Why not “open” the playbook & iron out the kinks before facing formidable teams?

[SalUteopia]

I’m relatively new to the world of football, and often hear about waiting to “open” the playbook until you play a formidable opponent. I grew up watching a different sport, and never heard of anything like this. No matter the level of competition, you played your A game.

I somewhat understand the underlying reason, but is it really that big of an advantage? Why not use the lesser games to iron out the kinks and better the execution? So the opponent will have tape on it, but is it better than not having a command of those plays?

This is a long-winded way of asking if the USC game outcome would be different had we opened the playbook in previous games. Would our O be more crisp? Would the OL be gelling more? Does the Brumfield fumble still happen?

Yes, we had some miscues on the D and USC had freak WRs, but if not for the RZ issues, we still have a great chance. How much of it was related to executing the saved plays?

Maybe save some “wrinkles” and gadget plays, but it feels like we’d be better off honing the O before playing the big teams. Especially in a year like this, and against a dimwit coach like Helton.

I could be way off on this one, but interested to know your thoughts.

Also, bye weeks suck (from a fan’s perspective). Weekends feel incomplete without Utah football.

[EagleMountainUte]

I am of the opinion that you should lineup and put forth your best effort and beat teams. Offense you just lineup and say try and stop us.

Defensively I don’t like giving up more than you need to. It is better to introduce wrinkles and different looks to confuse quarterbacks week to week. 

[SalUteopia]

This is probably the way to do it at Utah. Being a D-minded team, we often seem ready on this front. But the O could use that extra in-game practice.

[EagleMountainUte]

Remember as well the Oline has just done their third complete game under its belt. Excuses excuses obviously but could be part of the oline short yardage situations. 

[UteThunder]

I was pondering this exact topic while driving this morning. 

While it sounds nice in theory to hold things back, I just don’t see the advantage to not running your offense against everyone. If you have a good offense it shouldn’t matter what you show against opponent A because opponents B, C, and D will have a hard time stopping you anyway.

[SalUteopia]

Exactly! And it is one thing to hold back for a coach like Petersen, but was Helton really up for the challenge?!

[D T]

Go Utes!

[Utah]

USC was just awful for Utah. One, their QB getting hurt was bad for Utah. Fink can throw deep, which killed us. 

Two, Blackmon was awful. I don’t know what else to say. He was awful. 

Moss got hurt. 

Finally, that fumble was bad luck. UW fumbled vs USC and they got a TD our of it. Utah got a TO. Just bad luck. 

Everything that could go wrong vs USC did. I’m not sure it was because we held anything back or coach’s fault. 

[Charlie]

The USC game was not awful for me. We had a handful of plays go wrong to turn the game. We played a very different QB we did not game plan for. Blackmon took a bad angle on a play that gave up a TD, likely doesn’t occur at all with the QB style we prepared for. Moss in our game plan would make a great difference. The two bad breaks inside the 5 yard line, the second one a broken play by DHC just happen some times. For me, the body of work for the game, is not something I would consider awful. Emotionally disappointed in the outcome but not at all grading coaches or players with an awful performance.

[SalUteopia]

What about our D scheme? Would dropping 8 into zone coverage have helped?

[EagleMountainUte]

I don’t think the game plan for Wazzu would have worked against USC. Blackmon was hurt and he was awful. Also the talent level of USC wideouts is much better than Wazzu.

[Tony (admin)]

The fumble wasn’t bad luck. It was bad blocking.

[D T]

NOT our fault!

[Charlie]

I think the concept of saving plays is mostly a misconception by fans.  Much of the offensive playbook is specific to types of defense.  Only part of the plays are practiced and put on the play sheet each week.  Many of the plays are situational so they are only called when a set of specific stars line up.  Some plays are low probability but high payoff that are used in desperate situations like down two scores with a short ckock.  All of this leads up to seeing a play that has not been seen in some time and fans thinking it has been in the refridgarator waiting. 

The playbook naturally grows throughout the season for several reasons.  Different defenses are encountered.  Coaches learn what players do well and what they struggle to execute which is different with every team.  Players will always view the number of plays they have ready as small at the begining of a season and bigger after every game.  Still, there are elements that are saved for a situation of a specific defense and are in fact held for those situations.  Sometimes games end with an unplanned part of the playbood because that is what was found to work well.

When you see new plays, techniques, or offensive style it most likely is over 90% the natural coaching process and has very little with hiding your cards.  Suprise is an element but it is offset by the value of game experience. Most coaches prefer to give opponents more to consider rather than holding a suprise.  Special team plays and short yardage goalline plays are the most common ‘saved’ plays.

[SalUteopia]

This makes much more sense. Thanks for the nuanced take. I may have oversimplified the issue.