USA Ultimate

The Huddle, Issue #1: Horizontal or Vertical?

• Cater to Your Team's Particular Skills
  
  
  
  • Any offense is difficult in the wind, so when conditions are windy a team should play the offense that it has practiced the most. Both vertical and horizontal stack offenses have advantages and disadvantages in the wind and the decision to play one over the other depends on how well your team can be on the same page while running it's O.
    
    When my team first made the transition from vertical stack to horizontal stack back in 2005, we struggled in the wind and often would switch back to the vert stack when it was windy and we were having difficulty scoring. However, that was comparing a vertical stack offense at which we were very experienced to a horizontal offense that we were just learning. At the time, I was convinced that a vertical stack was better in the wind because the emphasis on the lateral disc movement of dumping and swinging made it hard for the defense to overplay the open side, allowing opportunities for cutters to get open with timing and handlers to generate movement with break mark throws. It seemed to me that defenses were able to easily front cutters in our horizontal stack when it was windy and handlers were often left without many options.
    
    As my team's horizontal stack has matured and become more dynamic, I now think that it offers more possibilities to advance the disc confidently in windy conditions than the vertical stack. A horizontal offense allows more flexibility for handlers to aggressively attack and get the disc upfield. This not only serves to catch downfield defenders out of position, but it also provides an easy way to advance the disc down the field as the short throws and dishy passes to handlers remain largely unaffected by wind. Additionally, lots of handler motion combined with the coordinated movement of four cutters filling and vacating multiple cutting lanes can find holes in a poaching defense and isolate defenders without help deep. I have found vertical stack offenses to be less effective at breaking down the poachy and clammy defenses that wind invites.
    
    While I would rather play a horizontal offense now, I recognize that its strength lies in the complex combination of coordination and improvisation. I think this may actually take longer for a team to practice before it can effectively execute the offense in any condition than it does for a vertical stack. However, the rewards are greater.
     
  • GWEN AMBLER
• What Kind of Team Are We?
  
  
  
  • I want to first analyze what type of team we are and what type of team we are playing in determining which offense (and defense) to run.
    
    Downwind
    Here I generally prefer the horizontal stack, regardless (and variations), as I feel you a thrower is given more choices from nearly every position. Players also tend to overplay defensively when guarding an O that is going downwind which I feel tends to open up cutters underneath and away more often. Additionally, there is usually plenty of space to put throws out like hammers or scoobers if needed.
    
    With the Ho set I prefer to be a bit more aggressive going downwind with hucks (smart hucks though). The reason is that on a huck incompletion, you are now making the defensive team, whose throwers are usually not the best throwers on the team move the disc 70 yards for a goal. Watching the Sockeye/JAM 07 Semi, this appeared to me to be one of deciding factors in the game. Although JAM would generate turns against Sockeye, they were unable to move the disc well against the D and turned the disc back over to Sockeye.
    
    Crosswind
    Here is where I like to see a hybrid of the two offenses.
    
    Last year our team focused on playing a horizontal stack to begin the point and moving the disc to the upwind side immediately if there was a crosswind. We did this is because most teams force the disc to the 'downwind' sidelines so that to break the mark you have to throw into the wind. However, if you start on the upwind side, the throws are generally easier, and you are able to move the disc to mid-field before you are stopped. Secondly, the option is there to get off a big throw with a crosswind.
    
    What we didn't do well is then transition to a vertical stack from the horizontal stack after crossing midfield.
    
    The reason for moving to a vertical stack near the goal line is that I believe the Ho stack is less effective in scoring goals than the vertical stack in a short field (this could just be dogma as well). I tend to believe that the horizontal stack is better with a lot of field space and that a vertical stack is better with a short field. The reason for this is that teams are able to maintain possession better in a vertical stack offense near the goal line than other offenses as they focus on possession.
    
    Upwind
    Here I believe you have to go with your strength as a team, which requires an honest assessment of your team's skills and abilities. Two teams stick out over the years is DoG and Furious George, both used different types of offense, but both were very successful.
    
    In my view, and from the couple years I saw, DoG ran a stack/iso offense. DoG took the throws that were given to them and were very disciplined in their throws and decision-making. Each player knew their role and executed their offense efficiently, which allowed them to move the disc and take the big throw on what they considered a high percentage throw.
    
    Furious, on the other hand, had some great throwers who are able to make outstanding hucks upwind to very good receivers and were not afraid to make the big throw. By having great throwers, they were able to maintain the disc until they were able to put up a huck that was a high percentage. (Maybe I'm arguing for Ho, but I still feel that both are effective and it depends upon personnel).
    
    Where I think that both DoG and Furious are the same is that they ran the same offense on pretty much every possession. Both were excellent and disciplined in executing their strategy.
    
    Another team I feel that did both well was JAM 04. Watching the tapes, they were equally adept at running both vertical and a stack offense. The players on the team knew their roles and how to execute their roles very well. This worked to their advantage throughout the series, though whether that hurt them is a question in and of itself.
    
    1a. See Crosswind. I believe the strategy for the crosswind can be equally effective, if not more effective
     
  • CHRIS ASHBROOK
• My Thoughts On The Stack Debate
  
  
  
  • Given the chess game that's taking place, the O should be keeping the D on their toes equally as much, so I don't know if it's a matter Of which type of O I'd "rather" run. Considering the conditions are windy enough, I'd more than likely prefer the Ho stack mainly because I'm thinking the D is coming zone or zone for a certain number of passes. If the D looks to transition after 4/5/6 passes, the secondary outside players are already set in place. I also like to look for a potential 2 to 3-man homey/dominator after the D's zone to man transition.
    
    I think the wind can be the D's 8th man if you're running a vertical stack into the wind. Running a Ho stack is more effective because running dummy cuts or fake cuts to the open side are more believable and the D can't necessarily overplay the open side. Having the ability to opt for a 3-man homey after a call/violation while facing the wind is "easier" when standing spread O rather than in a stack; it's an easier transition for that matter. Downwind, I'd be more flexible to run a vertical stack. In that situation the wind might become the O's 8th man. Dropping a hammer to break side space downwind for example. After feeling out the first few points in a heavy crosswind game, I'd be more comfortable running a vertical stack. With the exception of your deep-deep in a zone O, all the players are pretty much where they need to be. I'm sure you'd be looking at a 1-3-3, a 4-man cup or some sort of heavy trap-side defense for a few passes if not the entire point. That being true, I like having players near to where you want them setup. Allow handlers to be handlers for the first few passes. Maybe they can play a game of catch for the first few passes before the transition; and if not then the wings can get settled and a popper and handler/dump look for a potential 2 on 1 match-up.
    
    Looking at that kind of wind with either offensive set, the main adjustment I'm looking at is really not so different from a no-wind day: you don't need 7 players to score.
    
    Upwind or downwind: at some point I'm looking for the opportunity to use throwers and use speed/quickness to get closer to the end zone.
     
  • TULLY BEATTY
• Advantages Of A Spread Offense
  
  
  
  • Without question, the horizontal offense is a better wind offense. That doesn't mean it's the right choice for your team. The horizontal offense offers a couple really nice advantages in a high wind situation, but if you don't have the personnel to run it, it'll be worse than a vertical offense. Ben wrote "equivalent talent," but I ask what talent? (Quick aside: Sockeye and Furious are the two most effective teams at running the horizontal offense, but they are fundamentally different. Sockeye runs the high-tempo, zig-zagging offense I describe here; Furious runs a muscular, isolation, big cut, big throw offense that is a vertical offense in a horizontal disguise.)
    
    The horizontal offense opens up the area in front of the disc for aggressive handler cutting. In a windy situation, a five yard leading pass to a handler running across the front of the disc is safe and with the yards-after-catch, an excellent way to advance the disc. The downfield cutting in a horizontal offense is fundamentally different from vertical. Vertical offense relies on long (6-12 yards) cuts to out-muscle and out-run the defenders. Horizontal offense relies on the stop-cut; a quick change of direction cut that relies on the cutter's judgment ("which lane do I chose?") and the thrower's ability to break the mark. When it is windy, the long comeback cuts necessary for a vertical offense lead to some nasty and difficult catches. The stop-cut cutter is just beginning to come back when the disc is released and they can adjust and snap on the disc before the defender has time to react. Fronting defense is also much more effective against vertical offense where there is only one comeback cut lane. In the wind, it is easy to front and challenge the thrower to huck it. In a horizontal offense, the cutter is choosing from multiple comeback lanes and the defender can't camp in all of them.
    
    So why would you chose a vertical stack offense? A horizontal stack offense is a seven-player offense. For it to really work, everyone has to have a clue. At the high school and college (and some club teams) level, you don't have the luxury of seven people with a clue. Cutting in a horizontal offense really relies on reading the field, finding lanes and knowing your thrower. It is much easier to teach how to run a vertical offense and have it work. Horizontal offense also depends on everyone being able to deliver the disc to every kind of cut. You can play in a vertical offense if you can run and throw a 2-yard dump.
    
    In brief, tailor your offense to your talent and adjust to the wind. Don't try to learn two offenses. So, do you have a lot of experience and a lot of quick handlers? Horizontal. Got a couple big throwers and a lot of tall, fast people? Vertical.
     
  • LOU BURRUSS
• Talent Determines Offense
  
  
  
  • I would say that the absolute talents of your team will likely favor one offense over the other. If you cannot consistently complete passes greater than forty yards, a stack offense is more favorable than a horizontal. Any situation where the defense no longer has to defend the deep pass puts the horizontal stack offense at a significant disadvantage. This generality can be extrapolated to any situation, not just wind condition. For example, when the disc is on the goal-line, defenders can front the people in the stack, thus using their position to take away the in cut, and the back of the endzone to take away the deep cut. At any point in time your team finds itself unable to throw deep passes, a different offense is called for. Taking this example further, a stack offense, which favors lateral movement of the disc often with break-mark throws, would be more effective on the goal line than a horizontal stack. Conversely, as deep shots become more viable, the horizontal stack would be favored over a vertical one.
    
    Everybody knows that strong winds make throwing and catching more difficult. This fact is often exploited by defenses by running some sort of zone defense that forces the offense to execute many throws in the hope that somewhere along the line a mistake will be made (see the math section below). But what should be done if a team runs an effective man defense in windy conditions? Every situation is different, but there are a few generalities that can be helpful.
    
    First, the stack must change its position on the field to facilitate the offense's goals. A deep cut from the back of a vertical stack with a stiff upwind may not be viable if the back of the stack is 30 yards away. By the time the thrower recognizes a deep cut from that position is open, the receiver is likely too far way to complete a pass that is uncontested. On the other hand, if the back of the stack is 15 yards away, the thrower has more room to deliver a pass. Alternatively if you are on the downwind side of a stiff crosswind, not only does the stack need to be shallow, but also should move away from that sideline to facilitate line throws, or toward the sideline to facilitate break-mark throws.
    
    Second, in windy situations the ratio of risk to reward can be different than when it is calm. Let's say that if it is calm your team can complete 20 short throws at a 100% completion rate to score, or 1 deep throw at a 70% completion rate, then you should take the short throws. However, if you need 30 short throws at a 90% completion rate or 2 deep throws at a 30% completion rate, the math favors deep throws. These numbers are exaggerated to make a point; sometimes a couple big risks are more favorable to a lot of little ones.
     
  • JEFF EASTHAM-ANDERSON
• Advantages Of Either Offensive Set
  
  
  
  • First and foremost I will say that I am completely biased in favor of a horizontal based offense in a non-windy environment. While there are certain advantages in starting out of a vertical, I believe that a horizontal flow gives players the maximum amount of freedom and space to run the offense. However, in windy conditions (depending on the severity) vertical, if run correctly, does have its advantages.
    
    Provided that the wind isn't brutal (i.e. less than 20 MPH), I think horizontal is the way to go. Given the athletes that are playing the game today, I think you need to put them in space and let their legs do the work. This offense, when run correctly, is incredibly difficult to stop because it allows tremendous freedom for all players. Cutters can choose to go in or cut deep on a whim, and can also adjust mid-cut if they see a break lane open up.
    
    When attacking downwind defenders are often so worried about getting beaten deep that smart cutters can take twenty-yard unders whenever they choose. And if the defense adjusts, you can let the hucks rain. Obviously any huck-happy offense will face a rise in turnovers, but depending on the wind, and the level of competition, this could be a risk worth taking. Few D-lines will be able to effectively move the disc upwind with any consistency if they have to go the full 70 yards to score.
    
    When attacking upwind you could choose to go either way, but I still like horizontal. For starters, with a correctly run flow you are receiving the disc in the center of the field, not on the sidelines. Even with no wind, the possibility of turnover rises exponentially once the disc gets on the sideline, and with some wind, that percentage gets even higher. Obviously, the disc will eventually find its way to a sideline, but the frequency in which that occurs goes down when flowing horizontally. I also believe (although I know some don't) that throwing break-marks is actually easier in a horizontal, as long as cutters standing on the break side keep potential poachers occupied. And getting breaks going up-wind is huge for eating up chunks of yardage and for allowing the possibility of a break-mark huck. Most likely defenders will be fronting, and if you can get the disc to one of your big throwers on that break side, bomb away.
    
    When dealing with a crosswind, it is imperative that the disc gets to that upwind side (i.e. the side that the wind is blowing from). Again, my bias will be towards horizontal, because I think with a vertical (where the open spaces are towards the outsides of the field) you will find yourself trapped on the down-wind sideline more often that you would like.
    
    The vertical stack is true to its name in that it attacks the field vertically. This can be helpful when attacking up wind. For most windy games O-lines will typically find themselves attacking down wind, while the d-lines (provided they force turnovers) will be going up-wind. This means that a team's less offensively talented players (usually) will be asked to score given more difficult circumstances. In this case having an offense that relies on numerous throws, dumps and swings significantly hurts that sides chances of scoring. When attacking the upwind end zone with consistent 20+ MPH gusts, you may want to go vertical. Having played on a team with a very big thrower, this offense can be your best bet to actually get the disc down the field. Try isolating your best deep threat for your biggest thrower and pull the trigger. Obviously this won't work every time, but the chance of completing one longer thrown is often higher than completing 15-20 shorter ones, depending on the personnel. Without the threat of deep throws, defenses will sit on the unders and make it nearly impossible to move the disc, unless your handlers can break the mark consistently.
    
    The windier it is, regardless of whether attacking upwind or downwind, but especially upwind, the less likely you'll be to string together dozens of passes to score. Often times the chances of completing one "risky" throw are higher than completing 20+ "safe" throws. Take the shot when its there, even if it doesn't pay off the defense will know you're willing to jack it, which will allow for easier unders later in the game.
    
    And, when attacking downwind with a 20+ MPH wind, never turn the disc within your brick. It doesn't matter if the disc goes 80 yards out the back of your opponent's end zone; make them go the full 70 yards to score.
     
  • DAN HEIJMEN
• Experience & Coordination
  
  
  
  • To my eyes, the advantage of the spread/horizontal is that you don't need a whole group of people working together, but can be effective by working in just pairs of upfield cutters or on occasion an isolated receiver. Of course, the better teams will have coordination of all the players, but for a young team, or a team using a new system, things can get up and running effectively with the horizontal.
    
    To the question as which is more effective in windy situations, again I think you have to look at not the ability of the team, but their familiarity with one another and the system they are using. If a team has a lot of experience working together in a vertical stack system, I think they will make adjustments in the wind that will be very effective. Similar for a horizontal stack, the difference would be in a pickup team, or a team without a lot of practice together, I think the adjustments in a horizontal system are easier to describe and implement for windy conditions than for a vertical system.
     
  • GREG HUSAK
• Horizontal Stack in Windy Conditions
  
  
  
  • I am not sure what equivalent talent is but you simply have more options in a HORIZONTAL stack and the cutters are generally all closer to the ball. This is important because all four cutters are options, in and out, almost simultaneously. Additionally, using the field as 4 cutting lanes as opposed to two, for seasoned cutters is easier. The problem is most cutters don't know what they are doing. I think you need to play a lot of Vertical stack to learn how to cut. You must have an understanding of two lanes before you can have four. You must learn to cut for your self (Vertical is a very selfish system) before you can cut for your team. Sure you make space for your teammates by cutting and clearing in a Vertical, but every time you cut you are trying to get open and get a pass. Some cuts in a HORIZONTAL are not designed to get a pass on that throw, but maybe a few throws later.
    
    Generally, in high wind you want receivers closer to you. If you have dominant handlers and one or two good cutters you can manage a Vertical, but a HORIZONTAL gives you more options and I think as many options as possible to initiate offense is key. A thrower should always have a minimum of 4 options. In Vertical, unless you are using two dumps, it is hard to design. The HORIZONTAL is designed with the two dumps (though they don't necessarily line up that way) and then I would like to think all 4 cutters could be an option. Even if 2 are, you meet the minimum four.
    
    Whether up or downwind, I would still stick with the Horizontal...given a team has the players that have put in the Vertical work. In heavy downwind, the automatic ISO situations initially set up by the HORIZONTAL formation and the 4 lanes produce more turns to cut deep. If the d adjusts, then you can hammer under cuts.
    
    I would only make general adjustments without specifics about what the other team is doing. Stick to the fundamentals in high wind. Forehands, backhands (maybe some fancy stuff downwind), short passes, throw and go, and keep the ball moving.
     
  • RON KUBALANZA
• Which Type of Offense Fits Your Team?
  
  
  
  • There are numerous factors to consider when deciding whether to run a horizontal stack (HO) or vertical stack (Vert) offense such as: recent success rate with a particular offense against your opponent, probable individual match-ups with your opponent, and how critical the particular point is. In this scenario we are asked to discuss how another factor, wind, affects that decision. Before that discussion, however, it is necessary to look generally at the relative costs and benefits of the Vert versus the HO offense.
    
    The Vert offense is systematic and mechanistic. Teams benefit from its predictability. Everyone knows who is cutting, when he is cutting, and generally where he is going to cut. The thrower knows when and where to look for these cutters. Everyone else sets up subsequent cuts and movements accordingly. The cost of the Vert offense is that it limits the players in the stack who are not scheduled to cut.
    
    The HO offense attempts to isolate a number of players at the same time by spreading them across the field. Each of these players have the freedom at any time to take advantage of open cut opportunities...either in or out. This potential for opportunistic behavior is the benefit of the HO offense. The necessary cost, of course, is decreased predictability. Because cutters are not moving according to preset rules, as in the Vert offense, each one must first decide when and where to cut and must coordinate his decision with every other cutter's decision. Due to this multiplayer decision-making, the thrower cannot expect a cutter in a certain position at a certain time and must therefore find the cutter before making a decision to throw.
    
    Given that Vert offense favors predictability at the cost of opportunistic behavior, and that the HO offense favors opportunistic behavior at the cost of predictability, the question now becomes how the wind affects each of these factors. Wind certainly decreases the predictability of any offense. Throwers become tighter and some throws that would be made in calm conditions are unexpectedly withheld in windy conditions. Cutters can also tighten up by hesitating to cut or by staying too long in the lane. This seems to weigh against playing Vert in windy situations. However, wind can also negatively affect opportunistic behavior, especially heading upwind. The probability of completing deep passes decreases going upwind, for example, thus cutting off those opportunities. Since there are more of these opportunities in HO offense, it seems to weigh against playing HO in windy situations. Ultimately, deciding between Vert and HO in wind depends on just how much it affects the predictability of your team's Vert or the possibility for opportunistic behavior in your team's HO.
    
    My team, Truck Stop, was a young but very athletic team. Additionally, Truck Stop added a significant contingent of new players, myself included, who needed to build chemistry with the rest of the team. Because of these characteristics we generally played Vert in a strong headwind, but exclusively HO in a downwind situation. It made sense for us to use a HO offense in that situation because everyone can throw further going downwind, making it possible to complete more deep opportunities. We have also utilized some techniques to mitigate the costs of each type of offense. In an effort in institute some predictability into our HO offense; we have a number of set plays that establish the first few cuts off of a pull. These plays help to jump start the offense and settle everyone down for the first few cuts and throws. Similarly, in an effort to take advantage of opportunities in the Vert offense, we have number of plays that initiate cuts from the middle of the stack. For example, if a defensive handler walks to the disc after a turnover and notices that we have a huge height advantage, he can call a play that will send that player deep to take advantage of that opportunity.
    
    By evaluating the effect of wind on your team's potential for opportunistic play in the HO and on predictability in the Vert you can chose the offense that will give you the best chance for success in the wind. Furthermore, addressing the shortcomings of these offenses in general with set plays will increase your chances of success.
     
  • RYAN MORGAN
• Some Thoughts From Australia
  
  
  
  • I wouldn't say I've thought about this a lot, surprisingly. I find I'm generally on a team that's drilled a lot of vertical or drilled a lot of horizontal, so we're better at one particular offence in most conditions.
    
    All other things being equal, horizontal relies on using static structure to create space on the field, whereas vertical relies on cutting (dynamic structure?) to create space on the field.
    
    Wind tends to nullify cutting advantages, so _theoretically_ horizontally should be preferred in the wind, all other things being equal, including your team's ability to play either offence.
    
    However, in wind you need to modify the static structure of the horizontal to adjust for the wind direction and strength, and everyone needs to be on the same page, so it could be pretty tricky to get right.
    
    For example, obviously, going upwind you need to shorten up the stack to maintain the deep threat, and going downwind you need to lengthen the stack so that you get reasonable return on the in cuts.
    
    Similarly, in a side wind you'll probably need to adjust your spacing across the field to allow a greater margin of error on the throws into space.
    
    But, just like vertical, it will be more difficult to play horizontal offence in the wind, you need a genuine deep threat at all times, and you need to coordinate your cuts.
     
  • JONATHAN POTTS
• Vouching For the Vert Stack
  
  
  
  • I guess I'm pretty old school on this one. One of the main advantages of the horizontal offense is the deep space it affords throwers, particularly once cutters get the disc in their hands. In a crosswind or upwind situation, deep looks for any thrower become less of an option so I would prefer to run the vertical stack. This usually gives the thrower multiple in looks and I find the dump-swing to be much easier out of a vertical set. To me, dump-swing will win you windy games just by advancing the disc a little bit each time on the swing.
    
    Now there are some special situations to be addressed here.
    
    What if the disc is trapped on sideline toward which the wind is blowing? This is a tough one. In this situation, the dump-swing is harder and it's even hard to throw to an in cut. One thing to do is while using the dump swing; don't swing it all the way to the sideline creating a trap situation. This also goes for a similar weather situation when playing zone offense. Another thing to consider, particularly in lower level games where more turnovers occur (and particularly in really bad winds) is hucking and playing D.
    
    What if you are going downwind? I actually really like running horizontal or spread offenses in this situation because of the open deep space it creates. Again, if you turn it over on deep looks (where more horizontal turns come), the other team has to work it all the way up, into the wind.
    
    What if you really want to run the horizontal offense/your team doesn't have a vertical stack offense? My advice, much like in a vertical stack offense, is to keep the stack closer to the handlers the windier it is. This forces the defense to still respect deep looks and it also makes handlers' jobs easier since they don't have to throw as far to get it to a cutter. On the other hand, if your handlers are particularly strong, you might think about running a handler dominated offense (the cutters wouldn't have to stack as close for this) or at least initiate to a handler cutting up field and then to a cutter on the second pass.
     
  • MIRANDA ROTH
• Why The Ho-Stack Is Currently In Favor
  
  
  
  • The horizontal stack has all but replaced the vertical stack because it does such a good job of creating space. When run effectively, four cutters typically are spread across the width of the field. This spacing between cutters makes defensive switches very difficult, thereby putting each downfield defender on an island one-on-one with their man. As any cutter will tell you, when you know your defender doesn't have help, you have the advantage. There's no need to sacrifice this advantage just because it's windy.
    
    In an upwind situation (offense going into the wind), the biggest problem an offense faces is the defense camping out underneath; always staying between their man and the disc. This makes shorter upfield passes very difficult, particularly in cuts (toward the disc). With the defense taking away the in cuts, it's the deep shots that are left open. But as an offense, you can't solely rely on hitting deep cuts in any weather, let alone against a stiff wind, especially if you don't have throwers with consistently accurate hucks or reliable upwind throws.
    
    A common mistake horizontal offenses make in the wind is allowing the stack to get too deep (whether consciously or unintentionally). The thought is that if you have more room to make an in cut, the more likely you are to make it successfully and get open for a pass. While this is true conceptually, the strategy really doesn't hold up. You end up limiting yourself to 5-yard-or-so completions and really allow the D to clamp down because they know where you're going.
    
    Instead, pull the stack in tighter than normal. As an offense, you need to establish that your cutters can get the disc going out as well as coming underneath. Cutters need to do two things: first, keep your spacing across the width of the field - in the wind it's even more important to not allow your man to poach or help on a throw to another cutter. Second, bring your defender in towards the disc as far as he'll go and still stay underneath you. You can do this by starting from a set position in the stack (if you are within 10 yards or so from the thrower) OR begin with an in cut. Either way, turn and go out decisively - don't juke or dance. Throwers: you're looking to get off a pass as soon as the cutter makes his move to go out. Note that this does not need to be a deep pass - and really shouldn't be a deep pass unless you're sure you've got the throw - it just needs to get beyond the cutter. The best throw in this situation is flat with a lot of spin - get it out ahead of the cutter and let him run onto it. Once the D recognizes that you can hit out cuts, they'll have to adjust to play more honestly and not give up that pass so easily. Now you have them respecting both the in and out cuts, and you can start using both effectively.
     
  • CHRIS TALARICO