OttoinGrotto
2023-24 Iggy Award Most 3 Pointers Made
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 63,451
- Like
- 186,602
Last night a poster sent me a message to have me explain why I think the play calling is so bad. I spent some time on the response and decided to post my reply (with some revisions to add context where needed) here:
People like to use the simplified argument that if a play works then the play calling was good, but if a play doesn't work then the play calling is bad. That's not my argument. I'll start by saying that I disagree that we can't spread the field. In fact, I believe that if we spread it out more we would be much more successful using it.
My argument is that there's more to play calling than just calling the play itself. Consideration should also be given to the formations selected, when they are selected, and the pace at which the offense receives the play, lines up, and executes it. I feel we're terrible at all of those things. Let's just put aside whether the plays that get called are good - we play at a pace that does us absolutely no favors whatsoever. Our offense is supposed to be multiple, which should permit us to exploit weakness in the defense, but we break huddle and line up so slowly that the defense has so much time to reasonably guess what we will do. Since the play calling itself is pretty bland, we get so many three and outs. I live out west, and I can tell you, teams on the west have prolific offenses in large part because they keep the defense on their heels. They don't just have fast players, the mentality of the offense is to be fast in all aspects of the game. It's just much harder to defend. I think if we played faster we would get more out of our offense. Maybe it doesn't give the defense more to think about, but it does give them less time to think, and that should be a net good thing.
So that deals with pace. Let's take a look at the formations. Part of the reason why the spread is so imposing is because it forces the defense to defend sideline to sideline. That doesn't just help the passing game, it also means wider running lanes all over the field for rushing plays. More field to cover is not a good situation for the defense - we make it easy for the defense, because I see us bunched up far too often. This makes us easy to defend against the run, especially since we so often try to force the ball up the middle behind our smallest lineman, and the rusher is basically heading right into the meat of the defense. They don't even have to move more than a step to make a play. This formation is even worse to pass out of. The best we can hope for is a quick hitter like Lemon's first TD, but that requires snap recognition and a tiny window to throw in. Otherwise, all of our routes are bunched up more or less along the middle of the field, meaning the safeties can stay home and the corners can cheat inside. It would be one thing if this was a formation we rarely use, but we get it a ton. It's the worst of both worlds. Difficult to run out of, and even harder to pass out of. It was also a problem our first drive against Louisville - we lined up to pass on 3rd in that abomination of a formation, got a delay of game that picked us up, and we still came out in it even though we needed more yardage! We completed the pass, didn't pick up the first, and punted. Let's at least line up in something that gives us a chance.
So that deals with one easily identifiable issue with the formations and when they are employed at bad times. Let's look at the actual play calling itself. I don't believe that you can often point to a single play in isolation and say that it's bad. It's the sequencing that disturbs me. The staff makes it known that they want to pound the ball. So, they come out and call run plays up the gut on our first possession, and get a three and out. Do you realize that in the first three drives of our last three games we've gone run, run, pass (after a penalty), punt, run, run (fumble lost), run, run, run, punt? Not surprisingly we had two three and outs and a fumble. Also, we completed the pass, but guess what, it came out of that awful bunch formation. Anyway, see, it's the sequencing. As for the deep ball (the poster noted that I thought it was a bad idea to have Nassib's first pass attempt be a bomb), I'm not suggesting that Nassib shouldn't be throwing them. But it probably shouldn't be his very first pass attempt. I think he's a rhythm passer. Let's let him find a rhythm first. It's hard for him to do that if we start every drive of every game only going with the run unless we have no choice to pass.
I do not believe that the offense needs to spend time pounding the ball in order to get the defense to respect the play action. That would be true if we were churning out first downs with the run, but we don't really succeed at that. They can let the play action go, because nobody is going to hurt them. We need to find ways to hurt them. Our play calling, in totality, is not built to hurt the defense. It's built on the hope that if we waste enough time maybe at the end we'll miraculously make a play. I say, let's do everything we can to make plays early in the game, in the middle of the game, whatever, and the end will take care of itself.
People like to use the simplified argument that if a play works then the play calling was good, but if a play doesn't work then the play calling is bad. That's not my argument. I'll start by saying that I disagree that we can't spread the field. In fact, I believe that if we spread it out more we would be much more successful using it.
My argument is that there's more to play calling than just calling the play itself. Consideration should also be given to the formations selected, when they are selected, and the pace at which the offense receives the play, lines up, and executes it. I feel we're terrible at all of those things. Let's just put aside whether the plays that get called are good - we play at a pace that does us absolutely no favors whatsoever. Our offense is supposed to be multiple, which should permit us to exploit weakness in the defense, but we break huddle and line up so slowly that the defense has so much time to reasonably guess what we will do. Since the play calling itself is pretty bland, we get so many three and outs. I live out west, and I can tell you, teams on the west have prolific offenses in large part because they keep the defense on their heels. They don't just have fast players, the mentality of the offense is to be fast in all aspects of the game. It's just much harder to defend. I think if we played faster we would get more out of our offense. Maybe it doesn't give the defense more to think about, but it does give them less time to think, and that should be a net good thing.
So that deals with pace. Let's take a look at the formations. Part of the reason why the spread is so imposing is because it forces the defense to defend sideline to sideline. That doesn't just help the passing game, it also means wider running lanes all over the field for rushing plays. More field to cover is not a good situation for the defense - we make it easy for the defense, because I see us bunched up far too often. This makes us easy to defend against the run, especially since we so often try to force the ball up the middle behind our smallest lineman, and the rusher is basically heading right into the meat of the defense. They don't even have to move more than a step to make a play. This formation is even worse to pass out of. The best we can hope for is a quick hitter like Lemon's first TD, but that requires snap recognition and a tiny window to throw in. Otherwise, all of our routes are bunched up more or less along the middle of the field, meaning the safeties can stay home and the corners can cheat inside. It would be one thing if this was a formation we rarely use, but we get it a ton. It's the worst of both worlds. Difficult to run out of, and even harder to pass out of. It was also a problem our first drive against Louisville - we lined up to pass on 3rd in that abomination of a formation, got a delay of game that picked us up, and we still came out in it even though we needed more yardage! We completed the pass, didn't pick up the first, and punted. Let's at least line up in something that gives us a chance.
So that deals with one easily identifiable issue with the formations and when they are employed at bad times. Let's look at the actual play calling itself. I don't believe that you can often point to a single play in isolation and say that it's bad. It's the sequencing that disturbs me. The staff makes it known that they want to pound the ball. So, they come out and call run plays up the gut on our first possession, and get a three and out. Do you realize that in the first three drives of our last three games we've gone run, run, pass (after a penalty), punt, run, run (fumble lost), run, run, run, punt? Not surprisingly we had two three and outs and a fumble. Also, we completed the pass, but guess what, it came out of that awful bunch formation. Anyway, see, it's the sequencing. As for the deep ball (the poster noted that I thought it was a bad idea to have Nassib's first pass attempt be a bomb), I'm not suggesting that Nassib shouldn't be throwing them. But it probably shouldn't be his very first pass attempt. I think he's a rhythm passer. Let's let him find a rhythm first. It's hard for him to do that if we start every drive of every game only going with the run unless we have no choice to pass.
I do not believe that the offense needs to spend time pounding the ball in order to get the defense to respect the play action. That would be true if we were churning out first downs with the run, but we don't really succeed at that. They can let the play action go, because nobody is going to hurt them. We need to find ways to hurt them. Our play calling, in totality, is not built to hurt the defense. It's built on the hope that if we waste enough time maybe at the end we'll miraculously make a play. I say, let's do everything we can to make plays early in the game, in the middle of the game, whatever, and the end will take care of itself.
