Maybe I've stumbled upon a new community feature where RSSers can pose their "stupid questions" for other, more knowledgeable folks to parse through and imbue their wisdom.
So here's mine...
Something that Coach Stewart said which I saw on Twitter got me thinking about coaching transitions and the inevitable scheme changes that lead to complete revamps in verbiage and the way players and coaches communicate. He basically said the difference between year 1 and year 2 in the defense is the difference between Spanish 1 and Spanish 2. Sure, it's a simplified analogy but does it speak to the same underlying learning barrier during a scheme overhaul?
Every time this comes up it's always about the players needing to learn the scheme and playbook through the coaching staff's language.
Now, I'm no coach but it would seem to me that teaching 120 guys who speak English how to speak Spanish in the course of an offseason is much more difficult than having 10-20 bilingual coaches and staff members teach in their second language. Or, if the analogy is falling apart, why don't coaches evolve their verbiage to fit the players?
Maybe they do do this. Maybe players are more confused by scheme and the "system language" isn't the barrier. It just seems to me that a lot of players last year talked about the things that were "lost in translation". Maybe I'm being too literal.
I'm sure a coaching staff has no interest in learning the language of their predecessors and could see how this could maybe undermine the culture build. Just posing my "stupid question of the day".
So here's mine...
Something that Coach Stewart said which I saw on Twitter got me thinking about coaching transitions and the inevitable scheme changes that lead to complete revamps in verbiage and the way players and coaches communicate. He basically said the difference between year 1 and year 2 in the defense is the difference between Spanish 1 and Spanish 2. Sure, it's a simplified analogy but does it speak to the same underlying learning barrier during a scheme overhaul?
Every time this comes up it's always about the players needing to learn the scheme and playbook through the coaching staff's language.
Now, I'm no coach but it would seem to me that teaching 120 guys who speak English how to speak Spanish in the course of an offseason is much more difficult than having 10-20 bilingual coaches and staff members teach in their second language. Or, if the analogy is falling apart, why don't coaches evolve their verbiage to fit the players?
Maybe they do do this. Maybe players are more confused by scheme and the "system language" isn't the barrier. It just seems to me that a lot of players last year talked about the things that were "lost in translation". Maybe I'm being too literal.
I'm sure a coaching staff has no interest in learning the language of their predecessors and could see how this could maybe undermine the culture build. Just posing my "stupid question of the day".
