This weekend I went about twelve rounds with Hydrotech from the California Golden Blogs over my playcalling posts (Part I & Part II of his ripostes are here). We both had errors in our logic (I think I said USC was in a 5-2 when it was clearly a 4-…

We both must be careful in our analyses to consider whether the offense took advantage of the defense or the defense took advantage of the offense. Remember, the offense calls the play first, before seeing the defense (unless the play is an option play or is audibled). So in essence, the offense can never take advantage of the defense unless the offense has scouted out defensive tendencies.

Your paragraph quoted above, regarding the analysis of the Forsett TD run, where you say it “took advantage of a weak defensive situation” is a fair and reasonable assumption. But I don’t think either of us can be sure that Tedford was truly taking advantage of a weak defensive situation or whether Tedford merely got lucky. It’s possible that Tedford scouted USC’s defense and knew they’d be in such a defense in such a situation, and thus called a perfect play to counter that defense, and thus a great playcall. But it’s also just as plausible that Tedford just got lucky. Meaning he called a play without regard to what the defensive formation and play might be, and got a touchdown off of it. Honestly, I personally cannot say that this playcall was either good or bad because I don’t know if Tedford foresaw the defensive formation & play, or whether Tedford just got lucky.

The reason I alluded to the Forsett and Montgomery runs as good and bad respectively was because the former took advantage of a weak defensive situation, the latter repeated the same play on the same down in a similar situation against a stronger defensive formation.

The blanket statement about Tedford having a lot of bad playcalls might need to be modified a bit, but I do think Cal’s offense seemed to repeat itself a lot in October and November. But thanks for calling it out, I’ll address it in my next post.

And yes, the coach should call plays that maximize his player’s abilities. It did seem like Longshore had problems with the deep ball to untrained eyes. But careful review of game film shows WR running wrong routes, poor OL blocking leading to the QB being rushed, Longshore throwing the ball away, or Longshore purposely overthrowing the ball so only the WR can catch it.

And let’s not forget, that a lot of “bad” passes aren’t really bad passes. They are Longshore throwing the ball away. Fans may often wonder why Longshore threw the ball 5 yards out of bounds and scream that his accuracy sucks. Not always true. Longshore probably threw the ball out of bounds in order to prevent a sack (something he is very good at).

My point is that Longshore’s deep ball wasn’t as bad as everyone thinks. Everyone sees Longshore make an underthrown pass. But nobody sees the OL whiff a block and let a defensive lineman get into Longshore’s face.

If Longshore was so incompetent with the long ball, in addition to being inhibited by his mobility, you’d think Tedford would instead start Riley. But Tedford didn’t. Instead he started Longshore. Tedford repeatedly said, and has always said of Longshore, that Longshore can “make all the throws.”

Now, I will agree that our definitions of playcalling seem to differ. But I must contest, that if the real issue here is to determine whether Tedford called a good play or a bad play, then I cannot agree that your definition is proper or fair. Your definition would attribute fault to Tedford for an incompletion merely because the WR dropped an easily catchable ball. Your definition would attribute fault to Tedford for the runningback getting stuffed for a loss because the guard made one mental error and whiffed on one block. Your definition would attribute fault to Tedford for offensive pass interference. Can we truly say it’s fair to label an unsuccessful play that Tedford called as a bad playcall because “the result of the play is what counts”? I think not. As I have already illustrated, such a definition would attribute fault for things beyond Tedford’s control or intuitions. Thus, I must strongly and vehemently disagree with the definition you propose.

Also, the fact that it was Montgomery in the game late in the 4th rather than Forsett indicated pass. Cal was loath to trust Monty with the ball late in the game (and yes I know Forsett had just scooted for 40 yards), and I don’t think I’ve ever seen him get a carry with Cal down late. So I think the play was quite as effective as you might think–and from watching that angle, I’m not even sure how Jordan catches that ball even if it’s thrown properly. The defense was playing well on coverage.

In any case, our definitions of playcalling seem to differ. No matter how ‘deep’ the thinking might be, the result of the play is what counts. Thinking that decisions are great regardless of the outcome is what gets people into trouble in the first place.