One thing that I think is often overlooked is play calling and smart risk taking in high leverage situations. Look at Tennessee against Alabama, Kiffin chose to sit on the ball and try a 45 yard field goal instead of going no huddle and trying to get a play or two off. College kickers only make a little over half of kicks from 45 yards, moving that up by five or ten yards would have increased their chances of winning by a significant percentage, maybe 10 or 15 percent. Witness the different 4th down decisions by Pete Carroll and Jim Tressell in their game, USC scored their first touchdown on 4th and goal from the one while OSU kicked a field goal in the same situation and punted on a 4th and 1 from inside the USC 40. Paul Johnson this week went for it on 4th and 1 in overtime rather than kick a chip shot to go to a second overtime, I would bet that many if not most of the coaches in the country would kick the field goal rather than risk losing in the first overtime, even if the probabilities of scoring a touchdown from that position was much higher than winning in a second overtime. I think a lot of more conservative coaches could vastly improve their chances in high leverage situations by just sitting down and running the math in these kinds of situations rather than just blindly making the decision that carries the least immediate risk.

Reminds me of a JV game I played in my freshman year of HS. The JV coach tried to install a new defense on the chalkboard twenty minutes before a game against our archrivals. Needless to say, it failed miserably (to the tune of a 34-0 halftime defecit). Fortunately, he was not back the year after.

Now, are the adjustments usually huge and drastic? No. The one example of not getting the defensive front we expected does happen – but not very often… maybe 2-3 times a year.

I do agree that play calling is overrated. Perfect execution is underrated. I’d guess 90% of all offensive plays in any given scheme could score against any defense, assuming a quarterback can check out of a clear mismatch.

A good coach makes himself and his team weaker when he thinks he can play that chess game on game day.
Some of the best coaches give a lot of freedom to the QBs and players on game day from an adjustment/playcalling standpoint. They have the best view in the game but some coaches, I think especially high school coaches, are afraid to give up that power and control.

You always hear the analogy of chess and football and it can be that mental, but I’ve also heard and agree that it should be checkers instead.

If he conceives of coaching as being largely about playcalling, adjustments, or driven by axioms, he probably understands little about coaching football. These folks give themselves away quickly by making statements that reveal that they’ve internalized these things. Easterbrook’s article conveys that to me.