[Goose]

There is probably some fancy term for this beyond a feedback loop, but maybe the playbook complexity is sort of invented and accepted by most of us including me.

David Shaw:

"I’m going to quote my old boss, Jon Gruden,’’ Shaw said, standing in a tunnel outside the Stanford locker room after the 34-20 win over Army. Shaw was a Raiders quality control coach under Gruden for three years, and Rich Gannon’s quarterback coach in his fourth year with Gruden, 2001. “He would say it every single day: ‘What you want to do on offense is present the illusion of sophistication but all in all remain very simple and basic.’ So very often we’ll throw a whole bunch of different stuff at them, but we’re going to run a basic day-one installation play. Something we’ve run thousands of times. Something very, very simple. But for the defense, it looks very complicated. So we want to present these illusions, then run a regular play that we just want to execute right.’’

http://mmqb.si.com/2013/09/17/stanford-c...peter-king

So maybe it really is just a matter of a thousand reps of easy plays, which young guys just need time to get?

David Shaw:

<snip>
Luck takes 270-300 plays into every game, and every game the calls are different. About half of those are written on his wristband and a lineman's wristband. The rest are from memory.

OK, I believe that. That is a lot, but that isn't nearly the entire playbook. The part on the wristbands can change every game, but there are often holdovers for similar teams. The memory parts are plays installed as "basic" and always available.

All Shaw does is call the formation and three plays for Luck to take to the line of scrimmage, and Luck still has the option to audible to a fourth. The quarterback makes the final decision.

The complexity of Stanford's playbook -- which Shaw said is thicker than any other college program he has seen-- is hard to underestimate. An example of one call Luck takes to the line: "Green Right Slot: Z Counter, 96 Tango Edge, Kill Spider 2, Y Banana Reno Alert, 6 Zeus."

"Try remembering that," Shaw said. "I studied quarterbacks for nine years in the NFL. I've never heard of a quarterback doing this in college. Never seen it. Never heard it. It's a lot of words to comprehend. This is not statistics. This is a guy deciding what we do, and he does it better than anybody."

Shaw is being a bit dramatic. You don't remember it. You synthesize it. The West Coast play calling system is a language with structure and syntax. Some words qualify others, and some words/numbers have meaning by their position in the "sentence". You are just "saying" the play. Some memorization is required, but the strength of the system is the ability to abstract football plays and communicate them unambiguously. A consequence of this is that you can describe, and therefore call, ANY play in the playbook this way. However, that is seldom necessary, the 270 to 300 selected ones are usually enough!
That doesn't mean it's easy. Luck was a phenom in this for sure. It is now well known that you shouldn't throw the Venus on Spider 3 Y Banana unless the safety has vacated the middle of the field. But what is the read for Spider 2 Y Banana Zeus, I have no idea.
I absolutely assure you that Burns/Chryst were never asked/expected to do anything of this magnitude.
What is presented here is how the play would be called in the huddle. Now, if you are in no huddle, or actually at the LOS, how do you call the play? That is what I asked above. I know how some teams do it, but their systems would never allow selecting one of 300 plays. You can't just do it like in the huddle, because other people will understand your "language" pretty quick. If someone knows how we do this speak up. No details that are secret, but basically, how/what do we do?. Can we actually reach all 300 plays that are installed?

Well crud, no wonder we are all so confused.  I give up.

Both are true. It is like golf. Hit the ball into the hole. Yet how many words are written each year on how to do it. Yes, I realize this statement does nothing to help the confusion.

[Goose]

There is probably some fancy term for this beyond a feedback loop, but maybe the playbook complexity is sort of invented and accepted by most of us including me.

David Shaw:

"I’m going to quote my old boss, Jon Gruden,’’ Shaw said, standing in a tunnel outside the Stanford locker room after the 34-20 win over Army. Shaw was a Raiders quality control coach under Gruden for three years, and Rich Gannon’s quarterback coach in his fourth year with Gruden, 2001. “He would say it every single day: ‘What you want to do on offense is present the illusion of sophistication but all in all remain very simple and basic.’ So very often we’ll throw a whole bunch of different stuff at them, but we’re going to run a basic day-one installation play. Something we’ve run thousands of times. Something very, very simple. But for the defense, it looks very complicated. So we want to present these illusions, then run a regular play that we just want to execute right.’’

http://mmqb.si.com/2013/09/17/stanford-c...peter-king

So maybe it really is just a matter of a thousand reps of easy plays, which young guys just need time to get?

David Shaw:

<snip>
Luck takes 270-300 plays into every game, and every game the calls are different. About half of those are written on his wristband and a lineman's wristband. The rest are from memory.

OK, I believe that. That is a lot, but that isn't nearly the entire playbook. The part on the wristbands can change every game, but there are often holdovers for similar teams. The memory parts are plays installed as "basic" and always available.

All Shaw does is call the formation and three plays for Luck to take to the line of scrimmage, and Luck still has the option to audible to a fourth. The quarterback makes the final decision.

The complexity of Stanford's playbook -- which Shaw said is thicker than any other college program he has seen-- is hard to underestimate. An example of one call Luck takes to the line: "Green Right Slot: Z Counter, 96 Tango Edge, Kill Spider 2, Y Banana Reno Alert, 6 Zeus."

"Try remembering that," Shaw said. "I studied quarterbacks for nine years in the NFL. I've never heard of a quarterback doing this in college. Never seen it. Never heard it. It's a lot of words to comprehend. This is not statistics. This is a guy deciding what we do, and he does it better than anybody."

Shaw is being a bit dramatic. You don't remember it. You synthesize it. The West Coast play calling system is a language with structure and syntax. Some words qualify others, and some words/numbers have meaning by their position in the "sentence". You are just "saying" the play. Some memorization is required, but the strength of the system is the ability to abstract football plays and communicate them unambiguously. A consequence of this is that you can describe, and therefore call, ANY play in the playbook this way. However, that is seldom necessary, the 270 to 300 selected ones are usually enough!
That doesn't mean it's easy. Luck was a phenom in this for sure. It is now well known that you shouldn't throw the Venus on Spider 3 Y Banana unless the safety has vacated the middle of the field. But what is the read for Spider 2 Y Banana Zeus, I have no idea.
I absolutely assure you that Burns/Chryst were never asked/expected to do anything of this magnitude.
What is presented here is how the play would be called in the huddle. Now, if you are in no huddle, or actually at the LOS, how do you call the play? That is what I asked above. I know how some teams do it, but their systems would never allow selecting one of 300 plays. You can't just do it like in the huddle, because other people will understand your "language" pretty quick. If someone knows how we do this speak up. No details that are secret, but basically, how/what do we do?. Can we actually reach all 300 plays that are installed?

Well crud, no wonder we are all so confused.  I give up.

Both are true. It is like golf. Hit the ball into the hole. Yet how many words are written each year on how to do it. Yes, I realize this statement does nothing to help the confusion.