Post by dubber on Apr 29, 2011 12:55:20 GMT -6
I want to parlay an experience I just had as a fan of football into a conversation among coaches, hopefully avoiding the diversion to make it a fan thread.
In 1997 (I was 8), I saw Barry Sanders run away with the whole bird on Turkey Day, and I have been a Lions fan ever since.
I've struggled through some bad days, but I really like Schwartz and the new direction......especially the way he focuses solely on what's important.
Obviously, the selection of Nick Fairley could be viewed in several lights (best player available, Mel Kiper BS)........
To me it is about resource management.
You have X amount of dollars to divide among your players, and good players demand more money.
The question is: Who are you going to pay?
Another way of phrasing the question is: What position is the most important?
Perhaps even better: What position has the rule of scarcity in place?
On offense, this is obviously the quarterback position.....compared to other types of players, especially skill players (TE, RB, and WR), the quarterback is a 4-leaf clover...........New England's pragmatic strategy has been to pay their QB outrageously well, and then surround him with average players who know their role.
On the defensive side of the ball (and again, New England is a great case study here), it appears the rarest players are those true dominate DT's.
You can find dozens of DB's and LB's that get the job done, but there ain't a whole lot of Suh's running around.
To me, it seems like the Lions are taking that "Quarterback and 10 other guys" philosophy and applying it to defense.
It's like they are saying they can find guys to fill out the back 7, but the investment will be in the front 4.
So how does this apply to us?
Most teams have only a handful of war daddy's.......akin to the limited resources (money) of the NFL.
In light of that, we as coaches need to pragmatically sort out WHERE these guys have the biggest impact, and then play them there.
For us, we MUST have a 3 tech that can handle doubles........if we have a kid that is a stud at DE, but we don't have a 3 tech, we will move our DE.
LB need trump safety need, and we will move a Stud $ up to Sam or Mike if need be.
Then, you can get an idea of what the rest of your guys need to look like.........the "system" guys, if you will.
Positions where the physical makeup is less important, but the coachability is vital.
We tilt and crash our DE's to play power. We have had some poor physical specimens become varsity starters simply because they understood collisioning the EMOLOS and squeezing a veer release.
Basically, know WHERE to play your studs inside of your scheme (IE, which position is asked to to do the most), and then develop system guys around that...........
In 1997 (I was 8), I saw Barry Sanders run away with the whole bird on Turkey Day, and I have been a Lions fan ever since.
I've struggled through some bad days, but I really like Schwartz and the new direction......especially the way he focuses solely on what's important.
Obviously, the selection of Nick Fairley could be viewed in several lights (best player available, Mel Kiper BS)........
To me it is about resource management.
You have X amount of dollars to divide among your players, and good players demand more money.
The question is: Who are you going to pay?
Another way of phrasing the question is: What position is the most important?
Perhaps even better: What position has the rule of scarcity in place?
On offense, this is obviously the quarterback position.....compared to other types of players, especially skill players (TE, RB, and WR), the quarterback is a 4-leaf clover...........New England's pragmatic strategy has been to pay their QB outrageously well, and then surround him with average players who know their role.
On the defensive side of the ball (and again, New England is a great case study here), it appears the rarest players are those true dominate DT's.
You can find dozens of DB's and LB's that get the job done, but there ain't a whole lot of Suh's running around.
To me, it seems like the Lions are taking that "Quarterback and 10 other guys" philosophy and applying it to defense.
It's like they are saying they can find guys to fill out the back 7, but the investment will be in the front 4.
So how does this apply to us?
Most teams have only a handful of war daddy's.......akin to the limited resources (money) of the NFL.
In light of that, we as coaches need to pragmatically sort out WHERE these guys have the biggest impact, and then play them there.
For us, we MUST have a 3 tech that can handle doubles........if we have a kid that is a stud at DE, but we don't have a 3 tech, we will move our DE.
LB need trump safety need, and we will move a Stud $ up to Sam or Mike if need be.
Then, you can get an idea of what the rest of your guys need to look like.........the "system" guys, if you will.
Positions where the physical makeup is less important, but the coachability is vital.
We tilt and crash our DE's to play power. We have had some poor physical specimens become varsity starters simply because they understood collisioning the EMOLOS and squeezing a veer release.
Basically, know WHERE to play your studs inside of your scheme (IE, which position is asked to to do the most), and then develop system guys around that...........
