Coach Tedford the Playcaller: Part III
Avinash: Yeah, but we tried the Wildcat in a weird, low-risk environment (3rd down and 4 on the first drive in our own territory). Of course the execution was completely wrong.
2008 is a decent example of unconventional playcalling going completely wrong. Do you think in the future Tedford should try to mix it up or try to out-USC the Trojans by playing a conventional pro-style game that they usually show against other Pac-10 opponents?
Hydrotech (continued): I think Tedford should do what he thinks is best. I'm not going to quite say that he needs to be more conventional or unconventional against USC. I don't think Cal needs to be more unconventional against USC just because it's USC. Cal isn't like The Citadel taking on Miami. Cal doesn't need to get overly fancy and throw every trick in the book and resort to crazy hail-mary/roll-the-dice types of plays. Cal can play its usual game, its usual offense, to beat USC.
My point is that sure we're offensively not as talented as USC's defense, but we're not so out-talented that we need to get crazy. To illustrate my point with numbers, Cal's offense is like an 8. USC's defense is like a 10. The Citadel is like a 1. For The Citadel to beat the USCs and Miamis of the world, they need to get crazy. Perhaps even crunk.
Avinash: However, we did try the flea-flicker against UCLA. The hook and ladder against the Furd. The wide receiver pass against Oregon State. You could argue that without those types of plays we have a much tougher time in our first two games, and get blown out by OSU. Wouldn't this suggest more trickery was needed against tougher opponents?
I am putting "trick plays" and "trickery" in quotes because as I've already discussed in previous posts, I do not believe there are such things as "trick plays."
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Citadel or California?
1. I think that is the most interesting question. If Cal has no chance to knock of USC, and plays conservatively just to keep the game close and hope for a lucky break, then I am all for pulling out all the stops. (A-11 anyone? OK, maybe more on-side kicks and going for it on fourth down.) On the other hand, if Cal is in the same league as USC but not quite as good, then calculated risks based on contradicting tendencies should complement game planning, execution, and talent development to put you on the road to success.
2. Malcolm Gladwell suggests that the David needs to be very out-of-the-box to take on goliath, and has an entertaining article with anecdotes and a few calculations. To save you reading time, he illustrates his point by showing how less talented teams that operate a full court press the whole game can take more talented teams out of their game, and fluster them, creating a chance to win where orthodox strategies would doom them to failure.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell?printable=true
3. From my own perspective, think back to the Loyola Marymount basketball team of ’88 – ’90 (Bo Kimble and Hank Gathers under the direction of Paul Westhead.) Fun style to play, fun to watch, and it helped the team over-perform (elite 8, even after Gathers RIP.) Eventually, though LMU was clinically disected by superior talent and careful coaching. As LMU talent faded, the style of play failed and life became less interesting.
jh
I don’t think the basketball analogy carries over well to football. In hoops, a distinctive style of play can take a more talented opponent out of its comfort zone. That is, to a significant degree, on both offense and defense a basketball team can dictate the tempo of a game—slow down a transition team, speed up a half-court team.
In football, I think the only way to really do this is on offense, by going to a no-huddle or trotting out crazy formations. Yes, you can blitz a whole bunch to try to upset a precision passing attack, and you can “stack the box” to try to shut down a run game. But we’re kind of off-topic, aren’t we? Rather than play calling, we’re now into the more general area of game planning.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on May 22, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions
I have to go with the Best-Tucker combo.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 22, 2009 8:55 AM PDT reply actions
What is it with Hydro and terminology?
Hydro really need to get over this thing of worrying too much about the dictionary definition of words when used in a football context. Yes, there’s lots of trickery in regular plays, but everybody knows what a trick play is. But since Hydro needs to get all technical, how’s this for a definition: any intentional play where some number other than two players touch the ball after the snap (i.e either 1 (wildcat) or 3 or more (half-back pass, hook and ladder, etc.)). One catch on that definition is the option would be a trick play when the QB keeps it but not when he pitches it… but more or less, I think the definition works.
I like this definition, Ken
Hydro is right: all play calling is (or at least should be) grounded in a game-long (even season-long) strategy of deceiving opponents. Giving them something they don’t expect. Thus, the notion of a “trick play” may not be all that helpful.
But while conventional (for lack of a better label) play calling attempts to be deceptive over a whole series of plays, what we fans commonly see as “trick” plays stand out all by themselves, regardless of down, distance, score, field position, tendencies, etc.. And the reason they do so—just as you note, Ken—is because the play is designed to have an unconventional number of players touch the ball. Since almost every play involves two touches (after the center), anything other than two is almost always surprising or “tricky”.
Should Cal use more of these? I don’t know. Depends on the opponent, the personnel, the game situation. In 2009, any play that gets the ball in Jahvid Best’s hands will be a welcome play call as far as I’m concerned. I really don’t care how many other players touch the ball before or after him—as long as they’re all wearing Blue and Gold!
Go Bears!
by California Pete on May 22, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions
I think it's a noble, if perhaps overzealous, effort by Hydro
I think he’s trying to dispel common misconceptions regarding football, and educate us all regarding what’s actually going on. He’s got a point in that the use of the term ‘trick play’ is problematic, since it implies that there are ‘non-trick plays’ which don’t involve any deception, which isn’t really true. Still, I agree with you that ‘everybody knows what a trick play is’.
I actually rather like your definition; it seems like a good catch-all definition, though I’m not sure it would cover certain types of fake kicks. Here’s my definition; how do you think it compares?
Or, alternately, every play is a trick play, because they all involve deception in some manner.
However, I think we can all agree that there is some ‘layman’ definition of what a trick play is, and that such a category is a real subset of all football plays. You may find such a category faulty or even meaningless, but you can’t deny that when someone says ‘trickeration’, a certain subset of football plays come to mind. I think the key ingredient in such plays is this: while every play involves deception of some sort, most plays involve deception in terms of player movement (such as pulling guards or crossing routes), or fakes that suggest the ball might go somewhere, but it in fact doesn’t (like pump fakes, or play-action passes). However, the average fan, who is watching the ball, isn’t paying much attention to such things, and so isn’t fooled by such ‘deception’. In the average fan’s mind, a ‘trick’ play involves a sudden misdirection of the ball, such as occurs with laterals, reverses, and flea-flickers. Such plays fool the fans at least as much as, if not more than, the defense.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
In my mind, the main concern is ensuring that people don’t think winning with a “trick play” is cheap or something like that. I know a lot of Oklahoma fans tried to downplay Boise State’s victory by saying they used “trick plays.” But they count just as much as conventional plays. There isnt anything illegal about them.
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on May 22, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Very good point, Twist. It’s all part of the game, and part of what makes it interesting to watch. Would Oklahoma have beaten Boise State in an 11-on-11 tug-of-war match? No doubt, but I think there are several good reasons why nobody has yet created the BCS of tug-of-war.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Oklahoma fans complain about everything
They complain about the refs and Oregon. They complain about trick plays. They complain that Arizona took their defensive coordinator. They complain that Texas complains too much about the BCS.
An interesting definition
It’s probably more theoretically accurate to what fans consider a trick play, but it’s also much more subjective in whether a particular play meets the definition. Is play-action, where the QB hides the ball, a trick play? In any case, my definition most definitely does not include special teams play.
I still like my definition better ;-)
Right you are, Ken!
CGB: Our points are reliable. Our logic is infallible. Our past records are illogical. And our ham is dynamite!
by Spazzy Mcgee on May 22, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
On the flip side...
I’ve got to agree with Hydro about USC.
I think trick plays are much more risky against very good defenses. Trick plays work best against over-pursuing defenses which is generally more likely with a little less talented but over-achieving defenses. Oregon State is the proto-typical example in the last few years. USC doesn’t need to over-pursue, they can beat you with convetional play.
Said another way, there’s two reasons for trickery:
1. To get a big gain/score on one play
2. To keep the defense honest
Great defenses are much more likely to allow a trick play to actually work. Additionally, for the #2 to be realized, the trick play either has to work or at least scare the defense enough that it should/could have worked. A great defense won’t be scared by the play either.
As such, It’s much better to use setup plays and regular play deception and trickery to keep USC balanced and on their toes.
by kencraw on May 22, 2009 9:15 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I meant "much less likely"
Oops… it was supposed to read “Great defenses are lesslikely to allow a trick play to actually work.”
You make a really good point here, Ken. I don’t think a playcaller can simply call a trick play just to call something tricky; rather the call should be made because the playcaller believes it will exploit a certain weakness in the defense. A great defense will obviously present fewer of these weakness that can be exploited. While obviously anything Cal can do offensively to keep USC’s defense form expecting what is coming at them is a good thing, I think Cal has to be both more sophisticated and less cavalier in drawing up an offensive gameplan.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by 
























































