All I am doing is disagreeing with you Meadowlark, don't take it so personally. If you disagree with me, explain why it is a fact. Give proof. Back up your statement.
If you come on a blog and say this should happen and that should be tried and this is the ONLY way things work, expect people to disagree with you. Expect them to tell you why, expect to defend your point(especially if you state something is a FACT).
In too separate threads you professed this theory that Doc wasn't doing something and that he should be. You stated your reasons. I and others have disagreed with you and even provided proof to back up our points. If you are then going to push aside our proof that you are mistaken and then say, and I am paraphrasing, "Players only get better and learn stuff when in games and that's a FACT." you need to be prepared to hear that you might be wrong.
We all start playing young in school yards and courts in the neighborhoods. We all learn the basics by ourselves. But when you first join an organized team they start teaching you the proper shooting technique, how to box out, how to throw a proper chest pass or bounce pass, how to take a layup properly with each hand, how to dribble around a defender, how to dribble without looking at the ball, etc. Basic stuff.
Then as the level of competition changes as you get older you learn what zone defenses are, how to proper run certain offenses and plays, how to defend the pick and roll properly, how to set a proper pick, how to catch and shoot, how to put back an offensive rebound properly, how to run a fast break, how to space yourself on the fast break.
Then in practices you put to use the knowledge gained by scrimmaging and constant repetition of running your plays. New sets are installed as older ones are perfected. Then, eventually the games come and you put to use all that knowledge by playing the game.
But coaches teach in practice in training camp and players learn and get better there. Coaches then evaluate set positions and name starters and role players. If players can't perform in game conditions then they are demoted and others promoted. Minutes are increased and decreased accordingly.
But ultimately players learn in practice and off the court and have to perform on the court in games. The only way you get better by playing more is through familiarity with what you are running, familiarity with the players you are playing with and learning to have the confidence to properly use what you have been taught.
You actually get better through practice. You show you've gotten better by playing in games. Coaches then evaluate and decide who works best with whom and when and utilizes those players to best interest of the team.
But playing players that aren't as good as other players just to get them to learn in a game isn't how it is done. Those players are not playing for a reason. That reason is because through hours and hours of practice and drills and scrimmages and in the case of high level college ball and the pros, through testing, they have shown they just aren't as good as the players in front of them. No amount of playing in games is going to make them better. It's just going to make them more familiar with what they have to do in game conditions.
My proof of all this is that coaches at the pro level just don't do things your way. They do it this way. They do it the way Doc and Mike Brown and almost every other coach does it.
Anyway, that's my explanation, long winded as it may be, for why I think what you are suggesting is wrong. Disagree with me, that's cool. Tell me why and give me your explanations and reasons and proof.
This isn't personal Meadowlark, it's just me not agreeing with you.
Topic: Doc philosophy vs Cleve coach Brown (Read 3605 times)