The Benefits of Film Study

[Hostile]

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.

I have no idea what you have misinterpreted here. However, I am going to try my best to figure out what it could possibly be. I do not ever remember panning film study. Not once. Not ever. If you feel I have, by all means show me, because I am going to blame Nyquil. I loved film study. I liked it better than any aspect of the game. It was where the science and beauty of the game met and loved each other.

I think you are taking my commentary about predictability being over rated somewhere that I have never taken it. I stand by that comment. If a team is predictable, it does not mean you can stop them. How many times have you heard the players of the 90's say that opponents knew what was coming, they just couldn't stop it?

Many college teams are very predictable. Yet, them being predictable doesn't sink them. Why not? Easy, you still have to execute.

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.

I do not remember this disagreement we supposedly had.

Have you ever seen a wishbone offense? Are they unpredictable? Seriously?

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 don't believe the two have anything to do with each other. I have never dismissed film study in my life and cannot for the life of me figure out where you get the idea that I did.

 

[CCBoy]

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

I would agree that you presented a good post with point. I think it's principal is at the base of the current Dallas system. The two tight end formation allows to set the defensive line and linebacker into a general routine to be forceful and effective up close to the line of scrimmage. With the variation in this base set with formations, this can quickly add the burden of reflexing enough to cover quick hitting and outside plays. Then with a continual blend of three receiver sets as well, the linebackers and secondary never get to catch their breath in transitions. This leads back to setting up and going for the long play through a paralysis of both mind and reflex. Then in the fourth quarter that team can be forced into turnovers trying to catch up and time removed off the clock against an overly tired defense. Execution again is a key element and being able through film study devise creases to create chaos an unreinfoced habits as well.

That I guess is why so many teams attempt to attack the Dallas offense early and set the type of play for them. They then measure up a lot better to both Dallas offense and defense then...as the defense also can't be as aggressive as well.

The first half of last season, Dallas seemed to almost be dormant in the first half of games. But that turned around come December.

 

[T-RO]

Nice post, Hos.

Most of the time Jason's critics don't know 1/4 of what is going on with defenses he's facing; 1/8 of what Jason is really trying to do, and 1/20th of what it really takes to succeed as an OC.

And I'd be first in line to say all these coaches have spat out with their tobacco more football knowledge than I'll ever have.

 

[CCBoy]

Nice post, Hos.

Most of the time Jason's critics don't know 1/4 of what is going on with defenses he's facing; 1/8 of what Jason is really trying to do, and 1/20th of what it really takes to succeed as an OC.

And I'd be first in line to say all these coaches have spat out with their tobacco more football knowledge than I'll ever have.

Talking about coaches, I love watching Herring and Houck.

 

[Doctor32]

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.

Some really good film study analysis comes to the Zone by way of the miracle of the Tivo or DVR.

 

[dbair1967]

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. .

This isnt exactly true. If you have better players and execute right, you can be the most predictable team in the league and win consistently. A certain 3 time champion team from the early to mid 90's proved that. No team was more predictable or simplisitc, and almost nobody could stop them. They didnt have lots of formations or plays, they didnt use lots of motion. They lined up and beat the pants off the other team because 1) talent and 2) execution

 

[Jongb35]

Hey Hos....I never said you didn't appreciate film study. I know you are as big into as I am.

The quote I was referring to was one about a month ago when you said that predictability means very little. Now, I think we are talking about two different kinds of predictability and that is from where the confusion stems.

When you mention the Wishbone. . .yes, that is predictable. Teams know that one of basically a few plays will be run. The reason it works, though, is because of the options built into the play. If a defense KNEW that the pitch man was to receive the ball, it would be rather easy to defend.

There are certainly various plays in the NFL that contain a multitude of options, but some do not (straight hand-offs, screens, etc). If a defense KNOWS that Garrett likes to run a strong side dive 85 percent of the time in "Double Tight Strong," for example, that is analogous to knowing the pitch man has an 85 percent chance of receiving the ball.

There are two levels of predictability, and a predictable play WITH a predictable aim (one that is determined pre-snap) is no good for an offense.

 

[Jongb35]

This isnt exactly true. If you have better players and execute right, you can be the most predictable team in the league and win consistently. A certain 3 time champion team from the early to mid 90's proved that. No team was more predictable or simplisitc, and almost nobody could stop them. They didnt have lots of formations or plays, they didnt use lots of motion. They lined up and beat the pants off the other team because 1) talent and 2) execution

I don't think using a lot of motion or having a huge playbook is pre-requisite to being unpredictable. You can be unpredictable with one formation and a set of 10 plays.

Also, I would argue that a really good predictable team can be better than an unpredictable bad one, but that doesn't justify the good team being predictable. An unpredictable Team A would be better than a predictable Team A, regardless of Team B's nature.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I remember the Ravens (or may be it was the Eagles) saying the same thing about our knowing our offense a few years back at the end of the year.

One of the best film studies you can do is using a mirror. After Garrett forms a game plan, he should use a mirror and see if he can find trends in his own offense. Then adjust it accordingly.

 

[adbutcher]

Your post gave me chills! Outstanding post Hos!

 

[YosemiteSam]

Some really good film study analysis comes to the Zone by way of the miracle of the Tivo or DVR.

To bad we don't have the film that the teams use. It shows the entire field during the play. Not just cut sections of it like we get on TV.

 

[jimmy40]

Some really good film study analysis comes to the Zone by way of the miracle of the Tivo or DVR.

yeah it's amazing how all the coaches here can see a closeup of the QB and know what all 11 guys on defense were doing. I should have bought a bigger tv.

 

[Hostile]

Hey Hos....I never said you didn't appreciate film study. I know you are as big into as I am.

The quote I was referring to was one about a month ago when you said that predictability means very little. Now, I think we are talking about two different kinds of predictability and that is from where the confusion stems.

When you mention the Wishbone. . .yes, that is predictable. Teams know that one of basically a few plays will be run. The reason it works, though, is because of the options built into the play. If a defense KNEW that the pitch man was to receive the ball, it would be rather easy to defend.

There are certainly various plays in the NFL that contain a multitude of options, but some do not (straight hand-offs, screens, etc). If a defense KNOWS that Garrett likes to run a strong side dive 85 percent of the time in "Double Tight Strong," for example, that is analogous to knowing the pitch man has an 85 percent chance of receiving the ball.

There are two levels of predictability, and a predictable play WITH a predictable aim (one that is determined pre-snap) is no good for an offense.

Predictability is over rated. I will stand by that. One of the disconnects here is I am talking about Defense and you are talking about Offense. A Defense still has to adjust to what the Offense is doing and stop them. Offenses act, and Defenses react.

Now sometimes their reaction is to mix something up and try and confuse the Offense. Blitzes are a prime example. If you are a WR and the play call has you on a fly pattern, if the blitz is coming you don't have time to complete your fly pattern, you better find a seam and get open. QBs and WRs have to recognize this and execute. Blockers need to adjust and everything has to happen right or the Defense owns that play.

I am talking about a team seeing a minor gap opened in a Defense because of something that they do. As I said, perhaps they tip a Corner blitz by having a certain group of players on the field in a certain formation.

Such as the Atlanta game as mentioned before. In the post game interview Tony Romo gave Jason Garrett credit for recognizing an exact formation. he told the team what to look for and how to beat it. They saw it, executed the play and beat it.

When something like that happens, it inspires a team. It gives you confidence in your coaching, preparation, and even execution. This is not the same as predictability. Vince Lombardi was very predictable what he was going to do with Jim Taylor. Teams still couldn't stop them. One reason why was because the Packers simply executed it to perfection. Another was, they could disguise the play and run something else from the same formation. A Defense could occasionally guess right but they still had to execute.

Bob Sturm classifies Jason Garrett as one of the most unpredictable play callers in the NFL. Yet fans insist he is predictable. Who is right? Both can be. We know when we see the Wildcat/Razorback that Choice will probably keep it and run. Do we know when Garrett is going to send the play in? Is there a given down and distance that he will use it? Do you see how the two are not mutually inclusive?

 

[Jongb35]

Predictability is over rated. I will stand by that. One of the disconnects here is I am talking about Defense and you are talking about Offense. A Defense still has to adjust to what the Offense is doing and stop them. Offenses act, and Defenses react.

Now sometimes their reaction is to mix something up and try and confuse the Offense. Blitzes are a prime example. If you are a WR and the play call has you on a fly pattern, if the blitz is coming you don't have time to complete your fly pattern, you better find a seam and get open. QBs and WRs have to recognize this and execute. Blockers need to adjust and everything has to happen right or the Defense owns that play.

I am talking about a team seeing a minor gap opened in a Defense because of something that they do. As I said, perhaps they tip a Corner blitz by having a certain group of players on the field in a certain formation.

Such as the Atlanta game as mentioned before. In the post game interview Tony Romo gave Jason Garrett credit for recognizing an exact formation. he told the team what to look for and how to beat it. They saw it, executed the play and beat it.

When something like that happens, it inspires a team. It gives you confidence in your coaching, preparation, and even execution. This is not the same as predictability. Vince Lombardi was very predictable what he was going to do with Jim Taylor. Teams still couldn't stop them. One reason why was because the Packers simply executed it to perfection. Another was, they could disguise the play and run something else from the same formation. A Defense could occasionally guess right but they still had to execute.

Bob Sturm classifies Jason Garrett as one of the most unpredictable play callers in the NFL. Yet fans insist he is predictable. Who is right? Both can be. We know when we see the Wildcat/Razorback that Choice will probably keep it and run. Do we know when Garrett is going to send the play in? Is there a given down and distance that he will use it? Do you see how the two are not mutually inclusive?

I do see the different forms of predictability and how we are using them differently, but I do still think there are times when Garrett is predictable in a bad way.

For example, in Gun Trips last season, the Cowboys passed the ball on 63 of 64 times lining up in the formation. That isn't in itself a problem, as the team could have implemented the formation in obvious passing situations. Then, the formation really isn't going to tip off the defense as to a play call since they know you're pretty much going to pass anyway.

However, the Cowboys ran the formation in all different circumstances, from 1st and 10 to 2nd or 3rd and 1. Actually, the average distance-to-go using it was just slightly more than the average distance-to-go on all plays.

In that sense, I think predictability hurts Garrett. You could say lining up in Shotgun is just conceding to the defense you will pass, but there are lots of running plays Dallas has from Shotgun. I can't see how that sort of predictability isn't advantageous to a defense.

 

[Hostile]

I do see the different forms of predictability and how we are using them differently, but I do still think there are times when Garrett is predictable in a bad way.

For example, in Gun Trips last season, the Cowboys passed the ball on 63 of 64 times lining up in the formation. That isn't in itself a problem, as the team could have implemented the formation in obvious passing situations. Then, the formation really isn't going to tip off the defense as to a play call since they know you're pretty much going to pass anyway.

However, the Cowboys ran the formation in all different circumstances, from 1st and 10 to 2nd or 3rd and 1. Actually, the average distance-to-go using it was just slightly more than the average distance-to-go on all plays.

In that sense, I think predictability hurts Garrett. You could say lining up in Shotgun is just conceding to the defense you will pass, but there are lots of running plays Dallas has from Shotgun. I can't see how that sort of predictability isn't advantageous to a defense.

Bob Sturm in his "Decoding Garrett" articles completely disagrees with you.

http://app.quickblogcast.com/files/1/3/2/0/2/128698-120231/Best_of_Jason_Garrett.mp3

Note how at one point in there he remarks that he didn't think Garrett ran 2 consecutive plays all year with the same personnel on the field.

There are different levels of predictability and Garrett clearly mentions them in that audio.

 

[NextGenBoys]

Good post Hos.

What really bugs me is when people on here (or fans in general) say they "watched film"

No, they simply rewatched the game on TV, which is NOT watching film. If they did indeed watch coaches film that captures the entire field, which is the POINT of watching film, and not simply rewatching TV broadcasts, then that is awesome.

I know myself, along with others, would like nothing more than on Monday after the game to be able to go over coaches film and get a better understanding of what transpired on the field.

 

[CowboyDan]

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.

Good post. When I read this, I thought of this:

[youtube]8MTuEjpYG94&feature=search[/youtube]

In my mind, this win, this play, was the one that gave them the confidence to have the season they had last year.

 

[Hostile]

Good post Hos.

What really bugs me is when people on here (or fans in general) say they "watched film"

No, they simply rewatched the game on TV, which is NOT watching film. If they did indeed watch coaches film that captures the entire field, which is the POINT of watching film, and not simply rewatching TV broadcasts, then that is awesome.

I know myself, along with others, would like nothing more than on Monday after the game to be able to go over coaches film and get a better understanding of what transpired on the field.

You are 100% correct. I've never made an issue of it when people say it, but they really aren't watching film. Every play call is documented and coaches know what has been audibled. They look at 11 players not just the football.

 

[NextGenBoys]

Good post. When I read this, I thought of this:

[youtube]8MTuEjpYG94&feature=search[/youtube]

In my mind, this win, this play, was the one that gave them the confidence to have the season they had last year.

I would have to agree with you on that.

But I don't know if that play had to do with film, I just think the Cowboys had set up the play so well by running the hitch route all game, then set them up perfectly for the double-move.

 

[CowboyDan]

I would have to agree with you on that.

But I don't know if that play had to do with film, I just think the Cowboys had set up the play so well by running the hitch route all game, then set them up perfectly for the double-move.

I think it started with film study. Recognizing the Eagles' secondary tendencies, and then exploiting them in that game, on that play. I'm not sure if it was an adjustment on the fly between Miles & Tony, or if the play was run as called in the huddle, but either way I think it's a safe bet that it all started in the film room.