Do you work on plays or players???

[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.

Originally Posted by MplsTom

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

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.

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

[WEIRDWOLF]

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.

[andre kc]

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

[Kansas Bill]

Originally Posted by MplsTom

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

Amen to that..

[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!