Recently Brian compared Charlie Weis and Lloyd Carr to different styles of poker player. This comparison really struck a chord with me as I've played poker professionally for the past 2 years. To wit, I've often thought about the many convergences between poker strategy and football strategy, but this Dr. Saturday article really made me realize that the main similarity between poker and football strategy is the concept of constructing a balanced strategy and adjusting within that strategy.
First a word about the term "balance". The secret to winning at poker against anyone with half a brain is to make yourself as unexploitable as possible. You do this by making sure that when you take a specific action in a specific situation, it is possible that you have multiple different "types" of hands: very strong hands, bluffs, medium strength hands.
The Dr. Saturday article is basically about Jim Tressel tipping Ohio State's intentions, either by the formation or by, in DS's example, Terrelle Pryor's lack of what I'll call a balancing technique when he hands the ball off. It's also about how Rich Rod's offense doesn't have these weaknesses, how RR's offense is balanced and how he adjusts within the framework of that balanced offense.
Without repeating too much of the article, DS talks about how Terrelle Pryor doesn't fake bootleg out of a power I handoff. It doesn't take a genius to realize why this failure to bootleg makes it easier to play defense against Ohio State: when TP bootlegs out of the pocket, he has the ball. When he doesn't, well, tOSU running back averages 2.4 ypc.
If you read about RR's offensive adjustments to the scrape exchange and to Notre Dame's readjustment to that adjustment, you know what it means to be adjust within the framework of a balanced strategy. RR's offensive set doesn't change. The play doesn't even change. M just does something WITHIN the play to adjust to something that ND is doing on defense. It's pretty easy to see how this is a more effective adjustment than rolling out new unbalanced packages to deal with any given defense. New looks within the context of an effective offense will work better than different unbalanced plays.
So I guess the conclusion that I draw from all of this is that Brian's comparison is a bit off. Carr and Tressel and Weis aren't poor "poker players" because they're too passive or too aggressive. These are just symptoms of their unbalanced, and therefore exploitable, strategies.