In the context of offensive football, Motion....... A) Movement with a purpose to deceive or outflank? or B) just motion regardless of purpose?

I'll hang up and listen.

(Disclaimer: Today's poll question is represented by fictional characters and events and is not meant to represent any particular people, places, or concepts)

You forgot to add with the intent of revealing coverages. But I will add the purpose of 'revealing defense scheme' into a) since it really doesnt belong on a 'for no reason' side when there is a 'for reason' option available.

Motion just for the sake of 'looking sexy' or 'looking cool' is idiotic. But I am a goober who still wears camo cargo shorts because they are the softest ones I have and they have an extra pocket that my others dont.

(1) You can actually make this a poll if you want.
(2) Are you asking why we think Rice uses movement in its offense? Or generally why a team would use movement? If you are asking why Rice uses pre-snap movement, I will go with B.

It can be used for a number of reasons. Gaining leverage, exposing coverage, used as a decoy (fake jet sweep). Good offenses use motion to get to the same play that they might run 5-8 times in a game while using different formations to disguise it.

Like most other posters here, I am not qualified to answer this question. Like most other posters here, I will offer my thoughts regardless. I have always thought the purpose of motion was to force the defense to adjust on the fly, increasing their opportunities to make a mistake,

I must admit... My purpose of the query was sarcasm.. I do appreciate the responses... I've been around a lot of football and completely agree with the answer McHargue gave... I just go back to the Pitt game and saw two teams running similar schemes and one looked "purposed" with motion, and the other... did not.... There has to be an unreal amount of terminology and verbiage with something like that and while my exposure to football was with players of a lesser "cognitive acumen" than a Rice athlete, I cannot help but wonder if the player's "feet are tied up with his head"... execution would certainly suggest it. Based on comments of "missed reads, miscommunication, etc".

Again.. I assert... a scheme and decisions with an agenda.... Even if the agenda is the Peter Principle of the OC.

There's no doubt. Right now our offense is motioning just to say they did it. It's not accomplishing anything.

If it has no purpose, would we be better off just lining up and running the play, a la Jess Neely before he was a ghost?

(10-24-2017 09:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If it has no purpose, would we be better off just lining up and running the play, a la Jess Neely before he was a ghost?

you bring up a loaded point... It does have a purpose... But for it to have a purpose, it has to do the things McHargue suggested. Which means: either A) the OC has to know how to put the motions together and string together plays that take advantage of defensive movement or lack thereof... or B) the defense has to honor it.

Against UH, the Coogs just pretty much stayed home in a base look and let the Owls run around until the ball was snapped and destroyed them. They could do that because they had better "cats" (pardon the pun).

Against Pitt, the Owls got the front to move a little by formation and movement, and (at least in the first half), kept running into where Pitt adjusted (or didn't). In the first half, the Owls insisted on running the ball weak for nothing... mostly because Pitt blitzed the strong side linebacker almost 3/4 of the time. In the third qtr, and to the Owls credit, they committed to the Outside zone strong which got that LB caught in the wash and the Owls established a little bit of something in the run game.

The question is was it blind luck? or did they "motion" themselves into good plays?

(10-24-2017 09:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If it has no purpose, would we be better off just lining up and running the play, a la Jess Neely before he was a ghost?

Same question was posed to the fake FG attempt. Wouldn't we just be better off lining up and running a play?

At this point of the season, it is certainly open for debate, but hard to argue that with the exception of the complete ineptitude of UTEP, the best and most productive quarter of offensive football for Rice has been the 3rd quarter at Pitt and probably the 4th quarter against Army.... Of course the debate is both teams held leads. Pitt had starters in the game for that 3rd quarter

(10-24-2017 09:54 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If it has no purpose, would we be better off just lining up and running the play, a la Jess Neely before he was a ghost?

Same question was posed to the fake FG attempt. Wouldn't we just be better off lining up and running a play?

I had similar thoughts. Would we have been better off at 20-10? We would still need two scores. 20-14 makes it a one score game.

I remember a few years back when one of the complaints about Bailiff was that he always took the "safe' play. Well, in this game he didn't, and maybe the results show why many coaches take the safe play.

Personally, I am glad he tried to win the game, rather than just close the gap. The questions I have are about the play that was chosen and the execution of it. I am not sure why it didn't work, but like most "double or nothing" choices, sometimes you get nothing. This time, we got nothing.

(10-24-2017 09:20 AM)McHargue Wrote:  There's no doubt. Right now our offense is motioning just to say they did it. It's not accomplishing anything.

This is fascinating to me. Question from a football-ignorant person:

Your sense is that the team right now is running motion only in hope of "faking out" the other team? The offense is making no adjustments based on what they see the defense do in response to the fake motion?
Is that common? Is Rice exceptional in such ceremonial use of motion? What's preventing our offense from using motion more meaningfully/effectively?

(10-24-2017 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:54 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If it has no purpose, would we be better off just lining up and running the play, a la Jess Neely before he was a ghost?

Same question was posed to the fake FG attempt. Wouldn't we just be better off lining up and running a play?

I had similar thoughts. Would we have been better off at 20-10? We would still need two scores. 20-14 makes it a one score game.

I remember a few years back when one of the complaints about Bailiff was that he always took the "safe' play. Well, in this game he didn't, and maybe the results show why many coaches take the safe play.

Personally, I am glad he tried to win the game, rather than just close the gap. The questions I have are about the play that was chosen and the execution of it. I am not sure why it didn't work, but like most "double or nothing" choices, sometimes you get nothing. This time, we got nothing.

My question was rhetorical.

(10-24-2017 11:01 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:54 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If it has no purpose, would we be better off just lining up and running the play, a la Jess Neely before he was a ghost?

Same question was posed to the fake FG attempt. Wouldn't we just be better off lining up and running a play?

I had similar thoughts. Would we have been better off at 20-10? We would still need two scores. 20-14 makes it a one score game.

I remember a few years back when one of the complaints about Bailiff was that he always took the "safe' play. Well, in this game he didn't, and maybe the results show why many coaches take the safe play.

Personally, I am glad he tried to win the game, rather than just close the gap. The questions I have are about the play that was chosen and the execution of it. I am not sure why it didn't work, but like most "double or nothing" choices, sometimes you get nothing. This time, we got nothing.

My question was rhetorical.

Hard to get into a real discussion with you, Ant.

(10-24-2017 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 11:01 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:54 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If it has no purpose, would we be better off just lining up and running the play, a la Jess Neely before he was a ghost?

Same question was posed to the fake FG attempt. Wouldn't we just be better off lining up and running a play?

I had similar thoughts. Would we have been better off at 20-10? We would still need two scores. 20-14 makes it a one score game.

I remember a few years back when one of the complaints about Bailiff was that he always took the "safe' play. Well, in this game he didn't, and maybe the results show why many coaches take the safe play.

Personally, I am glad he tried to win the game, rather than just close the gap. The questions I have are about the play that was chosen and the execution of it. I am not sure why it didn't work, but like most "double or nothing" choices, sometimes you get nothing. This time, we got nothing.

My question was rhetorical.

Hard to get into a real discussion with you, Ant.

This has been covered ad nauseum in the game thread.

But, cliff notes:
1. Zero percent chance plays != trying to win the game.
2. A fake on 4th and 15 is not a double or nothing proposition
3. Just because people complained about taking safe plays when a risk made sense, doesn't mean we are now totally ok with stupid risks everywhere.

As has been stated, the simplest reason to use motion is to detect defense.... If the CB runs across the formation, that's one defense. If the CBs 'pass' the player on (you can tell as they all stretch and shrink as the player passes) that is another, and if they simply widen, that is another. It can be a way to create a favorable match-up

Another reason is to hide the formation.... i.e. (again for simplicity) you come out in twins, and motion gives you trips. Now plays you run out of trips can be run out of twins/motion... and that can confuse a defense/make them think/delay for a moment and you gain an advantage.

Especially given our number of TEs and big WRs, I've often argued for us using more unbalanced lines and include motion etc.... even simply setting up in balanced and then walking over and becoming unbalanced. You can end up with a LB or safety 'covering' an ineligible (covered up) TE who is big enough to help block a DE... OR simply stretch a line far enough to create better blocking angles. We did this early against A&M a few years ago with success and I don't recall seeing it much since.

THAT to me is far 'smarter' football than trick plays like double reverses and flea flickers etc.

(10-24-2017 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:54 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If it has no purpose, would we be better off just lining up and running the play, a la Jess Neely before he was a ghost?

Same question was posed to the fake FG attempt. Wouldn't we just be better off lining up and running a play?

I had similar thoughts. Would we have been better off at 20-10? We would still need two scores. 20-14 makes it a one score game.

I remember a few years back when one of the complaints about Bailiff was that he always took the "safe' play. Well, in this game he didn't, and maybe the results show why many coaches take the safe play.

But wait....
KICKING the FG would have been the 'safe' play.

He took a risk.

The question was, did he take a 'smart' risk. As a poker player (I am not one) you understand the difference between going all-in on the flop with only two players and pair of aces versus king jack non-suited. One is a calculated risk with a relatively high probability of success and the other is throwing caution to the wind and hoping to get lucky.

Running a real play would have been a calculated risk. Maybe its inc, in which case you missed the FG. Maybe they intercept it and you just pinned them, or they get it 'here'. Maybe you complete it.

4th and <2 early in the game on their side of the field, we punted. I would have faked that punt.
1) if you run the real offense they stack the line and dare you to throw, which we probably wouldn't do. Can we make 2 yards against goal-line defense?
2) they probably aren't expecting a fake that early and 2 yards is 'doable'. Not only does it have a relatively high upside, but it also sets the table for the rest of the game where they can't set up returns because they're playing 'safe'.
3) the highest probability after a punt is their ball at the 20. Giving them the ball at the 45 is 'worse', but making the first down and keeping the drive alive when offense has struggled is vastly better. It was a good punt as I recall and that is fine, but it put them at the 9... but not so deep that they can't run plays or get off a punt if necessary.

(10-24-2017 12:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:54 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If it has no purpose, would we be better off just lining up and running the play, a la Jess Neely before he was a ghost?

Same question was posed to the fake FG attempt. Wouldn't we just be better off lining up and running a play?

I had similar thoughts. Would we have been better off at 20-10? We would still need two scores. 20-14 makes it a one score game.

I remember a few years back when one of the complaints about Bailiff was that he always took the "safe' play. Well, in this game he didn't, and maybe the results show why many coaches take the safe play.

But wait....
KICKING the FG would have been the 'safe' play.

He took a risk.

The question was, did he take a 'smart' risk. As a poker player (I am not one) you understand the difference between going all-in on the flop with only two players and pair of aces versus king jack non-suited. One is a calculated risk with a relatively high probability of success and the other is throwing caution to the wind and hoping to get lucky.

Running a real play would have been a calculated risk. Maybe its inc, in which case you missed the FG. Maybe they intercept it and you just pinned them, or they get it 'here'. Maybe you complete it.

4th and <2 early in the game on their side of the field, we punted. I would have faked that punt.
1) if you run the real offense they stack the line and dare you to throw, which we probably wouldn't do. Can we make 2 yards against goal-line defense?
2) they probably aren't expecting a fake that early and 2 yards is 'doable'. Not only does it have a relatively high upside, but it also sets the table for the rest of the game where they can't set up returns because they're playing 'safe'.
3) the highest probability after a punt is their ball at the 20. Giving them the ball at the 45 is 'worse', but making the first down and keeping the drive alive when offense has struggled is vastly better. It was a good punt as I recall and that is fine, but it put them at the 9... but not so deep that they can't run plays or get off a punt if necessary.

Excellent post.

To the bolded point, I would go one step further and say that the fake FG was like showing up to a poker game with UNO cards and hoping to get lucky. Considering the guy that made a tackle totally bit on the fake and tried to block it before running to make a tackle, it's pretty clear that UTSA had plenty of time to be fooled, react and still make a play. As in, Rice couldn't bluff their way out of it, no matter how hard they tried.

This doesn't even factor in the fact that we had 1 guy blocking downfield. Say we exclude the idiocy of calling the play, we also failed to execute it. Unless, of course, the goal was to fool their team AND ours.

It wasn't even hail-mary-hope-to-get-lucky. It was pure unadulterated unprepared.

(10-24-2017 12:28 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 12:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:54 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If it has no purpose, would we be better off just lining up and running the play, a la Jess Neely before he was a ghost?

Same question was posed to the fake FG attempt. Wouldn't we just be better off lining up and running a play?

I had similar thoughts. Would we have been better off at 20-10? We would still need two scores. 20-14 makes it a one score game.

I remember a few years back when one of the complaints about Bailiff was that he always took the "safe' play. Well, in this game he didn't, and maybe the results show why many coaches take the safe play.

But wait....
KICKING the FG would have been the 'safe' play.

He took a risk.

The question was, did he take a 'smart' risk. As a poker player (I am not one) you understand the difference between going all-in on the flop with only two players and pair of aces versus king jack non-suited. One is a calculated risk with a relatively high probability of success and the other is throwing caution to the wind and hoping to get lucky.

Running a real play would have been a calculated risk. Maybe its inc, in which case you missed the FG. Maybe they intercept it and you just pinned them, or they get it 'here'. Maybe you complete it.

4th and <2 early in the game on their side of the field, we punted. I would have faked that punt.
1) if you run the real offense they stack the line and dare you to throw, which we probably wouldn't do. Can we make 2 yards against goal-line defense?
2) they probably aren't expecting a fake that early and 2 yards is 'doable'. Not only does it have a relatively high upside, but it also sets the table for the rest of the game where they can't set up returns because they're playing 'safe'.
3) the highest probability after a punt is their ball at the 20. Giving them the ball at the 45 is 'worse', but making the first down and keeping the drive alive when offense has struggled is vastly better. It was a good punt as I recall and that is fine, but it put them at the 9... but not so deep that they can't run plays or get off a punt if necessary.

Excellent post.

To the bolded point, I would go one step further and say that the fake FG was like showing up to a poker game with UNO cards and hoping to get lucky. Considering the guy that made a tackle totally bit on the fake and tried to block it before running to make a tackle, it's pretty clear that UTSA had plenty of time to be fooled, react and still make a play. As in, Rice couldn't bluff their way out of it, no matter how hard they tried.

This doesn't even factor in the fact that we had 1 guy blocking downfield. Say we exclude the idiocy of calling the play, we also failed to execute it. Unless, of course, the goal was to fool their team AND ours.

It wasn't even hail-mary-hope-to-get-lucky. It was pure unadulterated unprepared.

I questioned the execution and play call. What I agree with is the attitude of trying win. Maybe it would have been better to just line up abd run a fourth down play.

Someday, Ham, I will explain the problem with your poker example.

I thought we DID go for it on fourth from our own end.