In today's game, former players complain about bad positioning and tackling on defense in football. My inclination is always to defend the "today's player" and see the view of the past player. In researching some of the former players, I noticed they played both offense and defense from little league to high school. They were starters and stars in college on both sides of the ball. My question is: did playing offense in college helped them become better defensive players in the pros? Today's players learn either offense or defense but never both with some exceptions.
NFL legends like Dick Butkus, Jack Pardee, Ray Nitschke, Chuck Bednarik, and Lee Roy Jordan were linebackers who played offense as well from elementary school till college. Pardee and Nitschke played fullback in college while Bednarik, Butkus, and Jordan played center. With the exception of Bednarik, these players became defensive specialists in the pros which gave them advantages concerning positioning, tendency situations, and movement. For instance, is the receiver, running back, or quarterback timid, injured, or could not move to a certain area? Likewise, each player broke down the offense and reacted to the situation, accordingly. In essence, they knew when and how to make the tackle before the snap of the ball.
Due to this knowledge and ability, most linebackers in that period called their own plays with the exception of Lee Roy Jordan. When he played for the Dallas Cowboys, his defensive coach, Ernie Stautner called the plays. Stautner studied opponents offenses and tendencies from the week leading up to the game by film. Likewise, he set up a computer program on what teams did in situations on certain downs whether they ran or passed the football. But in a playoff game against the 49ers, Lee Roy saw something in the backfield in what appeared to be a running play but decided it was a pass play and set up the defense over Stautner's objections. The result was an interception to win the game.
The media of the time said, it was natural instincts and Lee Roy himself didn't know why he made that assumption. A close examination reveals that Lee Roy studied film like his coach. Yet, it was his experience as a center in college that helped him looked for tendencies and the confidence to make decisions. Considering that eleven other guys are at the line of scrimmage, Lee Roy noticed how a 49er running back kept his hand down during runs and on pass plays, lifted his fingers slightly before the snap of the ball. Hence, the decision to call pass and the ensuing interception.
The question becomes whether today's specialists would make that play or be in position to make that play? Should we expect them to do so when they are specialized to play one part of the line? I defend today's players but understand the frustration of past players. The blame should go to those who put emphasis on player specialization instead of player development which starts in elementary school through college. If it wasn't for development, yesterday's players might as well be today's players.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Observations in Coaching Interactions
My favorite part in watching a basketball game is to see how coaches communicate during timeouts. The brains of these coaches work quickly to come up with a play or an idea without them moving a single step. You see them rubbing their chin, writing on the clipboard, and hovering each other without muttering a syllable. Four types of coaching personalities that I notice: a dictator with a a messenger staff that answer to him; a star coach with a subordinates staff who know their roles; a leader who lets others shine in crucial moments; or an intense buddy system where one is looking out for the other.
Media likes to get on or talk about players who are selfish and self-centered in all sports. But I remember a quote from former coach, Al McGuire: "A team should be an extension of a coach's personality." For instance, Orlando's, Stan Van Gundy does not communicate with his assistants. He says, they follow. He does all the coaching and his staff just sit there and listen during timeouts. Yet, his team got to the finals because of his attitude in believing that he can win. However in the NBA finals, his players in close games took bad shots at crucial moments. Stan lashed out on his staff and the players but he didn't lash out on himself. To me, Van Gundy lost faith in himself. I mean, how did the players become so selfish so quickly?
On the other hand, coach Doc Rivers communicated with his assistants from the beginning of the season with the 2008 Celtics. Doc got his assistants to share the pressure of coaching throughout the season. Sometimes, they made good decisions and bad decisions. At playoff time, they reacted better and made clutch decisions at crucial times. Despite a close call in the first round against the Atlanta Hawks, the Celtics responded to playoff pressure because they trusted the head coach and his assistants to come up ready in all situations instead of expecting one lead coach to deal with all situations.
Phil Jackson's team's always seem to win on the teamwork concept of coaches but Phil seems to be more of a star than a leader. It reflects on the court. Michael and the Bulls. Kobe/Shaq and the Lakers. Now just Kobe. He gets the right coaches and let them do their jobs in a subordinate manner. He always seems to be wanting to make all the decisions so he can get the credit and glory. I'm bothered by Jackson's stubbornness in his losses in 2004 and in 2008 NBA finals of not trying to defend the pick n roll by going zone. I couldn't understand why his assistants didn't get him to adjust his defensive philosophy but then I realized that it was "his way or the highway" persona when it came to making adjustments. Can't argue with 10 championships under his reign.
On the other hand, winning and wins-losses are reflected on the head coach not on the assistants. Likewise if a great player is injured, it really doesn't matter. But if you don't have many star players but players who just work hard together like buddies. Jerry Sloan does a great job with his buddy system of assistant Phil Johnson in Utah. They each know what the other is thinking and react the same way. Both are very tense in every game but can keep each other in check without burning each other out. Another example is Larry Brown and his assistant coach brother, Herb of the Charlotte Bobcats. When Larry has Herb as his assistant, they have been to the NBA finals and won a championship in 2004 with Detroit. The result is players who play hard for each other with intensity.
During timeouts, I look to see how the players respond to their coach. For instance, do I see a coach exude the "I'm holier than you" or "I'm the messiah and I'll die for you" attitude when talking to players? Likewise, do players turn their heads away or feeling confused about what the coach has to say? In the next instance, do assistant coaches either step in or stay in their seats, looking at the court? Finally, do coaches communicate to each other when team is going well or when they go bad. Maybe, a little bit of both? There is no wrong way to coach but as Al McGuire said, "A team should be an extension of a coach's personality."
Media likes to get on or talk about players who are selfish and self-centered in all sports. But I remember a quote from former coach, Al McGuire: "A team should be an extension of a coach's personality." For instance, Orlando's, Stan Van Gundy does not communicate with his assistants. He says, they follow. He does all the coaching and his staff just sit there and listen during timeouts. Yet, his team got to the finals because of his attitude in believing that he can win. However in the NBA finals, his players in close games took bad shots at crucial moments. Stan lashed out on his staff and the players but he didn't lash out on himself. To me, Van Gundy lost faith in himself. I mean, how did the players become so selfish so quickly?
On the other hand, coach Doc Rivers communicated with his assistants from the beginning of the season with the 2008 Celtics. Doc got his assistants to share the pressure of coaching throughout the season. Sometimes, they made good decisions and bad decisions. At playoff time, they reacted better and made clutch decisions at crucial times. Despite a close call in the first round against the Atlanta Hawks, the Celtics responded to playoff pressure because they trusted the head coach and his assistants to come up ready in all situations instead of expecting one lead coach to deal with all situations.
Phil Jackson's team's always seem to win on the teamwork concept of coaches but Phil seems to be more of a star than a leader. It reflects on the court. Michael and the Bulls. Kobe/Shaq and the Lakers. Now just Kobe. He gets the right coaches and let them do their jobs in a subordinate manner. He always seems to be wanting to make all the decisions so he can get the credit and glory. I'm bothered by Jackson's stubbornness in his losses in 2004 and in 2008 NBA finals of not trying to defend the pick n roll by going zone. I couldn't understand why his assistants didn't get him to adjust his defensive philosophy but then I realized that it was "his way or the highway" persona when it came to making adjustments. Can't argue with 10 championships under his reign.
On the other hand, winning and wins-losses are reflected on the head coach not on the assistants. Likewise if a great player is injured, it really doesn't matter. But if you don't have many star players but players who just work hard together like buddies. Jerry Sloan does a great job with his buddy system of assistant Phil Johnson in Utah. They each know what the other is thinking and react the same way. Both are very tense in every game but can keep each other in check without burning each other out. Another example is Larry Brown and his assistant coach brother, Herb of the Charlotte Bobcats. When Larry has Herb as his assistant, they have been to the NBA finals and won a championship in 2004 with Detroit. The result is players who play hard for each other with intensity.
During timeouts, I look to see how the players respond to their coach. For instance, do I see a coach exude the "I'm holier than you" or "I'm the messiah and I'll die for you" attitude when talking to players? Likewise, do players turn their heads away or feeling confused about what the coach has to say? In the next instance, do assistant coaches either step in or stay in their seats, looking at the court? Finally, do coaches communicate to each other when team is going well or when they go bad. Maybe, a little bit of both? There is no wrong way to coach but as Al McGuire said, "A team should be an extension of a coach's personality."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)