(09-20-2019 09:20 PM)mrbig Wrote: I wasn't speaking generally, I was talking specifically about the Texas game. And I wasn't criticizing the decision to start by trying to "run the offense" and see if they could succeed. But once that obviously wasn't working and the game was quickly getting out of hand, its time to try a "damn the torpedoes" approach. Coach Bloomgren didn't do that at all.
Down 7-0, Rice went 4-and-out
Down 14-0, Rice went 3-and-out
Down 21-0, Rice went 3-and-out
At this point, Rice had run every time on 1st and 2nd down and thrown on 3rd down. Extremely predictable and a total failure with the exception of the 1st carry of the game. Finally down 28-0 in the middle of the 2nd quarter, Rice started mixing it up ever so slightly. Why wait until the team is down 28-0 before trying to make an adjustment? That is what I'm criticizing.
Moltke the Elder, "No plan survives contact with the enemy."
I can understand the approach of running clock to keep the score down. But obviously three running plays, at best, eat up only about a minute and a half more than three incomplete passes, and that's a pretty excruciating way to die. I'm not going in with a plan to run on first and 2nd down and throw on 3rd. I'm probably more along the lines of 50/50 on first down, run on 2nd and long and throw on 2nd and short, do what gives you the best chance to convert on 3rd down, and don't be afraid to go for it on 4th. I'm going to try to control the clock by making first downs, not by running the play clock down and running the dive play.
Even if we go in with a run, run, pass plan, at about 14-0 I tell my OC, "Hey, this is not going to work, let's go to Plan B." At 21-0 we're in 4 down territory all over the field. And at 28-0 I pull the plug and empty the bench. And I don't mind saying, "Starters, you're not getting it done, let's see what somebody else can do." And maybe that second or third stringer comes away thinking, "Hey I got to play a half against Texas. I'm actually getting on the field. Maybe I need to start working a lot harder in practice and maybe I'll get to play a lot more." And if he does work harder in practice, then he gets better and he pushes the guy in front of him to get better too. It's the old Paul Dietzel Chinese Bandits philosophy--Play more people, and play them a lot, and more people will get better faster. And the main thing we need right now is for more people to get better faster.
One other thing, just because we run two plays in a row, it's not the same play twice. Hatfield ran the ball many times in a row, but it wouldn't be the same play over and over--maybe a rotation like option (which is really three plays in itself), midline, counter, trap. One problem I have with the shotgun spread is that the opportunities for variety in the running game are very limited. I remember seeing an article by Mensa in a coaching magazine entitled something like, "Variety in the Shotgun Spread Running Attack." He diagrammed four plays, all four were the same back in the same hole, with four different blocking schemes. I think you need more variety in the running attack than that.
And just because we throw the ball downfield 5 yards on 3rd and 8 does not mean we called a 5-yard pass on 3rd and 8. Most pass plays have levels, the defense is generally going to be set up to cover the deeper levels closer, and maybe the best chance to pick up the first down is to throw it to the 5-yard guy and let him get the yards after the catch (YAC). Bill Walsh and Joe Montana made a pretty good living doing that with Roger Craig.
