The Benefits of Film Study

[Hostile]

Forever football has been about studying film. Film was Tom Landry's greatest teacher. Tom Landry was film's greatest advocate.

Stories exist that when Tom Landry was an Assistant Coach for the Giants that he would call his Defensive players rooms the night before games and if they were not out on the town he would invite them to come watch film. Sam Huff reported that Landry never tired of it.

We are hearing all the time that Tony is a film junkie. That Jason Garrett is a film junkie.

There's a payoff coming. I don't know when. I do not have a crystal ball or a fancy turban. I just know football.

Remember last year Tony did an interview after a game and he remarked that one TD was all Jason Garrett? I think it was the Tampa game, but I'm not sure. He saw something in film, got the Offense prepared and it paid off big.

You look for tells, tips, or patterns. For instance, does the Defense put the same personnel in on 3rd and long when they call for a corner blitz? If so, and you pick up on it, you can exploit that team. What it requires is for a QB and the WR who is lined up opposite that CB to recognize it from the film study and remember it.

There is nothing more perfect in football than when a QB spots the trend, looks out to his WR, they make eye contact and both know, "this is it." It is the absolute grandeur of football as human chess at its finest.

We actually have WRs who are students of the game. Not just our starters, the backups too. More and more as the Offense studies they are going to be hard to deal with.

Last year the Eagles (I think) had a player who said Tony Romo knew every one of their schemes. He mentioned telling him it was time for him to go in motion or something to that effect.

Mike Jenkins mentioned as well that he goes to Tony Romo and asks him questions about the WRs we will be facing and that Tony always knows.

There's a payoff coming. You can almost feel it and certainly sense it. Are the OL injuries annoying? Of course they are. Nothing is more deflating, but it isn't crippling. I want to emphasize that, it isn't crippling. Sometimes you find a Doug Free because a Marc Columbo goes down.

You listen to these players and the antenna should be going up. There's a quiet confidence embedded there. Even the Offense which is reportedly behind the Defense in practices believe that they are clicking.

In the old days the film was on a projector and the light flickered and the room was dark and the coach was excitedly explaining every nuance. The only thing that has changed is the quality of the video. Film study still drives success.

 

[cowboyjoe]

Forever football has been about studying film. Film was Tom Landry's greatest teacher. Tom Landry was film's greatest advocate.

Stories exist that when Tom Landry was an Assistant Coach for the Giants that he would call his Defensive players rooms the night before games and if they were not out on the town he would invite them to come watch film. Sam Huff reported that Landry never tired of it.

We are hearing all the time that Tony is a film junkie. That Jason Garrett is a film junkie.

There's a payoff coming. I don't know when. I do not have a crystal ball or a fancy turban. I just know football.

In the old days the film was on a projector and the light flickered and the room was dark and the coach was excitedly explaining every nuance. The only thing that has changed is the quality of the video. Film study still drives success.

ost:

 

[percyhoward]

Nice post.

I believe the play Romo referred to was in the Atlanta game. He said something to the effect of "I gotta hand it to Coach Garrett. The defense lined up exactly as they did on the film and then did exactly what we expected them to do when we practiced. That never happens."

As for Landry and celluloid, who could ever forget the televised image of a film projection, when he and Frank Glieber would look at the previous week's game. Landry with his pointer, the ball exiting Staubach's hand, then coming back as Landry rewound the film. That fascinated the hell out of me.

 

[NeonNinja]

I could be incorrect but I think Romo said something to Trotter on one play about knowing what they were calling.

 

[28 Joker]

I could be incorrect but I think Romo said something to Trotter on one play about knowing what they were calling.

Romo motioned to Trotter and told him this pre-snap:

"Go ahead, Trotter. Move over".

 

[Hostile]

Nice post.

I believe the play Romo referred to was in the Atlanta game. He said something to the effect of "I gotta hand it to Coach Garrett. The defense lined up exactly as they did on the film and then did exactly what we expected them to do when we practiced. That never happens."

As for Landry and celluloid, who could ever forget the televised image of a film projection, when he and Frank Glieber would look at the previous week's game. Landry with his pointer, the ball exiting Staubach's hand, then coming back as Landry rewound the film. That fascinated the hell out of me.

That is the game.

I so agree with the old Tom Landry show film studies. If they put that on DVD I would buy it immediately.

 

[Hostile]

I could be incorrect but I think Romo said something to Trotter on one play about knowing what they were calling.

Romo motioned to Trotter and told him this pre-snap:

"Go ahead, Trotter. Move over".

You know that had to completely un-nerve him.

 

[Fizziksman]

Romo motioned to Trotter and told him this pre-snap:

"Go ahead, Trotter. Move over".

video please!

 

[CCBoy]

Nice focus, Hostile...and from that same Giant set of coaches came A&I's Gil Steinke who was my head coach while a player with the Javelinas. Yea, film and elevated observations were introduced by him as well. Thanks for reminding us all the significance of that role in review and study.

 

[percyhoward]

Speaking of Glieber, fellow old-timers should enjoy this.

[youtube]vAW7FLyE0AE[/youtube]

 

[poost]

I've always wondered if a mathematician or statistician could help a football team a la "Remember the Titans". They would break down schemes and have a book telling the coordinators what schemes the coaches like to use. What personnel, what plays they like to run for certain downs and distances.

 

[theogt]

There won't be a payoff because most coaches and players watch a ton of film and study their opponents. You simply have to in order to keep up.

 

[Jongb35]

Hos,

I'd be interested to know why you are such a big advocate of film study, yet frequently claim that predictability in playcalling doesn't matter. As you've said in the past, you think randomness in playcalling means nothing. An offense should be able to execute no matter the call.

As you know, I'm a big film guy. I've disagreed with you in the past and claimed that each play has a certain chance of working. . .the more predictable the play, the less chance it has of being successful. Film study is ultimately an effort to pick up trends and predict what another team or player will do on any given play. Because of this, I believe coordinators have a major, major impact on each game. Being predictable hurts.

If you are big on the lack of impact of predictability in football, how do you reconcile this with your support of tireless film study? Not trying to start anything. . .just wondering.

 

[AsthmaField]

Nicely done Hos. However, Theo is correct in his thought that most of the NFL guys study a ton nowadays. Back when Landry was doing it, I believe that it truly gave him an edge over most teams.

While I feel like many might not study to the degree that Romo and Garrett do - and that in turn it does give them an edge - I think that edge is much, much smaller than the one Landry had in his time.

To me, the best thing is that it's clear that Tony absolutely loves the game of football. That he is so driven to compete at the highest level that as he has gotten better, he has continued to work harder to become even more proficient at what he does.

Like you said, that is and will continue to pay off.

 

[AsthmaField]

Hos,

I'd be interested to know why you are such a big advocate of film study, yet frequently claim that predictability in playcalling doesn't matter. As you've said in the past, you think randomness in playcalling means nothing. An offense should be able to execute no matter the call.

As you know, I'm a big film guy. I've disagreed with you in the past and claimed that each play has a certain chance of working. . .the more predictable the play, the less chance it has of being successful. Film study is ultimately an effort to pick up trends and predict what another team or player will do on any given play. Because of this, I believe coordinators have a major, major impact on each game. Being predictable hurts.

If you are big on the lack of impact of predictability in football, how do you reconcile this with your support of tireless film study? Not trying to start anything. . .just wondering.

I can't speak for Hos (of course), but as for myself... I think that execution is first and foremost in football. Learn to execute a well thought out play perfectly, and it is almost impossible for the defense to stop unless they simply have vastly superior athletes.

However, if you can execute plays perfectly that also have an element of surprise/randomness, and that takes the offense to an even higher level.

Execution can make the offense very difficult to stop, but if that offense is taking advantage of shortcomings or weaknesses of the defense then first downs become touchdowns and your offense is going to win the game.

IOW, I love execution... and I love creative, imaginative gameplanning. You don't have to love one to the exclusion of the other.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Hos,

I'd be interested to know why you are such a big advocate of film study, yet frequently claim that predictability in playcalling doesn't matter. As you've said in the past, you think randomness in playcalling means nothing. An offense should be able to execute no matter the call.

As you know, I'm a big film guy. I've disagreed with you in the past and claimed that each play has a certain chance of working. . .the more predictable the play, the less chance it has of being successful. Film study is ultimately an effort to pick up trends and predict what another team or player will do on any given play. Because of this, I believe coordinators have a major, major impact on each game. Being predictable hurts.

If you are big on the lack of impact of predictability in football, how do you reconcile this with your support of tireless film study? Not trying to start anything. . .just wondering.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Hos,

I'd be interested to know why you are such a big advocate of film study, yet frequently claim that predictability in playcalling doesn't matter. As you've said in the past, you think randomness in playcalling means nothing. An offense should be able to execute no matter the call.

As you know, I'm a big film guy. I've disagreed with you in the past and claimed that each play has a certain chance of working. . .the more predictable the play, the less chance it has of being successful. Film study is ultimately an effort to pick up trends and predict what another team or player will do on any given play. Because of this, I believe coordinators have a major, major impact on each game. Being predictable hurts.

If you are big on the lack of impact of predictability in football, how do you reconcile this with your support of tireless film study? Not trying to start anything. . .just wondering.

I'm not sure if you've ever read Pat Kirwan's book 'Take Your Eye Off The Ball', but if you haven't I think you would enjoy it.

A lot of it I already understood, but a lot of it I was puzzled on and it cleared that stuff up for me and a lot of it I had never heard before.

Anyway, in the book you start to see that there are so many people involved to help the playcalling to stay balanced, *if* that is the goal....which it usually is. There's guys in the booth telling Garrett and other team's O-Coordinators stuff like 'hey, you're running the ball 75% of the time on 1st down, you need to start throwing more on first down if you want to balance out the playcalling.'

And then there's the down and distance along with the personnel grouping, etc. All of that stuff tips off the defense a bit as to what's coming. Now, do they know *exactly* what's coming? Not really. But they usually have a pretty good idea, so that's where the execution is involved.

That's why I think the Patriots got a *huge* advantage with SpyGate because when you heard other coaches marvel at their unpredictability, the truth is that you really cannot be wildly unpredictable with the playcalling because it goes against human nature and there are too many people involved on the spot to figure out what your tendencies along with down and distance and personnel packages....unpredictability just doesn't happen that often. Some are a little more unpredictable than others, but I don't think it's anything outstanding.

Now film study is different. For instance, Romo can look at film and get an idea of a safety's tendency to bite on sluggo routes. So then he'll try to get it setup where he'll have the WR run a bunch of slants and when he sees the corner biting on them, he'll set it up for a sluggo. The defense may know that is what they are trying to do, but it's a case of execution and timing.






YR

 

[Hagman]

Speaking of Glieber, fellow old-timers should enjoy this.

[youtube]vAW7FLyE0AE[/youtube]

Thank you so much for the clip. I very fondly remember Glieber, "The Voice of The Dallas Cowboys" long before Brad Sham came along. And not just for the broadcasts. I loved him hosting the Tom Landry Show on Sunday mornings.

Also loved the glimpses of Brandt, Dorsett, Roger, Tom and the gang at the height of their careers.

 

[casmith07]

I'm not sure if you've ever read Pat Kirwan's book 'Take Your Eye Off The Ball', but if you haven't I think you would enjoy it.

A lot of it I already understood, but a lot of it I was puzzled on and it cleared that stuff up for me and a lot of it I had never heard before.

Anyway, in the book you start to see that there are so many people involved to help the playcalling to stay balanced, *if* that is the goal....which it usually is. There's guys in the booth telling Garrett and other team's O-Coordinators stuff like 'hey, you're running the ball 75% of the time on 1st down, you need to start throwing more on first down if you want to balance out the playcalling.'

And then there's the down and distance along with the personnel grouping, etc. All of that stuff tips off the defense a bit as to what's coming. Now, do they know *exactly* what's coming? Not really. But they usually have a pretty good idea, so that's where the execution is involved.

That's why I think the Patriots got a *huge* advantage with SpyGate because when you heard other coaches marvel at their unpredictability, the truth is that you really cannot be wildly unpredictable with the playcalling because it goes against human nature and there are too many people involved on the spot to figure out what your tendencies along with down and distance and personnel packages....unpredictability just doesn't happen that often. Some are a little more unpredictable than others, but I don't think it's anything outstanding.

Now film study is different. For instance, Romo can look at film and get an idea of a safety's tendency to bite on sluggo routes. So then he'll try to get it setup where he'll have the WR run a bunch of slants and when he sees the corner biting on them, he'll set it up for a sluggo. The defense may know that is what they are trying to do, but it's a case of execution and timing.






YR

Great post.

 

[Jongb35]

I'm not sure if you've ever read Pat Kirwan's book 'Take Your Eye Off The Ball', but if you haven't I think you would enjoy it.

A lot of it I already understood, but a lot of it I was puzzled on and it cleared that stuff up for me and a lot of it I had never heard before.

Anyway, in the book you start to see that there are so many people involved to help the playcalling to stay balanced, *if* that is the goal....which it usually is. There's guys in the booth telling Garrett and other team's O-Coordinators stuff like 'hey, you're running the ball 75% of the time on 1st down, you need to start throwing more on first down if you want to balance out the playcalling.'

And then there's the down and distance along with the personnel grouping, etc. All of that stuff tips off the defense a bit as to what's coming. Now, do they know *exactly* what's coming? Not really. But they usually have a pretty good idea, so that's where the execution is involved.

That's why I think the Patriots got a *huge* advantage with SpyGate because when you heard other coaches marvel at their unpredictability, the truth is that you really cannot be wildly unpredictable with the playcalling because it goes against human nature and there are too many people involved on the spot to figure out what your tendencies along with down and distance and personnel packages....unpredictability just doesn't happen that often. Some are a little more unpredictable than others, but I don't think it's anything outstanding.

Now film study is different. For instance, Romo can look at film and get an idea of a safety's tendency to bite on sluggo routes. So then he'll try to get it setup where he'll have the WR run a bunch of slants and when he sees the corner biting on them, he'll set it up for a sluggo. The defense may know that is what they are trying to do, but it's a case of execution and timing.






YR

Haven't read it but it sounds really interesting. I agree with your post as well. The most interesting thing is that humans are incapable of being truly random. We naturally have a tendency to alternate to create randomization, which ironically just makes us more predictable.

I think some OCs are better than others in their ability to create somewhat random playcalling sequences. I do think Garrett is overall a good OC and is getting better, but this is his biggest weakness right now to me.

In your 75 percent example, the problem would be that, once Garrett (or whoever) called that many first down runs, the decision to pass is only one to "balance things out." A true random sequence disregards prior events, so trying to regain balance by calling a lot of passes would just make you more predictable.

I will check out that book though. Great post.