Bob and our staff are severely lacking in these areas(I would say Boren and Joe C, as well, but that is another topic).
Forward thinking involves being able to determine 2nd and 3rd order consequences. This helps with game planning and adjustments.
Simple thinkers: We are good at doing A. Let's do A on offense. The opponent gameplans for A. Stops it. We keep doing it and don't adjust because we a think we are good at it A and it is just a matter of execution. Think Leach and Long.
More complex, yet simple thinker: They are good at doing X on defense, let's do B on offense. This is the "take what the defense gives approach". This worked for Louisville because Florida never did stop doing X on defense. They kept giving up B and didn't adjust.
Complex forward thinker: They are good at X on defense, let's do B on offense. If they change to Y, let's try C. If they do Z, let's go back to A or try D. It's like a chess match. 2008 Muschamp vs Wilson. This is 2nd and 3rd order consequence thinking.
Introspective thinker: We are good at A. If I were the opponent, how would I attack or stop A. If we do B, how would I stop B if I were the opponent. We are weak at C. How would I attack C if I were the opponent? Then you put in contingency plans if the opponents do such things.
You often hear a coach say, "We didn't have an answer for X".
Is it because you tried A, B, C and D and had some introspective contingencies that just didn't work? If so, that is forgivable and understandable for a coach.
Is it because you didn't have the talent despite having good plan A, B, C and contingencies? If so, that is understandable and forgivable as a coach.
Or is it because you are a simple thinking coaching staff and just didn't have an answer? That is unforgivable. It is my fear that this is where our staff is. We may have the "more complex, yet simple thinker" kind of coaches. Something needs to change.


Reply With Quote

