Page 1 of 1
Released player shares playbook with opposing team
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:58 am
by Irn-Bru
I will be referring back to this thread when I see the inevitable complaint that "<Player
X whom the Skins cut> will DEFINITELY be giving ALL of our secrets to the Eagles, Cowboys, AND Giants. THANKS A LOT, FRONT OFFICE!!"
From Football Outsiders
"The Week in Quotes":
“It’s the most overrated thing in sports.”
– Peyton Manning, on whether one team can gain an advantage by signing players who have recently been released from an upcoming opponent
“‘I’m telling you, Peyton’s going to change it up. He knows I’m here, he’s going to give you a dummy audible early. I’m telling you, he’s not stupid. So, just play your keys.’”
– Manning, describing information quarterback Kelly Holcomb (who had recently been cut by the Colts) funneled to the Browns in 2002 before the two teams played each other
“Second half, we get a good drive going and it’s fourth-and-3. So we run our bread-and-butter play, a little five-yard under route. Well, I signal the play and Holcomb — it’s the same signal — so he says, ‘Ah, now I’m going to help them.’ So he says, ‘They’re running the five-yard under play! Five-yard under play!’”
– Manning, still building to the payoff
“And so you can see it on the film — they’re going, ‘Watch the slants, watch the slants.’ So they load up, all inside technique, and they go into a man defense. Well, I see this and I see the defenders all change up — that’s the thing about the no-huddle, I can see this — and I kept the receivers doing the same thing and I checked to a zone running play and it’s only six guys who gotta know — the linemen and the back [James Mungro]. And he goes 29 yards untouched for a touchdown.”
– Manning, not quite there yet
“And so their guys go to Holcomb, all pissed off, ‘So, they’re running a slant, huh? Thanks a freaking lot, Holcomb.’”
– Manning, dropping the hammer
I've always suspected that the whole 'give away the playbook' bit was crap. . .especially in this day and age of free agency (so everyone is going between teams) and customized game plans week in, week out.
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:01 am
by Chris Luva Luva
I don't see every situation playing out like that. Manning is basically a head coach on the field and I doubt 70% of the QB's out there today would be able to recognize a 1/3 of what he does.
I still think the playbook thing is overrated but I don't think it's as simple as this.
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:02 am
by Irn-Bru
Chris Luva Luva wrote:I don't see every situation playing out like that. Manning is basically a head coach on the field and I doubt 70% of the QB's out there today would be able to recognize a 1/3 of what he does.
I still think the playbook thing is overrated but I don't think it's as simple as this.
How bad can it really be? Every team has to deal with this every year. . .I bet the payoff from signing another team's trash is near zero.
Or, at the very least, it should NEVER be a motivation to keep a player that the team wants to cut to (a) clear space on the roster for someone else or (b) is a detriment to the team. And that's really why I don't think it's worth that much at all. . .if it actually had strategic impact then you'd see teams making a bigger deal out of it. But talking about a player sharing team secrets is almost always fan speculation, and I've suspected for a while that there wasn't much more to it.
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:11 am
by Fios
I have been watching football, regularly, since 1994 and I have NEVER, not once, ever, heard or read of this phenomenon working. I see fans worry about it all the time but I've never seen any proof of this.
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:16 am
by wbbradb
Fios wrote:I have been watching football, regularly, since 1994 and I have NEVER, not once, ever, heard or read of this phenomenon working. I see fans worry about it all the time but I've never seen any proof of this.
If it never works, then why do they do it?
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:19 am
by Fios
wbbradb wrote:Fios wrote:I have been watching football, regularly, since 1994 and I have NEVER, not once, ever, heard or read of this phenomenon working. I see fans worry about it all the time but I've never seen any proof of this.
If it never works, then why do they do it?
Note that I can not conclusively say it never works and, purposefully, did not. I would just assume that were it such a viable option, certainly in some game I watched or had read about, I would have seen a "wow, player X sure helped team Y against team Z since he used to play for Z." But I can't recall a single instance of that. Is my experience comprehensive? No but it does lead me to question the efficacy of the notion.
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:21 am
by GSPODS
It would seem that most players have a hard enough time learning the playbook of their current team without having to try and remember the playbook of every team they have played for. Photographic memories aside, I have to believe the entire theory is over-rated. Not to mention that a player only learns either the offensive playbook or the defensive playbook most of the time. There aren't many two-way players. And the few two-way players that do exist only learn the plays they are involved in. This has to be blown way out of proportion.
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:42 pm
by UK Skins Fan
If it were such a huge competitive advantage, wouldn't the league ban teams from accepting playbook information from players that they sign from other teams?
If it's not legal to film somebody else's defensive signals, then why would it be legal to get hold of somebody else's playbook, unless it just isn't a useful advantage?