“Stubborn” Goal Line Playcalling?
I originally wrote this over at Excuse Me for My Voice, in response to a post by Mr. Crawford suggesting that Tedford’s redzone playcalling is "stubborn." TwistNHook wanted me to re-post my response here since he thought it was "sick." Since he’s the boss, I suppose I have to. Anyways, this post is not meant to criticize or attack Mr. Crawford, but to just try and get some intelligent discussion going on why Tedford’s playcalling in the redzone, or more specifically the goalline, has been favoring rushing plays.
While I think a valid argument can be made on JT’s goalline playcalling being “stubborn,” let me propose this question: what’s worse, the offense not scoring on three to four consecutive runs from the 1 yardline or not calling a passing play on 1 of the four downs? If people take a moment to void themselves of the recent memories of our goalline failures, and anti-JT-goalline-playcalling bias, I think the honest answer is the former (not scoring on four consecutive runs from the 1 yardline). In all honesty, I think the fact that our blockers at the point of attack cannot open up a hole is more deserving of criticism than Tedford. I think not getting 1 yard on 3-4 attempts is 10x more ridiculous than not calling 1 passing play out of the 3-4 attempts.
I think the biggest reason for not calling passing plays at the goalline is that (1) if a guy isn’t open then it requires Longshore to scramble for more time, (2) Longshore must scramble to throw the ball away, or (3) take a sack because he can’t scramble. Now we all know Longshore can’t really (1) and (2). So that means unless the defense bites on a playaction and a receiver is open (and receivers being “open” in the endzone is much smaller than everywhere else since there is less ground to defend), there is a HIGH probability of a sack and loss of yardage.
I think Tedford’s goalline playcalling recently while “conservative”, is actually intelligent maximization of scoring opportunities and minimization of risk. Now, I put the word conservative in quotes because there isn’t really “conservative” playcalling on the goalline. In goalline situations, because there is less space for the D to defend, runs are the “norm” and passing becomes more of a “high risk” instead of “aggressive.” Passing is even more high risk when your QB can’t really scramble.
I think Tedford has done a better job mixing up the goalline playcalling recently. He did call a goalline option play. While that is still a “run” it’s not your typical handoff run up the middle kind of run and is different enough to warrant separate consideration (and careful examination of that play will show that there was a blocking breakdown which lead to NL pitching the ball and the resulting loss of yardage). He also called that shotgun wildcat look against $C. Maybe it wasn’t quite “goalline” as in 5 yards or less but still, I believe it shows him trying to break out of his “stubborness.”
What else shall Tedford call in a goalline situation instead of a run? A playaction pass? Just like most fans want to see that, the defense knows it’s coming. When Tedford sends in the 23 personnel (goalline set) the D knows it’s either some sort of run (iso or option) or either a playaction play. A pass is not really that shocking of a playcall. I hear a lot of fans always say to playaction pass on goalline because the D is expecting the run. I don’t believe that’s true. The D knows it’s “probably” going to be a run, but they definitely know if it’s not then it’s a playaction pass. What the defense is prone to in the goalline defense is overplaying the run because it’s such short yardage and every inch matters (this is not the same as playing the run because they think it’s a running play). The defense has to pretty much surge and linebackers key in on the RB because everything happens so fast and it’s hard to distinguish who has the ball. While fans who say “pass the ball on goalline because the D is expecting the run” do arrive at the right conclusion, it’s through the wrong reasoning. Playaction passes are effective at the goalline not because the D is expecting the run but because they are deceptive, and prey upon the D’s obligation and instinct to protect the short yardage.
With all that said, yes, I would like to see some goalline playaction plays. But let’s not forgot how immobile our QB is. If we do pass, he has to scramble, or scramble and throw the ball away, or put the ball in a place where only the receiver can get it. All three possibilities increase the risk of yardage loss and turnover. Some call minimization of risk as conservative (and all of us being Cal grads, the word “conservative” has a slightly stronger negative tone than for most everywhere else). I think a better term might be “reasonable.” Running 3-4 times at the goalline is much more reasonable than I think most people are willing to accept. Afterall, all the offense needs usually is 3-4 yards on 3-4 attempts (1 yard average!). Our blocking at the point of attack can’t open up enough of a hole to get 1 yard? That’s more ridiculous than not passing once out of the 3-4 plays.
Oh, it’s quite reasonable. But it becomes a little predictable. And the idea that Tedford is hampering playcalling because of who’s under center only heightens the QB controversy.
Comment by Avinash — November 17, 2007 @ 3:25 am
YES, YOU WILL DO MY BIDDING AS I SO PLEASE
Comment by TwistNHook — November 17, 2007 @ 9:07 am
I think that calling three runs into the line is Ok. The issue is, when the first or second run into the line results in a three or four yard loss, and then you run into the line on 3rd and goal, you have essentially given up and gone for three. If you can not trust your QB to pass from the five yard line on third down into the goal, then there certainly is a bigger issue. And the issue is that we have only had one pass play inside the opponents 10 yard line in the last 6 games. Out of I think 25 or 26 attempts. So it is not conservative - it is defeatist. It is really going for three. We only score touchdowns from outside of the 10 yard line.
Comment by Oski88 — November 18, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
Come on guys. Let’s think about this. Its not that he’s not calling a pass play, its that he insists on using forsett for these short yardage runs. You say that its the O-line’s fault for not opening up a hole (partially true), but you can’t expect the Oline to open it up entirely. The problem is forsett finds a bit of a hole and doesnt have the size to break through. Montgomery is a bigger stronger back (less elusive) but he needs to get some of those carries. On the same token, we should give the ball to the fullback sometimes. He will bulldoze through a linebacker and push him the extra yard or two needed. OPEN YOUR EYES TEDFORD. I’m so sick of Tedford it’s ridiculous.
Comment by kenon — November 19, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
kenon, you might actually be in the minority. I think most Cal fans who are sick of JT’s goalline playcalling are feeling that way because he’s not calling pass plays, not the fact that he’s running with Forsett.
While having a heavier back in, such as Montgomery, would help, I think that’s less than 25% of the problem. The overwhelming majority of the problem is run blocking. Much more so than the weight of our runningback. While Montgomery is heavier, he’s only 10 lbs heavier, which is helpful but not *that* helpful.
Comment by HydroTech — November 19, 2007 @ 5:54 pm