The Players Hint At Dissent: What First Downs Have To Say About It

by Kevin HD on Nov 20, 2008 10:00 AM EST in Football Comment 29 comments

Some of the players on the team have been quoted discussing internal strife over play calling. It was a topic after the Iowa game, in which it seemed like the coaches weren't playing to win. Well now it sounds like the players are echoing some of the sentiment expressed on the interweb over the past couple of week.

"Obviously we've got a lot of guys on the team who have played a lot of football, we know what we're talking about when we see a defense thrown at us," Butler said. "Sometimes we got a little carried away with 'We should be running this play or that play.' Whatever play they call, let's execute it, and let's not get carried away with what plays we aren't running."

He's not the only one speaking up:

"We were running the ball a lot, and then these last two games, we've kind of gotten away from it a little bit," Shipley said. "We started to question that a little bit. We're all guilty of it."

[...]

"It's been a slight problem," Clark said. "We have to get away from it. Regardless of what the call is, it's not like it's new. ... If Jay [Paterno] calls it, if Galen [Hall] calls it, go out and make it happen. That's that."

To continue the quotefest, what Shipley probably meant to say was expressed in the comments of the offensive grading this week by jimbo2psu:

There’s nothing more satisfying to an offensive lineman than knowing you can dominate your man every play, and there’s nothing more frustrating than knowing that and then hearing a reverse called in, or a WR screen, or a deep bomb from a struggling QB fall incomplete and leave you in a hole.

So maybe the problem isn't that the offense is getting more conservative, but that they aren't utilizing their strengths on first down. The players know Royster is averaging 6-7 ypc and yet they are in second and ten way too often. That frustration leads to an ill-executed passing play and then all of the sudden it is third and long and everyone is upset about the first two play calls. It's a good theory anyway.

I went and looked back at the play-by-play against Iowa and Indiana to try and find some trends.

Charts. Yes, charts. I separated every play ran on a first down into either a run or pass. From there, I tracked the results of the "set". I don't really know what else to call these: a "set" is a set of downs that ends with either another first down, a punt, a turnover or a score. A "success" is defined as either a first down or a touchdown.

1st Down Play	Count	Success	%
Rush	21	16	76%
Pass	10	8	80%

So there you are. I don't know if this is the best way to judge an offense but it suits our discussion. Bullets.

The actual rush/pass mix was 46/24, or 66% run. On first downs, as charted above, that percentage is 68%.
Only 40% of the ten passes on first down were completions.
No scoring "set" started with a pass.
Of the three "sets" that ended with a punt, two began with passes.

The bag is mixed here so I don't know what to conclude. The run was used significantly more often but wasn't any more effective at moving the chains than the pass. It is interesting that the pass was not the first play called in any of the scoring "sets", but perhaps we are on to something here. The run is safe, you can't be sacked or throw an interception, and I can't help but wonder if the three field goals from that game were all a result of the coaches clamming up once the team got itself into scoring range.

Here is the Indiana chart, I quit once the score hit 27-7 for obvious reasons:

1st Down Play	Count	Success	%
Rush	11	7	64%
Pass	13	9	69%

Pretty much the same story.

As I'm wrapping this up I am starting to second guess my classification of field goals as failures; if you include them it makes it look like the rush is much more effective, but then again maybe that is the point. The fact that Penn State so often settled for three when seven would have been better is, to me, the story of the Iowa game. Maybe the problem isn't that the offense isn't capable, but that it becomes a different offense once they are inside Kelly's range. He is a sure thing (15 for 15) inside the 40, the coaches know th. I don't know if it's a run vs. pass issue, but more a question of how predictable they become in scoring range.

0 recs | Comment 29 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The offensive line is yapping about play calling?

I understand that offensive line might want to run the ball more. Especially because they have had a real hard time protecting DC-17 in passing situations. Also, Royster is still averaging 6-7 YPC, which is great. However, he used to be averaging around 9 YPC before PSU hit a tough slate of games starting with Ohio State.

Since the Ohio State game, the offensive line really hasn’t been playing great football. I don’t know if this is because of the play calling or if the line was exposed a little during TOSU and other teams are reproducing that game plan. Regardless, when I start seeing the line consistently open big holes for Royster to run through I’ll join them in the complaint line. Until then, shut up and hit somebody in the mouth!

by GLORYOFOLDSTATE on Nov 20, 2008 10:17 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think you hit it right on the head

with predictability…

against Iowa when we couldn’t score a TD in the redzone to save our life…I mean we had what like 7 chances on the one drive from the 5 yrd line b/c of a pass interference and we couldn’t punch it in…what happened to the option that we cruised in on against wiscy…or a, hold your breath, pitch to the side or what about utilizing brackett in the redzone the kid is 6 freakin 6 and you’re saying that we can’t lob the ball up and let him go get it

that is the problem with Jay Pa and Galen…they are to predictable, it works once and they try it again and again even after the D adjusts…I remember saying the whole season ohhh they are not showing the whole play book until OSU and that game came and went, I was happy with the outcome, but we were like a frightened turtle and I don’t think they came out of the shell yet…I think we have seen all there is to the “HD” and it’s a shame b/c there is so much more they can do

by Lion Alum on Nov 20, 2008 10:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Or float him to the wide side

and roll the QB the same way.. how often do you see a play like that… excluding us.

Ben and Alex... first commits for 2024

by 3Yardout on Nov 20, 2008 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You hit it on the head with predictability

When the team starts running well, you mix in the pass a little MORE because of what you’d just successfully done – made the defense commit to the run. Same goes for the other side of the coin. Jay and Galen are setting the table but not sitting down to eat. The create the situations that have the defense confused or on their heels, and then constantly bail the defense out by not capitalizing on it.

by blogue20 on Nov 20, 2008 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly what I was saying during the Iowa game:

1. The fade pass to the corner of the endzone. Brackett will catch that ball 50% of the time with ease b/c of his height. I don’t think we’ve seen that pass yet this season.

2. Pitch the ball out to the open field and let Green or Williams work in space. We have so much speed and athleticism we waste every trip to the redzone. We’ve run this play twice, and I haven’t seen it since Purdue when Green fell down.

3. Bootleg pass — with Clark he can roll out and find a receiver, or tuck the ball in and get a yard or two. I’m fairly certain I haven’t seen this play yet in the redzone.

And these are plays you see practically ever other team in the country run — college and pro.

by millzners on Nov 20, 2008 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The results

are inconclusive . . leading to what I believe is the truth – the playcalling has nothing to do with it. When players were executing in the first half of the season, the playcalling was brilliant. Now that the team is off it’s rhythm, the playcalling is a problem.

The only coaching issue I believe we have offensively is that we haven’t done a great job of handling pressure through the A and B gaps. Purdue was the first to have success with that, and each team we’ve played since has replicated it and caused problems. This is also why we are not great at short yardage plays.

I think the real problem is too many players on the team started thinking too much about Miami and not enough about their duties in practice.

by InScoresOfOtherGames on Nov 20, 2008 10:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Game plan

Rather than just the play calling, maybe its something higher level. Something I’ve been wondering for a while is what are some of the extended effects of the game plan. Let me try to explain.

I know as a fan when we were headed out to Wisconsin, I was hoping to see this HD offense rip apart a strong (well that’s what we thought) opponent on the road. Conversly, I was afraid of seeing the usual road-game conservative play-not-to-lose plan.

Now I’m guessing, but during the practice week the coaches must be talking to the players about the game plan, right? And which kind of plan is going to get the team more fired up?

The game plan doesn’t have to be fancy. For the Buckeyes the defensive plan was simply to stop the run; but against a formidable running tandem the defense played their lights out.

One more example; summarized in this Trey Bauer quote from THE game:

BAUER: “… We had 150 different looks on defense just for that game.”

There was a defense that was trusted, challenged, fired up and inspired.

Back to this season:
Do the coaches trust the team to execute an aggressive plan without making too many mistakes?
Do the coaches feel the team can rise to the challenge of a complex offensive plan?

Early in the season it seemed like the answer to both, at least on offense, was yes. Although, after further review some of the other posters here have pointed out that while the offensive formations were “Highly Diverse”, often the plays called from those formations—not so much.

by confirmy on Nov 20, 2008 12:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know

You could say the gameplan is the strategy and the playcallng the tactics, and criticize that the tactics don’t support the strategy, but I would bet that the playcalls are pretty indicative of the gameplan. At that point you’re criticizing the same philosophy.
Which I believe is not flawed.

by InScoresOfOtherGames on Nov 20, 2008 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Strategy and Tactics

That’s a good way of putting it.
Perhaps you are right that the tactics are following the strategy (insert jab at Jay here).
But with the players grumbling about the play calling, is it much of a stretch to imagine that they are not very excited by the game plan?

by confirmy on Nov 20, 2008 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In regards to whether a FG is a success or a failure

it is really in between. Instead of using a binary (1 for success, 0 for failure), use something like (7 or 6 for touchdown, 3 for FG), or (1 for touchdown, 0.5 or 0.43 for FG)

by The JuggerNitt on Nov 20, 2008 11:10 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I thought about this, but that wouldn’t really get us closer to what we are trying to find out.

I wanted to talk about first down plays that increase the chance of gaining another first down and thus getting closer to scoring a TD. Kicking a FG is a failed attempt in that if was fourth down. If the series that results in a FG happened on your own side of the field, it’s a failed attempt and a punt.

Now you could argue that scoring is still “good”, and what they did that series allowed them to get on the board, but this isn’t the goal, its a consolation price. Playing differently in FG range is the problem, and sitting on the ball once we get inside the 25 is failing, even if you get three points. It’s a wasted opportunity.

Kevin @ Black Shoe Diaries

by Kevin HD on Nov 20, 2008 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To that point then...

Yes, I agree. If you start a “set” in FG position and don’t advance to another set or score a TD it is a fail.

by Screen Name 20 on Nov 20, 2008 11:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

You have to use the approach brought up a few weeks ago about red zone efficiency. A FG is obviously better than a FAIL, but it’s not a true success.

When you look at the scoring “sets” against Iowa, they all started inside the Iowa 15. And three of those times they started with DWill runs from the Wildcat. It seems that once we got into the red zone against Iowa, we were shooting for 43% red zone efficiency (5 FGs out of a possible 35 points, excl 2pt conv). Also to that point, are the offensive coaches afraid to throw into tight spaces once we get down in the red zone?

by Screen Name 20 on Nov 20, 2008 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Depends on where you start

Yes a FG is a fail in that you did not get a first down. But consider where you start. If you started the drive way back on your own 10 yard line and drove down to the 15 and kicked a FG, that was a good drive even if you sputtered in the redzone. If you had to convert four 3rd down conversions to get there that’s pretty awesome considering the NCAA average for 3rd down conversions is around 40%. The chances of converting five 3rd down conversions in a row are pretty slim.

But if you started the drive on the opponent 25 yard line and only made it to the 18 where you kicked a 35 yard field goal that’s a total failure.

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

by BSD on Nov 20, 2008 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I agree

I was looking at it from the “red zone efficiency” before Kevin’s comment above.

by Screen Name 20 on Nov 20, 2008 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is a good way of looking at it

On the other hand, you could consider a drive that stalls at the 8 more damaging than a drive that stalls at the 30. Starting field position has something to do with that, but a drive that makes it into the red zone and fails to convert to a TD has, I would argue, a bit of a demoralizing effect. I also think you probably have to consider timing into this – a FG with time expiring in the half or game has to be considered a success.
Overall a good model though,

by InScoresOfOtherGames on Nov 20, 2008 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Goal-line offense is predictable, and ineffective

run up the middle, run up the middle, run up the middle, field goal from the 10 yard line. Drives me absolutely friggin bonkers.

by millzners on Nov 20, 2008 11:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Kevin, nice work.

Too bad it didn’t really show anything. Any chance you can look at the sets starting in field goal range?

by confirmy on Nov 20, 2008 12:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I've actually already started it.

But I don’t have time to finish until after the MSU game. And yes, it sucks doing all that and then not being able to really say anything about it. Thank got for Wednesday night MAC football, though, or this post would have never happened.

Also, the red zone being the 20 is dumb, it should be the yard line at which your kicker is relatively consistent. So I’m arbitrarily using the 25.

Kevin @ Black Shoe Diaries

by Kevin HD on Nov 20, 2008 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

pet peeves

One of my greatest pet peeves about Penn State fans is criticizing goal line play calling.
This season we’ve seen options, wildcat, shotgun formation – all sorts of sets inside the ten. Did PSU fans just stop watching goal line offense in 1993?
Royster may not be the best back in the country but I think you can a pretty good argument that he has the best vision of any back in the country.
In the past two years did you want morelli throwing inside the ten? This season, if you have the play call and it’s goal to go from the 4 can you justify not giving it to royster?

by InScoresOfOtherGames on Nov 20, 2008 1:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

that same old I formation run up the middle? no. It’s predictable. I know they’re going to run it, the defense knows they’re going to run it, it’s the same play Joe’s been calling since the ’70’s. In 40+ years of coaching Joe’s probably run that play more than any other. It lost us NC against Alabama in the ’70’s. It works sometimes, sure, but it’s just so predictable.

by millzners on Nov 20, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So is florida predictable running tebow up the middle every red zone down the past 3 years? What about alabama’s offensive predictability this season? Texas tech’s offense passes about 80% of the time – isn’t that predictable?
When teams execute, their playcalls are generalized as successful, and when they don’t, their playcalls are generalized as predictable.
I’ll grant that execution does not trump playcalling always – I can’t always justify a 4 yard route on 3rd and 10 – but the goal line is the one place on the field where execution determines success regardless of playcall. There is less room to work with, so blocking matters much more than deception. Defenders don’t have to cover receivers as deep, so they can make a mistake and recover to the line in time.

by InScoresOfOtherGames on Nov 20, 2008 5:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What I forgot to add –
nobody complains about a 4 yard route on 3rd and ten when the receiver breaks through and gets the first down. When the receiver is tackled short of the first down, it’s a bad (usually predictable) playcall.
There always are bad playcalls – I’d agree that against iowa and ohio state the offense should have explored getting royster and clark on the perimeter more often, but to complain about running the back with the best vision in the nation between the tackles near the goal line is just an unfair generalization.

by InScoresOfOtherGames on Nov 20, 2008 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In summary

If it worked = good playcall
If it didn’t work = bad playcall
Sounds like the typical response of the average fan (or at least all the grumpy old men who I sat near in section SJ).

by NJ lion on Nov 21, 2008 11:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I complain about those playcalls

and then am thankful we got lucky that it worked out.

I would like to see a breakdown (distribution) on % of third down conversions when the ball is passed towards a receiver at different distances short of, or beyond, the first down marker.

Like:
-10 : 2%
-9: 5%
-5: 10%
-2: 35%
0: 50%
+1: 50%
+2: 48%
etc etc

by The JuggerNitt on Nov 21, 2008 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Another thought

We see a pass go four yards and 3rd and six and complain about the play calling. But what we don’t know is that a lot of times the QB looked at the guy running the 12 yard crossing pattern and the eight yard curl pattern and they were both covered, so he checked down to the guy standing four yards away. That’s kind of what a good defense does.

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

by BSD on Nov 21, 2008 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Isn’t this play flawed then, because shouldn’t that guy be six yards away? Shouldn’t all routes allow for a 1st down pickup?

by whiteoutonly on Nov 21, 2008 6:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm just pumped

I got quoted in an article. Most of the time I think I don’t make any sense.

Side note: Instead of the success/failure stat, I’d like to see a breakdown of yards gained on each first down play. To me, it seems the way to move the ball consistently is to make positive yards on 1st and 2nd down and give yourself a chance on 3rd down. Passing on first down lends itself to more of an all-or-nothing approach to the set of downs, which doesn’t seem it would lead to many sustained drives. When, as in the Iowa game, only 40% of the first down throws are completed, we are shooting ourselves in the foot quite a bit.

Maybe this 40% 1st down completion % also goes back to Clark pressing too much and forcing the ball down the field instead of taking the check-down. Nothing wrong with a 4-yard check down on 1st & 10. Seems like he hasn’t been hitting the flat very often lately…anyone else on any of this?

by jimbo2psu on Nov 20, 2008 3:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs