I've been watching this game for 50+ years and still don't know it. I see the phrase "poor play calling" being tossed around quite often but don't understand what it means. If you punt on first down, I understand the meaning, but how many coaches approach the game with the attitude of "it probably won't work, but lets try it anyway"?--another incident I could deem as poor play calling. It isn't as simple as if the play worked, it was good, and if it didn't it was bad. We only judge a play call's merits after the fact. Was it a bad play being called, or poor execution of a good play? Theoretically, if a play worked on first down for 5 yards, you should be able to run the same play every down and be successful, but we know the defense will adjust or the execution will fail and what was a good play no longer works. The fake punt in the last game was a good play--because it worked. Would it have been bad play calling if it hadn't? We've seen running backs run up the gut for three consecutive plays and fail. Is the coach thinking "It's a good play and I'm giving you three chances to execute it properly", or is it a bad play being called? After a win, I don't remember seeing posts about poor play calling but after a loss it seems frequent. A coach will say after a loss "I shoulda called better plays" Is he covering for his teams failure to execute the ones he called or did he actually not believe they would have worked when he called them? To me, poor play calling is trying to execute plays when you know you don't have the pieces it takes to execute it properly. Is it as simple as that? After reading the posts from prior games I'm sure someone can answer what poor play calling means
Learn me some football
- Thread starter cydnote
- Start date
One word... Predictability.
You're right, on paper (for the most part) there are no "bad plays".
Poor play calling is a catch-all phrase for the coordinator doing a poor job of feeling the rhythm of the game, being willing to adapt to what they see (which requires the ability to accurately identify opportunities for leverage), and identifying the best personnel and formations to maximize the odds of their athletes to execute the same play as well as they can.
You can call the same run gap or pass route tree repeatedly, but do so each time with minor adjustments to alignments and personnel. The phrase is a bit trite, but a good summarization of what it takes to be a good play caller, "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face." Some days a coordinator sees and feels the field well, some days they do not.
Poor play calling is a catch-all phrase for the coordinator doing a poor job of feeling the rhythm of the game, being willing to adapt to what they see (which requires the ability to accurately identify opportunities for leverage), and identifying the best personnel and formations to maximize the odds of their athletes to execute the same play as well as they can.
You can call the same run gap or pass route tree repeatedly, but do so each time with minor adjustments to alignments and personnel. The phrase is a bit trite, but a good summarization of what it takes to be a good play caller, "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face." Some days a coordinator sees and feels the field well, some days they do not.
If you're expecting some expert tutelage on play calling in football, the posters at CycloneFanatic shouldn't be where you start.
Also, playing into an opponent's strength is poor play calling. As an example, if a defense is great at stopping the run, but has less than average corners, passing should be most of the calls; not runs.
This is huge. A good play caller will recognize when he is being predictable and change things up.
"I have called a running play three first downs in a row. I'm not only going to call a passing play this first down, but I also know their DC knows I have, so I am going to use that to my advantage and call a play action passing play so they bite on my tendency and I can make them pay."
"They have been eating us up on passing down and distance with their pass rush so I am going to call a screen play here and there to make them think twice about pinning their ears back."
"My QB has been keying on our two best wideouts so I am going to use personnel and play call here to feature a reserve WR and my TE to help my QB break his predictability."
"We have only been using our RBs to their strengths so I am going to run a play here or there that they each are able to run but aren't necessarily their strongest suit so the DC can't guess the type of play based on personnel."
"That play I just called may or may not have worked but we did learn a tendency from their DC there. I will later call a different play from the same personell/formation that is designed to exploit that tendency."
"That play we just ran was wildly successful and the D appeared unable to defend it. I will call a similar play from a different formation soon - not necessarily the next play - to give them a different look but a similar defensive dilemma."
"The defense subbed into a heavy run defense package to stop us on a short 3rd down. I am happy with the balance of my personnel so after getting the first down we are going to go tempo to make them defend more wide open plays with a package of players who are less comfortable doing that."
Just a few examples.
Last edited:
"Poor play calling" is a phrase from armchair football coaches.
If it's 3rd and ten and you hike the ball to the quarterback and he just runs up the middle. That is poor play calling.
Play calling is like writing effectively. Technically, you can throw everything in one giant clump (every play is designed to work). But it works better to break up your thoughts into paragraphs that are easier to read (calling plays unpredictably so the other team can't increase their odds of success).
but what if you plan to go for it on 4th so you're just trying to get 5/6 yards? hmmmm
For message board purposes if the play doesn't work it's bad play calling, if it works it's good play calling.
I'm no coach and lasted played in 8th grade b team. But I do have young boys who are starting to play. And I've struggled to get them to understand why you don't "just run where there's no people", but instead run "up the gut"/behind your blocks.
There was a play last night on TNF, that I rewound and walked them through.
Steelers decided to go for it on 4th & 2 and brought in Justin Fields. Perhaps telegraphing both with personnel and formation that they were running it. That's not to say a play action pass to a tight end after a chip block was out of the realm of possibility.
Upon snap, it looks like Fields had some options. He gave a bit of a fake handoff, but didn't really sell it. The right guard was pulling to the left side of the formation, where there was a wall of his own team. There's one defender crashing in on the right, but a lot of open grass outside.
He tucks it and runs to open grass. His teammate in the backfield (TE?) easily clears the crashing defender. EVEN MORE OPEN GRASS!!!!1! However, look to the left side of the line where the formerly tripping pulling guard and the rest of the line opened up a lane. Some of this lane was that he took a step to the right. However if he would've sold the fake to the right and then even had a one step counter, this lane may still be there.
The open grass has closed, as a second level defender is now crashing and #83 is trying to block his second man on the play. Fields cuts it in.
He's easily corralled for a loss/barely getting back to the line of scrimmage.
In this instance, was it a good play call?
That said, you have to know your personnel. If Fields had shown he can make quality reads consistently he'd still likely be the starting QB in Chicago. The success of this play hinges on him reading and reacting properly. He reacted, but from my vantage he didn't read it properly.
This is where Purdy has likely had more success than some of his counterparts who were able to rely on their physical abilities more in the college and have either failed or had to develop additional skills to be successful in the league. Fields has not done this, and Kyler Murray had not until a bit more this year.
I'm sure most Pittsburgh fans were happy with going for it here, and would've been angry at their coaches for punting or attempting a 55 yard field goal on a windy night after already missing pretty badly on a 58 yard field goal earlier in the quarter.
But they will likely think of it as a "bad play call", mostly because it didn't work. A few years back I would've likely thought the same, but after trying to understand the game a bit more, I see this particular play more as a failure of execution. The tripping pulling guard doesn't help, and Fields read of where to go with the ball. But given the personnel, this might not have been the best call for a QB trying to find his footing as a current backup QB.
Sorry for such a longwinded response.
There was a play last night on TNF, that I rewound and walked them through.
Steelers decided to go for it on 4th & 2 and brought in Justin Fields. Perhaps telegraphing both with personnel and formation that they were running it. That's not to say a play action pass to a tight end after a chip block was out of the realm of possibility.
Upon snap, it looks like Fields had some options. He gave a bit of a fake handoff, but didn't really sell it. The right guard was pulling to the left side of the formation, where there was a wall of his own team. There's one defender crashing in on the right, but a lot of open grass outside.
He tucks it and runs to open grass. His teammate in the backfield (TE?) easily clears the crashing defender. EVEN MORE OPEN GRASS!!!!1! However, look to the left side of the line where the formerly tripping pulling guard and the rest of the line opened up a lane. Some of this lane was that he took a step to the right. However if he would've sold the fake to the right and then even had a one step counter, this lane may still be there.
The open grass has closed, as a second level defender is now crashing and #83 is trying to block his second man on the play. Fields cuts it in.
He's easily corralled for a loss/barely getting back to the line of scrimmage.
In this instance, was it a good play call?
- Going for it on fourth, at this spot of the field? A good call.
- Going for it with Justin Fields in shot gun in 13 personnel? Maybe, maybe not a good call.
- Field's read on the play and not following his blocking? Not a good call.
That said, you have to know your personnel. If Fields had shown he can make quality reads consistently he'd still likely be the starting QB in Chicago. The success of this play hinges on him reading and reacting properly. He reacted, but from my vantage he didn't read it properly.
This is where Purdy has likely had more success than some of his counterparts who were able to rely on their physical abilities more in the college and have either failed or had to develop additional skills to be successful in the league. Fields has not done this, and Kyler Murray had not until a bit more this year.
I'm sure most Pittsburgh fans were happy with going for it here, and would've been angry at their coaches for punting or attempting a 55 yard field goal on a windy night after already missing pretty badly on a 58 yard field goal earlier in the quarter.
But they will likely think of it as a "bad play call", mostly because it didn't work. A few years back I would've likely thought the same, but after trying to understand the game a bit more, I see this particular play more as a failure of execution. The tripping pulling guard doesn't help, and Fields read of where to go with the ball. But given the personnel, this might not have been the best call for a QB trying to find his footing as a current backup QB.
Sorry for such a longwinded response.
Blood, sweat, and chalk by Tim Layden | Open Library
Blood, sweat, and chalk by Tim Layden, 2010, Sports Illustrated Books, Time Inc. Books edition, in English
Sorry if this was already posted or if this isn’t what you’re asking about. It is a pretty good introduction to the game for a layman (from my layman’s perspective).
There are a couple of reasons that most teams will script the first X plays of the game. First, they get a chance to practice the sequence of plays reducing the likelihood of screw ups. Second, and more importantly they are a roster of plays that will allow the OC to learn how the DC is defending certain situations. Then good play calling is using what is learned there to force the defense to do something other than what they had initially planned and also to exploit any weaknesses you found.
This encapsulates the reason for the OP. I wasn't trying to learn the nuances of a pulling guard, 13 personnel, etc. but rather to expose how many "experts" on here fling around "poor play calling" as liberally as they do when things don't go as planned. I try to understand the game to an extent but I have very little right to criticize what on the surface to me looks like a bad call when an infinite amount of planning shows it should have/could have worked
I nominate you to be OC for the CycloneFanatic flag football team. We'd be unbeatable.
Seriously though, this is the thought process I think good Offensive Coordinators must have.
While we are on the subject… What does being “multiple” mean in regards to the defense?
Thanks. I’ll hang up and listen.
Thanks. I’ll hang up and listen.
Another one:
"The defense has excellent pursuit and is flowing to the edge very quickly on our sweep play. I am going to set them up with a misdirection play to see if the DE who got to our RB on the other side of the field a play or two ago will stay at home and set the edge or over pursue."
Sometimes the best thing to happen to you can be an opposing player being successful despite not doing the right thing. He is rewarded for being out of position so it reinforces the behavior. Let him think he will get away with it again and then burn him for it.
A lot of special teams trickery depends on this. When you see return teams (both KO and punt) leaving early so they aren't prepared for a surprise fake or on side kick or kick block teams that go all out on the block and don't set the edge or cover eligible receivers you can burn them for being out of position.
"The defense has excellent pursuit and is flowing to the edge very quickly on our sweep play. I am going to set them up with a misdirection play to see if the DE who got to our RB on the other side of the field a play or two ago will stay at home and set the edge or over pursue."
Sometimes the best thing to happen to you can be an opposing player being successful despite not doing the right thing. He is rewarded for being out of position so it reinforces the behavior. Let him think he will get away with it again and then burn him for it.
A lot of special teams trickery depends on this. When you see return teams (both KO and punt) leaving early so they aren't prepared for a surprise fake or on side kick or kick block teams that go all out on the block and don't set the edge or cover eligible receivers you can burn them for being out of position.
Last edited:
