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-…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.