Your opinion on offensive substitutions and strategy

[Rain Man]

Defensive substitutions on down and distance are relatively straightforward to consider because they're usually reactive. However, offensive substitutions are a bit more nuanced because they can often telegraph intent.

I remember back in some previous coaching era that we'd get annoyed at certain offensive substitutions because they always telegraphed exactly what the play was going to be. I don't remember the specific people, but it was something like, "Every time McCluster steps onto the field we (and the defense) know that it's going to be a pass to McCluster in the flat."

So the question arises for offensive substitutions. How often can you run the type of play that the personnel are optimized for before the defense recognizes the pattern and neutralizes the optimization of personnel? And how often do you run plays where the personnel aren't optimized just to fool the defense?

So let's set a hypothetical example. It's 3rd and 2. We employ a three-TE set with Michael Burton in the backfield. The personnel are optimized for a power run. What percent of the time do you follow through with the power run, and what percent of the time do you throw to one of the TEs or to Tyreek who's standing out wide?

I'm oversimplifying it, so for poll purposes let's assume that we have two options:

1. Run plays that are optimized to the personnel that you just put onto the field, knowing that the defense might key to those plays.

2. Run plays that are not optimized to those personnel (e.g., sending the third TE out on an intermediate route), under the theory that catching the defense by surprise lends a great advantage.

Poll coming soon. Maybe. Or maybe I'll do something else.

[Red Dawg]

Need more cow bell and Gordon and CEH touching the ball.

[jjchieffan]

I don't think that Andy is really all that predictable with his formations. He has several plays designed for every formation and you never really know what play is coming. Who would have guessed that Andy would have Henne throw a pass on 4th and 2 in the playoffs to ice the game against the Browns? That shocked everyone.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by jjchieffan

I don't think that Andy is really all that predictable with his formations. He has several plays designed for every formation and you never really know what play is coming. Who would have guessed that Andy would have Henne throw a pass on 4th and 2 in the playoffs to ice the game against the Browns? That shocked everyone.

Yeah, I was pondering this. We know that Andy likes to target non-star players sometimes at key moments, which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. But I remember being frustrated with some past coaches because I could sit on my couch and tell where the play was going, which generally meant that it wasn't going to work.

At the same time, if you bring on a running back who's good out of the backfield on swing passes, it's not optimal to always run him up the middle when there's another player on the bench who's better at it.

I kind of think that you should run the optimal play for the talent 75 percent of the time, and switch it up 25 percent of the time.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I kind of think that you should run the optimal play for the talent 75 percent of the time, and switch it up 25 percent of the time.

Yeah, I was at 70-30; those wide brackets you gave us made for a pretty easy decision.

But I also suspect that if we didn't typically have a strong group of personnel on the field (i.e. we couldn't line up, do what we 'should' do and expect our guys to win 1v1 matchups) then our outlook would be different.

If we had Matt Cassel under center or even Alex Smith, we might feel the need to trick the opposing coach a bit more often. If we didn't have Kelce over the middle or the Hill whip route to lean into, perhaps just doing what the personnel group says to do wouldn't be as appealing to us.

Our perspective here is likely to color our choice quite a bit.

[mabbott]

I feel that you should always play to the strengths to the players on the field. Otherwise why would you substitute? Running different plays out of the same look/package will keep the defense guessing.

When Gore is in there it is a tell that we are going to run, we can use that same package for a play action, RPO, etc.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yeah, I was at 70-30; those wide brackets you gave us made for a pretty easy decision.

But I also suspect that if we didn't typically have a strong group of personnel on the field (i.e. we couldn't line up, do what we 'should' do and expect our guys to win 1v1 matchups) then our outlook would be different.

If we had Matt Cassel under center or even Alex Smith, we might feel the need to trick the opposing coach a bit more often. If we didn't have Kelce over the middle or the Hill whip route to lean into, perhaps just doing what the personnel group says to do wouldn't be as appealing to us.

Our perspective here is likely to color our choice quite a bit.

Yeah, good point. In our current situation, there's an incentive to go mano y mano and just beat them with talent. I think that was our frustration in the past, or at least mine. We'd bring out a personnel package that wasn't overly talented and then do exactly what the package was telegraphing every time.

[Zebedee DuBois]

I can't think that hard right now

[tmax63]

Maximize personnel against any perceived weakness the defense presents. As said earlier Coach has several plays for every formation. The key is picking the right variant for the vulnerability the defense shows.

[lcarus]

The Chiefs use decoys a lot as well. They always have Hill and Hardman running around back there before the snap. In my opinion, they probably use them as decoys too often. Sometimes they should just give Tyreek the ball on those jet sweeps or whatever.

[scho63]

This was a hard selection as I really like the Colorado House but I'm going with the one in Hawaii.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by scho63

This was a hard selection as I really like the Colorado House but I'm going with the one in Hawaii.

via GIPHY

[TinyEvel]

I choose Hawaii and spend the stipend on cars.

[kccrow]

I'd have a tendency to optimize the play to the personnel I have on the field probably 65-70% of the time. That doesn't mean you don't dress it up with motion and play-action and so forth and don't switch it up to keep the defense honest.

You have to pick the situations on switching it up that should still result in a net positive. If I have a 3rd and 2 and I'm aligned in 10 personnel with a lot of speed and a tendency to pass, that doesn't mean I shouldn't run it often from that package. You have to assume your WRs can block well enough to pick up 2 yards if you set the defense up that you'll pass from that form a majority of the time.

One thing Andy does a good job of is passing out of pass sets in a way that they are really like extended run plays with his shovel passes and such that keep a defense on their toes. Same goes with short passes out of run-heavy formations where you're still basically running it but are doing enough to keep defenders from just charging downhill. I'd like to think I'd at least want to implement similar options.

[Jewish Rabbi]

Jamaal Charles needs more carries.