Since I’ve been on Clockwork, we have never divided the team into concrete offensive and defensive lines/teams. At the same time, a number of elite teams in the area (and in the country) readily use this system. The question that remains is: do the advantages of such a division outweigh the disadvantages for OUR team?
As I see it, the advantages to separate O and D lines are:
-develops cohesion/chemistry quicker by focusing on smaller groups
-allows individuals to focus strongly on specific elements of the game
-helps hide individuals who have a specific weakness
-helps divide playing time more efficiently (works to prevent over/under-playing)
The disadvantages are:
-limits the play of “stud” players
-requires a large(r) team of players to draw from
-makes “all-star” lines less effective as they will have less practice together
-limits the effectiveness of players as they will be hurt on opposite side of the disc
Thinking about our team for next year, I think that many of the disadvantages listed can be strongly minimized. Our roster doesn’t utilize (at least not last year) a single “stud” player, but operates as a replaceable system. We are going to have 16+ players to draw from next year, so our roster appears to be large enough to support separate sides. Compared to how we ran lines this year, our “all-star” line saw play about as rarely as it would under O/D lines and assuming it drew fairly evenly between the two groups, chemistry would still exist. The final point is only a disadvantage if practice isn’t tailored to counteract this occurrence. O lines must play defense and D lines must score off turnovers, so neither can neglect the alternate side.
I think that such a division would allow us to train/groom players more quickly as they will be trained for specific roles rather than trying to make everyone a jack-of-all-trades. Furthermore, the problems we’ve had in the past with calling even lines would be somewhat alleviated.
As I see it, we could divide the team as follows:
O: Petums, Taint, Ding-Bang, Jonah, Nasty, Mik, Brain, Sam, Gibbs
D: Mutton, Jabe, Potter, Me, John-O, Kulkarni, Tomi, Hugh
Whether this is an optimal split could be debated, but I think that having set practice teams with set goals would definitely help us develop earlier in the season.
Yesterday’s Workout:
Rest Day
On the iPod:
Punk Goes Acoustic Vol. 2
An Alaskan in the South by way of an ivory tower in New Jersey. Ultimate, law school and an occasional flash of inspiration. Bonus points if you can identify the title quote.
1 comment:
Its a different mentality. If your goal is to upset the top team then O-line, D-line doesn't make sense. If your goal is to go deep into two-day-long tournaments then its imperative to split up the play time a lot more than we done. Personally I like the O-line, D-line setup. You need 8 or 9 on each, with subs coming in as a line is on for multiple points in a row.
In terms of how I was thinking about the split, I see JohnO as an O player, but if you switch him over then the D line is far too short a line. Ideally I think Taint is a good fit as a D-handler because he has a great mark and he is a good arial defender. The issue there becomes how well his back holds up on D. Why isn't Mik on D? He played D all year this year. As far as our rookies go, he understands running through the disc on D the best and came up big on D a bunch of times.
My lines were:
O: Mutton (best handler should be on O ... he can switch to D on crucial points ... this keeps him fresher as well), Petums (or taint depending on back), DB, Jonah, Nasty, Brain, JohnO + Gibbs, Kevin, Mark, yang,
D: Taint (Petums if taint's back is better on O), James, Potter, George, Kulk, Tomi, Mik + Sam, Peter D, Jason, bubba etc.
Of course it all depends on what usable freshmen turnout, and how everybody's throws develope. It'd be nice to see a team of 16+ guys all with reliable 30-35 yard throws to get more cutter-to-cutter chunks of yardage.
Ok ... bed time
Post a Comment