[From the crowd]
"Go deeper into gameplans!"
[/]
I agree about the over-hope self-denial, by the way, and have reflected on my own participation in that far more than once. It's funny how understanding the psychology of cognitive dissonance barely by an iota helps you avoid it.
Well, because you asked nicely ...
We'll start with a key building block, plays and concepts.
Plays would be the very specific calls. There can be a lot of these.
Concepts are sort of wider families of plays. Inside zone is more a concept because it can be run a bunch of ways, but when we're watching a game, we'll generally say a team ran inside zone (sometimes we'll say QB inside zone, inside zone from the 'gun, etc). Concepts in the passing game can break down all sorts of ways. Mesh, a pair of drag routes that tightly cross is a concept. Double slants is a concept. One can run multiple concepts on one play as well, esp passing or RPOs.
People traditionally think of a base offense as "vanilla," the boring and the predictable plays. But in truth, base should always be your best plays. Those are the ones you run the most. They're the ones you practice the most.
Often next to that are a set of what I call "change-ups," the best example I can find being teams that mix in speed option or draws in certain spots.
An OC I once talked to said you go into a game with your base, what you are, plus a little "spicy chicken." (He was not a very good OC, but his mentor was a legend, so I assume it came from him). That spicy chicken can take several different forms.
-The very special plays (WR throwbacks to QBs, direct snap to RB, etc)
-The new concepts (UW broke out a wham play against OSU a few years back, part of Chryst adding six new concepts over a bye week, which flabbergasted Urbs. This was a rarity. I think UW also went with a triple-trap play vs Iowa that Michigan is fond of).
-Different manners of tweaks and wrinkles on what you have (slip the TE here, have this guy go there)
There are at times moments when teams hold back (I recall one team minimally going empty against a Sun Belt opener, then starting a big rivalry game in it the next week. It produced some good looks, players had drops, team got blown out, it was one of their most effective sets the rest of the way). There's also moments when one of those things added in a week is so good it gets worked in as part of the main package (I think UW did with with draw in the Wilson year).
Many teams tend to roll into games with a minimal package. At times I've heard 20-30 plays on the low end. Remember, you're often only going to run 60-80 total plays a game unless you're at warp speed.
I'm not sure the usual diversity of pass concepts, but in the run game, you can be good with three base concepts on the lower end or five plus change-ups on the higher end (Urbs OSU). UW had three the TCU rose bowl year. Some good running games have had two, and the legendary Denver outside zone is really just one concept you run really, really well.
So anyway, less remains more. Your base is your best plays, not your most tired. And if your vanilla is ineffective, that should be more concerning than less.
