01-18-2017, 04:43 PM
Teejers, you mischaracterize my position. It is based on the following:
1) We should generally run plays to our strengths. So, yeah, over the last few years we have had a power running offense, and we have run more often than passed. But...
2) We should generally tailor the play based on down, distance and game circumstances. So, yeah, with 2 yards to go, we might want to run and get the first down, though the fact that it is second down would have allowed us to take a chance throwing downfield and still have a chance to run on third and short. With that in mind...
3) We should adjust our playcall based on the defensive alignment, so that if the opponent brings their safeties up to defend against the run, we might again want to throw over the top, even if circumstances dictate otherwise (see for example, Colorado in 2015, where we scored a touchdown throwing from the jumbo set, or Oregon in 2012? where Hogan just overthrew a wide open receiver for what would have been a sure touchdown). To be honest, I don't remember USC's defensive alignment. Even then...
4) We should occasionally be unpredictable, running a draw on, say, third and long, just to keep the defense honest.
With those four principles in mind, we can speak of playcalling in aggregate. For example, I think it was CTCard who made a compelling case that one of our problems in 2014 was that we tried to become a more pass happy team, and that our improved offensive play at the end of the year came from returning to our bread and butter power running. But that analyzes plays in aggregate, without looking at a single play and determining that it was or was not "the right call". With all but a few exceptions, though, I think we are not in a position to call an individual play "AYFKM", and, on that particular play I still believe that throwing on second and short is well founded by data.
BC
1) We should generally run plays to our strengths. So, yeah, over the last few years we have had a power running offense, and we have run more often than passed. But...
2) We should generally tailor the play based on down, distance and game circumstances. So, yeah, with 2 yards to go, we might want to run and get the first down, though the fact that it is second down would have allowed us to take a chance throwing downfield and still have a chance to run on third and short. With that in mind...
3) We should adjust our playcall based on the defensive alignment, so that if the opponent brings their safeties up to defend against the run, we might again want to throw over the top, even if circumstances dictate otherwise (see for example, Colorado in 2015, where we scored a touchdown throwing from the jumbo set, or Oregon in 2012? where Hogan just overthrew a wide open receiver for what would have been a sure touchdown). To be honest, I don't remember USC's defensive alignment. Even then...
4) We should occasionally be unpredictable, running a draw on, say, third and long, just to keep the defense honest.
With those four principles in mind, we can speak of playcalling in aggregate. For example, I think it was CTCard who made a compelling case that one of our problems in 2014 was that we tried to become a more pass happy team, and that our improved offensive play at the end of the year came from returning to our bread and butter power running. But that analyzes plays in aggregate, without looking at a single play and determining that it was or was not "the right call". With all but a few exceptions, though, I think we are not in a position to call an individual play "AYFKM", and, on that particular play I still believe that throwing on second and short is well founded by data.
BC