Film Review: "Bad Play Calls" Aren't Really Bad; and You Should Feel Bad About It.
If you've followed me elsewhere besides just my blog, you probably have an inkling that one of my biggest peeves is fans selecting specific play calls to complain about postmortem. It takes a conclusion - that a play was not successful - and applies no additional logic to apply a critique. Certainly, like wins, all that matters in the end is that you got one or you didn't; in the end it doesn't matter if it was close or it shoulda or coulda or woulda. But if you want to honestly evaluate anything, you need to dig deeper than that. You need to understand your own teams strengths and weaknesses and those of your opponent. You need to understand tendencies, again, both your own and your opponents. What have you practiced (and the success of what you practiced) and what haven't you. There are a lot of unknowns we can't glean, but if we take some time, we can better understand inputs and give a much more thoughtful, thorough, and accurate critique of "play calling" or some such vague thing. The internet went mad this weekend because "Michigan's play calling was awful". Sure, the offensive tackles performed terribly, but it isn't hard to scheme around that, is the thought. I've called plays on Madden, is the idea. I watched the game and it didn't work and therefore this thing that I have a vague notion about must be the culprit, is the conclusion. Meh. Let's take a look, I guess.
What Am I Complaining About?
Play calling itself is a bit of a ambiguous thing. Certainly, it is the down-to-down in-game play calls that are made. But is it also the scouting and game-planning and tendency breaking and tendency defeating? Is it also the playbook that you take into a game or into a season? Is it the preparation during game week and throughout the year to prepare to execute these schemes? Is it also the actual drawing up of plays, the motions, the creativity and simplicity and coachability? Is it execution? A lot more goes into "play calling" than just selecting an image on a screen, there is a lot of grey area, some we can understand and some we can't, and I think that gets lost a bit on the casual fan.
But still as I noted in the introduction, it's a fan favorite to complain about. From my tweeter tweets:
Good play callers exists. What does that mean? Well, it gets back to those ambiguous things. But certainly, there are people in-game that are better at dissecting coverages and tendencies and dialing up the right play at the right time to rain fire from the sky and bring not 10, but 11 plagues in the form of the personnel grouping they've created on the field like the vengeful, threatening Old Testament God they are (sorry for the blasphemy). I'm reminded of this from Bill Belichick, which is basically football porn.
That's phenomenal anticipation, in-game coaching, and adjustments, and impeccable timing with the call. Yet, all those things could have ended up different and wrong. The Texans may have called a different coverage that down, may have adjusted differently themselves, and the Pats may have dialed up a play that they thought was going to be a game-changer because of the evidence they had, and ended up with a double covered receiver and a sack. It didn't, so it was great. But if the Texans just happened to call a different coverage that down, was the thought process behind the play call really any worse? I'm a bit doubtful. You only have the inputs you are given, and you work off of that.
And with all that, 90+% of your play calls aren't going to be like that. You're going to call inside zone from your base formation and execute it or not, or whatever. If it doesn't work you're predictable and if it does, it's whatever. "Call more of the touchdown play", as they say.
Realistically, the best in-game play callers are going to make your likelihood of success better by what. 5%? 10%? One or two or three big plays in a game? And certainly, that can make a huge difference. That's a huge difference from a Jeff Fischer Rams team to a Sean McVay Rams team. But there are simply an absurd number of inputs that get absolutely ignored when someone just looks "play call". Because if a Jeff Fischer Rams team, on one down of one game, gets a play call from Sean McVay, the change in the outcome is so drastically small because of all the other critical factors that go into *this play call*.
And probably, it annoys me, because it's the lesson that seemed most shocking to me as I entered the world of young coaching. Growing up, I was that kid that would set up chess pieces and checkers pieces on the table and start drafting up play designs. I had binders full of plays like a Mitt Romney campaign. Ideas and hopes and concepts and packages and I only need a group of guys to fulfill my dreams. And then... well then, calling a simple play call was only a really, really small part of it.
The most important part of being a successful coach is being a successful teacher. Ignoring the role for most coaches of being a great mentor (which shouldn't be ignored, but let's try to focus on results for a moment), teaching conquers all. Lloyd Carr was boring. Jim Tressel was boring. Mark Dantonio has run the same damn base D with only small tweaks and tags 90% of the time in his tenure at MSU. Urban Meyer rode essentially the same base playbook to a National Title at OSU as he did to an undefeated season in Utah a decade earlier. X's and O's are great, their fun, it's the classic war strategies that we've managed to squeeze into a game. And they are important, otherwise so many "football people" (I include myself in that group, whether I deserve to be or not) wouldn't obsess over them and react like a kid getting an N64 for Christmas every time they came across an interesting set of routes and blocks on their twitter feed.
I should add. This play took 4 breakdowns for it not to be at least "no gain": both OTs get beat; one who loses a counter move once the DL realizes he's not playing the run; the other gets beat to the outside in the direction of the slide protection. Both of those are terrible ways to lack execution. The third is the TE not getting vertical quick enough to cut off LB flow. The 4th is the QB holding onto the ball and not throwing it away. 4 breakdowns to result in a sack. On a run play, only one breakdown could result in a negative play, and push you into a situation where you don't have 4 downs to get a TD. There is a logically argument in here that a pass in that situation is the best call (I still don't agree, but it's there).
Here's another play, a 3rd and short speed option call.
So this really boils down to execution, right? What goes into execution? Well, all the other things I talked about. "Execution" isn't an excuse to throw players under the bus for not performing, getting guys to execute is the hardest but most important part of coaching.
But It's Not Just Play Calling
It isn't just play calling that gets the blame. There is also a tendency of "I've seen other players make this play, ours should to." To a degree, that isn't wrong. A major part of winning is making plays. Stealing an INT over top of a safety and scoring a TD instead is "making plays". But that shouldn't just be expected.
Here's a chance for a TE to "make a play", or for a QB to "make a play" by throwing it higher, depending on where you want to place your blame to simplify the wrongs of the world in your mind. But even then, it's too simplified, it often magnifies minor aspects as the primary problem while screening away the more detailed issues that need to be corrected.
I dunno man. I mean, I get it. Simplifying things in our minds is a defense mechanism, it's a learning mechanism, it's an application mechanism and an efficiency mechanism. It's a strength that helps us better function in life, and work, and play, and everything else. It is, in my mind, the reason Christopher Nolan is considered one of the greatest directors of his era: his ability to simplify relatively complex ideas to make his audience feel smart for getting it.
I don't expect the casual fan to start digging through All-22 to resolve problems that they don't really care to resolve. It's unrealistic. But maybe tone down the rhetoric. Maybe don't pretend you know when you don't. Feel free to give opinions, but understand it isn't facts, and understand that you don't have all the facts to support an opinion, all you have is your limited perspective. And that's fine. "Life is as simple as you make it." But ignorance isn't necessarily a positive trait. Knowledge is power. Opinions are opinions, facts are facts. And it's important to understand that "life is as simple as you make it" requires allowing in ignorance, ignoring knowledge, and replacing fact with opinion and treating it the same; and those things don't make you right. Because things are never really as simple as they seem. And probably the most important part of being a coach is being a good mentor, and maybe this is just my coaching lesson for the day.
 |
| USATSI |
What Am I Complaining About?
Play calling itself is a bit of a ambiguous thing. Certainly, it is the down-to-down in-game play calls that are made. But is it also the scouting and game-planning and tendency breaking and tendency defeating? Is it also the playbook that you take into a game or into a season? Is it the preparation during game week and throughout the year to prepare to execute these schemes? Is it also the actual drawing up of plays, the motions, the creativity and simplicity and coachability? Is it execution? A lot more goes into "play calling" than just selecting an image on a screen, there is a lot of grey area, some we can understand and some we can't, and I think that gets lost a bit on the casual fan.
But still as I noted in the introduction, it's a fan favorite to complain about. From my tweeter tweets:
And should I add, everything you did do was the reason you couldn't do.The hot take dichotomy on losing team blogs is funniest thing when it's not your team and worst when it is; a world where a D blitzes too much and not enough, where an O runs inside every time and never. Where everything they didn't do would have cured everything they couldn't do— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 4, 2018
Good play callers exists. What does that mean? Well, it gets back to those ambiguous things. But certainly, there are people in-game that are better at dissecting coverages and tendencies and dialing up the right play at the right time to rain fire from the sky and bring not 10, but 11 plagues in the form of the personnel grouping they've created on the field like the vengeful, threatening Old Testament God they are (sorry for the blasphemy). I'm reminded of this from Bill Belichick, which is basically football porn.
That's phenomenal anticipation, in-game coaching, and adjustments, and impeccable timing with the call. Yet, all those things could have ended up different and wrong. The Texans may have called a different coverage that down, may have adjusted differently themselves, and the Pats may have dialed up a play that they thought was going to be a game-changer because of the evidence they had, and ended up with a double covered receiver and a sack. It didn't, so it was great. But if the Texans just happened to call a different coverage that down, was the thought process behind the play call really any worse? I'm a bit doubtful. You only have the inputs you are given, and you work off of that.
And with all that, 90+% of your play calls aren't going to be like that. You're going to call inside zone from your base formation and execute it or not, or whatever. If it doesn't work you're predictable and if it does, it's whatever. "Call more of the touchdown play", as they say.
Realistically, the best in-game play callers are going to make your likelihood of success better by what. 5%? 10%? One or two or three big plays in a game? And certainly, that can make a huge difference. That's a huge difference from a Jeff Fischer Rams team to a Sean McVay Rams team. But there are simply an absurd number of inputs that get absolutely ignored when someone just looks "play call". Because if a Jeff Fischer Rams team, on one down of one game, gets a play call from Sean McVay, the change in the outcome is so drastically small because of all the other critical factors that go into *this play call*.
And probably, it annoys me, because it's the lesson that seemed most shocking to me as I entered the world of young coaching. Growing up, I was that kid that would set up chess pieces and checkers pieces on the table and start drafting up play designs. I had binders full of plays like a Mitt Romney campaign. Ideas and hopes and concepts and packages and I only need a group of guys to fulfill my dreams. And then... well then, calling a simple play call was only a really, really small part of it.
The most important part of being a successful coach is being a successful teacher. Ignoring the role for most coaches of being a great mentor (which shouldn't be ignored, but let's try to focus on results for a moment), teaching conquers all. Lloyd Carr was boring. Jim Tressel was boring. Mark Dantonio has run the same damn base D with only small tweaks and tags 90% of the time in his tenure at MSU. Urban Meyer rode essentially the same base playbook to a National Title at OSU as he did to an undefeated season in Utah a decade earlier. X's and O's are great, their fun, it's the classic war strategies that we've managed to squeeze into a game. And they are important, otherwise so many "football people" (I include myself in that group, whether I deserve to be or not) wouldn't obsess over them and react like a kid getting an N64 for Christmas every time they came across an interesting set of routes and blocks on their twitter feed.
But with all that, it's still teaching. Teaching is how you get guys to execute. It's how you translate technique that makes their jobs doable. It's how you impart enough knowledge so that your players can maintain their assignments against a variety of looks. And then it's preparation. It's repping the plays. It's planning for the plays. It's understanding the strengths and weaknesses of yourself and your opponent. And it's all these things that are so, so, so much more important than pressing Left-A to select your Techmo Bowl play because at the end of the day Bo Jackson defeats anything. I had to learn that lesson. Fans generally don't, because it doesn't really effect them. What effects them is the outcome, and what they know from the outcome is "did it work or didn't it." The rest doesn't matter. So if the answer is no, then what's the simplest thing for them to point to that they can vaguely understand: play calling. But Occam's Razor only applies if you have proper perspective.
Anyway, examples.
Michigan - Notre Dame Play Calling Examples
I'm taking the easy way out here because I made twitter threads about this. So this is going to be a lot of embedded tweets. These focus on two plays that people were probably the most critical of.
First, a play action call on 2nd and Goal from the 2.
I didn’t like pass on 2nd and G from the 2, but I’m going to explain why this is an easy thing to hate in hindsight but is actually far from a terrible call (thread) https://t.co/3K10Oes6Zz— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 3, 2018
Spider 2 is a slide protection. It is literally the simplest protection scheme you can ask your OL to execute. It’s a basic zone slide right away from pass concept. Off PA, DL also not pass rushing, making blocks even easier to execute and maintain— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 3, 2018
Y Banana is a quick concept, a generally weak fake is all that’s needed because the FB is slipping to the flat and is the first read. PA and Banana (TE route) seals the D inside, and that little leverage is enough to catch and turn upfield for yards— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 3, 2018
The TE here gets too held up with the coverage off the LOS, he needs to get out of his stance stronger to cut off flow. If he does, easy TD. He doesn’t and LB can flow over the top and maintain leverage— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 3, 2018
That’s also why this play is almost always run to short side. The boundary D is easier to leverage. Field typically accounts for space and therefore has more width which prevents them from getting sealed in box. So you run short side. Quick concept, so lack off space not critical— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 3, 2018
Harbaugh knows this is 4 down territory. Pass becomes more obvious on 3rd/4th down. 2nd down is least predictable. Given route concepts, if covered, it’s easy to throw away, just chuck it anywhere in pass concept direction and OOB. Very safe for what is often effective concept— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 3, 2018
So again, I disagree with not running, but it’s because at time UM was efficient getting 3-4 yards a run. That is more difficult near GL, but given 3 downs I like odds. But this pass there wasn’t terrible, though execution killed it in hindsight (end thread)— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 3, 2018
I should add. This play took 4 breakdowns for it not to be at least "no gain": both OTs get beat; one who loses a counter move once the DL realizes he's not playing the run; the other gets beat to the outside in the direction of the slide protection. Both of those are terrible ways to lack execution. The third is the TE not getting vertical quick enough to cut off LB flow. The 4th is the QB holding onto the ball and not throwing it away. 4 breakdowns to result in a sack. On a run play, only one breakdown could result in a negative play, and push you into a situation where you don't have 4 downs to get a TD. There is a logically argument in here that a pass in that situation is the best call (I still don't agree, but it's there).
Here's another play, a 3rd and short speed option call.
This play got called out by Joel Klatt as a bad play call. This was probably one of the best play calls UM had all game. Got exactly what they wanted. (thread)https://t.co/GVGSqNAAdb— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 5, 2018
Michigan had OT issues all night. Running speed option allows the OT to move directly to the second level, and doesn't even force him to get a great block when there. He does, he's in position, there is no pitch defender on this play. The only player outside box is read defender— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 5, 2018
So on 3rd and short, you've gotten man coverage and the defense completely sealed inside the box. All that's left is to beat the read defender on speed option. That is exactly what you want when you call this play. But execution...— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 5, 2018
Patterson has not forced the read defender to play QB or at least remain flat. Read defender is still working outside to maintain spacing between himself and RB. This allows him to track the pitch and regain leverage on the RB after the pitch. Patterson has to be more patient— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 5, 2018
Similarly, the pitch relation should be between 1x4 and 2x5, depending on who you talk to. This looks more like 1x3. The pitch relation is too tight, allowing the read defender to recover on the pitch. If one of those 2 things is executed, easy first down.— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 5, 2018
So again, play calling isn't perfect. But most that poke on "play calling" as a primary issue are poking on "something didn't work therefore it was wrong". That's easy to say in hindsight, it also doesn't address primary issue or serve as quality critique. (end thread)— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 5, 2018
So this really boils down to execution, right? What goes into execution? Well, all the other things I talked about. "Execution" isn't an excuse to throw players under the bus for not performing, getting guys to execute is the hardest but most important part of coaching.
Michigan did a lot to try to mitigate their weaknesses, as detailed well here. They game planned, they scouted. They didn't execute well enough. But still it's "play calling" that we hear complaints about again and again, and that just isn't right.Yeah, I think specifically for speed option they didn't practice it enough, so lack of reps likely an issue. The play calling against ND looked much more simplified than in the past tho. Pass pro was much more basic, concepts that they ran much fewer, etc— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 5, 2018
But It's Not Just Play Calling
It isn't just play calling that gets the blame. There is also a tendency of "I've seen other players make this play, ours should to." To a degree, that isn't wrong. A major part of winning is making plays. Stealing an INT over top of a safety and scoring a TD instead is "making plays". But that shouldn't just be expected.
Here's a chance for a TE to "make a play", or for a QB to "make a play" by throwing it higher, depending on where you want to place your blame to simplify the wrongs of the world in your mind. But even then, it's too simplified, it often magnifies minor aspects as the primary problem while screening away the more detailed issues that need to be corrected.
Seeing a lot of this sort of commentary breaking down UM issues. Let’s take a closer look at this play (thread) https://t.co/hUFVeOKzmx— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 3, 2018
This is 3rd and G after taking after taking a sack. ND in a 2 high (looks like Cover 4). Knowing situation near GL, safety is going to cap #2 with inside leverage, and isn’t threatened vertical so can play it flat footed— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 3, 2018
Safety executed perfectly, upon in breaking route he works over top to maintain leverage on the route and when the ball arrives he attacks hands. This is a great play by the safety— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 3, 2018
This isn’t a box out situation bc you can’t box out coverage given the safety position in front of the route. If anything, ball should be thrown low and behind given safety’s to help Gentry use body to shield defender, but that’s really tough catch given route hasn’t ramped down— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 3, 2018
Given pass pro issues, waiting for route to ramp down presents its own issues, better to give TE a chance with high throw then wait on it given ND pressure. He does. Gentry could attack ball more, but this isn’t a situation of easy box out because receiver is bigger— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 3, 2018
And by keeping the OLB underneath route, ND basically eliminates a comeback type route for a box out situation, TE needs to break inward to give throwing window— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 3, 2018
What Is Supposed to Be Your Takeaway Here?If you want to put blame on Gentry, it’s on his stem for not gaining better leverage on safety or at the top of his route for not threatening corner. Catch point much lower on list— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) September 3, 2018
I dunno man. I mean, I get it. Simplifying things in our minds is a defense mechanism, it's a learning mechanism, it's an application mechanism and an efficiency mechanism. It's a strength that helps us better function in life, and work, and play, and everything else. It is, in my mind, the reason Christopher Nolan is considered one of the greatest directors of his era: his ability to simplify relatively complex ideas to make his audience feel smart for getting it.
I don't expect the casual fan to start digging through All-22 to resolve problems that they don't really care to resolve. It's unrealistic. But maybe tone down the rhetoric. Maybe don't pretend you know when you don't. Feel free to give opinions, but understand it isn't facts, and understand that you don't have all the facts to support an opinion, all you have is your limited perspective. And that's fine. "Life is as simple as you make it." But ignorance isn't necessarily a positive trait. Knowledge is power. Opinions are opinions, facts are facts. And it's important to understand that "life is as simple as you make it" requires allowing in ignorance, ignoring knowledge, and replacing fact with opinion and treating it the same; and those things don't make you right. Because things are never really as simple as they seem. And probably the most important part of being a coach is being a good mentor, and maybe this is just my coaching lesson for the day.
Great analysis and I totally agree with much of what you said here. I would add to the point and assert that play calling gets blamed in college ball even more than the NFL because it is seen as distasteful (correctly or not) to go after college students (who we call kids even though all are over 18 . . .) for execution mistakes that are clear. I wonder how many analysts take the easy way out and blame general play calling because they don't want to pick on college kids for legitimate execution mistakes which may have come from lack of practice reps (such as the speed option ex. above) or not. Just a though I had. Once again, great write up and very informative.
ReplyDeleteWell said. And explained. Just a great post.
ReplyDeleteExcellent post, Space.
ReplyDeleteIt's this type of analysis that moves me off the ledge and assuages my anger at the people who talk about play calling but have no real experience (I can be among that crowd, but to a smaller extent...)
I have faith in Harbaugh to get it right eventually with better recruits; but what do we do in the short to mid term?
Are Hudson/Mayfield real tackles?
Brian said we should run gap, insinuating that we are running Zone now. Would this work? Could the beef of JBB/Bredeson/Ruiz/Mason allow Higdon/Evans to establish enough of a run to get quick PA passes working? Are we trying to zone block with a gap line? Or is that another straw to grasp at?
I feel that, even with DT play not up to where I'd hoped, with our D we can win if the offense can just A) have a pulse and B) not turn the ball over. Maybe even enough to win vs. Wisci and/or MSU.
OSU seems lost to me, barring the earth opening and swallowing Bosa.