Adjustments

Belichick has made a name for himself not only for his preparation, but for his ability to adjust mid-game. As I have said before, I think we default too often to habitual and, therefore, predictable behavior. I think there are enormous opportunities for a team that has the ability to adjust quickly. There is debate, however, about the necessity of adjustments. I spoke with Gwen over the summer about the need for making adjustments. Gwen said that at Stanford, it is all about them. They do not adjust. They believe in their system. It has been proven and tested over time, and it works. The challenge is to implement it correctly. These were not her words, just my interpretation. Now, even I, with my storied and robust coaching career, had trouble arguing with their track record. I have been thinking a bit more about adjustments, however, as I have trouble letting go of my inane little concerns, and I think our discussion was as product of different interpretations of the word, as well as different views about the scope of adjustments.

It seems to me that adjustments can be broken down into a few categories (this list is not meant to be comprehensive): individual, team, offense, and defense. I would argue that these can be organized (purely subjectively) from simple to complex as follows:

individual offense/defense
team defense
team offense

Any good cutter, it seems to me, with even the most basic knowledge of "take what they give you" is essentially reacting and adjusting to the defense as they make their cut. A good defender learns the tendencies of her charge and adjusts to make life more difficult for them. It seems to me that almost all teams either have the ability to do this, or, more likely, do this already. So, while Stanford might not make major system-wide adjustments mid-stream, I bet that on an individual level, they are tweaking their schemes as the game progresses.

Most teams I have been a part of engage in some form of team defense adjustments. Sure, I have, on occasion, played on teams that do not acknowledge anything but force-flick, but this, thankfully, is not frequent. Not only do teams throw out a variety of defensive looks during a game, but subtle tweaks occur in between points or during halftime. Frequently, these adjustments have to do with the mark as well as positioning downfield. I can recall numerous times in which both the large scale as well as subtle team defense adjustments have contributed to wins.

Adjustments to team offense are another story altogether. I have feeling that this is what Gwen was referring to in our conversation. I can say with certainty that I have experienced a system-wide adjustment in a team's offense only once. It occurred, in the most unexpected place, at Fools in 02. I was playing with Short Fat Guys in the semi's against WeSwill. WeSwill had tremendous success against Bomb in qtrs with big lefty throws from Jason Haas and Mooney. They ripped Bomb apart. We went in and played force backhand, our D was able to convert the breaks, and we went up 6-2. They began the game as they had finished against Bomb, but the big throws were not working. Around this 6-2 point in the game, Mooney and Haas started to sit a bit more on O (Mooney still played great on D and did make some big plays), and we started to see a lot of Stu (little Stu from E-pig) and Regetz. Not only did they show us the shorter guys, but it was all about the short game. Dump and Swing, give and go's, etc. This started a run for them and we ended up losing the game. I spoke with someone, maybe Lyn, a few months later, and I asked about whether putting Stu and Regetz out there was a conscious, planned decision. He said, "Yep, that was all Mooney". Am I mistaken that this is a rare occurence? What do teams do when the O goes wrong? I think it is a difficult proposition for teams to alter their offensive philosophy mid-stream.