Downfield Cutting Notes 1

General Considerations:

- Your strengths
Do you have any athletic traits that you can exploit while cutting?  I.E. are you quick?  Tall? Strong? What kind of cuts can you make well?

- Abilities of the Thrower
Can the thrower make your defender respect your deep moves?  Your breakside moves?

- Your position relative to the thrower
What throws does your defender have to defend?  What's realistic?

- Your position relative to other players
Can't run your defender through picks to get open, that's illegal.  Is it your turn to cut?  Is there space for you?  Can you make space?

- Positioning of the defender
How is your defender setting up on you?  As in, are they under, deep, or even?  How many steps?  How are their hips angled?  Are they giving something away, or are they very tight?

- Abilities of the defender
What athletic traits do they have?  What about relative to your athletic traits?

- Tendencies of the defender
What does the defender tend to do in response to you making moves?  How can you make them commit?  Can you beat them with a secondary move?

----
Style Notes:

Momentum cutting: Trying to create a momentum advantage over your defender by making them commit their hips.

Information cutting: trying to create an information/sight advantage over you defender by getting behind them or forcing them to not see the disc.  Attack your defender's back.

----
Move Notes:

Power Move: Run in a straight line to an open spot.

Hesitation move: Establish momentum -> stutter step to fake a momentum change -> continue with original momentum.

----
Mentality Notes:

Mind 1/Mind 2 interaction.  Goal is to be able to cut based on feel and instinct, hind brain is too slow.

----
Questions:

Abilities of the defender pt 2:
How do you cut against someone more athletic than you?  Someone quicker than you?  Someone more explosive than you?

Tendencies of the defender pt 2:
What do you look for/how do you discern what your defender's tendencies are?  Can this be categorized in some way?  Try to make this more digestible.

Learning moves:
What's a good way to practice different kinds of moves?  How do we build the ability to cut on feel and instinct?  Are there habits within this that can be deliberately practiced, i.e. how to create a good momentum advantage (4-5 hard steps?)?

A Fallen Brother

"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."  - Ben K.

R.I.P. 12/17/2015

Look Closer

"There are a lot of great players in Chicago and on Machine that you can learn from. If you think that Machine is only marginally better than the 2nd teams in Chicago, than you need to watch Machine play more."  - Walden, 2013

When Walden told me this, I had no idea what he was talking about.  This was March 2013, I was coming off an up and down club season playing with Haymaker, I had stumbled onto the Wildfire roster, and I thought I had a pretty good grasp on Ultimate.  Haymaker had played Machine twice that season, once at sectionals and once at regionals.  Both games had been pretty close at half, something like 6-8, then Machine had steamrolled us in the 2nd half.  The rhetoric from the Haymaker leadership was that we just had to play a little better, clean up some execution errors and bad decisions, have a few things go our way, then we'd steal a W over them.  So my mentality at that point was that we were right in there, just a few lucky plays away from the big win.

In retrospect, obviously this was insane.  The final scores of those two games were 11-6 and 15-7.  The games weren't even remotely close and Machine was blowing us out with the bottom of their roster while our top 7 were struggling to string together swing passes.  When I would watch Machine play I would notice the big plays and athleticism, but I struggled to see past that.  It is now exceedingly clear that I was looking, but not seeing.  I needed to look closer and figure out what Walden meant.

--------

A bunch of us went to watch when NexGen rolled into town to play Machine in 2012.  The game wasn't that close, NexGen was walking all over Machine.  To my untrained eye, Machine looked slow and bad.  I felt like they couldn't hang with the quickness on the NexGen roster, and they didn't look like they had many "great players that I could learn from".

Obviously this was false then as it is now.  Machine had (and has) many great players who should be learned from.  The problem was my understanding of the game was shallow.  I was overlooking a ton of nuances in the game in front of me.  Things that make great players great that are practically invisible if you aren't looking.

It's difficult to watch a game of ultimate and get anywhere close to a full picture of the abilities of each player.  There's a ton of things going on in an ultimate game, and it's basically impossible to track all 14 players in detail without the aid of video replay.  Also, the sample size of one game of ultimate is small and the number of different kinds of things a player will do in a game will vary a lot, so this adds to the "translation barrier" that exists between a spectator and how they view players.

To illustrate my point that greatness is hidden in the nuances, I'm going to take two random stills from that NexGen game and discuss what each of the 7 players on the field is doing.

-------

Machine is in Blue.  NexGen is in Red.  This is a Machine O point in the 2nd half.  As you can see by the score, the game isn't that close.  Machine has been knocked down and is fighting to stay in this game.  What's happening right now?  Machine is on offense and is in flow.

George

George just threw a centering swing pass to Trevor.  He is driving upfield towards the space he sees deep and so he can be in a good spot to make other cuts.  He is working to create a momentum advantage over his defender and create threats downfield.  He is also clearing the open side lane.

Trevor

Trevor just caught a swing pass from George.  He secures the disc in a good position and looks downfield for developing options.  He is balanced and ready to throw.  He is looking for ways to attack the defense.

Dane

Dane is in a good spot to be the first reset.  He is sprinting to his wide side reset position so that he can be an available option for Trevor if nothing develops downfield.  He is also currently open and available if Trevor wants to throw a quick centering pass.

TK

TK is on the sideline on the break side.  He has just seen the centering pass be completed and is pushing downfield to be in a more threatening position.  His defender is pretty deep of him, so he is currently available for quick break to the sideline.  But his defender has this fairly well covered, so the threat from this is pretty low.  The swing pass was floaty, so TK has essentially lost his momentum advantage, so he sees that he needs to push back downfield to regain it and threaten.

AJ

AJ threw a quick centering pass to George and is now cleared fully to the near sideline.  He has his eyes on the development of the play and is looking for any opportunities or to fill when needed.  Eventually, his defender peels off to help on George's deep cut (which he has just started, see above), and AJ gets a free under.

Bob

It may not be obvious from the screen shot above, but Machine actually started this possession running a vert stack.  Things got pretty messy in-flow, and have transitioned to more of a horizontal look.  Bob was setting the stack, and is essentially what remains of the stack.  He is about 12 yards downfield of the disc, ready to make a continuation move when needed or the opportunity arises.  He eventually fills into the backfield towards the near sideline.

Geoff

Geoff is clearing to the far sideline.  He makes a good clear and represents the threat of a breakside option for Trevor, which forces his defender to chase him in.  This makes a ton of space for TK, who is looking to challenge his defender and regain his momentum advantage.

--------

This is a Machine D point in the 2nd half.  Nexgen is running a horizontal set and continuations have been slowed by Machine's pressure.  Nick Lance just caught an incut and has the disc on the near sideline, he has held it for a few counts while NexGen pushed downfield.  What is going on right now?

BMW

BMW is marking Nick Lance.  He is pretty aggressive here, trying to be close and put pressure on.  He is taking more of a trap mark, since he's closer to the sideline and because Nick has looked towards his center reset.  He is using his feet and he is very active.

Goose

Goose is guarding Dylan Freechild.  Goose is currently one of two "on" defenders in this screenshot.  Dylan Freechild is trying to get open in the upline space.  Goose just sprinted downfield to get to his spot and defend this space, and now he is fighting to defend the moves Dylan just made.  Goose knows that Dylan is very quick, and has given him a bit more cushion to help him not get beat, but Goose is now in a bad spot and is fighting to make up ground.  The angles he needs to take are very critical here if he wants to contain the damage.

 Andy

Andy has just sprinted hard to defend a straight away deep cut from CAH.  He is keeping himself in a good spot to defend any under cut that might follow, and Camden has chosen to turn over his left shoulder and clear to the break space.  Andy keeps his position and stays close.

Kennedy

Kennedy is the other defender who is currently "on".  Jacob Janin has pushed downfield and is now attacking the open side under space.  Nick Lance is not currently looking at him, but if Kennedy does not sprint hard to defend and stay in a good outside shoulder position, Jacob will get the disc.

Kolb

Kolb is defending Tommy Lamar, the 2nd reset.  Tommy is pushing downfield and watching Dylan make a move.  Kolb wants Tommy to continue downfield, and wants to stand in the way of the around swing, so he is trying to corral Tommy in that direction.  This would take away the 2nd option if the 1st reset is well defended.

Walden

Walden is defending Philip Haas, who is currently the far side cutter.  Philip is not an imminent threat to get the disc, but could receive a continuation pass.  Walden has his head up and is triangulating for the disc, so that he can help if needed but still see Philip.  Walden is trying to take away as much space as possible while still being sure to defend Philip.

Stephan

Stephan is sagging way off in the lane.  His man is currently not in the live space, so Stephan is taking away space with his positioning.  His head is up so he can see both the disc and his man, and his hips are angled so that he can contest the space that his man will likely attack, the deep space.

---------

There is a massive amount of information embedded within a single point of a single game of high level ultimate.  All of the things that players are doing in the stills above are things that can be better understood and improved.  The game has tremendous depth.  If you don't see it, look closer.

On Jerseys

Excerpts from a nut email chain in 09:

---

From:  EPH

To:  [nut]

Date:  Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:32 PM

Subject:  [nut] Re: Jersey, Shorts, and Sweatshirt Designs
Yo dudes,

My rationale is that you put so much time towards ultimate, I don't mind spending money to have some nice gear to remember it by.  I don't mind paying a little more for high quality gear I can play in for the rest of my ultimate career.  And I (and almost everyone else from that year) wear my gray NUT hoodie from 2 years ago constantly because it's a nice, comfy sweatshirt. Obviously it has to be high quality and preferably sweet-looking.  So keep that in mind.

EPH

---

From: JK
To: [nut]
Date:  Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Subject:  [nut] Re: Jersey, Shorts, and Sweatshirt Designs

guys,

the more you change your logo, the more stupid explaining you have to do. 

Also, to address pauls points: CUT is so good it doesn't matter what their logo is. If you are paying attention, ego's (this is oregon, new guys) logo spells ego (don't worry paul, it took me 4 years of playing ultimate and two years of my brother being on the team to figure this out). Michigan's logo includes the letters M and U as its primary components (you're all smart enough not to need this explained). I honestly don't remember what Stanford's logo is and their webpage is down (I think it might actually be their team name spelled out), but this brings me to my next point: I bet their logo hasn't changed 8 times in the past 10 years. 

All of these teams pick a logo and stick to it. This is like your brand guys, and for some reason Northwestern tries to reinvent themselves every damn year. To make a pop culture reference, we change our minds like a girl changes clothes. Now, I understand that while I was around our jerseys were ugly as shit (purple) and the logo was lame (the oval), but at least we had the same logo for 3 years running (hey, hindsight is 20/20). People on campus knew what the nut in the oval meant, and so did other players in our region. Now, we're reentering the period where we try to come up with a cooler, more badass, more devastatingly sexy logo every year. For the love of god, try to resist the urge. I have a pair of last years jerseys with the simple nut logo, and I have to say they are not only the best jerseys I think NU has ever had and some of the best that I own (and I own lots of jerseys), but great jerseys on an absolute basis. They are simple, classy, and relate in a relatively simple way to our team name and origin. Aside: two tone is both expensive and terrible. 

In conclusion, keep it simple and try to avoid changing logos unless absolutely necessary. A suggestion: when you get the urge to send a suggestion for new jerseys to the listserv, instead to to the gym and do some squats. This will serve to both make you a better ultimate player and also make you all seem less like preening fashion-queens. 

Put more simply:

your old jerseys = good
changing logos all the time = terrible
hexagons = terrible terrible
two tone = uber terrible
rainbows = refracted light
superheros = not real
capes = idea worth considering
squats = awesome

Happy new years, now get off your fat ass and go for a run,

Stack

-------------------------------

Designing jerseys takes a lot of work.  Not every idea is a winner.  A lot of concepts never pan out for one reason or another, and sometimes even good ideas get left behind.

A few concepts that never saw the light of day:

Snake

Pat

Paul

Perception and Culture

Matt:  Process is good, obviously.  Or, is it obvious?  How do you make Bolt buy into that?  How do you generate buy-in to a process?  How do you know people are bought in?

Me:  I think that process has to be made obvious, stated explicitly.  In the past few years, we have discussed it as a team multiple times throughout the year.  I think a big piece of buy in is the respect piece.

Matt: What does that look like? "Remember, winning is nice, but what matters more is improving."?

Me:  I think one example is showing players that it's worth it to show up to practice.

Matt:  Okay.  How do you do that?

Me:  Hmm.  Being present, planning in advance, running a good/fun practice, showing you care, having a clear goal in practice.  Those seem like pieces.

----------

I think a big piece of getting buy-in is about perception and culture.

I have a proposal for the definition of "culture".  I think that culture for a team exists in the minds of the players, and is made up of:

Every interaction of any kind between people on the team or within the program.  So this includes, but is not limited to: discussions between players, discussions between the coaches and players, side conversations between players, anything overheard by anyone, anything a player sees another player do, anything a player sees a coach do, any emails, groupmes, etc.

I think all teams have a culture whether they are aware of it or not.  I also think that culture cannot be manufactured, as every culture is inherently unique and personnel-based.  But I do think this definition of culture can shed some light on what makes a healthy culture and what doesn't.

I think this definition of culture highlights the ability of non-captain leadership to provide tremendous value to a team.  For example, if a non-captain works out very hard, is a positive voice, and a great teammate, that attitude has a much greater chance of spreading among the team.  And when it does, it has a huge cascading effect on the overall level of the team.  This is why perception matters.  How teammates perceive one another has a massive bearing on culture.

I also think this definition of culture also highlights the value that a positive team dynamic gives to a team.  A positive team dynamic can bolster a team-wide growth mindset, leading to greater improvement up and down a roster.  However, if positivity is not addressed and practiced, snide comments and disrespect may creep in and spread, leading to a negative cascade in team dynamic and team performance down the road.

I think there is a limit to how much influence captains and coaches can have on culture.  But I think they do have a significant role in developing good culture, as they are often the ones who get the majority of time to talk in front of the team.

I think culture is made up of a bunch of perceptions, and I think it's important for everyone to consider the example set through words and actions.

Rose-Colored Glasses

I try to be very intentional about helping Bolt be a process-oriented team.  There's a few layers to this, but one of the biggest pieces is that we deliberately focus on the journey, not the destination.

I think there's a pretty compelling argument for using this approach.  It allows us to focus totally on the improvement process itself, freeing us from distractions.  Our success isn't totally dependent on how we finish the season or our win/loss column on a Sunday night.  I think this approach allows our team to get a much deeper understanding of what it means to invest/improve/be successful, both individually and as a unit.

-----------

These things are easy to do when you're winning.  Any approach is easy to buy into when you win all the time.  Winning feels good.  Winning subconsciously (or consciously) validates methods in the minds of the players (and coaches).

I think winning at the end of the season makes everyone look back with rose-colored glasses.  Bench players who rarely saw the field might think that winning justifies their lack of playing time.  A starter who had some disagreement with the defensive strategy might look back and overlook their previous concerns.  Winning seemingly heals all ailments, team-wide.

I think this is a huge trap.

It is possible to do everything right as a team, and still lose.  It is possible to do many things wrong, and still win.

Winning itself is external.  So is losing.  Expectations about winning or losing are risky mental territory.  Expect nothing, prepare yourself, control what you can.

----------

Commitment to the team development process is never more important than when you are losing.  There are many way to lose, here are two:  1.  the team can give up and complain and decide they would rather be watching basketball in their motel with a bag of potato chips, or 2. the team can recognize the value in the games in front of them, face the fire, and rise.  I think losses illuminate team character much more vividly than wins.

I believe that every point of every game is an opportunity to learn and improve, and there is no reason why this would change if the team is winning or losing.  In fact, I'd say the harder the competition, the better the learning opportunity.

-----------

To be clear, the outcome goal here is fundamentally critical.  I think that most of the time, the goal for an ultimate team should be to improve whenever the team is together and play their best ultimate of the season at the last tournament.  So the outcome goal could be a numerical finish or placement that reflects that.  The outcome goal for a competitive team should depend on getting wins.

Also, I think teams must look back and assess their performance in terms their achievements and outcome goals.  But teams should be careful that the influence of the rose-colored glasses doesn't hold them back from growing as a program.  Teams should not pretend all is well if there are issues that need to be addressed.  Likewise, a loss shouldn't cause a total abandon ship. You wouldn't tow your new Ferrari down to the junkyard if you got a flat tire.

Basketball and Breaking the Mold

I've always liked basketball.

My parents are from Indiana, a state obsessed with basketball, so this probably shouldn't be surprising.  My mom likes to tell stories about how she watched March Madness at the hospital right before and shortly after I was born.

As a kid growing up in the Chicago area in the mid 90s, it was impossible to ignore the cultural juggernaut that was the Bulls.  The hype was palpable.  Chicago loves a superstar, and these Bulls were larger than life.  It all culminated in the 1995-1996 season, The Greatest Ever playing on the Greatest Team Ever.

It was a Friday in late December, and the Bulls had started the season something like 20-2.  There was already talk of them playing like the greatest ever, and people were wondering if Phil Jackson and a resurgent Michael Jordan had a 4th title in 5 years in them.  My dad had a friend at work who had two Bulls tickets but couldn't make the game that night, so me and my dad dropped everything and went.

I remember they were playing the raptors.  I remember the Bulls player intro.  I remember that the game wasn't particularly close, but the audience was keenly aware they were witnessing greatness.  I remember the united center being packed, standing room only.  I loved it.

----------

As of today, Steph Curry's Golden State Warriors are a perfect 23-0 so far this season.  Who knows how they will do down the stretch, but the hype train is rolling in Oakland.  Once again there is talk of them playing like The Greatest Ever, and they have a real shot at breaking the 20 year record set by Jordan's Bulls in that '95-'96 season.

Steph Curry and the Golden State Warriors are challenging limits set by decades of NBA history.  Steph Curry is breaking the mold for year-over-year improvement, even among NBA superstars.

Or maybe Steph Curry isn't breaking the mold.  Maybe there was never a mold in the first place.

Wrist/Forearm Control

I think wrist/forearm control is a big building block for throwing forehands.  Two other big building blocks are 1. Grip, and 2. KW best practices.  Wrist control is a big one that gets glossed over too often in my opinion.

I am generally referring to your ability to translate power into the disc.

To be specific, when I say wrist/forearm control, I'm referring to your ability to move your forearm and wrist smoothly through a good range of motion at a variety of angles and positions.  For example, your forearm and wrist will be at different angles relative to each other when you throw high releases, wide releases, low releases, quick releases, and with different shapes.  It's critical that your release is smooth, compact, and stable at all of these spots and others, so that your flick is a versatile weapon.

I think that once players can get the disc from point A to point B with regularity, the next stage should be to dive into adding shape, touch, and throwing at different speeds.  Central to this idea is wrist/forearm control.  Everyone seems to freak out about how short touch forehands are the hardest throw in the game.  In my mind this is not true, it's just that people don't prioritize them well in practice.  With good wrist/forearm control, soft inverts to space and soft upline leading passes improve dramatically.

Here are a couple drills I like that work on different pieces of wrist/forearm control.

Isolating the wrist in a high position:

Sam O'Brien Drill:

The goal is to work on wrist snap in isolation.  2 partners, about 5 yards apart.  Hold the disc in a forehand grip.  Bring the disc up in a blade in front of your throwing shoulder.  Forearm should be vertical, upper arm should be parallel to the ground.  Supinate your wrist so you are now holding the disc flat, then throw to your partner using primarily your wrist.

This drill will challenge your wrist mobility.  Releasing the disc smoothly is your goal.  This drill is tangentially also helpful for developing throw and go style quick releases and high releases.

Coordinating the wrist and forearm:

Bed Throws:

The goal of this drill is to improve smoothness of release.  The idea is to develop coordination and the force translation pattern between the forearm and the wrist.  This is a one person drill with only one disc needed.  Lie on your back.  Hold the disc in a forehand grip.  Throw flat flicks straight up at the ceiling.  The floor should prevent you from making a full draw, and should force you to use almost exclusively forearm and wrist to throw.  Your goal is to throw flicks with no wobble, that just lightly brush the ceiling.  

This drill will help decrease the amount of draw you need to throw smoothly.  It will also improve the link between wrist and forearm so that you can add power more effectively.

Removing the legs- Bringing Wrist/Forearm Control to other throws:

One Leg Drill:

The goal of this drill is to remove any kind of leg or excessive core motion from short range forehands.  This drill would be a good option for helping to bridge the gap between the above two drills and in-game throws.  As a thrower, I do not want to be married to any extraneous movement that might slow me down or distort my ability to deliver a good throw.  So I want to practice throwing while underbalanced.  2 partners, about 20 yards apart.  Throw forehands to each other while balancing on one leg.  Switch legs every other throw.  You will probably be weaker on one leg than the other, practice that one extra.

This drill will make your forehand more versatile by allowing you to throw from a variety of balances or leg positions.  This is also a good way to get quality focused throwing reps in without taxing the legs.

Spots

Spots (alternate title: Handling 301)

I'm going to make some general statements about offense.  The plan is to start heading down this train of thought and see where I get.

As a handler in an offensive structure, you want the disc to move to good spots so that your offense can function smoothly.

I don't think too many people would argue with this.  This seems critical and apparent.  So a key piece is that it shouldn't really matter to you how the disc gets to the "good spots", just that it gets there and that you get to the end goal of well functioning offense.

I think a couple things jump out at me from this:

1.  What is a "good spot"?
2.  What does it mean for an offense to "function smoothly"?

I'm going to kind of gloss over what it means for an offense to "function smoothly" for this post.  For now I'll just say that it means moving the disc with relative ease, good timing/spacing, and scoring without much pressure.  Maybe it loosely means that the offense's (individuals) strengths are well utilized and result in effective and low risk scores.

I want to toss around a few ideas about "good spots".

-----------
Good Spots: Definitions and Brute Force

I'd start by defining a good spot as a place where our offense can be threatening.  Threatening means a place where multiple throwing options (deep/under/break) and cutting options (deep/under/break) are available and the defense is forced to defend many real options.  Threatening could also mean a place where we have a positional or momentum advantage over the defense, such a breakside pass that leads to breakside continuations.  Threatening could be power position on the open side, as this can give the offense a momentum advantage (sente).  Threatening could also be something more nuanced but less flashy, like a well timed clear that opens a cutting lane after an around swing.

I think a critical piece of this is that players can "create" good spots with skilled off-disc movement.

An example of this is being the reset and clearing to make a huge lane (putting your offense in a threatening position).  So how do players "create" offense?  Let's dig a bit deeper into what makes a "good spot" first.

So, good spots are:
- Places where a positional advantage can be gained over the D
- Places where a multiple kinds of throws are realistic
- Places where the defense is outnumbered or outmatched
- Places where a continuation can be made to another "good spot"
- Places where space opportunities are developing

Note: "Spots" is a misnomer.  I'm not just talking about locations.  Since their value is time and momentum dependent, I think it's more like peaks on a threat-level heat map.  But we'll keep using spots as the name because it's easier to wrap our heads around.

A possible threat-level heat map

Then I think I would add that the definition of a good spot is dependent on the offensive formation you are using.  So for a horizontal stack we want to make the deep space wide open and give cutters a lot of space in which to make moves.  So we want to keep the disc closer to the middle of the field to give our deep shots more margin and make our breaks more viable.  For a vert stack we want to exploit momentum advantages and break throws by moving the disc laterally.  So around passes and continuations are at a premium.

So, good spots are:
- Places where your offense wants the disc to go
- Places that give your offense better chances of scoring

The next piece that seems apparent is that good spots also must depend on the type of defense you're playing against.  Very obviously what is a "good spot" against a simple person D forehand force will be vastly different from a good spot against a 2-3-2 zone set.  For example, against person D forehand, moving the disc to the breakside can create a positional advantage, which leads to continuation opportunities and presents a threat to the defense to which they must react.  Against a 2-3-2, one offensive approach might be to move the disc with short to midrange quick passes to exploit holes in the defensive formation.  This is an example of moving the disc to a spot where the defense is outnumbered and out of position.

So from this perspective it's starting to feel like "good spots" are just a long list of brute force conditionals.  If a1, do b1.  If a2 do b2.  If a3 do b3.  etc, etc.  I think that might be a partial answer, but I want to keep going since I think it's a pretty unsatisfactory one.
----------
Creating: Using Rules of Thumb and Making Space

So if the brute force idea is looking at the game as a discrete data set, maybe another way to look at the game is as a bunch of continuous values.  So rather than defining a specific response to each individual scenario, we can use rules and priorities to define a wide range of appropriate responses to infinite possible scenarios.

I think good athletes do this subconsciously.  The point of discussing it here is to try and understand the logic and mechanism of creation of these rules, so we can define them and grow them better.

So for example, let's say your team loves cramming the disc down the sideline.  They never seem to throw the centering pass.  One possible explanation is that there is a team-wide rule/priority fault.  Maybe they are lowering the value of the centering pass, so that whenever the are given the option of forcing something upfield versus re-positioning, they pick the upfield look.  This would likely be something that the team has subconsciously picked up through drill selection, reinforcement (positive/negative), what has worked in the past, etc.

So what are good rules of thumb?  Taking from the above section on "good spots":

So, good spots are:
- Places where a positional advantage can be gained over the D
- Places where a multiple kinds of throws are realistic
- Places where the defense is outnumbered or outmatched
- Places where a continuation can be made to another "good spot"
- Places where space opportunities are developing

I think these are pretty good rules of thumb.  They are vague enough that they can be applied to a lot of situations, but hopefully specific enough as to be actionable.  I think that players should be trying to do these things constantly on offense by default .  A lot of this can and must happen without a lot of conscious (system 2) thought.  If I'm on the field I don't have time to stand here and think about each of these 5 things and assess all my options in terms of them.  So players must learn to apply these concepts automatically.  By the same token, if a player has a rash of errors caused by a rule fault (maybe an incorrect priority or response), then effort should be made to correct it.

What about creating good spots off the disc?  I think that an aspect of offense that doesn't get addressed that often is "creating" off the disc.  What I mean by this is specifically: things players do that create something for an offense without a throw.  So obviously these are things players do with movement, usually by moving in a threatening way.  So things that fall into this basket are: moving to make space for yourself, moving to make space for others, moving to take space for yourself, etc.  So for example if a player cuts hard upline, they are both taking the upline space and making space for an around pass.  By continuing their move upline even if they do not receive the disc, they have opened space for others to take.

In basketball, commentators will often talk about point guards and their ability to "create their own shot".  The commentators are referring to the ability of a player to use moves and quickness to create space for themselves to take a good look.  I think that this is all about how these players set themselves up and execute with their legs (and the ball, in basketball).  I think that players in ultimate, especially players in the reset space, can and should set themselves up to "create" good spots on offense, both for themselves and for others.  This is done by: setting up in a threatening position, attacking with your legs in a threatening way, making the defense choose, knowing what you want, etc.  Derek Alexander is one of the best at "creating" space for himself in the reset space.  But differently than in basketball, I think success at creating in ultimate doesn't always mean you get the disc, it could mean that your team moves the disc to a good spot, due to the space you helped make.

I think the holy grail of offense is when you have a 7 players who know how to create for themselves and each other.  When you combine that with a strong understanding of "good spots", I think you move a step closer to jogo bonito.
-----------