Do you work on plays or players???

[MplsTom]

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".

[Electric Coach]

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

[5-13 Studios]

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

[jeff]

Originally Posted by 5-13 Studios

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

Keep spilling the beans !

[Coach K-LO]

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

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

[MplsTom]

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.

[detroitchild]

Originally Posted by TheTweakFreak

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

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!