"Are you a handler or a cutter?"
Nowhere in the rules of ultimate does it specifically stipulate positions. I think handlers and cutters are both strategy based constructs. From when most rookies are introduced to ultimate, they are given a choice. You can pick one of two options. Are you good at throwing? Are you an athlete? Here, pick the red pill or the blue pill. Choose wisely.
This feels like a dramatic oversimplification to me. To illustrate my point, let's run through some of the traits that help define these roles.
Point: Handlers are good with the disc.
Counterpoint: Does this give everyone else a free pass to be bad at throwing?
Point: Cutters are athletic.
Counterpoint: Does this mean no one else has to be athletic?
Point: Cutters can sky people.
Counterpoint: Is there a rule that keeps handlers from skying people?
Point: Handlers can get open for resets.
Counterpoint: Should others not know how to do this?
etc.
Obviously players will have certain strengths, weaknesses, and preferences. It always seemed heavy-handed to me to just slap labels on people based on an early aptitude, or a reason like "you're short, go handle". Some people get the label handed to them for a reason like "there aren't enough handlers". This seems like a terribly narrow-minded view of development, roles, strategy, and even the game itself.
-----
Thought: Nothing stifles an offense like handlers who can't get open or cutters who can't throw.
Nowhere in the rules of ultimate does it specifically stipulate positions. I think handlers and cutters are both strategy based constructs. From when most rookies are introduced to ultimate, they are given a choice. You can pick one of two options. Are you good at throwing? Are you an athlete? Here, pick the red pill or the blue pill. Choose wisely.
This feels like a dramatic oversimplification to me. To illustrate my point, let's run through some of the traits that help define these roles.
Point: Handlers are good with the disc.
Counterpoint: Does this give everyone else a free pass to be bad at throwing?
Point: Cutters are athletic.
Counterpoint: Does this mean no one else has to be athletic?
Point: Cutters can sky people.
Counterpoint: Is there a rule that keeps handlers from skying people?
Point: Handlers can get open for resets.
Counterpoint: Should others not know how to do this?
etc.
Obviously players will have certain strengths, weaknesses, and preferences. It always seemed heavy-handed to me to just slap labels on people based on an early aptitude, or a reason like "you're short, go handle". Some people get the label handed to them for a reason like "there aren't enough handlers". This seems like a terribly narrow-minded view of development, roles, strategy, and even the game itself.
-----
Thought: Nothing stifles an offense like handlers who can't get open or cutters who can't throw.
Taking a step back and removing preassigned roles:
A good thrower who can't get the disc is not useful. A person who can get open at will but can't do anything with the disc also has limited use.
So for a player to be useful in on offensive scheme, they have to be able to 1. get open, and 2. do something with the disc. I think there are a lot of different ways to get open (maybe infinite) and possibly an equally large number of options available with the disc.
I think the distinction between handler and cutter blurs a bit here. Both "positions" need to be able to get open and throw to some degree. So what's the difference?
Some requirements of handlers:
1. Extremely consistent throws <30 yards.
2. Be able to get open for resets.
3. Able to attack a defense in some way. (hucks, break throws, throw and go, etc.)
Some requirements of cutters:
1. Be able to get open downfield. (Maybe use size to get open deep, quickness to get open under, etc.)
2. Spatial awareness.
3. Be able to throw good continue passes and resets.
Why should cutters not have to have extremely consistent throws <30 yards? Why should handlers not be interested in spatial awareness? What's the difference between getting open downfield and getting open for a reset pass?
-----
As a coach, I like 7-man offenses. I want my entire offensive unit to be able to get open in some way and do something with the disc. I think this pays big dividends down the road in player development. I'm not particularly interested in coaching guys to go hard on D, then just get out of the way on O. I think it should be a requirement to be able to contribute to both. This feels like a worthy goal.
-----
Note:
Revolver Positions:
King - Runs the Offense (traditional center handler, is free to do stuff)
Pawn - Supports the King (traditional reset handler, keeps the disc alive)
Knight - Gets open under (traditional mid, is quick/athletic and has good awareness)
Rook - Finisher (traditional long, fast/big in the air, scores goals)
Thought: Positions are constructs of strategy.
So why do positions exist? Is it possible to have a positionless offense?
It seems to me like strategies with positions exist in order to: 1. get the offensive unit on the same page in terms of expectations and spacing (Ho/Vert/Split, where resets stand, etc.), 2. Utilize the specific strengths of an offensive unit (i.e. a strong thrower, a dominant athlete, etc.), 3. Attack a defensive unit in a certain way (i.e. exploit 1v1 matchups deep, use quick passes to exploit repositioning, make space in a certain way off a dead disc, etc.).
I think a positionless offense would have to function off of some basic goals. Obviously awareness would be massively important. You might have goals based on the kinds of attacking cuts your team is good at making and the kinds of throws your team is best at hitting. In theory you'd need lots of reps and chemistry to figure out how to work together. Would you ever do better than a set offense? Maybe. Maybe not.
At the very least, I think positions with purpose make more sense than the dry handler/cutter split. That feels like a step forward, since general roles are more visible by the players and team. I don't think that's the final evolution though, but I'm not really sure how a team moves beyond this and is good enough at it to gain the potential advantages from it.
-----
Note:
Revolver Positions:
King - Runs the Offense (traditional center handler, is free to do stuff)
Pawn - Supports the King (traditional reset handler, keeps the disc alive)
Knight - Gets open under (traditional mid, is quick/athletic and has good awareness)
Rook - Finisher (traditional long, fast/big in the air, scores goals)
Thought: Positions are constructs of strategy.
So why do positions exist? Is it possible to have a positionless offense?
It seems to me like strategies with positions exist in order to: 1. get the offensive unit on the same page in terms of expectations and spacing (Ho/Vert/Split, where resets stand, etc.), 2. Utilize the specific strengths of an offensive unit (i.e. a strong thrower, a dominant athlete, etc.), 3. Attack a defensive unit in a certain way (i.e. exploit 1v1 matchups deep, use quick passes to exploit repositioning, make space in a certain way off a dead disc, etc.).
I think a positionless offense would have to function off of some basic goals. Obviously awareness would be massively important. You might have goals based on the kinds of attacking cuts your team is good at making and the kinds of throws your team is best at hitting. In theory you'd need lots of reps and chemistry to figure out how to work together. Would you ever do better than a set offense? Maybe. Maybe not.
At the very least, I think positions with purpose make more sense than the dry handler/cutter split. That feels like a step forward, since general roles are more visible by the players and team. I don't think that's the final evolution though, but I'm not really sure how a team moves beyond this and is good enough at it to gain the potential advantages from it.
No comments:
Post a Comment