Do you work on plays or players???
 

This is a cousin to the tweaking thread. I agree with Jimbo on this one and a case in point was Adrian Baxter's win in the Beltsville Bash last weekend with a relatively "new" team.

One area I see that people could really improve is if they spent 1/10th of the time working on plays and formations as opposed to players.

So you have the fastest base...so what. A bigger question is "how are you going to get him open". What ways are you going to angle receivers so they help each other? Not every play has to go to the house. Really good coaches in this hobby are often content to "move the chains." What options do you have if your opponent does defense a, defense b, etc...

As for strength, as long as you have "competitive" strength, how does your defensive formation stack up? What are ways that you can your opponent's strengths or tenancies? Bully ball is boring...I love to play coaches that employ that style as they are one-dimensional.

Also, are you as a coach looking at what figures work best against what figures? Often the base doesn't matter if the other guy is forklifting him onto his 2 back prongs.

Tweaking can be fun and I'm not ripping on tweaking or tweakers. I just think the competition level in this hobby can improve more by guys working on "plays" than "players".

The Players
 

From my perspective, there is no play without base performance. If I want a particular player to go to a place on the board a certain way at a certain speed, I will need a specific base that does that.

For an example, I require that each of my lineman moves left, right, and straight when I designate. If one of my linemen fails to move the way that I designate that means that he won’t execute properly. Execution comes from the optimum performance of each base on the table.

Maurice

The Electric Coach

players first, then plays based around what i was able to come up with.

Keep spilling the beans !

work on both the player and whether he can play within my schemes and system......thmbsp$ thmbsp$

Tom - From personal and up-close board time that we spent together one particular day, you know where I firmly stand on this. Plays before players.

For those who might want to hear why I approach it this way I will try to explain. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just explaining how I approach it and why.

In the big leagues and in many successful endeavors, the plan is made first. 1) Owner has an overall vision. 2) GM is hired to oversee the vision. 3) coaches are hired to carry out the vision via play calling. 4) Trainers are hired to filter the talent that can make all of the above happen. So, after it has been tested and refined, THEN you look for SPECIFIC talent to fill the positions. Otherwise you end up with a lot of potential super stars but no team. They may not play well together. So you're back to developing or recruiting more "talent" trying to fill the void. This, to me, is working backwards. I prefer having the plans, then hiring, developing, recruiting the talent to implement the plan. However, YMMV (your mileage may vary).

Before I ever had a real team I had an extensive play book. My play book never gets any thinner (i never remove a play from it). But I sometimes (seldom) may add a play to it. So basically, the play book doesn't change. But the lot of players do. Once a team is fielded, the play book can be rearranged to suit that particular team's strengths and weaknesses. I.E., the plays that work best for that team simply move towards the front of the play book. Plays that do not get moved towards the rear.

I'm not saying my way is a bit better than another. It is better for me and I firmly believe in it. It also allows me to take almost any team with some sort of continuity and use it competitively.

All said, this is not the end step of winning. You also have to look at what particular venue you will compete at. Rules and equipment vary from one to another. So that plan (before players) has already been set out for you. Coaches like Adrian are successful because they prepare the game plan for the venue as well as their team. He has a higher probability of being successful with less superior player talent because he is prepared for the bigger picture. He is a very good coach. He is Cerebral, skillful and very deliberate in his approach. All he, and other coaches like him, needs is just enough team chemistry to be successful. Having more than that just makes it easier to execute.

There are quick and easy ways to discover who is crutching on what -Who is crutching on their dedication to preparation versus those crutching on Boom and Zoom players. We all crutch on something. That is a given. But the bigger questions we might ask ourselves is What do I crutch on and why? Answering those questions honestly tends to make us into better coaches in the long run.

-Mike Pratt

Players or plays
 

Well spoken Shaggy...I learned a lot from you in that weekend we spent at your EF Crib.

My observation is a general one...as long as I have strong "enough" bases and fast "enough" bases, I'll take consistency any day.

I love seeing new and innovative plays/formations/defenses, etc. I love seeing basic formations and plays executed to perfection.

My point here is just to challenge yourself...when you're about to spend time tweaking for that perfect base...take a step back and look at the bases you have. Can you come up with plays that will work 8 out of 10 times for 5+ yards against the formation your opponent usually uses? Can you set up your defense and then look at all the ways to attack it?

I just am saying that I see a trend toward "boom and zoom" and the past weekend in DC just helped to reaffirm my thoughts that it isn't usually the strongest or fastest that brings home the hardware.

I for one thought that "it's the shoes" (bases) but after reading this post I may have to re-think how I've been approaching this hobby. I'm beginning to understand that tweaking is just one aspect of getting a team ready to play (as in real football). I have to determine my team's personality and coach/prepare accordingly.

Well said Mr. Pratt!

Thanks, Prattmeister!!!
 

I like how you took all of my rhetoric on the "Tweaking" post and funnelled it into something EVERYONE can understand!!! :eek: Heck, even I understood your explanation better than my own!!! :confused:

I've been saying it for years, bases are like shoes to me. I create my mini-teams in the likeness of their REAL teams.

• My BUCS run the Tampa 2, so they have to have ALL of the tools to handle the run and pass, deep and short. On Offense, forget about it! Alstott will eat you up. Shut him down and Galloway is GHOST!!!
• My NU 'CATS run the Spread Option. Basanez will kill ya running or gunning. Their 4-3 Defense will usually give up 1 less point than my Offense scores, which averages about 50. Just like REAL life!!! :rtfl: :rtfl: :rtfl:
• ILLINOIS runs a Pro Set Offense and a 4-3 Base. As basic as you can get, but each guy is finely tuned like a Ferrari and plays his part.
• My latest endeavor is building my 1996 Independence Bowl Army BLACK KNIGHTS. They will run the Cadet Wishbone aka Flexbone, and a 5-3 Monster on Defense. As you've seen in my vids, they're almost there. They need a lil more work, but the skeleton (framework) is in place. Now that I know which figures will work best at what positions, I can now finish pimpin' them out.

No wrong answers, just different ways of building a team. Bases can't do crap by themselves and vice versa. But neither can do a thing without a plan!!! Different strokes for different folks, as long as it all comes together at the coin toss. thmbsp$ $br# flg$

Well why didn't ya say so in the first place!!!:D

:rtfl: :rtfl: :rtfl:

I'm kidding big fella. The more I read these post from guys like Pratt, yourself, Michigan Joe, and others the more the light turns on for me. Still got a ways to go but it's getting clearer.thmbsp$

So, what you guys are saying is that not only do I need to tweak my bases, but I actualy have to have formations and plays worked out as well. And not only that, with all that hard work done, I might actually win a game for a change, but there still is no guarantee that I'll win. I don't know, I think I'll stay with my game plan of looking at my teams from time to time and getting bounced out in the first round. It's a lot less hassle and the results would probably be the same... :rolleyes: :p ;)

Ravenna Al
 

Well Al...the rule doesn't apply to guys in clown suits or furry fuzzy football fanatics. Those guys are just there for the ambience!

Again, here is my take for what it's worth. The athlete must perform and he must be consistent, period. You have to spend time tweaking so you know who does what and who goes where.

I am shocked that so many people put little emphasis on tweaking. I am not talking about tweaking to be the strongest, fastest, etc.. but you have to have some strength, speed and consistency before you can start executing plays with any effectiveness.

The tweak comes before the play, that's how I see it. There can be no other way.

Again, just my point of view.

Don't let them fool you Shabby. They say it's ALL about coaching, but you can bet your butt that their players are tweaked for strength and speed too! Have them match up their strongest man on man versus some of yours....and run some speed contests as well. You will quickly find that the winners also have some of the best athletes. Not to denigrate their coaching skills at all, but don't let them think that their athletes aren't special too. If some folks can do it with untweaked bases and players, maybe they should show up to the tournaments with nothing more than an unopened pack of Miggle players and bases? They do that at the Miggle tourney, but not at any of the other tournaments. Wonder why? Yep....some folks can tweak quickly and easily....that's swell. It doesn't mean they aren't spending time tweaking...they are just spending less time than othersppls$ . You can be the best coach in the world, but if your players suck....you ain't winning too many games. I think that applies in EF as well.

I build my team first. I select players and tweak bases to match the player's duties. I then design some plays utilizing what I perceive to be my strengths. However, it doesn't take long in a game to realize you have to make adjustments. I do the best I can to adjust to my opponent. After the game, I keep in mind what my weaknesses were and I try to address those...both through tweaking....and through some thought to plays that will eliminate or minimize my weaknesses, as well as take advantage of my strengths. Sometimes I realize I need some new recruits....both bases and players.....and then it is time to play mad scientist again and create a monster!

PLASTIC vs. FLESH AND BLOOD
 

I guess the best way to explain MY reasoning is to use an example of Pee Wee Basketball. I coached at my Community Center in Germany. My favorite group were my 6yr olds. I remember showing up at our first game, and just like we were in a Disney movie of the lil kids vs. the GIANTS (Little Giants comes to mind) my kids were like Tatoo (Fantasy Island) vs. Kareem Abdul-Jabaar!!! I had to trust my "planning" and "execution."

Suffice it to say, while EVERY SINGLE TEAM WE PLAYED played "kill the carrier", my kids kept their spacing, passed to each other and shot better than everyone else. After EVERY SINGLE GAME, the Coach AND PARENTS would ask what I did.

#1: I literally cut up EVERY #23 jersey, at every age group!!! I told everyone they can "be like Mike" all they wanted when they played their dads, but they couldn't "be like Mike" on my teams. I didn't want Superstars, I wanted TEAM players.

#2: I told them to give me 30 minutes of hard work doing drills only, then I'd give them 10 minutes of free time and the last 5 minutes "everybody against the Coach!" :eek: :D rfr$

My point is, NOT ONE TEAM executed plays that whole season. I had 5!!! They had teams full of 6yr old supersnots, faster and taller than my kids, but they didn't know the first thing about basketball other than dribble-dribble-dribble and shoot; and SWARM my ball handlers. Pathetic, even for kids!

My kids ran circles around everyone, even when some Coach decided to raise the goal from 8ft to 10ft because my kids were too good!?! Same crap we do in MF!?! :eek: Can't beat it, ban it!!! <<<---Loose cannon comments. ;)

Short answer is, I'll take a well, executed plan with the Budweiser horses than no plan with Arabians!!! thmbsp$

I Agree 1000%, especially...
 

My apologies for editing your response in quote. I did it to emphasize the huge points that you made..... Mainly, the first line of your quote above. If I am watching a top notch coach develop a team and he says "that's good enough" I know to pack a lunch if I have to face him/her. For what it's worth, that's over 10 years of tourney trail experience, just in recent history alone, that I'm speaking from. That coach will not have the strongest or the fastest team in the mix. But I assure you they will often beat many teams who are obviously stronger and/or faster. Why? Because they have learned to make the most out of what some perceive as less. Learning to coach a team of consistent players who work well together is usually more rewarding (pays bigger dividends) than coaching a lot of very strong, fast players who do not work as well together. Learning how to overcome getting pushed around while still moving the chains on the ground will make you a better coach down the road. If you can learn to be successful with "less than" then being successful with personnel upgrades is going to be easy.... Almost like stealing.

Shabby J - I don't think anyone is or ever will belittle how important tweaking is. As The Tweak Freak I will defend you and it to the bitter end. But it is what it is. That being it is a very important PART of the puzzle to solve. Not the ONLY or most important part on its own. It's obvious that even the best coaches among us will have severe problems coaching a lot of crap players. What I am saying is, using that same crap team, those same coaches will be more successful than those who do not coach as well.

In short, two things.... You can't coach no talent very well. And tweaking is one of the legs that holds up the table. If it were the be all, end all for success... (1) The best tweakers among us would rarely ever lose when their fine china hit the field. (2) I've rarely witnessed the strongest or the fastest team win a championship in the bigger venues. And when they do it is almost always by a coach who coulda woulda done it with or without... they've won in the past when they were not the fastest, strongest team amongst the field.

Things to consider are, most of us already had a play book in mind somewhere along the line before we started utilizing the pliers. Most of us are already doing, to some degree or another, what I described.... Even if we don't realize it or perceive it that way. Lastly, and probably most important, learning to use "lesser talent" (not no talent) forces you to do things you would overlook if you just bullied or swept your way down the field. You are forced to be creative to overcome your team's "deficits." Short term, you WILL take some lumps. Long term, you WILL become a more well-rounded and knowledgeable coach. Later, when you add a few or more well fit superstars to that team, you will find it easier to execute what you have learned.

I have a million and one analogies that support and help explain this. But this post is beyond long enough already. So I'll spare y'all the additional eye strain for now.

-Mike Pratt

Amen to that..

I don't have too much to add because I suck at coaching and tweaking but this is a GREAT thread! Very educational and one of the best ones to date! Keep the discussions going. ppls$

I to do the play book
 

I to do the play book first, that way I know what to look for or what to tweak for, for me the play book is like a goal to how I'm going to fill the positions on my team, but there are times I do add new plays when I find new talent :)

Plays or Players
 

Anything taken to the extreme becomes a charicature (insert name of favorite political party here).

No one said that "no" tweaking had to be done or that guys will show up with unopened bases and can whip everyone.

My point here is just to challenge the mindset of how you spend your time preparing. Are you spending time on the thing that will get you the W?

In my experience, an observation I've made over the years is that a lot of guys in this hobby spend a lot of time and money looking for that base that will make it "easy" on them by being the strongest or fastest. I've certainly paid $ for bases over the years and some would say "too much". I've also been tweaking a great deal in the past 6 months as it is an area I'm working to improve.

When I get on the board, though, I seldom see coaches looking at "what is the defense giving them?" I seldom see coaches have play #3 or play #4 in their repitoire after you've shut down 1&2 (their bread and butter).

At the Beltsville Bash, I strongly doubt Adrian had the fastest team or strongest team. It was a new team to him and they didn't look to overpower anyone.

Having spend 1.5 hours on the board with him scrimmaging Friday night, though, it was fun because he was trying different plays and formations as was I. Adrian is one of the best passers in the game today and you sure don't need the strongest or fastest when you can get open like him.

This past year, I took inventory of my weaknesses in EF and worked like crazy on my passing. It paid off as the perfect score in the skills challenge showed and also helped bring me the Columbus Day title.

I'm not knocking tweaking or tweakers...just challenging guys to think of the proportion of time spent and will ask you if it is, "diminshing returns" when you have guys that are good enough. Should you be spending the time working on your passing, working on having a kicker that doesn't miss...working on having 10 plays in your playbook.

I think that moving some of the time toward those activities will make a huge difference to a lot of guys in this hobby.

you make some good points Tom, but if your WR could not get open or off the line....then you have to scramble for other plays (or play selection) to go to.

One other note - if you HAD to use a moblie QB that could not lead block - how do you 'buy time'??

The overall point you were making, to begin with, is THE point of consideration. Yes, we can tweak 'til our fingers bleed and the pliers break. But that alone doesn't guarantee you have worked enough to get a string of W's. We can contract and buy all the fast, and/or strong bases we can (or can not) afford but that still doesn't mean we have purchased a guaranteed string of W's. It may overwhelm your local league mates, or not. But when you enter someone else's Big House you NEED more than that.

One can buy the fastest racing car ever made. Surely that doesn't make one a race car driver. One can buy a bulldozer. But that doesn't qualify one as a heavy equipment operator. One needs to be able to coach. And that means being able to organize a game winning plan, with moderate but consistent talent, while having success. The best I have ever witnessed or know about can/could do it on the fly.

There is nothing wrong or foul about having a team of upper tier players. I have nothing against that at all. But I will say, from my own personal experiences, using them too often can contribute to "killing the skills." I have learned and relearned so much more by consistently using a team that is sub par or "good enough." Plus, as you mentioned, it gets obnoxiously boring to out push and out run your opponents play after play, day after day. Even worse when you know what is going to happen before you hit the switch. Worse still when you get so bored that you let it slip out to an opponent during a match. :::Yawn! Picks up down marker and moves it +15 yds before hitting the switch:::: mtmstnks

-Mike Pratt

Tell ya what Mike, just uuuhhhhh....send me your play book and I will decide what most important, tweaking or coaching.:D

Amen brother, amen!

I guess it the level of tweaking vs the level of strategy, sort of a ratio of tweaking to strategy. I agree to tweaking for consistency, of course ytou need to know what to expect from every player, you have to have some strength and speed though, have to.

It goes to show the different approaches we use to play MF. Now I have to figure out if this is an individual choice or more of a regional,"this is how we do it out here kind of thing".

Good stuff, let's keep it going.

DC - Will do. I will have to cut my head off and mail it to you though. Play book is in there..... somewhere... It's the only copy and it is fairly extensive. Once you extract the play book, feel free to toss the rest of that useless stuff in the waste basket. :p On a more serious note, I would be happy to sit down w/you and show you every thing I know whenever we have the opportunity. I'm sure you could teach me as well. Not a single one of us knows everything and we can always learn from one another.

Shabby J - If whatever you're doing is working for your regional venue then you're already coaching brother! It's pretty simple. Different venues require different tools and techniques. Adjusting/Adapting and being successful while doing so is not generally an easy task. I look at it a lot like this.... Same basic structure (a game restricted to electro magnetic dynamics) - A house for instance, but a different floor plan. So even though it will be constructed of a lot of the same basic materials and w/a lot of the same tools (though some will vary), it will require assembly in a different manner. Constructed in a manner so it passes the local codes (meets that venues requirements) and functions properly as a completed unit (players are consistent and work together as a team). The rest is all about how one chooses to use it. Not everybody wants or needs the thermostat set to 90 degrees 24/7. Nor do most prefer it set to 50 degrees. Somewhere in the middle seems to be "just right?" that is another aspect we can all learn from each other. We all do or see at least some things slightly different.

Another thing I like to bring up when strength and speed topics are on the table is.... both are strictly subjective. That meaning "strong" is only strong w/regards to what you're comparing it to. Same w/speed. One person's strongest base can and has proven to be another person's cannon fodder. Again, same w/speed. One thing seems to continue to rewind though. If I put a "very strong/fast" team on the field at a major venue tomorrow, next time I see some cats who were there, my strong/fast stuff isn't going to be as strong or as fast as it was before. It's not that my bases have lost their stuff. It's because some cats are going to go home and make sure they catch up or surpass. Admittedly, I have and will do the same if I feel competitive enough to worry over it.

Though these days I'm much more into helping others and teaching than I am worrying over trying to grab another piece of hardware. For me, the quality time spent w/quality people is far more rewarding than anything else I have to gain or lose. My motto to live by in this hobby for the past several years is and has been "Don't put plastic over people." Or short version "People, not plastic." At the end of the day, the rest is so very unimportant. At least to me. It's the lil demon I fight that is obviously inside most of us in this hobby. We are VERY competitive by nature. I assure you, I am one of the most fiercely competitive people you will run across on the entire planet. And under certain circumstances (usually for the wrong reasons) I am not above stomping a mud hole in someone's keister (if i'm pushed to the brink). Even then, I get no real satisfaction from it. It's meaningless. The time it took to do it coulda been spent hanging w/peeps I actually give a rats rump about. I'm much more mellowed overall. I'd rather hand the dog the bone and go eat the meat w/their owners, metaphorically speaking.

Yet, I digress... off topic. Bad netiquette. Sorry. My Bad!

-Mike Pratt

and with that....
 

welcome back Prattski!

K-LOthmbsp$ thmbsp$