Offensive Play Calling

[#12]

We didn't play well, but what did people think of the play calling?  I thought it was a good mix, a good blend.  I was worried we might lose our aggressiveness, but it was aggressive enough.  Overall, it seemed to be what many of us were calling for last year - a slightly toned-down, more reasonable version of the 2012 offense. 

[stat2883]

I wouldn't read into play calling at all yet.

[#12]

I wouldn't read into play calling at all yet.

 

In terms of showing a lot, no, but you can certainly get an overall feel for how Pep will call a game, and I was happy with it. 

[GoColts8818]

I thought Pep was throwing everything in his bag of tricks at the wall today to see what sticks.  Which is what the pre-season is for.

[#12]

I thought Pep was throwing everything in his bag of tricks at the wall today to see what sticks.  Which is what the pre-season is for.

I didn't get that sense at all.  Generally, I thought it was pretty reasonable. 

[GoColts8818]

I didn't get that sense at all.  Generally, I thought it was pretty reasonable. 

Let me be more clear, I think he was trying things out today to get a feeling for what worked and what didn't.  That's not to say there was anything wrong with it or he didn't have a plan for what he was trying.  I am sure he did have a plan for what he was trying.  Still I think he was trying things out to get a feel for what worked, again nothing wrong with that that's what the pre-season is for.

[NewColtsFan]

Much too small a sample size to get any real read....

 

But I wasn't happy with Andrew throwing to Wayne on 3rd and 2....

 

I get that Luck loves Reggie.   Really, I do.    But if defenses know that Reggie is Luck's 1st, 2nd and 3rd option on 3rd down,  then it becomes much, much easier to defend the play.

 

We need to get out of that habit.   Luck has to develop other options on 3rd down.   When he does that,  when the defense has no idea who Luck will throw to,  then the offense will really start to hum along and Andrew's performance will soar...

 

I look forward to that day....       

[GoColts8818]

Much too small a sample size to get any real read....

 

But I wasn't happy with Andrew throwing to Wayne on 3rd and 2....

 

I get that Luck loves Reggie.   Really, I do.    But if defenses know that Reggie is Luck's 1st, 2nd and 3rd option on 3rd down,  then it becomes much, much easier to defend the play.

 

We need to get out of that habit.   Luck has to develop other options on 3rd down.   When he does that,  when the defense has no idea who Luck will throw to,  then the offense will really start to hum along and Andrew's performance will soar...

 

I look forward to that day....       

If I recall that play the protection broke down quickly and I think Luck was dumping it to the first white shirt he saw where it wasn't going to be picked off. 

[#12]

Much too small a sample size to get any real read....

 

But I wasn't happy with Andrew throwing to Wayne on 3rd and 2....

 

I get that Luck loves Reggie.   Really, I do.    But if defenses know that Reggie is Luck's 1st, 2nd and 3rd option on 3rd down,  then it becomes much, much easier to defend the play.

 

We need to get out of that habit.   Luck has to develop other options on 3rd down.   When he does that,  when the defense has no idea who Luck will throw to,  then the offense will really start to hum along and Andrew's performance will soar...

 

I look forward to that day....       

It's slightly off topic, but yes, both Peyton and Luck have a habit of force-feeding their best receiver.  Seemingly half or more of Manning's INTs in his later years came from attempting to force it into Reggie.

[BOTT]

It's slightly off topic, but yes, both Peyton and Luck have a habit of force-feeding their best receiver.  Seemingly half or more of Manning's INTs in his later years came from attempting to force it into Reggie.

Did Luck have much choice but to force feed Reggie at times last year? I'm glad he did. When the QB is running for his life he has to trust someone....and that's not going to a rookie tight end, a rookie WR, or some journeyman WR.

[stat2883]

In terms of showing a lot, no, but you can certainly get an overall feel for how Pep will call a game, and I was happy with it.

you really can't even get a sense of that either - not in the first preseason game.

In the 3rd game where there's actually somewhat of a gameplan in place and scouting being done on the opponent? Then yeah I'll grant that one.

[#12]

you really can't even get a sense of that either - not in the first preseason game.

 

In 4 quarters, you can get no sense of anything whatsoever?  Ok. 

[#12]

Did Luck have much choice but to force feed Reggie at times last year? I'm glad he did. When the QB is running for his life he has to trust someone....and that's not going to a rookie tight end, a rookie WR, or some journeyman WR.

 

Probably true.

[#12]

In the 3rd game where there's actually somewhat of a gameplan in place and scouting being done on the opponent? Then yeah I'll grant that one.

Play calling is largely done on the fly - you're taking the temperature of the game, reading and reacting, down and distance, etc., etc., so yes, even in the absence of extensive game planning, through 4 quarters, you should be able to gain some sense of how he will call game.  And I was pleased with it.

[stat2883]

In 4 quarters, you can get no sense of anything whatsoever?  Ok. 

that's exactly what I'm telling you - for the first preseason game.

Play calling is primarily intended to do two things - attack a defense's weakness, and mask an offense's weakness. For starters, play calling in the first game of preseason has nothing to do with trying to attack an opponents vulnerabilities - there has been no advance scouting done, and that's not on the team's agenda. The team has their own list of what they want to see on the field and they will call plays that will achieve whatever it is they're looking for. Often times a coach will actually call plays which are meant to put a player in a tough spot so they can evaluate how they react to that given situation. You don't see that in the regular season. Look at the contrast in play-calling from Luck/Hasselbeck to Harnish - there was a different agenda involved in what the staff was looking for. Saying you can get a feel for how a coach will call plays based on the first preseason game is like watching a couple days of practice and thinking the same thing.

But hey if that's what floats your boat....

[stat2883]

Play calling is largely done on the fly

not as much as you would think - why do you think most major adjustments come after half time?

[#12]

 

 

that's exactly what I'm telling you - for the first preseason game.

Play calling is primarily intended to do two things - attack a defense's weakness, and mask an offense's weakness. For starters, play calling in the first game of preseason has nothing to do with trying to attack an opponents vulnerabilities - there has been no advance scouting done, and that's not on the team's agenda. The team has their own list of what they want to see on the field and they will call plays that will achieve whatever it is they're looking for. Often times a coach will actually call plays which are meant to put a player in a tough spot so they can evaluate how they react to that given situation. You don't see that in the regular season. Look at the contrast in play-calling from Luck/Hasselbeck to Harnish - there was a different agenda involved in what the staff was looking for. Saying you can get a feel for how a coach will call plays based on the first preseason game is like watching a couple days of practice and thinking the same thing.

But hey if that's what floats your boat....

 

I'll say it again:

 

Play calling is largely done on the fly - you're taking the temperature of the game, reading and reacting, down and distance, etc., etc., so yes, even in the absence of extensive game planning, through 4 quarters, you should be able to gain some sense of how he will call game.  And I was pleased with it.

 

[GoColts8818]

I'll say it again:

If it was done on the fly then coaches wouldn't spend all week coming up with a game plan against teams. 

[stat2883]

I'll say it again as well in regards to play calling being done "on the fly"

not as much as you would think - why do you think most major adjustments come after half time?

plays were called with a specific purpose in mind, one that does not translate over to the regular season. But eh...I'm going to bed. I stand by my earlier statements.

[#12]

not as much as you would think - why do you think most major adjustments come after half time?

 

You're confusing an overall game plan with in game play-by-play calling, and, if as you admit, even most of that goes out at halftime, the majority of play calling is done on the fly - reading and reacting, game situation, down and distance, etc., etc.

[#12]

If it was done on the fly then coaches wouldn't spend all week coming up with a game plan against teams. 

 

So you can script a 60 minute football game?  There's a difference between a game plan and play-by-play calling.  What did Manning do for 14 years?  He walked up to line read the defense, reacted and called a play.  That's what play calling is. 

[#12]

nm

[GoColts8818]

So you can script a 60 minute football game?  There's a difference between a game plan and play-by-play calling.  What did Manning do for 14 years?  He walked up to line read the defense, reacted and called a play.  That's what play calling is. 

There is a difference between scripting and calling a game on the fly.  Yes coaches react to situations but they do it based on a game plan they came up with during the week and plays they practiced during the week.  They don't just go hmmm I think this would be a good spot to run a flea flicker even though we've never practiced it or worked on it.  The later is calling a game on the fly because doing something on the fly means you didn't prepare for it in the first place. 

[stat2883]

You're confusing an overall game plan with in game play-by-play calling, and, if as you admit, even most of that goes out at halftime, the majority of play calling is done on the fly - reading and reacting, game situation, down and distance, etc., etc.

heh...I should be sleeping

Several incorrect assumptions in your statement, or at least over simplification.

1) Nothing has to go out at halftime if the defense can't stop what you were doing originally.

2) Not on the fly, game plans are tailored VERY specifically to your opponent and usually consist of maybe 40 plays total...this isn't like Madden. There isn't as much "reading and reacting" as you would think, especially in the case where teams script their first 15 plays. They can get a rough sense, but the real "reacting" takes place in the form of halftime adjustments. If it was truly done "on the fly", then halftime adjustments wouldn't exist, but we all know they do.

3) Game situations, down and distance, etc....that's exactly what a game plan is - plays specifically selected in the beginning of the week that attack a specific opponent's tendencies and weaknesses in a given situation. Play calling can change week to week and is only as good as your advance scouting and self-scouting prior to the game itself. It seems you're trying to separate game plans and play calling but still citing situations and tendencies.

4) Can you call any old play willy-nilly? Sure...but that's the exception, not the rule.

or perhaps just as likely...our definition of play calling differs.

alright...NOW I'm going to bed

[#12]

heh...I should be sleeping

Several incorrect assumptions in your statement, or at least over simplification.

1) Nothing has to go out at halftime if the defense can't stop what you were doing originally.

2) Not on the fly, game plans are tailored VERY specifically to your opponent and usually consist of maybe 40 plays total...this isn't like Madden. There isn't as much "reading and reacting" as you would think, especially in the case where teams script their first 15 plays. They can get a rough sense, but the real "reacting" takes place in the form of halftime adjustments. If it was truly done "on the fly", then halftime adjustments wouldn't exist, but we all know they do.

3) Game situations, down and distance, etc....that's exactly what a game plan is - plays specifically selected in the beginning of the week that attack a specific opponent's tendencies and weaknesses in a given situation. Play calling can change week to week and is only as good as your advance scouting and self-scouting prior to the game itself. It seems you're trying to separate game plans and play calling but still citing situations and tendencies.

4) Can you call any old play willy-nilly? Sure...but that's the exception, not the rule.

or perhaps just as likely...our definition of play calling differs.

alright...NOW I'm going to bed

 

You're still mainly talking game plan, not flow of the game, in game play calling, based on an infinite amount of variables you can't possibly predict.  How often have you heard a coach say, we had a game plan and it went out the window in the first few minutes.  And that's just the overall game plan.  We're not talking situational play calling. 

 

There isn't as much "reading and reacting" as you would think,

 

 

We just saw 14 years of nothing but. 

[GoColts8818]

You're still mainly talking game plan, not flow of the game, in game play calling, based on an infinite amount of variables you can't possibly predict.  How often have you heard a coach say, we had a game plan and it went out the window in the first few minutes.  And that's just the overall game plan.  We're not talking situational play calling. 

 

 

We just saw 14 years of nothing but. 

I don't think on the fly is the right way to describe Manning's offense.  Again part of doing something on the fly means not preparing for it ahead of time.  Manning's offense was the product of countless hours in the film room and practice field figuring out the right play to attack a defense with and when he saw the defense line up in those formations attacking them with the right play.  That's not on the fly at least to me, that's the product of a lot of work and being ready as a result of that work.  I think what you are really getting at is the idea that can't script a whole game from start to finish you have to be able to adjust as the game goes along and react to things.  That I agree with you on, however, to me that is not the samething as doing something on the fly. 

[IndyD4U]

We didn't play well, but what did people think of the play calling?  I thought it was a good mix, a good blend.  I was worried we might lose our aggressiveness, but it was aggressive enough.  Overall, it seemed to be what many of us were calling for last year - a slightly toned-down, more reasonable version of the 2012 offense. 

 

One word...Vanilla

 

I don't think we can confidently base any opinions or outlooks on our season from the first preseason game.

[FearTheNeckBeard]

DHB didn't got open once.. in like 10 plays.. so.. in Reggie and TY is our offense

[Valpo2004]

One word...Vanilla

 

I don't think we can confidently base any opinions or outlooks on our season from the first preseason game.

 

Yeah typically the coaches avoid throwing anything different out there during pre season so as to not give away much scouting information too early.

[lollygagger8]

I don't remember the time of the play, but I think the TE and FB shifted over to the right side and I though FOR SURE it was a running play, but they threw it out of that formation. That was pretty sweet. 

[stat2883]

You're still mainly talking game plan, not flow of the game, in game play calling, based on an infinite amount of variables you can't possibly predict.  How often have you heard a coach say, we had a game plan and it went out the window in the first few minutes.  And that's just the overall game plan.  We're not talking situational play calling.

 

When a coach says that, its not literal. They're still very much confined to what was worked on during that week of practice, which is what's in the gameplan. Situational play calling IS the game plan. That's how they're laid out. One side of your play sheet will have scripted plays and the other side will be broken down by situation, but still a team only goes into a game with a fraction of the plays which are in the overall playbook.

 

We just saw 14 years of nothing but.

oversimplification of play calling - I could say that all cars are the same because you can put a key in there and start it up and drive. To the casual observer who might not know anything about cars, that would appear to be a true statement.

first, earlier I said "willy nilly" play calling was the exception, not the rule. Manning & Co. were the exception, but still not to the extent you think. I promise you that the vast majority of the plays he called at the line were practiced that week in some form or another and are in the gameplan, which Manning had a large part in formulating based heavily on his own film study leading up to that game. Part of what lead to the perception that Manning had the entire playbook at his disposal was two fold - first Tom Moore's playbook was fairly small compared to other teams, so the concepts were fewer. Second, continuity in offensive personnel allowed them to sometimes reach back into past weeks for plays. Again this is not the case with hardly any other teams. You think Brady will be able to call any old play this season with an entirely new supporting cast? The same for Manning when he had rookies or other new players on the field - he had to confine it to what he knew they could run, which was typically what he saw them run in practice that week - as part of the game plan installation. Coaches try very much to avoid calling something that wasn't part of that week's game plan, which is the opposite of "on the fly". Your idea of the QB calling the play from scratch right on the field went out years ago (pre WW2), and that's from Bill Walsh's mouth in case you don't trust what I'm saying. He was of the mindset that you wanted to take decisions out of the "heat of the moment" context of a live game; to minimize time required to make a decision and call a play. This method evolved hand in hand with scouting of tendencies and film study started under Paul Brown. Now its pretty much universal through all major levels of football.

I don't believe you can separate game plan from play calling. Bill Walsh scripted up to 75% of his plays on occasion; sometimes the entire first half and a good framework for the 2nd half. When the Cowboys hired Callahan to take over play calling duties from Jason Garrett this offseason, it was downplayed quite a bit because the work is done during the week. Once game day arrives, its mainly just reading from a list, including plays designed for possible adjustments a defense could make; Callahan's main contribution will be during the week and freeing Garrett up to focus on other things on the sideline and in terms of game management. The real "magic" or whatever you want to call it surrounding play calling is in the game plan. A play call isn't an isolated event, they're called with a purpose, sometimes to attack a specific player or area of the field, or perhaps to set up a play for later in the game. This is all determined during the week before the game. The act of calling a game is much more structured and predetermined than you realize. You're able to more easily remain unpredictable and avoid trends (which is what self-scouting is) that you would inevitably run into by calling games "on the fly". There are even some coaches who group their game plans by series (based around a particular concept) and don't even deal with individual plays; though not in the NFL.

However, given everything said in the last dozen or so posts, it all relates to the regular season and a typical week of practice and installation; most, if not all of the contributors we've discussed do not exist in the first preseason game, which was the original point of this thread. So I restate my initial premise; don't read into preseason week 1 play calling.

My statement: "I don't believe you can separate game plan from play calling." If you disagree with this, then we may as well stop here because its just going to go in circles.

[bahhummbug]

In 4 quarters, you can get no sense of anything whatsoever?  Ok. 

You must remember Bradshaw was out and Allen I am sure both are a part of Peps Offense.And with DHB a little hobbled we saw nothing of Peps potential.Bradshaw is a great blocker when he gets in the game Luck will have more time to throw.

[Superman]

Not too much you can take away from preseason play calling, but I did like the little naked bootleg to Fleener. Something I thought we should have done more of last season.

[throwing BBZ]

Did Luck have much choice but to force feed Reggie at times last year? I'm glad he did. When the QB is running for his life he has to trust someone....and that's not going to a rookie tight end, a rookie WR, or some journeyman WR.

 

Luck had plenty of receivers running open underneath last year and he was not doing his job when he forced the ball downfield.

Arians spoke of it.

[TKnight24]

Man, I loved what I saw. The running backs actually caught passes in the passing game!! And the play action rollouts were things of beauty!

Luck still has to stop trying to force things though but other than that I was very pleased with the playcall through the entire game just disappointed with the EXECUTION of the plays. (Mostly once Harnish got in)

[Jason_]

I also liked what I saw from the play-calling so far.  Actually reminded me a bit of Houston's playcalling, which is basically the type of offense I was hoping for.  Balance of run and pass, lots of play action and bootlegs while still taking shots down the field, especially off of the play action.  

[BOTT]

Luck had plenty of receivers running open underneath last year and he was not doing his job when he forced the ball downfield.

Arians spoke of it.

Arians QBs seem to have that problem wherever he goes....just coincidence I'm sure.

[Big Red]

It's slightly off topic, but yes, both Peyton and Luck have a habit of force-feeding their best receiver.  Seemingly half or more of Manning's INTs in his later years came from attempting to force it into Reggie.

 

Early in PM's career he was very locked into Marvin on that quick slant.  We paid for it come playoff time too.

[YOUR GM]

Luck had plenty of receivers running open underneath last year and he was not doing his job when he forced the ball downfield.

Arians spoke of it.

 

Even the underneath routes took way too long to develop. Might as well have been deep routes

[dw49]

It's slightly off topic, but yes, both Peyton and Luck have a habit of force-feeding their best receiver.  Seemingly half or more of Manning's INTs in his later years came from attempting to force it into Reggie.

 

 

 

Ha... you must have watched that last SB vs NO