If I am playing my son in one on one basketball and I over play his left hand because I know that's his strength, and continues to fail to score by going to his left, is his failure a lack of execution or something else? This is what drives me insane about Iowa football under Kirk. Please help me understand.
Execution
- Thread starter MNHawk
- Start date
DJI9424
Well-Known Member
I'll bite but I'll tell you right up front, I am answering for myself, I do not pretend to know how KF proceeds through his "logical" thought process.
I would say it's poor decision-making, i.e. game planning because your son is trying to overcome your overplaying his strong side by executing better than he would normally need to do to achieve his expected result. If he continues to go to his strong side, after failing to achieve the normal results, he MUST change his strategy because normal execution is not sufficient for him to be successful.
Realistically, you cannot expect to consistently execute better if your game is not improving overall. So, if you are not improving and the opponent is correctly predicting what you will do based on past tendencies, you should not expect to achieve the normal results.
In KF-speak, poor execution is normally just a dodge, it shifts the blame from the coaching staff to the players. I could accept that argument if the players were calling their own plays and choosing where to position certain players to maximize their effectiveness, but that remains the coaches' domain so any failure there must reside with the staff.
I would say it's poor decision-making, i.e. game planning because your son is trying to overcome your overplaying his strong side by executing better than he would normally need to do to achieve his expected result. If he continues to go to his strong side, after failing to achieve the normal results, he MUST change his strategy because normal execution is not sufficient for him to be successful.
Realistically, you cannot expect to consistently execute better if your game is not improving overall. So, if you are not improving and the opponent is correctly predicting what you will do based on past tendencies, you should not expect to achieve the normal results.
In KF-speak, poor execution is normally just a dodge, it shifts the blame from the coaching staff to the players. I could accept that argument if the players were calling their own plays and choosing where to position certain players to maximize their effectiveness, but that remains the coaches' domain so any failure there must reside with the staff.
So given my scenario, wouldn't saying "We need to execute better" equate to throwing your players under the bus?
After being at last week's game, I was ready for lethal injection.
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
Not in and of itself. That statement could well apply to execution of the coaches as well. If he said the players need to execute better, then yes.
NEIChawk
Well-Known Member
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
Just a thought.
KF always plays those who play with consistency.
This is what coaches look for. No different than you looking for what your son does consistent or being consistent in free throws. It's part of the game.
The problem I think is that coaches get so wrapped up in the process of teaching this and making choices from this, that they loose sight of a few things.
If in practice you know that you can consistently execute a play (say a running play), or two, you put those as your bread and butter plays. We can do it 9 times out of 10 in practice for 5 yards so it's logical.
But through game film study, everyone already knows these are plays you are very confident in. This actually reduces your chance of being consistent.
Yes we put OSU on their heels because we executed, that's a big part of it, but it was also because they never saw it coming. They didn't scare us into reverting back to our bread and butter. While they were focused on that, we feasted on the whole table.
So it's not a this or that, it's a combination of factors.
You beat your son because you took away his bread and butter and he never saw anything else available.
Had he recognized what you were doing and your tells, well he would have seen there was other options on the table.
At the end of the day, something that is consistent can have less chance of success then something that in practice only is consistent 60% of the time. Because they never see it coming. You see it all the time when little schools beat bigger schools. Some call it trickery, but it's really not.
That is what gives me hope that the play book has gotten bigger for many players and that more plays are consistently better than what ever avg is an acceptable bet .
Sometimes people play you in a phone booth because you put yourself there.
One could say the more plays with consistency (whatever avg you wish to apply), the less consistent the game plan or play calls can be. So it takes both.
KF always plays those who play with consistency.
This is what coaches look for. No different than you looking for what your son does consistent or being consistent in free throws. It's part of the game.
The problem I think is that coaches get so wrapped up in the process of teaching this and making choices from this, that they loose sight of a few things.
If in practice you know that you can consistently execute a play (say a running play), or two, you put those as your bread and butter plays. We can do it 9 times out of 10 in practice for 5 yards so it's logical.
But through game film study, everyone already knows these are plays you are very confident in. This actually reduces your chance of being consistent.
Yes we put OSU on their heels because we executed, that's a big part of it, but it was also because they never saw it coming. They didn't scare us into reverting back to our bread and butter. While they were focused on that, we feasted on the whole table.
So it's not a this or that, it's a combination of factors.
You beat your son because you took away his bread and butter and he never saw anything else available.
Had he recognized what you were doing and your tells, well he would have seen there was other options on the table.
At the end of the day, something that is consistent can have less chance of success then something that in practice only is consistent 60% of the time. Because they never see it coming. You see it all the time when little schools beat bigger schools. Some call it trickery, but it's really not.
That is what gives me hope that the play book has gotten bigger for many players and that more plays are consistently better than what ever avg is an acceptable bet .
Sometimes people play you in a phone booth because you put yourself there.
One could say the more plays with consistency (whatever avg you wish to apply), the less consistent the game plan or play calls can be. So it takes both.
Last edited:
