|
Post by stouty55 on Apr 16, 2008 20:25:52 GMT -6
coach4life -
When I started the post this is exactly what I was looking for. I had already started to re-write our playbook using the implicit method. It takes so much verbage out it's amazing. Thanks for reassuring me that I'm headed down the right path.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Apr 17, 2008 7:12:28 GMT -6
1- (800) DYL-APlay
|
|
|
Post by coach4life on Apr 18, 2008 11:28:26 GMT -6
stouty55,
Glad it was helpful. I struggle with the pros and cons between the two - while the explicit method let's you really play chess with formations and personnel it's easy to get carried away and forget it doesn't matter what you know and understand, it's what the kids know and understand that matters. I do it because I work in a youth league (12-14) where you never know what kind of defense you will see and scouting is severely limited so you have to be able to adjust very quickly. If I could scout ahead as in HS or NCAA I would run tape on everyone on my schedule, set my scheme based on what I saw from that and the athletes I have, and then probably cut down the verbage and name the formations I think we would need.
I've probably heard more arguments for minimal verbage to avoid the "deer in the headlights" look in a kids eyes. I didn't see all of Kansas' games last year, but I never saw them in anything other than Trips. Probably the strongest argument I've ever seen for the implicit method was the Colorado state championship 2 years ago, Columbine vs. Mullen. Mullen was a spread team, Columbine ran the straight T - 2 tight, 3 RBs aligned 4 yards deep in a row for a LH, FB, RH. Good game, but Columbine wore them down with dives, sweeps, traps, and cross-bucks. I don't even remember them throwing a pass. Strongest case I've ever seen for the argument that it's all about blocking, tackling, and execution; the rest is secondary.
|
|