(10-07-2014 12:07 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-05-2014 02:38 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(10-05-2014 02:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If it was a missed call by the officials, hard to fault our guys.

+1. There are cases where you can't count on the officials making (or not making) a certain call, e.g. holding or roughing the kicker, but they hardly ever miss offsides.

I obviously can't speak to details and nuances like RU can.

I agree that there wasn't any confusion (that was my impression at the time). I also agree that after the TO, the play was a pass all the way. After looking at it again (4:51 in the 3rd Q), I wonder if the snap on the neutral zone violation disrupted the timing on the pass play. The ball was thrown a little short to Taylor. So, the altered snap count and snap when the player jumped may have worked against the success of the play. There's really no excuse for the call not being made, though, it was pretty crystal clear that it was offsides.

Throwing numbers into the analysis...

But, if you were to alter the pass play...inside the 30 yard line, 4th and 1, you are looking to find a way to score. If you figure 80% of the time, you get the offsides call, and maybe 30% chance of completing the fade, compared to maybe 40-60% chance of getting the first down with a run.

With the fade, you've got a very high chance of a touchdown, either on the throw itself or first and goal at the two.

With the first down at the 18 yard line or so, you've got maybe a 70% chance of touchdown, 25% of FG.

Option 1- fade - yields about .3 * 7 + .7* .8 * (.7 * 7 + .25 * 3) == 5.3 points, average
Optoin 2 - run - yields about .6 * 7 + .6 * .25 + .4 * .8 * (.7 * 7 + .25 * 3) == 5.2
points, average

I made the estimates before I plugged the results into a spreadsheet.

Increasing the chance of referee mistake to 50%, the conservative play wins 4.5:.40. If the referees are perfect, the fade wins out 6:5.65

Leaving it at 20%, reducing the chance of the fade to .1, the conservative play wins 5.2:4.8.

Taking the offsides off the table, the conservative play wins 3.4:2.1... in that case, the conservative play wins out until you've got a ratio similar to 37:30 of the chances of success (i.e. run play has 37% chance of getting a first, pass play 30% chance ... the decision is a wash).

Now, in RUOwls world, you're deciding between a running play with some arbitrary chance of success and a pass play that can't fail...

Why are you reducing it to just the two options? I would have had no problem with a pass play in that situation, but a much higher percentage one that a deep fade along the sidelines, which IMO had less than a 20% chance of success. 4th and 1, Hawaii was almost certainly going to load the line and rush/blitz 7+ guys. A very short, underneath pass-- either over the middle or a quick out pattern-- would have been the highest percentage play call, IMO. I just thought that particular play call was idiotic as it had a very little chance of success. (BTW, one can use the hard count to try to induce an offsides penalty on any run or pass play.)

Quick question: What if the coaches who spent hours and hours analyzing the Hawaii game films (you know...from the 1 point loss to Washington and the 8 point loss to Oregon State) thought the highest percentage play was the fade to our best receiver against their weakest and smallest defensive back (a matchup they were looking for all game)? What if JT thought he should have caught the pass and what if Driphus thought he could have thrown the pass a little higher? What if JT told the coaches he felt confident that the fade would work and asked the coaches to run that particular play? What if the coaches and players think that using the protection scheme along with that particular pass was the highest percentage play?

Is it possible...just possible...that your estimation of success at 20% could be wrong by say, 60%? If so, would that play still be idiotic?

Just asking...

(10-03-2014 04:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Why are you reducing it to just the two options? I would have had no problem with a pass play in that situation, but a much higher percentage one that a deep fade along the sidelines, which IMO had less than a 20% chance of success. 4th and 1, Hawaii was almost certainly going to load the line and rush/blitz 7+ guys. A very short, underneath pass-- either over the middle or a quick out pattern-- would have been the highest percentage play call, IMO. I just thought that particular play call was idiotic as it had a very little chance of success. (BTW, one can use the hard count to try to induce an offsides penalty on any run or pass play.)

Simplicity. The basic choices were either a high probability short play (run or pass) or a low probability/high reward play (long pass). Choosing between one high probability short play and another is not the least bit interesting in terms of this kind of analysis. In the world of RUOwls, Kevin Sumlin, and Art Briles, the choice of high probability, high reward plays is kind of a no-brainer.

Assigning 20% success with my original assumptions unchanged makes the expected points 5.0/5.2 with the run (high probability, low reward) play having the advantage. IMHO, the fade has better than that chance of success. Coaches should be able to put the analysis in to be able to assign accurate percentages to each likelihood in that basic formula, whereas I'm just guessing.

The real point is that even if you take a knee on the play, you'd still expect about 4.5 points as a result, presuming there is offsides on the play (and I acknowledge the play call seems to have been done without that in mind). This does not reflect what actually happened, it's just trying to flesh out whether it's better to choose a low-risk/low-reward play or high-risk/high-reward play when you get a neutral zone violation. It's also easier to decide at the pro-level where you have unlimited practice time than it is at the college level where you don't. But, I have to dispute the idea that you can't put your fate in someone else's hands ... with 28 something people on the field, only 11 of whom you have influence on, your fate is always partially in someone else's hands. Your decision making just has to account for what they're likely to do.

One of the points I got from RUOwls post is that (my assumption) the fade is designed to go to the sideline to minimize the possibility of turnover. On 4th down, that shouldn't be a consideration and it doesn't make sense to grant the extra defender (aka the sideline) to avoid a turnover, when failure of any kind turns the ball over (noting that failure includes the additional step of failure by the referees).

(10-07-2014 08:58 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  Is it possible...just possible...that your estimation of success at 20% could be wrong by say, 60%? If so, would that play still be idiotic?

Given the 9 in the box, I think it's likely that some pass play may have had a higher likely success than a running play... just not that particular play. For my part, I was really interested in looking at the high-risk/high-reward play versus the low-risk/low-reward play...

(10-07-2014 08:58 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  Quick question: What if the coaches who spent hours and hours analyzing the Hawaii game films (you know...from the 1 point loss to Washington and the 8 point loss to Oregon State) thought the highest percentage play was the fade to our best receiver against their weakest and smallest defensive back (a matchup they were looking for all game)?

As JT was the only receiver split out in the pattern, they wouldn't HAVE their weakest and smallest defensive back covering him, but instead their BEST. That is precisely the point. Had we put 2 or 3 guys out, we could have possibly chosen the situation you described.... but we didn't..

So no, this isn't possible at all.

Quote:What if JT thought he should have caught the pass and what if Driphus thought he could have thrown the pass a little higher? What if JT told the coaches he felt confident that the fade would work and asked the coaches to run that particular play? What if the coaches and players think that using the protection scheme along with that particular pass was the highest percentage play?

They would have been wrong. OF COURSE the players think they can make plays, and by and large, they can... but even if you think this is your highest percentage play, why would you run it in a way that makes the percentages 'at their least'?

i.e. why run it into the boundary where the defender now has 'help' from the sideline. Why run it with only one guy split out where they put their best, not their worst defender on him. Why put JT ON the LOS where he can be jammed? Why not AT LEAST put him off the LOS and give him a step on the defender?

Quote: If so, would that play still be idiotic?

Just asking...

While the term 'idiotic' is a matter of perception, I don't think being wrong about the probability of the play would make it any less problematic.

If you want to isolate JT, that is understandable. Why though would you make the play as difficult as you possibly could?

Run the exact same play but put JT on the other side. At least now, in ADDITION to being able to make the perfect throw, you can also miss 'high' and still win. The defender can't do exactly what he is taught to do (and did) and press JT out to the boundary.

If you want to be a receiver coach, JT should have stayed on the numbers and pressed vertical rather than bending to the sideline which actually helped the DB. I understand that it may be easier to say this than to do this, but if you can't reliably do this, then I'm confident that it isn't our highest probability play to get a yard. If it is, our offense is in far worse trouble than we think. (ftr, I don't think it is... merely pointing out the illogic...)

Remember, we didn't need to score on that play... we needed a first down. We needed a yard. Whether the fade was a 20% or 10% or 30% play is really immaterial... because I'm confident that statistically, we had a far better chance of getting a yard by running, even against the numbers in box.

and not trying to be snarky, but if the fade was that high a percentage play, why weren't we running it all day?

(10-07-2014 11:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 08:58 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  Quick question: What if the coaches who spent hours and hours analyzing the Hawaii game films (you know...from the 1 point loss to Washington and the 8 point loss to Oregon State) thought the highest percentage play was the fade to our best receiver against their weakest and smallest defensive back (a matchup they were looking for all game)?

As JT was the only receiver split out in the pattern, they wouldn't HAVE their weakest and smallest defensive back covering him, but instead their BEST. That is precisely the point. Had we put 2 or 3 guys out, we could have possibly chosen the situation you described.... but we didn't..

So no, this isn't possible at all.

Quote:What if JT thought he should have caught the pass and what if Driphus thought he could have thrown the pass a little higher? What if JT told the coaches he felt confident that the fade would work and asked the coaches to run that particular play? What if the coaches and players think that using the protection scheme along with that particular pass was the highest percentage play?

They would have been wrong. OF COURSE the players think they can make plays, and by and large, they can... but even if you think this is your highest percentage play, why would you run it in a way that makes the percentages 'at their least'?

i.e. why run it into the boundary where the defender now has 'help' from the sideline. Why run it with only one guy split out where they put their best, not their worst defender on him. Why put JT ON the LOS where he can be jammed? Why not AT LEAST put him off the LOS and give him a step on the defender?

Quote: If so, would that play still be idiotic?

Just asking...

While the term 'idiotic' is a matter of perception, I don't think being wrong about the probability of the play would make it any less problematic.

If you want to isolate JT, that is understandable. Why though would you make the play as difficult as you possibly could?

Run the exact same play but put JT on the other side. At least now, in ADDITION to being able to make the perfect throw, you can also miss 'high' and still win. The defender can't do exactly what he is taught to do (and did) and press JT out to the boundary.

If you want to be a receiver coach, JT should have stayed on the numbers and pressed vertical rather than bending to the sideline which actually helped the DB. I understand that it may be easier to say this than to do this, but if you can't reliably do this, then I'm confident that it isn't our highest probability play to get a yard. If it is, our offense is in far worse trouble than we think. (ftr, I don't think it is... merely pointing out the illogic...)

Remember, we didn't need to score on that play... we needed a first down. We needed a yard. Whether the fade was a 20% or 10% or 30% play is really immaterial... because I'm confident that statistically, we had a far better chance of getting a yard by running, even against the numbers in box.

and not trying to be snarky, but if the fade was that high a percentage play, why weren't we running it all day?

I don't have a horse in this race since I didn't see the play, but from what I'm reading, it seems like the way you're describing the fade route, how it is run and the probability of success, why is it ever run at all? Especially in the endzone, where it is most popular, when you have the sideline and back of the endzone helping the defender as well?

I'd agree that for a single yard, and with our running backs, the highest probability is either a rush or play action pass to a receiver who is close the the LOS, but like I said, it sounds like the fade has zero reason to be run, ever, based on your description.

(10-07-2014 11:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  i.e. why run it into the boundary where the defender now has 'help' from the sideline. Why run it with only one guy split out where they put their best, not their worst defender on him. Why put JT ON the LOS where he can be jammed? Why not AT LEAST put him off the LOS and give him a step on the defender?

Putting JT on the edge for a running play is generally intended to pull the CB out of position to make a play.

If you move JT to the opposite side of the line, isn't that a tip-off to the opponent that you intend to pass to him, thus causing the opponent to adjust by dropping a safety back?

(10-07-2014 11:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Remember, we didn't need to score on that play... we needed a first down. We needed a yard. Whether the fade was a 20% or 10% or 30% play is really immaterial... because I'm confident that statistically, we had a far better chance of getting a yard by running, even against the numbers in box.

Of course, that's almost a certainty. But, ultimately, you're trying to score points. Now, we are arguing different things - I've argued that, given that you've drawn the opponent into the neutral zone, there are circumstances where you're better off with this kind of play - and you've argued that it doesn't make sense calling the fade as your called play (which is what actually happened).

Do you at least accept the logic of having the option to audible to the fade or other, similar, long pass downfield if you do see the opponent jump offside?

A final note... after 7-8 years of seeing numerous plays called to draw the opponent offside that rarely produce, this seems to be the first such attempt in the DJ era, and it worked to perfection (excepting the failure of the referees). This looks to be another plus to Driphus Jackson... I think the opponents have to respect the option and the pass against him, and he did seem to pull them off with his cadence.

(10-07-2014 11:28 AM)I45owl Wrote:  I've argued that, given that you've drawn the opponent into the neutral zone,

If you think you have a lock on five yards via penalty, why run a play designed to gain less?

(10-07-2014 08:59 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-03-2014 04:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Why are you reducing it to just the two options? I would have had no problem with a pass play in that situation, but a much higher percentage one that a deep fade along the sidelines, which IMO had less than a 20% chance of success. 4th and 1, Hawaii was almost certainly going to load the line and rush/blitz 7+ guys. A very short, underneath pass-- either over the middle or a quick out pattern-- would have been the highest percentage play call, IMO. I just thought that particular play call was idiotic as it had a very little chance of success. (BTW, one can use the hard count to try to induce an offsides penalty on any run or pass play.)

Simplicity. The basic choices were either a high probability short play (run or pass) or a low probability/high reward play (long pass). Choosing between one high probability short play and another is not the least bit interesting in terms of this kind of analysis. In the world of RUOwls, Kevin Sumlin, and Art Briles, the choice of high probability, high reward plays is kind of a no-brainer.

Assigning 20% success with my original assumptions unchanged makes the expected points 5.0/5.2 with the run (high probability, low reward) play having the advantage. IMHO, the fade has better than that chance of success. Coaches should be able to put the analysis in to be able to assign accurate percentages to each likelihood in that basic formula, whereas I'm just guessing.

The real point is that even if you take a knee on the play, you'd still expect about 4.5 points as a result, presuming there is offsides on the play (and I acknowledge the play call seems to have been done without that in mind). This does not reflect what actually happened, it's just trying to flesh out whether it's better to choose a low-risk/low-reward play or high-risk/high-reward play when you get a neutral zone violation. It's also easier to decide at the pro-level where you have unlimited practice time than it is at the college level where you don't. But, I have to dispute the idea that you can't put your fate in someone else's hands ... with 28 something people on the field, only 11 of whom you have influence on, your fate is always partially in someone else's hands. Your decision making just has to account for what they're likely to do.

One of the points I got from RUOwls post is that (my assumption) the fade is designed to go to the sideline to minimize the possibility of turnover. On 4th down, that shouldn't be a consideration and it doesn't make sense to grant the extra defender (aka the sideline) to avoid a turnover, when failure of any kind turns the ball over (noting that failure includes the additional step of failure by the referees).

Let me clarify the fate comment. I was refering to the refs. See the horse collar pic from the game. See the phantom offside call. The problem with offsides is that it is called by the line judge who is way off to the side. The call is after the ball is snapped and the flag comes out from the line judge near the sideline. For the offensive players to know if a penalty was called, they would have to scan to both sidelines to see if either line judge threw a flag after the ball was snapped. Then if you want to change the play to something else based on if an offside penalty ocurred, logistically, it is just to hard to do. And, you don't want to change to a different play based solely on an expected call from a ref that may not even come.

By the way, I'm dazzled with your work. The only caveat is that a higher percentage of your high probability plays may also become high reward plays. By that I mean, more of the plays designed to get the first down will result in a TD than plays designed for a TD will result in just the first down. As best I can tell, that phenomenon isn't in your formula.

As a receiver coach, you don't want a receiver to bend his fade route to the sideline. The receiver should line up on the numbers and push straight to the outside shoulder of the DB and then run straight through that shoulder. This will carry the speed of the reciver to run past the DB which will cause the DB to turn his hips and match the receiver's vertical speed. It also opens up about a 5 yard window towards the sideline. This will increase the catchable target area to an arc beyond and in front of the receiver to the sideline and back around behind him (basically any throw over his head extending back to the back shoulder throw).

The general rule for completing a thrown ball over 20 yards is 5-10%.

(10-07-2014 08:58 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  Quick question: What if the coaches who spent hours and hours analyzing the Hawaii game films (you know...from the 1 point loss to Washington and the 8 point loss to Oregon State) thought the highest percentage play was the fade to our best receiver against their weakest and smallest defensive back (a matchup they were looking for all game)? What if JT thought he should have caught the pass and what if Driphus thought he could have thrown the pass a little higher? What if JT told the coaches he felt confident that the fade would work and asked the coaches to run that particular play? What if the coaches and players think that using the protection scheme along with that particular pass was the highest percentage play?

Is it possible...just possible...that your estimation of success at 20% could be wrong by say, 60%? If so, would that play still be idiotic?

Just asking...

No. A deep, sideline fade pass is NEVER a high percentage play. In fact, it's a VERY low percentage play; arguably the lowest percentage play of any possible play call. In that situation we needed the first down to keep our drive (already relatively deep in their territory) alive. I could understand not risking the run against a loaded defensive front, but given this scenario and the game situation, the highest percentage play would have been a short pass over the middle or to the TE. Given the run formation on offense (and run blitz defensive scheme), the TE release and checkoff pass 2 - 5 yards downfield should have been wide open. BTW, it was probably open all day long; yet Cella got but one target all game, and he was the 3rd or 4th option on that one play.

(10-07-2014 11:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 11:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 08:58 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  Quick question: What if the coaches who spent hours and hours analyzing the Hawaii game films (you know...from the 1 point loss to Washington and the 8 point loss to Oregon State) thought the highest percentage play was the fade to our best receiver against their weakest and smallest defensive back (a matchup they were looking for all game)?

As JT was the only receiver split out in the pattern, they wouldn't HAVE their weakest and smallest defensive back covering him, but instead their BEST. That is precisely the point. Had we put 2 or 3 guys out, we could have possibly chosen the situation you described.... but we didn't..

So no, this isn't possible at all.

Quote:What if JT thought he should have caught the pass and what if Driphus thought he could have thrown the pass a little higher? What if JT told the coaches he felt confident that the fade would work and asked the coaches to run that particular play? What if the coaches and players think that using the protection scheme along with that particular pass was the highest percentage play?

They would have been wrong. OF COURSE the players think they can make plays, and by and large, they can... but even if you think this is your highest percentage play, why would you run it in a way that makes the percentages 'at their least'?

i.e. why run it into the boundary where the defender now has 'help' from the sideline. Why run it with only one guy split out where they put their best, not their worst defender on him. Why put JT ON the LOS where he can be jammed? Why not AT LEAST put him off the LOS and give him a step on the defender?

Quote: If so, would that play still be idiotic?

Just asking...

While the term 'idiotic' is a matter of perception, I don't think being wrong about the probability of the play would make it any less problematic.

If you want to isolate JT, that is understandable. Why though would you make the play as difficult as you possibly could?

Run the exact same play but put JT on the other side. At least now, in ADDITION to being able to make the perfect throw, you can also miss 'high' and still win. The defender can't do exactly what he is taught to do (and did) and press JT out to the boundary.

If you want to be a receiver coach, JT should have stayed on the numbers and pressed vertical rather than bending to the sideline which actually helped the DB. I understand that it may be easier to say this than to do this, but if you can't reliably do this, then I'm confident that it isn't our highest probability play to get a yard. If it is, our offense is in far worse trouble than we think. (ftr, I don't think it is... merely pointing out the illogic...)

Remember, we didn't need to score on that play... we needed a first down. We needed a yard. Whether the fade was a 20% or 10% or 30% play is really immaterial... because I'm confident that statistically, we had a far better chance of getting a yard by running, even against the numbers in box.

and not trying to be snarky, but if the fade was that high a percentage play, why weren't we running it all day?

I don't have a horse in this race since I didn't see the play, but from what I'm reading, it seems like the way you're describing the fade route, how it is run and the probability of success, why is it ever run at all? Especially in the endzone, where it is most popular, when you have the sideline and back of the endzone helping the defender as well?

I'd agree that for a single yard, and with our running backs, the highest probability is either a rush or play action pass to a receiver who is close the the LOS, but like I said, it sounds like the fade has zero reason to be run, ever, based on your description.

You run the fade route because you still have a chance to score, it pushes the defensive coverage further downfield, and you usually have other shorter routes by other receivers coupled with the fade.

The reason the fade route is run near the endzone is that it is a shorter throw and the probability of success is greater. It is closer to 50/50 which is about the same percentages as converting a 2 point conversion from 3 yards.

(10-07-2014 11:45 AM)ruowls Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 11:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 11:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 08:58 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  Quick question: What if the coaches who spent hours and hours analyzing the Hawaii game films (you know...from the 1 point loss to Washington and the 8 point loss to Oregon State) thought the highest percentage play was the fade to our best receiver against their weakest and smallest defensive back (a matchup they were looking for all game)?

As JT was the only receiver split out in the pattern, they wouldn't HAVE their weakest and smallest defensive back covering him, but instead their BEST. That is precisely the point. Had we put 2 or 3 guys out, we could have possibly chosen the situation you described.... but we didn't..

So no, this isn't possible at all.

Quote:What if JT thought he should have caught the pass and what if Driphus thought he could have thrown the pass a little higher? What if JT told the coaches he felt confident that the fade would work and asked the coaches to run that particular play? What if the coaches and players think that using the protection scheme along with that particular pass was the highest percentage play?

They would have been wrong. OF COURSE the players think they can make plays, and by and large, they can... but even if you think this is your highest percentage play, why would you run it in a way that makes the percentages 'at their least'?

i.e. why run it into the boundary where the defender now has 'help' from the sideline. Why run it with only one guy split out where they put their best, not their worst defender on him. Why put JT ON the LOS where he can be jammed? Why not AT LEAST put him off the LOS and give him a step on the defender?

Quote: If so, would that play still be idiotic?

Just asking...

While the term 'idiotic' is a matter of perception, I don't think being wrong about the probability of the play would make it any less problematic.

If you want to isolate JT, that is understandable. Why though would you make the play as difficult as you possibly could?

Run the exact same play but put JT on the other side. At least now, in ADDITION to being able to make the perfect throw, you can also miss 'high' and still win. The defender can't do exactly what he is taught to do (and did) and press JT out to the boundary.

If you want to be a receiver coach, JT should have stayed on the numbers and pressed vertical rather than bending to the sideline which actually helped the DB. I understand that it may be easier to say this than to do this, but if you can't reliably do this, then I'm confident that it isn't our highest probability play to get a yard. If it is, our offense is in far worse trouble than we think. (ftr, I don't think it is... merely pointing out the illogic...)

Remember, we didn't need to score on that play... we needed a first down. We needed a yard. Whether the fade was a 20% or 10% or 30% play is really immaterial... because I'm confident that statistically, we had a far better chance of getting a yard by running, even against the numbers in box.

and not trying to be snarky, but if the fade was that high a percentage play, why weren't we running it all day?

I don't have a horse in this race since I didn't see the play, but from what I'm reading, it seems like the way you're describing the fade route, how it is run and the probability of success, why is it ever run at all? Especially in the endzone, where it is most popular, when you have the sideline and back of the endzone helping the defender as well?

I'd agree that for a single yard, and with our running backs, the highest probability is either a rush or play action pass to a receiver who is close the the LOS, but like I said, it sounds like the fade has zero reason to be run, ever, based on your description.

You run the fade route because you still have a chance to score, it pushes the defensive coverage further downfield, and you usually have other shorter routes by other receivers coupled with the fade.

The reason the fade route is run near the endzone is that it is a shorter throw and the probability of success is greater. It is closer to 50/50 which is about the same percentages as converting a 2 point conversion from 3 yards.

Exactly. When you're inside the 10 yard line, the fade in the end zone is a jump ball, which favors the taller receiver who will almost always have he better positioning vis-a-vis the defender...and when you're that close, it's a shorter pass that can be thrown with much greater accuracy. That pass play to Jordan was 25 yards down field-- the increased distance not only significantly decreasing the accuracy, but giving more time for the defender to track the ball, turn himself around and get better positioning. The up-close to the endzone fade is a bang-bang play in which the defender hardly ever has time to get turned around.

(10-07-2014 11:45 AM)ruowls Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 11:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 11:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 08:58 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  Quick question: What if the coaches who spent hours and hours analyzing the Hawaii game films (you know...from the 1 point loss to Washington and the 8 point loss to Oregon State) thought the highest percentage play was the fade to our best receiver against their weakest and smallest defensive back (a matchup they were looking for all game)?

As JT was the only receiver split out in the pattern, they wouldn't HAVE their weakest and smallest defensive back covering him, but instead their BEST. That is precisely the point. Had we put 2 or 3 guys out, we could have possibly chosen the situation you described.... but we didn't..

So no, this isn't possible at all.

Quote:What if JT thought he should have caught the pass and what if Driphus thought he could have thrown the pass a little higher? What if JT told the coaches he felt confident that the fade would work and asked the coaches to run that particular play? What if the coaches and players think that using the protection scheme along with that particular pass was the highest percentage play?

They would have been wrong. OF COURSE the players think they can make plays, and by and large, they can... but even if you think this is your highest percentage play, why would you run it in a way that makes the percentages 'at their least'?

i.e. why run it into the boundary where the defender now has 'help' from the sideline. Why run it with only one guy split out where they put their best, not their worst defender on him. Why put JT ON the LOS where he can be jammed? Why not AT LEAST put him off the LOS and give him a step on the defender?

Quote: If so, would that play still be idiotic?

Just asking...

While the term 'idiotic' is a matter of perception, I don't think being wrong about the probability of the play would make it any less problematic.

If you want to isolate JT, that is understandable. Why though would you make the play as difficult as you possibly could?

Run the exact same play but put JT on the other side. At least now, in ADDITION to being able to make the perfect throw, you can also miss 'high' and still win. The defender can't do exactly what he is taught to do (and did) and press JT out to the boundary.

If you want to be a receiver coach, JT should have stayed on the numbers and pressed vertical rather than bending to the sideline which actually helped the DB. I understand that it may be easier to say this than to do this, but if you can't reliably do this, then I'm confident that it isn't our highest probability play to get a yard. If it is, our offense is in far worse trouble than we think. (ftr, I don't think it is... merely pointing out the illogic...)

Remember, we didn't need to score on that play... we needed a first down. We needed a yard. Whether the fade was a 20% or 10% or 30% play is really immaterial... because I'm confident that statistically, we had a far better chance of getting a yard by running, even against the numbers in box.

and not trying to be snarky, but if the fade was that high a percentage play, why weren't we running it all day?

I don't have a horse in this race since I didn't see the play, but from what I'm reading, it seems like the way you're describing the fade route, how it is run and the probability of success, why is it ever run at all? Especially in the endzone, where it is most popular, when you have the sideline and back of the endzone helping the defender as well?

I'd agree that for a single yard, and with our running backs, the highest probability is either a rush or play action pass to a receiver who is close the the LOS, but like I said, it sounds like the fade has zero reason to be run, ever, based on your description.

You run the fade route because you still have a chance to score, it pushes the defensive coverage further downfield, and you usually have other shorter routes by other receivers coupled with the fade.

The reason the fade route is run near the endzone is that it is a shorter throw and the probability of success is greater. It is closer to 50/50 which is about the same percentages as converting a 2 point conversion from 3 yards.

I get that, but with regards to the discussion of the route being a poor choice to throw to because the sideline is acting as a second defender, why would you throw to a corner fade route in the endzone when you have two extra defenders?

It seems to me, based on what you said, that the issue is more with the distance the route ran (without underneath routes in the area that was cleared out) than the fact that the route was a fade to the side line. Did I understand that correctly?

(10-07-2014 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 11:45 AM)ruowls Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 11:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 11:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 08:58 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  Quick question: What if the coaches who spent hours and hours analyzing the Hawaii game films (you know...from the 1 point loss to Washington and the 8 point loss to Oregon State) thought the highest percentage play was the fade to our best receiver against their weakest and smallest defensive back (a matchup they were looking for all game)?

As JT was the only receiver split out in the pattern, they wouldn't HAVE their weakest and smallest defensive back covering him, but instead their BEST. That is precisely the point. Had we put 2 or 3 guys out, we could have possibly chosen the situation you described.... but we didn't..

So no, this isn't possible at all.

Quote:What if JT thought he should have caught the pass and what if Driphus thought he could have thrown the pass a little higher? What if JT told the coaches he felt confident that the fade would work and asked the coaches to run that particular play? What if the coaches and players think that using the protection scheme along with that particular pass was the highest percentage play?

They would have been wrong. OF COURSE the players think they can make plays, and by and large, they can... but even if you think this is your highest percentage play, why would you run it in a way that makes the percentages 'at their least'?

i.e. why run it into the boundary where the defender now has 'help' from the sideline. Why run it with only one guy split out where they put their best, not their worst defender on him. Why put JT ON the LOS where he can be jammed? Why not AT LEAST put him off the LOS and give him a step on the defender?

Quote: If so, would that play still be idiotic?

Just asking...

While the term 'idiotic' is a matter of perception, I don't think being wrong about the probability of the play would make it any less problematic.

If you want to isolate JT, that is understandable. Why though would you make the play as difficult as you possibly could?

Run the exact same play but put JT on the other side. At least now, in ADDITION to being able to make the perfect throw, you can also miss 'high' and still win. The defender can't do exactly what he is taught to do (and did) and press JT out to the boundary.

If you want to be a receiver coach, JT should have stayed on the numbers and pressed vertical rather than bending to the sideline which actually helped the DB. I understand that it may be easier to say this than to do this, but if you can't reliably do this, then I'm confident that it isn't our highest probability play to get a yard. If it is, our offense is in far worse trouble than we think. (ftr, I don't think it is... merely pointing out the illogic...)

Remember, we didn't need to score on that play... we needed a first down. We needed a yard. Whether the fade was a 20% or 10% or 30% play is really immaterial... because I'm confident that statistically, we had a far better chance of getting a yard by running, even against the numbers in box.

and not trying to be snarky, but if the fade was that high a percentage play, why weren't we running it all day?

I don't have a horse in this race since I didn't see the play, but from what I'm reading, it seems like the way you're describing the fade route, how it is run and the probability of success, why is it ever run at all? Especially in the endzone, where it is most popular, when you have the sideline and back of the endzone helping the defender as well?

I'd agree that for a single yard, and with our running backs, the highest probability is either a rush or play action pass to a receiver who is close the the LOS, but like I said, it sounds like the fade has zero reason to be run, ever, based on your description.

You run the fade route because you still have a chance to score, it pushes the defensive coverage further downfield, and you usually have other shorter routes by other receivers coupled with the fade.

The reason the fade route is run near the endzone is that it is a shorter throw and the probability of success is greater. It is closer to 50/50 which is about the same percentages as converting a 2 point conversion from 3 yards.

I get that, but with regards to the discussion of the route being a poor choice to throw to because the sideline is acting as a second defender, why would you throw to a corner fade route in the endzone when you have two extra defenders?

It seems to me, based on what you said, that the issue is more with the distance the route ran (without underneath routes in the area that was cleared out) than the fact that the route was a fade to the side line. Did I understand that correctly?

As I mentioned in my previous post, on the shorter, close-to-the-endzone fade pass, the defender doesn't have time to get turned around. The positioning greatly favors the receiver; especially the taller ones. And the primary reason it's thrown toward the corner of the endzone (as opposed to somewhat inside) is that it virtually eliminates the chance of an interception (since the safety or nickle back doesn't have time to come over and help out). Depending on the accuracy of the throw, it's either a TD, a pass interference penalty or an incomplete pass.

(10-07-2014 11:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 11:28 AM)I45owl Wrote:  I've argued that, given that you've drawn the opponent into the neutral zone,

If you think you have a lock on five yards via penalty, why run a play designed to gain less?

(10-07-2014 11:33 AM)ruowls Wrote:  Let me clarify the fate comment. I was refering to the refs. See the horse collar pic from the game. See the phantom offside call. The problem with offsides is that it is called by the line judge who is way off to the side. The call is after the ball is snapped and the flag comes out from the line judge near the sideline. For the offensive players to know if a penalty was called, they would have to scan to both sidelines to see if either line judge threw a flag after the ball was snapped. Then if you want to change the play to something else based on if an offside penalty ocurred, logistically, it is just to hard to do. And, you don't want to change to a different play based solely on an expected call from a ref that may not even come.

To both... you have to assume that you have X probability of drawing them into the neutral zone, Y percentage of snapping the ball at the right time, and Z percentage of the referee making the call. If X doesn't happen, then you run your high-percentage play, and Y should be close to 100%, which leaves Z to factor into the probabilities. Z is never a lock, but you can factor it in, and, IMHO, should, even if it leads you to decide to run a QB sneak.

RU- I understood what you meant. The difference between the offsides and horsecollar is that you're goading the other team into one penalty, but not the other.

(10-07-2014 11:33 AM)ruowls Wrote:  By the way, I'm dazzled with your work. The only caveat is that a higher percentage of your high probability plays may also become high reward plays. By that I mean, more of the plays designed to get the first down will result in a TD than plays designed for a TD will result in just the first down. As best I can tell, that phenomenon isn't in your formula.

I considered that, but also knew it's probably over my head to account for it. I (probably wrongly) assumed that eventuality was so low-percentage that it would be insignificant, but now that you're drawing the deep fade down to 1 in 10 or 1 in 20, that assumption is almost certainly wrong. I'm probably also wrong to think it's too difficult to factor in... it's more likely I was just to lazy to do so.

(10-07-2014 12:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  As I mentioned in my previous post, on the shorter, close-to-the-endzone fade pass, the defender doesn't have time to get turned around. The positioning greatly favors the receiver; especially the taller ones. And the primary reason it's thrown toward the corner of the endzone (as opposed to somewhat inside) is that it virtually eliminates the chance of an interception (since the safety or nickle back doesn't have time to come over and help out). Depending on the accuracy of the throw, it's either a TD, a pass interference penalty or an incomplete pass.

Which also begs the question of why you'd choose the more difficult pass on 4th down.

(10-07-2014 12:14 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  As I mentioned in my previous post, on the shorter, close-to-the-endzone fade pass, the defender doesn't have time to get turned around. The positioning greatly favors the receiver; especially the taller ones. And the primary reason it's thrown toward the corner of the endzone (as opposed to somewhat inside) is that it virtually eliminates the chance of an interception (since the safety or nickle back doesn't have time to come over and help out). Depending on the accuracy of the throw, it's either a TD, a pass interference penalty or an incomplete pass.

Which also begs the question of why you'd choose the more difficult pass on 4th down.

Precisely why I called it an absolutely idiotic call for that situation.

(10-07-2014 12:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:14 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  As I mentioned in my previous post, on the shorter, close-to-the-endzone fade pass, the defender doesn't have time to get turned around. The positioning greatly favors the receiver; especially the taller ones. And the primary reason it's thrown toward the corner of the endzone (as opposed to somewhat inside) is that it virtually eliminates the chance of an interception (since the safety or nickle back doesn't have time to come over and help out). Depending on the accuracy of the throw, it's either a TD, a pass interference penalty or an incomplete pass.

Which also begs the question of why you'd choose the more difficult pass on 4th down.

Precisely why I called it an absolutely idiotic call for that situation.

Yes, it's a low % / high reward play that is only justified if it's a free play via penalty.

(10-07-2014 12:26 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:14 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  As I mentioned in my previous post, on the shorter, close-to-the-endzone fade pass, the defender doesn't have time to get turned around. The positioning greatly favors the receiver; especially the taller ones. And the primary reason it's thrown toward the corner of the endzone (as opposed to somewhat inside) is that it virtually eliminates the chance of an interception (since the safety or nickle back doesn't have time to come over and help out). Depending on the accuracy of the throw, it's either a TD, a pass interference penalty or an incomplete pass.

Which also begs the question of why you'd choose the more difficult pass on 4th down.

Precisely why I called it an absolutely idiotic call for that situation.

Yes, it's a low % / high reward play that is only justified if it's a free play via penalty.

It's a ridiculously low percentage play...and you can never count on the hard count drawing the opposition offsides; you still have to call a play that you're going to go with. And in that game situation, we didn't need the high reward play, but rather the first down.

(10-07-2014 11:28 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Putting JT on the edge for a running play is generally intended to pull the CB out of position to make a play.

If you move JT to the opposite side of the line, isn't that a tip-off to the opponent that you intend to pass to him, thus causing the opponent to adjust by dropping a safety back?

And if they do that, they have fewer people to stop the run. Remember that it was 4th and 1, not 4th and goal. We don't NEED to throw it... we NEED to get a yard.

What you're doing by putting him on the wide side is 'eliminating' one defender... the sideline. If they adjust by taking a defender out of the box, that is what we wanted anyway, isn't it?

Quote:Of course, that's almost a certainty. But, ultimately, you're trying to score points. Now, we are arguing different things - I've argued that, given that you've drawn the opponent into the neutral zone, there are circumstances where you're better off with this kind of play - and you've argued that it doesn't make sense calling the fade as your called play (which is what actually happened).

Do you at least accept the logic of having the option to audible to the fade or other, similar, long pass downfield if you do see the opponent jump offside?

A final note... after 7-8 years of seeing numerous plays called to draw the opponent offside that rarely produce, this seems to be the first such attempt in the DJ era, and it worked to perfection (excepting the failure of the referees). This looks to be another plus to Driphus Jackson... I think the opponents have to respect the option and the pass against him, and he did seem to pull them off with his cadence.

I generally accept the logic, but by your own admission, this play, even when we are able to draw them offsides, hasn't worked in 7-8 years. The one time we got them to jump, we still didn't get the call.

Not a knock on DJ in ANY way, merely accepting the reality that at this level, drawing an opponent offside is a pretty low percentage call. a) it doesn't happen often and b) sometimes even when it does, you don't get the call... add on top of that a low percentage 'reactive' play call and we're talking about a miniscule probability of success. I'm betting we've jumped ourselves or gotten a delay or whatever else OR not gotten the flag and then failed on the 'reaction' now more often than we've successfully drawn them off, so what is the point of having that play in the playbook at all?

We're kind of known for doing this. If we're going to continue to try, we need to rush to the line and actually snap the ball and run a 'power' type play occassionally (you know, the kind where getting off on the ball first would matter) so as to increase the odds.

All we really showed them is that if we can get them to jump, but not cross the neutral zone, they can 'stop' us. That's actually a 'win' that we gave away.