bit of both. Fast in & out of the huddle and fast striking plays that attacked defenses.

Man, I miss that type of attacking offense.

The speed is hard to adjust to but so are the packaged plays...Kelly rolls out the same formation, but each formation has a variety of plays based on the D, and Kelly has a counter for every defensive adjustment...he will tinker in the first half to expose weaknesses and then all it takes is the defense to not line up correctly or have the wrong personnel package on the field and it is lights out with the no huddle and no chances to substitute...

the really scary part of the offense is that Kelly creates master level chess moves...like having the choice of losing the rook or a bishop on a particular move...each play forces the defense to give up something...take away the TE and there is Sproles or McCoy...etc...no one has ever seen an offense where there are so many people wide open on each play and there is no counter because the WRs are running option routes, the QB is adjusting at the LOS, the offense at its core is a power running with zone blocking which means the OL block the same way each play and they have good players...

Originally posted by HearstFan:
There can be said that you can divide NFL offensive philosophies into 2 schools - precision vs speed.

Camp 1 - PRECISION - This camp dominates NFL offensive philosophy and is based on the ideal of dialing up the perfect play to counter the defensive alignment expected. The OC calls the play he expects to work versus the defense he expects (via tendency study) the DC to play. But since a defense can't be know for sure until the team line up for the play, the offense builds in adjustments and audibles to account for the alignment presented. Some teams with guys like Manning and Brady can have a lot of flexibility to adjust at the line - but the point is the same - get the offense in the perfect play versus the defense. Clearly, teams with veteran experience in the same offense can be more complex in their adjustments.

JH / Roman take this philosophy to a more extreme end - they call 2 plays in the huddle, then the QB calls the perfect play after he has a clear picture of the defensive alignment. Again, it is an attempt to get the perfect play run.

Camp 2 - SPEED - This camp uses a fast paced offensive tempo - no-huddle or muddle huddle - to quickly line-up. They use the initial formation alignment to get a read on the defensive scheme, and then use formation adjustments to get into a preferable alignment versus the defensive scheme presented. Most point out that this keeps the defense from substituting and tires the defense out. That is true, but as importantly, it keeps the defense playing a more simplified scheme. This gives the offensive an ability to more quickly decipher the defensive schemes and begin to take advantage of them. This also gives the offense an ability to set-up big plays against a more basic defense.

RESULT - A precision based offense and philosophy that demands perfect execution is more rigid and hard to adjust. Hence, it might be pretty logical that an extreme version of such a philosophy would perform well at the beginning of games, but its effectiveness might fade as the other team figures it out and adjusts - a la the 49ers first half versus second half results? Conversely, a speed offense is figuring out the simplified defensive scheme it is facing early in the game and by the second half is seizing on its knowledge - a la the Eagles second half results?

WHY don't more teams run the speed based offense - similar to Bills of the 1990s and Eagles of 2014? On one hand, I believe many offensive coordinators believe that running a speed offense requires all the players to be more knowledgeable of the plays. But I think this is misguided because it is based on the OC assumption that to run his offense, the players have to have his depth of plays memorized and well enough to make the right adjustments to the defense. Secondly, I believe many OCs assume they know best and are more comfortable with themselves in control - a la the bias for the precision philosophy. After all, to be an OC and coach, you must have a healthy dose of confidence in your knowledge and abilities.

The second reason is the reality that the up-tempo offenses work well when they are not the standard that other teams face BECAUSE they are in fact simpler than they appear. The speed offense uses motion and formation s**ts, but in an effort to keep the players playing fast, the actual plays run from various formations are not as diverse - they have to be based on fewer total concepts to keep the players all on the same script as adjustments are rapidly made. Given an entire season of film and the extra time in the first round and before the superbowl, opposing teams can better prepare and thwart these up-tempo offenses - or at least that has been the case in the past - a la the 1990s Bills.

So which is correct? It depends on the players on a team and their experience. But a team like Denver seems to be able to blend the two concepts pretty effectively.

Nice post. Very descriptive way to explain the two very different philosophies to moving the ball.

I agree that camp1 is more dependent on the coaching that goes on in between plays to be successful. Regarding camp1's ability to adjust, the huddling before a play allows the camp1 coaches to call a play which sets up the defense for later in the game. Any OC will take note of what the defense did for later use. From there, camp1 shouldn't have any more of a harder time adjusting than camp2. It's more of a methodical adjustment. See this early in the game, adjust for it later. I don't think the 49ers' second half woes point to this being a weakness of camp1, just a weakness of this particular 49er team and what has happened in these games.

Where camp2 has an easier time adjusting is after the snap. Based on the defense's alignment and initial post-snap actions, the best option is given the ball. I see it as a high percentage, ball control offense. There is no higher percentage pass than to the RB, next would be short passes to the WR. This is what Chip's offense does. They may go fast no huddle, but they aren't always looking to score fast. They like facing a tired defense.

Like any football strategy, each camp that you listed has its pros and cons. I agree with your 'which is correct?' answer - it depends on the players. I think fewer teams run camp2 because it's harder to find the athletes needed to execute this offense. Skill players are given the ball in space and asked to get RAC. Like you stated, the space is earned with shifts, misdirection, and speed. I think McCoy is what makes that offense really go as Chip's offense really features the RB, and McCoy is a stud. Another reason teams may not be of camp2 is because there's only one guy doing this polarized version of it. Once Chip grows his coaching tree, we may see more teams adopting it depending on how well Chip continues to do.

Originally posted by thl408:
Nice post. Very descriptive way to explain the two very different philosophies to moving the ball.

I agree that camp1 is more dependent on the coaching that goes on in between plays to be successful. Regarding camp1's ability to adjust, the huddling before a play allows the camp1 coaches to call a play which sets up the defense for later in the game. Any OC will take note of what the defense did for later use. From there, camp1 shouldn't have any more of a harder time adjusting than camp2. It's more of a methodical adjustment. See this early in the game, adjust for it later. I don't think the 49ers' second half woes point to this being a weakness of camp1, just a weakness of this particular 49er team and what has happened in these games.

Where camp2 has an easier time adjusting is after the snap. Based on the defense's alignment and initial post-snap actions, the best option is given the ball. I see it as a high percentage, ball control offense. There is no higher percentage pass than to the RB, next would be short passes to the WR. This is what Chip's offense does. They may go fast no huddle, but they aren't always looking to score fast. They like facing a tired defense.

Like any football strategy, each camp that you listed has its pros and cons. I agree with your 'which is correct?' answer - it depends on the players. I think fewer teams run camp2 because it's harder to find the athletes needed to execute this offense. Skill players are given the ball in space and asked to get RAC. Like you stated, the space is earned with shifts, misdirection, and speed. I think McCoy is what makes that offense really go as Chip's offense really features the RB, and McCoy is a stud. Another reason teams may not be of camp2 is because there's only one guy doing this polarized version of it. Once Chip grows his coaching tree, we may see more teams adopting it depending on how well Chip continues to do.

Thanks for adding those thoughts. I agree that Camp 1 should be able to be just as successful making adjustments as Camp 2. There is one critical difference though - Camp 1 gives the Defense equal time to make an adjustment for later in the game. Camp 2 - speed/tempo - is trying to create a mismatch in adjustment timing quickly. For example, you might say that Camp 1 is more methodically setting up plays such that quarter 1 plays are setting up plays later in the game (this is just an example) and Camp 2 is trying to push the pace within a single drive to force the defense into errors - errors occur when decisions are accelerated and people are tired.

I like your mention of Coaching tree - good point - we forget how much is happening today depends on "Darwinian evolution" - long tenured / successful coaches produce a bigger and more sought after coaching tree - Superbowl staffs get more jobs down the line. So even though Sam Wyche and Marv Levy were successful running hurry up offenses, their influence wasn't as great. Heck, look how long Norv Turner has been around based on his system winning superbowls in the 1990s!

We should play more uptempo as the game progresses. It might be good to suddenly switch to it in the middle of a normal tempo drive when the defense is least expecting it.

Originally posted by kray28:
We should play more uptempo as the game progresses. It might be good to suddenly switch to it in the middle of a normal tempo drive when the defense is least expecting it.

brilliant..switch to uptempo against a team that practices against that that every day...lol...