Good Play? Bad Play? (Cal vs. USC in 2007) Part II
Continuing on with my response to Avinash’s interesting analysis on the 2007 Cal vs. USC game. In case you missed it, here is Part I.
In Avinash’s second analysis, he mentions that the formation used in this second play is the same as the first play.
I must respectfully disagree.
Here are the pre-snap formation screen-grabs courtesy of BearsNecessity:
First play
Second play
So are these the same formations? No, they are not. They are similar but not the same. While Avinash is correct in saying that in both pictures there are two WRs on one side, and a TE and a 3rd WR on the other, the location of the runningback is different. In the first play, the runningback is in a "strong" position - to the same side as the TE. In the second play, the runningback is in a "weak" position - the opposite side of the TE.
Am I nitpicking? It may seem like it but no, I am not. This is a significant difference. I know that the runningbacks would surely get themselves in trouble if they positioned themselves on the wrong side of the QB. Tedford and Coach Gould (runningbacks coach) would be all over the RB and possibly pull them from the game.
Why is this difference significant? Because on the first play, when the RB runs left, he does not have the benefit of added TE blocking. In the second play, when the RB runs left, he has the added benefit of the TE blocking.
My second respectful disagreement with Avinash’s analysis is the comment that USC was in a 5-2 formation in prior situations (3rd paragraph of his post). I am a little unclear if Avinash is suggesting that in the first play USC was in a 5-2 defense, or if in most situations they are in a 5-2 formation defense. Either way the comment was meant to be interpreted, I believe USC was not in a 5-2 formation. In the first play, the USC defense appears to be in a 4-2 nickel with one of the LBs playing over the TE and at the LOS - but still nevertheless a 4-2 nickel. And if it was meant to be said that USC is usually in a 5-2 defense, that is incorrect too. USC’s base defense is a 4-3 Under which appears very much like a 5-2 defense because the SLB (strong side linebacker) plays on the LOS (but in a standing position) with the MLB and WLBs shifted over more towards center.
However, I do agree with Avinash that in the second play, USC is in a conventional 4-3 defense to prevent the pass.
My third respectful disagreement with Avinash is that the second play was a bad playcall because it was repetitive. Of course, Avinash premised this statement on the belief that the first play and the second play were the same. Well, they’re both draws, but out of different formations. So while an argument can be made that they are the same because they’re both draws [edit: see footnote], they are technically different. But we’ll assume that they are similar enough to be the same.
But is it really a bad playcall to call a play that has already been run? No. In fact, Tedford calls a few select plays up to as many as 3 times a game.
The fact is, the first time Tedford called that play, it went for a long gain (and touchdown). If it works once, why not try it again?
If you look at the two pictures, the game situation is the same too. Both 3rd and longs in the redzone. Tedford is probably assuming that USC might come out in the same formation and if Tedford is really lucky, call the same defense as the first play which gave up a Cal touchdown. But as Avinash said, the USC defense had made adjustments.
But is it a bad playcall because Tedford tried a play which worked earlier for a second time? No.
One might argue that it was a bad playcall because Cal needed 9 yards for a touchdown and a draw play up the middle was not likely to achieve such a result. This is a valid argument but a short-sighted one. One needs to look at the big picture. In the second play, the game is tied at 7 a piece. Cal is on the 9 yard line facing a 3rd and goal. Cal is also facing USC and its excellent defense. Cal is facing USC and its excellent defense in the redzone where the excellent USC defense has less field to protect. Passing into the endzone is dangerous! Even passing short of the endzone is dangerous (but less dangerous), but certainly hazardous to a Cal WR’s health against USC’s hard-hitting LBs and safeties.
Being conservative and calling a draw (even though it has a low probability of scoring) is not a bad playcall. Cal can probably gain a few yards, and kick a field goal and take the lead. Remember, big picture. Don’t turn the ball over. Get points. In a slow low-scoring game, a field goal can be devastating. The 2007 Cal vs. USC game was a slow low scoring game. Take the points when you can get them, especially when they’re a sure thing (kicking a field goal from the 5 yard line).
So I must disagree with Avinash that the playcall on the second play was bad. It wasn’t bad because it was repetitive. Nor was it bad because it didn’t have a high enough probability of reaching the endzone for a touchdown. I believe it was a good playcall.
[Footnote: I originally wrote this reponse to these plays from memory (without looking at the film). I assumed both plays were draws. But upon reviewing the plays from Tivo, the two plays are not the same. They are not both draws. The first play is a draw. The second play is a zone-read.]
From a psychological standpoint I disagreed with the call. It signaled that Tedford placed more confidence in the USC defense to stop a TD than in the Cal offense to score one. And yes, it was in the rain, but there are decent plays (screen passes, quick slants, stop-and-go routes) for these situations that have a good chance at a touchdown and a low probability of a turnover.
And in this play, the RB ran right, without tight end blocking. Montgomery was not only in the game, he was running with insufficent blocking coverage.
Comment by Avinash — March 22, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
“If it works once, why not try it again?”
Nooo. Not on the next drive. Not after USC has been burned once. Maybe later in the game, but psychologically USC will be looking for it.
Comment by Avinash — March 22, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
In your first analysis, you commend Tedford for doing what a defense would least expect: running the ball on 3rd and long. In your second anlysis, you are basically knocking Tedford for doing the same thing: running the ball on 3rd and long. What gives?
If anything, you should be more critical of Tedford on the first play for not passing as since the first play’s LOS was on the 17 yardline. Thus, the defense has more ground to defend and getting a first down is easier. On the second play, the LOS is on the 9 yardline. The defense has less ground to defend and calling a pass play is (generally) riskier. But yet you commend Tedford for running on 3rd and
8 and then criticize him for running on 3rd and 9.
But it sounds like the main reasoning for calling the second play bad is that it was repetitive (as in same type of play, since it wasn’t the same formation). So Tedford can try the same type of play again on any other drive but not the drive immediately after the TD drive? Your reasoning is that “psychologically USC will be looking for it.” That is good reasoning on the surface. But if you follow Tedford’s personnel and formational tendencies, you’d know that 11 personnel, the shotgun snap, and the similar formations of both plays are very common on 3rd down. Thus, there is no real formational tip that Tedford is going to run the same play again (because it’s not like Tedford only runs draws on 3rd and long out of those formations and that personnel, thus when we see that formation and personnel in that situation we know it’s a draw).
But actually, I can put this entire argument to rest. Our entire argument has been based on the notion that these two plays were the same. You said the formations were the same. They were similar but different. While you never said what type of plays they were, I had always assumed draws. I was going off of my own memory. But I just queued up my tivo and rewatched both plays. They are not the same plays in terms of formation OR type. The first play is a draw play. The second play is a zone-read. They are very much different. The theory of the plays is different. The blocking scheme is different. There is no repetition between these two plays.
Comment by HydroTech — March 22, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
The two plays were not the same. They were similar in intent and design. There is a difference. The point I meant about repetition is that a running play was called on 3rd and long near the goalline. I didn’t mean the exact play was being called. You’re being very technical.
And yes, running on 3rd and goal from 8-10 yards out is what you least expect. Running on 3rd and goal from 8-10 yards out a SECOND time is likely to be countered or at least factored into the defense’s mind. So a pass play might have been able to exploit the fact that USC would also be looking for the run.
That’s why you use an unlikely play–to lower the guard of the defense to ensure a greater success of the likely play. You run early to exploit the guard for the pass, you pass later to exploit the guard for the run.
Comment by Avinash — March 22, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
I cannot disagree that on the second play USC’s defense would have factored in the result of the prior 3rd and long (with the same personnel and roughly the same formation). And I cannot disagree that USC would be looking for the run - as a possibility. But when you say in your second paragraph: “USC would also be looking for the run,” do you mean they were expecting the play to be a run, or a run is a possibility? Because a run or pass is always a possibility regardless of down, distance, formation, etc. Even I must admit that USC was more likely to expect run after they had given up a touchdown earlier from the run (as in they thought that the possibility of run went up from say 25% to 40%, not that they thought the run was more likely as in greater than 50%), but I don’t know if I can say that they were so intent on protecting the run that it would have significantly opened up the pass more. That it would have significantly opened up the pass more that by calling a run, that playcall was bad.
Essentially, it seems as if you are developing a rule for when a coach should pass or run based on what he called in previous situations. If I understand the gist of your argument correctly, you are saying something like “Tedford should have called pass on the second play because he called a run on the first play out the same formation, etc.” But I must contest, there is no hard-fast rule. Must Tedford follow a run/pass/run/pass pattern on certain downs and distance? Couldn’t he have done a run/run/pass pattern? I just cannot agree with you that the second play was bad because he failed to call a pass play after the first play was a run.
I’m glad you think I’m a technical person. I think I am too. But that doesn’t deflate the fact that the two plays are different. While they are both runs from shotgun out of 3 WR sets, and they both share the same “intent” as in score on the defense, they have different designs. Now, I’m pretty sure you really probably meant “intent” as in “to lull the defense into thinking pass when it’s really run” but using the word “design” for the two plays is calling chocolate and vanilla the same. The two plays have far different designs - everything from the blocking scheme to the deception and to what it imposes on the defense.
Comment by HydroTech — March 22, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
I’m not saying you SHOULDN’T run the ball as a steadfast rule, but it’s very difficult to succeed calling a similar play with a similar formation. I think a different looking formation (a play not from shotgun for example), there might have been a higher probability of success because USC would have had to shift personnel accordingly. Using the exact same formation allows USC to adjust for the run to combat that formation.
There is no hard fast rule, yes, but I think Cal running the ball on 3rd and long for a TD (which has a low probability of success in general) is not a smart play to run twice. Certainly not on the immediate next trip into the red zone (maybe later in the game, when Cal has shown it can pass in the red zone with confidence). It’s basic game theory–keep the defense honest with the unexpected play and get back to business when you get a second chance.
I think we’re going to end up disagreeing on this in any case, but I will consider your views for future posts.
Comment by Avinash — March 23, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
Tha1 Plays Decoy (Robert Jordan TD versus TN)
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-…
Trackback by Bears Necessity — March 26, 2008 @ 1:21 am