Mothman wrote:I guess it's my week to be a contrarian. IF the reason we're seeing so many serious breakdowns is actually due to confusion and players are "lost' in trying to absorb the system, I see merit in Powers' suggestion. Maybe simplifying things a little, giving the players a less to absorb and having them master the defense incrementally, makes some sense. I don't think Zimmer should just permanently compromise his system approach but sometimes, if people are overwhelmed, it's helpful to give them information in smaller doses.
I'm honestly not familiar enough with what the Vikes are doing to know whether that approach is possible but logically, it sounds possible. It's just another way to achieve the desired end result.
Shoot, none of
know, which is why speculation is so much fun!
But, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it is possible to 'water the system down' and stipulate by doing so, you'll be less effective in defense but you might compensate for that 'lesser defense' due to the fact there will be lesser 'blown' plays where the opposing offense just walks in and scores. As a purely "made-up" factor, lets say we can do that this year and the defense is more effective in the short term.
What the real question is: Can the defense reach (in year 3 or 4) a level of competency that Zimmer envisioned earlier (say year 2 or 3) if we 'dumb it down'? We, in essence, sacrifice some developmental time for increased efficiency in the short term. I'm still not sure I support that particular approach because I draw a parallel in martial arts. When one first learns a particular martial art, he/she must learn body movements that are totally foreign to him/her, and frankly make him/her a
worse fighter for a period of time. The payoff (allegedly) is at the end of the 'transition' where the person's "new method" of fighting has become more instinctive but contains (at least in theory) a better response to physical threat(s). Bruce Lee recognized this situation and his rank structure in Jeet Kune Do was reflective of it. A Beginner and an Instructor wore identical patches to reflect their rank. The theory was both were 'instinctive fighters,' just one (hopefully the instructor
) had been practicing enough that the 'new' moves were instinctive for him/her again.
The problem is: If you just don't 'bite the bullet' and accept the fact that (in the short term) you are going to be less effective, I'm not sure you'll ever really embrace the 'new way' of doing things.
IF the new way is better, you'll always be a little less effective than you otherwise would be since in year 3, you would only be as effective as what originally was envisioned in year 2. You'll maintain that 'behind the curve' development throughout your career as a defensive player.
The position you're taking isn't necessarily 'incorrect' as I could make the counter-argument that even in martial arts, one doesn't teach advanced techniques to neophytes until they've had a chance to incrementally learn how to 'build up' to these unfamiliar techniques. The distinction I'm drawing is that these are already
professional football players and therefore are akin to black belts. You might have a black belt in one martial art cross-train in another martial art, and that person wouldn't be expected to need to learn at the same, slow incremental pace that a "true beginner" would need to do. In fact, that person (at least within the style of the new discipline) would be expected to abandon his previous knowledge (that conflicts with the new style) during class, even though he might be more effective incorporating what he is 'comfortable with' in the 'new defense.' That stunts his growth in the new style as he never really embraces the underlying principles that make the style effective.
While this (changing) is very hard to do initially, as you've trained to make that previous response somewhat instinctive, one ultimately becomes effective in the 'new style,' and
both responses seem 'natural,' it just becomes a matter of 'choice.' If you never 'fully embrace' the new, there is a tendency to 'fall back' on what is familiar and comfortable. Also, I think the message it might send is that the players aren't 'smart enough' if you had to go with smaller doses.
Since it's all speculation anyway, I couldn't say my take has any more validity that yours, but I just think we'd be better off in the 'long run' to live with the up-and-down defense in the short term for the greater (hopefully) benefits in the long term.
