Book Review: Ted Seay's Wild Bunch

There are moments in everyone’s development in any role that resonate.  From a father’s first realization to just how closely his young son watches (and sometimes to his horror, mimics) him, to that one positive or negative work experience that cements an attitude that lasts decades.  These moments figuratively fill us with a deep, full, reverberating sound that echoes in our mind’s ears whenever a decision is weighed.  “Remember when…”

This looks cool, but memory crystallization hurts like Hell....

                In my coaching life, one such event struck me in my formative years, the reading of one Ted Seay’s Wild Bunch: A Side Order of Football.  I have previous written about Ted’s concept of Unity of Apparent Intent.

                Ted’s most recent expansion, The Wild Bunch: A Conflict-Theoretical Approach to Offensive Football, is more than a mere re-write.  It is not just an unpacking of the what’s (plays), the how’s (technique), or even the why’s (philosophy)-though it has all of these.  It is a digestion down to the fundamental nature of football:  conflict.

 

                Ted’s mastery at analyzing this concept (on which his newest book wonderfully expounds), coupled with my firm belief that any coach cannot begin his education with fully understanding and owning this concept, has led me to recommend this book for several years to any coach wanting to learn more about offensive football.  Subsequently, dear reader, I also recommend it to you.

                I don’t care if you can diagram every play from Michigan in 1922, or Army in 1945, or Houston 1989, or Kentucky in 1997, or West Virginia in 2005, or Baylor in 2013…..without an understanding of the underlying principle of all these great offenses (beside having talent), you have the directions on how to build a fine sports car, but no idea how to use the tools.

                That underlying principle is conflict.  I mean, if one has the brute force to run wedge every play for no less than 3 yards, then that is exactly what they should do.  In the real world, however, no one is THAT much better than their opponents (and if you are, feel free to stop reading and go back to dusting your trophies).

 

                A conflicted defender is one who lack certainty about where the ball is/is going, and consequentially, where he should be heading.  Have you ever had a team period where the offensive coordinator just tells the offense to “run it again”, and everyone on the scout team hears it?  You never saw a cornerback fill on iso like that kid just did.

                The lack of conflict, and certainty with which the defense could sprint to ball creates very tough sledding, and soon the offensive coordinator is yelling at the scout defense to “play it honest”.

                It should also be noted, that space is a vital component (and in fact, the end goal) of conflict.  Even the phone booth knife fight that is the Double Wing offense wants to eventually get the ball in space.

                Those who doubt that last statement have never played a good DW team with the ability to go play action, and the corner route is so wide open your pregnant wife could throw the touchdown.  Conflict (secondary players needing to help on power) creates space (PAP over the top of flat footed cornerbacks).

                Ted expertly defines this in chapter 3 of his book:                                            

 

“…….don't take on your opponent at what he does best or where he is most concentrated. Coach Woody Hayes put it very well, misquoting Sun Tzu slightly, but to good effect: "Don't attack walled cities." I would add to that a corollary -- don't attack walled cities while the defenders are fresh and alert. Maneuver past the concentrations of enemy forces into open territory and ride like hell. Force your opponent to redeploy his forces to cover more ground, until you have him stretched thin from sideline to sideline. Then attack the walled city, while its defenders are out in the plains waiting for a cavalry end run that never comes.”



"Don't chase the enemies fly sweep!!  But still stop it somehow!"

                That concept alone is worth buying the book. 

                Ted goes on to lay out the personnel, formational structure, plays, drills, and practice plans associated with his offense, all the while relating his decision making back to the original premise of conflict theory.

                For years I have said this, and with this new edition (which stands apart from the rest), it has never been more true:  I do not care what offensive system you run, this is a MUST READ.

On Loyalty

Develop a relationship, and you'll have all the loyalty you need.

You don't have to be buddies, but respect ought to be mutual.

Is it 'loyal' to blindly accept everything presented? I think it is unrealistic to expect the demonstrations of loyalty in the office or in private. Some of that has to to with realistic expectations of leadership. The header doesn't have to be (or appear to be) invincible or infallible. "Loyalty" is probably best exemplified outside the coach's office, though.
On the field, everything should appear united.

This is best demonstrated by showing no weakness in the message.
No "I don't know about this......" grumblings to the players. Perception can be reality...we should all be good actors and present the best possible staff image to our players at all times - if you ain't there, fake it 'till you make it. Loyalty has more to do with stewardship. Assistants serve the header. The header serves the assistants.

In the community - Despite how your temporary emotions may misguide you, it is never okay to second-guess or present any discord to anyone outside the staff. Maybe if you bounce things off a mentor in a private conversation, but anything / everything presented to everyone else should give the impression that everything is fine (even when it is not). It is OKAY to not say anything.
Loyalty" is simply a symptom of something deeper. Loyalty in the context we all use it, is about being honest and forthright in the effort to advance the program. To be 'disloyal' is to engage in utter hypocrisy, which is nothing more than deluding ourselves for our ego.

When we speak out against the header to others, we are damaging/causing harm to the program. We may come away feeling satisfied that we could vent our frustration to someone, or that someone will regard us with more esteem (because "we see what is wrong"), but who wins? It only fractures that which we say we are speaking out to defend. We remove the foundation of confidence that a staff / program is based on (trust). Lose-lose

When we serve the header, and in doing so, maybe challenge his comfort zone, we advance the program because either it provides an opportunity for the HC to galvanize our beliefs in what we are doing, or it provides an opportunity to find a better solution for the program. Win-Win

Regardless of the situation, it is what it is, and as much as we will be comforted by justifying it - bitching and griping to players is petty.

It may be justified, it may be true (your statements), it may feel good, but it ultimately, it is unnecessary and small-minded.

Again, lets be realistic here - 'loyalty' is being true and honest in your relationship. Some times all relationships don't work - it is okay, make your peace and move on as adults.....being 'disloyal' there would be going behind the back and creating unnecessary friction. I think we all have a duty to serve our kids, but advancing your career has nothing to do with that, though. It is natural that we all form relationship bonds with our athletes.....feeling like you are 'disloyal' for looking at other positions is like expecting your players to feel guilty for graduating and going to college (how dare they leave City High!?!)

I'm not arguing actions, feelings, or beliefs. I AM suggesting that finding exceptions to the rule (of loyalty) is a self-serving endeavor. If my son was playing for a coach that was as horrible and inept as being depicted (I'm not arguing that), I doubt it would be only one former coach who would know about it, and I may likely just pull my son out and put him in a different school. They won't need a former assistant to 'jump on the pile' to make things happen.

As an assistant coach charged with advancing the program, you have an obligation to serve the person who is leading the program. If that person is leading that program into the crapper (not doing anything illegal) and you cannot stomach it, it is your obligation (or prerogative) to find somewhere else to utilize your services.....the header isn't obligated to do things "your way" just because you're not used to it. If the HC is doing illegal activities and directly abusing the kids (not by the stretch definition of 'injure' my sons chances of getting a DI scholly), then you would be derelict if you did not report that to the authorities.

Let us at least be clear on the scope of what we are actually talking about here. Being a whistleblower in a situation where improper activity is going on is one thing and there is no accountability - it is quite another to rant on a guy simply because you have philosophical differences.

I mention that, because what we are doing here is looking for any excuse to justify disloyalty.
"I don't like how HC does this", "I don't think I would've done that" therefore, it is my 'duty' to go out and assassinate this guy's character (even if he is a bum).

That, to me, is petty. What we are saying is, if I get upset / frustrated enough, then 'yes'....disloyalty is okay/justified. I also acknowledge that if you are a teacher, the dynamic may be completely different, because afterall, many times your coaching job is directly tied to your position on the teaching staff, and "just leaving" isn't practical. I think that adds to the dynamic, but I do not see where it affords one to hold more credence than the HC ("HC should listen/comply to me because I have more invested in the program").

I completely respect it if you don't feel this way - thats cool. I am merely weighing in and clarifying my position.

Staff Cohesion: Do you know how to fight?

Do You Know How To Fight?!?


Or does your staff interaction resemble this?


A skill not inherent in everyone, but are there ways you and your staff cultivate a deeper appreciation for CONFLICT in your program / among your staff?

Getting along may not always be conducive to the overall health of the program.
Tearing each other apart can be the quickest way to sabotage a season.
Swallowing thoughts and resentments is evidenced in many of the coordinator to head coach threads on here.

When an idea has moved beyond infancy, but is still unproven, constructive conflict is crucial for developing and testing its value. Conflict is a sign that there is a contest for ideas in the organization, that people are developing and assessing many possibilities. Even at this stage, however, not all conflict is constructive. Arguments are crucial to creativity, but people need to learn how and when to fight. In the very earliest stages of idea generation, conflict (and the criticism it entails) is damaging when it causes ideas to be rejected before they can be developed well enough to be evaluated. Worse yet, when conflict rages, fear of ridicule or humiliation causes people to censor themselves before proposing silly or strange, but possibly useful, ideas. This is why idea generation techniques, like brainstorming, require participants to "withhold judgment" or "avoid criticism."
http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/view_article.asp?intArticle_ID=387

Through this unique combination of tools and techniques interactions become less turbulent, more productive, and in fact result in stronger more invigorating relationships.In order to make conflict a positive and productive factor it is necessary for the organization, or at the very least, the main individuals involved to complete some assessment of both themselves and the climate around them.
http://www.aptimise.com/article12.06.html

Are there ways in which you and your staff have found ways to build respect within your group, to ensure everyone has an opportunity to share, contribute, and receive?

Have (and encourage) the knock-down-drag-outs with conviction (not the nodding agreement on 'what should we have for dinner?') to challenge the way WE think (as a staff).

The more we argue / conflict, the more certain we will be that we're doing the right thing, and ensure we are all on the same page. This isn't about 'speaking your piece' as much as it is challenging the way we do things.

Sure, all decisions ultimately lay on the Header, but the point of 'fighting' is to exhaust all avenues (and effort) which circumvents any hurt feelings (nothing is left to interpretation) or back-biting (going over your head)......and as the studies (links) indicate, efficiency and innovation.

As the article / study points to........it isn't just welcoming confrontation, but understanding how to USE it, how to "make light and not fire" (sort to speak).
We have to be wary of bullying thought in the coaches office.

Coach Skip: "Versus this team this week I was thinking of
running veer concepts"
Coach Bill: "Interesting.....what do you mean? Draw it up
and sell me......."

Coach Skip may be completely out of his element (or maybe he does have good input), but the 'creative/innovative' thought process should be allowed to bring things up and opened up to scrutiny. Let them say their piece.....then let them defend how it works within your scheme / teaching methodology - you may uncover a better play / efficient teaching style.

If Coach Skip is out in left field he will see it for himself when he is unable to articulate the idea in a cogent concept (rather than just being stiffled / shouted down by the old salts on staff), but better than that he will UNDERSTAND why it does/doesn't work and why the scheme you use is so important (and what elements you face).

And this is about looking at ways to MAKE YOUR STAFF BETTER (not bitch, gripe, or backslap about how we have it). Hopefully, looking at evaluating the ENTIRE TEAM (in the off season) to make a top-down, bottom-up approach to bettering the product - exploring ways and perspectives on how to view our staff cohesion