Thoughts.

A little busy at work (need to prep a class on Christmas) and a little starved for inspiration of late…but check out this RSD thread on throwing with touch I posted in a couple weeks back.

I usually tell rookie throwers to think about throwing to a point on the field, rather than passing on a line that includes said point (ie, throwing to space), and that at least goes towards taking the laser out. Please chime in with your own experiences.

Yeah, yeah, throwing and catching. Fundamentals aside, here, let’s talk about one step up–the dump. Absolutely essential as a building block for any offensive strategy (even if you Huck and Hope, you’re going to make some dump-like passes to set that up at some point).

It doesn’t take a team strategist to figure this out. Dumps give you a reset on the count, and, when leveraged correctly, are a WEAPON. Anybody who played against Dartmouth last year (particularly our D line) can attest to the lethality of the dump if you fail to contain it. Conversely, a team that dumps poorly is going to give up its fair share of short turns, and if you can’t dump with competence, then these same dumps will lead to a slower, more predictable (read: easier-to-defend) offense.

You know the whole analogy about how the running game sets up the passing game in football? With ultimate, the dump game similarly sets up the rest of the offense.

There are tiers of dumping. How comfortable are you?

1. The “get a reset” dump. You look dump at high stall, and have to rush a throw. OR the dump cutting is ineffective (you have a “dancer” who doesn’t get open by much, and takes 4 seconds to do it). Either way, the throw winds up more or less shovel passed to the receiver, who gets the disc somewhere within the vicinity of 2-5 yards of the thrower (and likely coming toward the thrower or moving straight back). No advantage gained, merely a new count to look upfield and insist that somebody “CUT!”
2. The early/competent dump. Note that those two terms tend to be synonymous. The decision to dump the disc is established early in the count more often than not (before stall 4 or 5–this will vary depending on your team’s offensive philosophy), and/or the dump cutter has an easy time getting separation from her defender. In this situation, the pass is usually made to a receiver in stride, perhaps going upline with the defender trailing (“power position,” anathema to all defenses–the thrower has a free shot deep, with momentum from the run to put it even farther), or likewise going backwards–in either case, the defender is not in a position to stop the next throw, which sets up a dump-swing style offense or a deep offense (hence the “running game” of the dump sets up the “passing game” going deep or side-to-side). This is the level of dumping which most good teams have; I’ve seen many a team that works the upline dump VERY competently, setting up a very powerful deep offense. Less common these days is the team that really works the width of the field, but your Harvards and Dartmouths will still flash this style with some effectiveness.
3. The skillful dump. Taking the competent dump one step further, this is dumping not just for a reset, and beyond the dump as a building block for your offense. This is the point at which the dump becomes a FEATURE of the offense–the degree of thought and setup that goes into the positioning ensures that (almost) every dump puts the receiver in a position to further the offense. This is the sort of thing that Frank of RSD fame would often go on about with his ambidexterity rants and the like. Being able to run the give-and-go, for instance, not just as a every-so-often technique, but as the basis for your offense (see Minnesota and their often super-quick resets and movement–I don’t know that I’ve ever worked so hard on defense for so little gain), makes it a very potent tool, and can absolutely destroy teams unprepared to deal with it (which is, interestingly, becoming more and more the norm as teams fall into the glamour trap, opting for the big plays and the big players over the big fundamentals).

It’s all about raising the level. I don’t care who you are, you’re not going to go very far without at least competent resents (and you’re not going to thrive unless you can raise it a step beyond that–or you happen to so outclass your competition otherwise that you can make up for it).

If you’re a burgeoning team–high school, club, college–you MUST emphasize the fundamentals. You might key in on the flashiness of it all, the big hucks, the huge plays, but keep in mind that more often than not 90% of the highest-level games are anything but–just good fundamentals, solid cutting, hard defense, and GOOD RESETS. Model yourself after the “boring” parts–the plays that look easy, because they’ve been practiced and polished to seamlessness–and you’ll more often put yourself in a position where the flashy plays actually make a difference, instead of becoming a footnote in your recap of the blowout loss to stud team x.

More on fundamentals next week.

More often than not, I find myself completely agreeing with what she says, and there are some great gems in her bit on subbing:

Divide your handlers up into groups of those who generate offense with their throws (big breaks and/or big hucks) and those who generate offense with their legs (effectively get the disc up-the-line and are always open for resets). You’ll want some players from each category on every line.

Divide your downfielders into groups of those who can get open with jukes off of a stopped-disc and those who are great at getting open in flow with timing and filling spaces. Again, you’ll want some players from each category on every line.

The whole issue on subbing is a great opportunity to apply a new lens to yourself as a player: how would somebody in charge of subbing view your abilities? Gwen’s bit here touches on it the most explicitly, I think…what kind of player are you? Do you create offense or augment offense? Are you a big playmaker or a solid contributor? How versatile are you, offensively, defensively? What are some flaws that might lead to you getting less play time (e.g., lack of height/athleticism/conditioning, inconsistent throws in the wind, an inclination towards high-risk shots, etc)?

What kind of player do you want to be? If you’re a coach or a mentor for other players, what kind of player do you see them becoming/what kind of player would make them the most useful? The notion of subbing also harkens to making cuts and forming your team’s identity and strategy in the first place. Lot of good stuff to consider for anybody who fancies themself a team leader/decision maker.