1. At some level, it doesn't matter whether you play horizontal stack, German, all-upside-down, or lefty lifts. If you make good passes, you'll score, and if you make bad passes, you'll turn it. All that the system does is to create more or fewer opportunities to make good or bad passes. Leaders are responsible for the system, players are responsible for execution.
2. If two teams are equal in talent, it's the team that makes the plays that will win. Sometimes those plays are just willing yourself to be open at stall 8, or selling a decoy cut to free up a long cut.
3. But more often, those plays are picking up your teammates when they make a sub-optimal play. This doesn't mean that you make hero throws or cut when you're not supposed to, but that you play heads up and balls out.
4. If you throw a pass that's incomplete, it's your fault. If a pass that is thrown to you is incomplete, it's your fault. If you're on the field and your teammate throws a high stall pass that's incomplete, it's your fault. If you're idle on the sidelines and a pass is incomplete because you could have seen something that might have made a difference, it's your fault. Because of all my talk over the years about root causes and team errors and "what's wrong with right here", I am probably most at fault for this attitude being part of the culture. But just make the play and shut up. The way it should have worked was that instead of blaming the guy at the sharp end, everyone involved should have realized that they contributed to the error. It shouldn't be, "Hey, the pass wasn't right at my gut, sorry I couldn't save you."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
when i saw the title, i thought it was 'bizzarro jim -- d guy' installment three.
how's the thingy w/ the codeword working out? where do i find that?
It's called the Word Verification Option. http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=1203&query=spam&topic=0&type=f
Good, haven't had any "I heard about your blog. Click here for my porn site" since.
In the old days, and apparently in some places still, if you sprint for 40 yards and lay out check high and it nicks off the edge of your fingertip, it's considered a drop. I'm glad we've gotten people to realize that the thrower has more of a job to do than simply to give the receiver a chance, but maybe it's too far the other way now. It was never meant to absolve the guy who was merely the final step in a chain of minor errors, but to get the rest of the group to acknowledge that they could have improved the situation.
And it's mental, too. If you feel that you have to make the catch because it's your job to make the catch, you're more likely to make the catch.
yes, I know exactly how it feels. I play in the team where most of the players are friends fom the same school and I am not. So whenever I make a mistake - it is my fault, whenever they make a poor pass and I don't get it - it's my fault. And the unnecessary pressure keeps on growing to the point that you think twice before making a cut to get open.
I am glad though that the coach established a rule that there must be no comments during the play.
Now I have freedom to try, and if I don't make it, at least I don't have that pressure and next time I'll try harder.
I could say that the old DoG system was brilliant because it realized that it had good players (not just athletes (and Ringo, just because you lived in the South for a few years doesn't mean that you should pronounce "athlete" with three syllables)) and so created lots of opportunities for them to make good throws while offering low-risk alternatives when the throws weren't there. At least that's my story.
I've always felt that the system designed itself by starting with good, field-smart players (who were also SAT-smart, by the way) and letting them figure out how to play rather than working to some predetermined structure. Problems later arose when the system had to be institutionalized but it was no longer optimally designed for the players, who were different from the originals (if not in name, then in age). To be sure, there have been changes over the years, but the basic structure now is about the same as it was in 1994.
But you are spot on that part of being an athlete is being able to learn and figure things out. And that certain teams might not consider that when evaluating players, focusing just on the raw things. From what I've read, this is partly what the Patriots have had so much success; they recruit good (but not great for the NFL) raw athletes who they think can learn.
And the O and the D had different systems for O and D. D squad systems were built more around frothing.
what about, as a response to idris' query, "I'm extremely lucky."
(O chip speaking): I always thought it was a _lack_ of talent that relegated a player to the D squad. But they all seem happy in their little world.
Perhaps someday they'll identify the gene that distinguishes O players from D players. It really does seem like a difference in mindset. I've been a fan of O in all sports since I was a little kid. But by now it's so ingrained in me that I have difficulty seeing a situation from the D angle.
Obviously, for some people like Alex, it's limited by physical attributes. For all the lack of raw physical talent he seems to exude (gee, too bad he's out of the country right now and might not ever read this), he's coordinated and he's good at things like tennis and ping-pong and pool. And there are good D players who just can't throw, who always just have an awkward motion.
I guess I'd say it's more mental, though. Players seem to be more naturally suited to playing either O or D. Some guys just never seem to figure out where to cut, while others just never seem to be able to anticipate a cut and are always reacting on defense, even if they're good cutters.
"Well, it's about time. Jim is finally admitting that DoG's vaunted offensive and defensive schemes were meaningless (or not nearly as meaningful as ultimate lore would have one believe). During their run, DoG won games, in large part, because of their atheletes, not their schemes."
Well, that's not precisely what he was saying. True, DoG was more athletic than essentially all non-nationals teams -- but when we were playing the top other six teams, there was not much of a difference. And some teams, like NY, were likely more athletic (e.g., Dobbins, Cribber, etc.)
The best example of scheme (or philosophy changes) affecting a team was Earth Atomizer (or G.E. Boston corporate-league success.) These teams often bested groups that were significantly and conspicuously more athletic (like Titanic).
Frank,
Nope, this arose out of one of my team's practices and our incessant need to talk. I changed some other phrase to "lefty lifts" to add to the entertainment value.
so, I knew it. YOur comments were actually directed at ME.
Post a Comment