[BostonCard]

A play that was instrumental in breaking this game open for Stanford was the first play of the second quarter (at 31:00 in the video).  It was 1st and 10 on the ASU 24.  We had been pounding the ball down ASU's throats on the previous drives.  We lined up in a power "I" formation and faked to Gaffney up the middle and then handed off to Ty on an "end around."  The ASU defense took the bait and Ty scored.  Even the game announcers said it was a great call.

Well, there are two questions here.  Suppose the play had been called but ASU doesn't take the bait and Ty gets stuffed behind the line of scrimmage.  Wouldn't the criticism have been "We were stuffing the ball down their throat, why did we have to get cute?"  Moreover, given that we were stuffing the ball down their throat, wouldn't it have been likely that we could have run the last 24 yards up the middle and still scored?  As WIM has posted, our perception of whether a play is great or not rests too heavily on whether it is successful or not.  And, generally speaking, I would venture that the best predictor on whether a play is successful or not is whether prior plays were successful or not.  First, successful plays are an indicator that the offense is executing better than the defense.  Second, successful plays throw the defense off balance, and allow the offense to run more successful plays.

Another successful play that broke our pattern came at 1:23 on the video (9:56 remaining in the 3rd Q).  It was 3rd and 3 on the Stanford 27.  We line up in an "I" formation with tight splits.  Hogan fakes a handoff to Gaffney and hits Ty on a hitch route that goes for 23 yards.  Again, the announcers talked of how everyone thought we were going to run the ball on that down.

Similar thing.  How much of the success of this play call was due to the inherent nature of the play calling, and how much was due to the fact that our success on prior plays showed that we were the superior team (remember, we also manhandled ASU at home, until late in the game), and the fact that our earlier plays threw them off balance.

BC

[BostonCard]

A play that was instrumental in breaking this game open for Stanford was the first play of the second quarter (at 31:00 in the video).  It was 1st and 10 on the ASU 24.  We had been pounding the ball down ASU's throats on the previous drives.  We lined up in a power "I" formation and faked to Gaffney up the middle and then handed off to Ty on an "end around."  The ASU defense took the bait and Ty scored.  Even the game announcers said it was a great call.

Well, there are two questions here.  Suppose the play had been called but ASU doesn't take the bait and Ty gets stuffed behind the line of scrimmage.  Wouldn't the criticism have been "We were stuffing the ball down their throat, why did we have to get cute?"  Moreover, given that we were stuffing the ball down their throat, wouldn't it have been likely that we could have run the last 24 yards up the middle and still scored?  As WIM has posted, our perception of whether a play is great or not rests too heavily on whether it is successful or not.  And, generally speaking, I would venture that the best predictor on whether a play is successful or not is whether prior plays were successful or not.  First, successful plays are an indicator that the offense is executing better than the defense.  Second, successful plays throw the defense off balance, and allow the offense to run more successful plays.

Another successful play that broke our pattern came at 1:23 on the video (9:56 remaining in the 3rd Q).  It was 3rd and 3 on the Stanford 27.  We line up in an "I" formation with tight splits.  Hogan fakes a handoff to Gaffney and hits Ty on a hitch route that goes for 23 yards.  Again, the announcers talked of how everyone thought we were going to run the ball on that down.

Similar thing.  How much of the success of this play call was due to the inherent nature of the play calling, and how much was due to the fact that our success on prior plays showed that we were the superior team (remember, we also manhandled ASU at home, until late in the game), and the fact that our earlier plays threw them off balance.

BC