KitsapHawk":31ul94m9 said:
Zebulon Dak":31ul94m9 said:
That article hardly even addresses the actual play calling. There's virtually no actual information in it. It's just a few paragraphs by somebody who's displeased that we didn't score more and that we let them score too much.
Not everyone is capable of in depth play-calling analysis, but the generalization was well spoken.
First off, what about the defensive play-calling on that last drive? The coverage was a vanilla zone that Peyton exploited twice for big gains, including a touchdown.
Moreover, without the evidence of play tracking - it is just hollow. It perpetuates bias. Show me an analysis of time left and then compare it to the first half and I may pay attention to it.
Though this once again comes down to the ultimate issues with ANY playcalling argument:
1) You call the plays that will win you the game - not score the most points. Keeping the play clock moving with a lead can be as important as taking higher risks to score more. Ultimately, if you won the game - you called the right plays.
2) There is NEVER an ability to go back and play this game again with different playcalling. So any talk about alternate playcalling is fraught with bias. No one ever talks about whether different, higher variance playcalling might have actually cost us the game. What if higher variance playcalling would have cost us the game? These arguments always assume that play calling could get better if changed. None of them discuss the very REAL possibility that differences in playcalling could have had no difference or a worse outcome. For example, I'd argue that the Wilson INT, on a first down play, was an unnecessary high variance play call. I would have preferred to keep running the clock. It almost cost us the game.
Ultimately, these are never about playcalls but about play results. For example, in the article the OT playcalling was considered "creative" and praised but in OT Russell scrambled 3-4 times and many were simple runs we already ran earlier in the game. Those Wilson scrambles were not the plays called and thus playcalling had nothing to do with those plays. People just like the results so they like the playcalling. It is silly.