Play Calling

[Some guy]

QFT. It's just a hindsight issue, of course. For example, the 3rd & 6 run against Iowa. Fine call. Iowa had a light box and MN has converted multiple 3rd and mediums with run plays the past 2 years, including against Auburn. It's just that nobody remembers because there's no "Great Playcalls" thread after games. In this case, the run didn't work against Iowa (primarily because one guy got demolished on the OL), but that doesn't make it a bad call. If MN picks up the first -- or even 4 or 5 yards setting up 4th and very short -- it's a good call.

The fact that it didn’t make it makes it a bad call.


Should’ve done something else.



that doesn’t mean it is a bad coach or someone should lose their job. It is okay to admit that a play that doesn’t work was a bad call. They called a play that the team didn’t execute.

 

[MGGopher]

The fact that it didn’t make it makes it a bad call.


Should’ve done something else.



that doesn’t mean it is a bad coach or someone should lose their job. It is okay to admit that a play that doesn’t work was a bad call. They called a play that the team didn’t execute.

I like you as a poster (and just called you smart in another thread, in fact), but this doesn't make sense, IMO. You're saying that every play that doesn't work is a bad call, even if the defense makes a superb play. So every interception is a bad call? Every sack is caused by a bad call?

 

[RememberMurray]

You can make a great call and have the play fail because one player out of 11 blew his assignment.

That is not a bad call. That is poor execution of the play by one guy.

 

[MplsGopher]

I like you as a poster (and just called you smart in another thread, in fact), but this doesn't make sense, IMO. You're saying that every play that doesn't work is a bad call, even if the defense makes a superb play. So every interception is a bad call? Every sack is caused by a bad call?

Not a bad call.

Just not a good call. If a play got blown up, then the coordinator should've recognized a bad matchup potentially. Regardless, if it doesn't work, it can't be a good call. Maybe not a bad call.

 

[MplsGopher]

You can make a great call and have the play fail because one player out of 11 blew his assignment.

That is not a bad call. That is poor execution of the play by one guy.

If that player has been getting blown up, particularly if it's by a specific guy, and you know that matchup is likely to happen again, then I would say that's on the coordinator for not recognizing that matchup could blow up the play.

If it was a random thing that hadn't been happening before, well that sucks, not much you can do.

 

[RolGnav]

I don't usually call any one playcall a good or bad call, I look at the whole situation and take that into account. Defense sucks and we play conservative with a slight lead? Those conservative play calls are bad as a whole. Do the play callers know there is such a thing as sustained drives that don't involve running the ball 70% of the time on first down and 60% on second, then forcing a tough situation on 3rd?

 

[Some guy]

I like you as a poster (and just called you smart in another thread, in fact), but this doesn't make sense, IMO. You're saying that every play that doesn't work is a bad call, even if the defense makes a superb play. So every interception is a bad call? Every sack is caused by a bad call?

For that given moment. Yeah. If my players don’t execute it doesn’t matter how good my call theoretically was.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

You can make a great call and have the play fail because one player out of 11 blew his assignment.

That is not a bad call. That is poor execution of the play by one guy.

Agreed.

Feels like we've seen that on both sides of the ball this year.

Folks want to change stuff up because someone threw a pass to someone and dropped it when it would have been a first down.

Whatever change there is isn't sure to get that far.... and so on.

I think a lot of folks would strive for scoring 38 per game instead of scoring 30 and end up ... scoring 24 trying to be better.

 

[Some guy]

Agreed.

Feels like we've seen that on both sides of the ball this year.

Folks want to change stuff up because someone threw a pass to someone and dropped it when it would have been a first down.

Whatever change there is isn't sure to get that far.... and so on.

If you called a play in a situation where a player can’t execute. It doesn’t make it a good play call.

Not saying we should change systems though.

 

[Taji34]

If you called a play in a situation where a player can’t execute. It doesn’t make it a good play call.

Not saying we should change systems though.

I mean it depends on why the player hasn't executed doesn't it?

For example, let's say you've called a pass play to Bateman 10 times in a game so far and each time he's caught the ball for at least a 5 yard gain. You'd consider calling that play a good call right? Then the 11th time it hits him in the hands and inexplicably he dropped it, suddenly it's not a good play call?? Maybe the wind gusted and carried the ball a bit faster or higher than he expected, or maybe Morgan threw it a bit faster, or maybe Bateman's hands are cold, or maybe something else that was unrelated to the play call.

 

[MplsGopher]

I mean it depends on why the player hasn't executed doesn't it?

For example, let's say you've called a pass play to Bateman 10 times in a game so far and each time he's caught the ball for at least a 5 yard gain. You'd consider calling that play a good call right? Then the 11th time it hits him in the hands and inexplicably he dropped it, suddenly it's not a good play call?? Maybe the wind gusted and carried the ball a bit faster or higher than he expected, or maybe Morgan threw it a bit faster, or maybe Bateman's hands are cold, or maybe something else that was unrelated to the play call.

You can take the nuance and context of every play to the nth degree. At some level, aggregate stats don't tell the full story.

But the full story could also include: it was the wrong play call, at the time and situation!

 

[Some guy]

I mean it depends on why the player hasn't executed doesn't it?

For example, let's say you've called a pass play to Bateman 10 times in a game so far and each time he's caught the ball for at least a 5 yard gain. You'd consider calling that play a good call right? Then the 11th time it hits him in the hands and inexplicably he dropped it, suddenly it's not a good play call?? Maybe the wind gusted and carried the ball a bit faster or higher than he expected, or maybe Morgan threw it a bit faster, or maybe Bateman's hands are cold, or maybe something else that was unrelated to the play call.

My basic premise is this.

Just because a play “should’ve” worked doesn’t make it a good play call.

 

[RememberMurray]

My basic premise is this.

Just because a play “should’ve” worked doesn’t make it a good play call.

Oh. Okay. I was under the impression that your "basic premise" was this:

"The fact that it didn’t make it makes it a bad call.


Should’ve done something else."


I say a good play call — even a perfect play call — still depends on good execution to succeed. Therefore, a good play call can fail because a player fails to execute his assignment on that play.

So to say that any play that fails is, by definition, a bad play call seems misguided, at best.

 

[RolGnav]

I don't know how some of you don't think some plays are just more likely to fail because of the situation the coaches have put them in. Do you think a pass play called on 3rd and 7, has the same chance of working as a pass play called on 2nd and 7? Any competent opposing coach will see that we run 70% on first down, and 60% on second, so they play to stop the run on first and second. Any opposing coach knows that 70% of the time on 3rd and long, a pass is coming. Being that predictable, makes it a lot easier to stop. That's all I've been saying...

 

[Taji34]

My basic premise is this.

Just because a play “should’ve” worked doesn’t make it a good play call.

But also, just because a play didn't work doesn't make it a bad call. Like I pointed out, factors that no one could predict or anticipate can effect the outcome of a play.

 

[Some guy]

Oh. Okay. I was under the impression that your "basic premise" was this:

"The fact that it didn’t make it makes it a bad call.


Should’ve done something else."


I say a good play call — even a perfect play call — still depends on good execution to succeed. Therefore, a good play call can fail because a player fails to execute his assignment on that play.

So to say that any play that fails is, by definition, a bad play call seems misguided, at best.

If your kids can’t execute the play, you should’ve done something else

 

[Some guy]

But also, just because a play didn't work doesn't make it a bad call. Like I pointed out, factors that no one could predict or anticipate can effect the outcome of a play.

If a play doesn’t work, it’s only a good play if there is nothing else that would’ve worked.


for instance....running on third and 7 when we need a first down is a bad call if there is a chance your kids can’t execute.

it doesn’t mean he wouldn’t call it again. It doesn’t mean we didn’t have numbers.
It just means it was a mistake

 

[Some guy]

I don't know how some of you don't think some plays are just more likely to fail because of the situation the coaches have put them in. Do you think a pass play called on 3rd and 7, has the same chance of working as a pass play called on 2nd and 7? Any competent opposing coach will see that we run 70% on first down, and 60% on second, so they play to stop the run on first and second. Any opposing coach knows that 70% of the time on 3rd and long, a pass is coming. Being that predictable, makes it a lot easier to stop. That's all I've been saying...

We don’t run 60% on second down.
We run 52% on second down.

We don’t run 70% on first down.
We run 68% on first down.


if any of those are RPOs with run reads...it really shouldn’t count in the ratio (which may be a lot of them)

 

[RememberMurray]

If your kids can’t execute the play, you should’ve done something else

That's ridiculous. Nobody executes perfectly 100% of the time. Human beings are not flawless.

Sometimes, a player who is normally superb at his position still screws up. It doesn't mean he "can't execute the play"; it means he messed up the play this one, particular time.

Do you really not understand that?

 

[Some guy]

8 man box. Throw the ball.
sack

Great call against an 8 man box though!

Of course players mess up assignments. That’s kind of my point!

 

[Iceland12]

That's ridiculous. Nobody executes perfectly 100% of the time. Human beings are not flawless.

Do you really not understand that?

Human beings are not flawless" Except Coaches. All coaches are flawless.

That we understand..

 

[Some guy]

Human beings are not flawless" Except Coaches. All coaches are flawless.

That we understand..

It’s unbelievable he is saying the same thing that we are saying but saying it only applies to players not coaches.

 

[RememberMurray]

Your "point" seems to change every other post.

 

[RememberMurray]

Human beings are not flawless" Except Coaches. All coaches are flawless.

That we understand..

Who said coaches are flawless? Which post was it?

 

[MaxyJR1]

I've said this often to people I watch football with when they get all upset about plays. "You do realize the other team is trying to stop us." You can call a good play and the defense on that play maybe calls the perfect defense or executes better. There are 22 players and 8 officials that have to do their job on each play.

Now I think more people are saying they'd like to go off script a bit more and be less predictable. That's a different discussion.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Who said coaches are flawless? Which post was it?

Coaches are flawless!

Got ya!

 

[RememberMurray]

I've said this often to people I watch football with when they get all upset about plays. "You do realize the other team is trying to stop us." You can call a good play and the defense on that play maybe calls the perfect defense or executes better. There are 22 players and 8 officials that have to do their job on each play.

Now I think more people are saying they'd like to go off script a bit more and be less predictable. That's a different discussion.

Yes.

A question to the board at large: Which is usually more important — being "unpredictable", that is, catching the opponent off-guard with clever play-calling... or executing a game plan really well, blocking really well, etc. even if the play-calling is somewhat "predictable"?

Looking at it the opposite way: would you rather your team was unpredictable but with shaky execution, or predictable with excellent execution?

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Yes.

A question to the board at large: Which is usually more important — being "unpredictable", that is, catching the opponent off-guard with clever play-calling... or executing a game plan really well, blocking really well, etc. even if the play-calling is somewhat "predictable"?

We should tottaly be more unpredictable by calling plays to guys they wouldn't expect because ... that guy isn't the primary target / isn't as good at football as other guys / doesn't do that thing ... for reasons .... (this should be setting off alarm bells).

 

[Some guy]

Your "point" seems to change every other post.

My point is a call that doesn’t work is a bad call unless there were no other alternative possibilities that would’ve been successful.

 

[FireDaveLee]

I remember this one play, at the end of the Northwestern-Michigan game in 2000. 4th down, Zak Kustok faked a hand-off, rolled out to his right, and then threw back to Damian Anderson, who was a 1st Team All-Big Ten RB.....all alone, & Anderson dropped the ball as he lost it in the lights at the last second.

Awful call because it wasn't able to be executed.

I'm just having fun with you, but I think you can see some of the flaws in your theory....