USA Ultimate

The Huddle, Issue #3: Defending A Hucker

• Keep Your Opponent Guessing
  
  
  
  • This week's question is essentially asking what do you do if your original game plan and strategy for how to play a certain player doesn't seem to be working. In this case, I would consider coming up with multiple different strategies for minimizing that players' apparent strengths. Here are four possible strategies (and in the order I would attempt them) for dealing with a player with dominant throws:
    
    1. Front her to try and deny her the disc on any easy pass, forcing her to make plays in a way that is not her preference (i.e. going deep to try and catch goals instead of throw them). This strategy is what I would always try first, but in the scenario outlined, it didn't seem to be working. While you might abandon this strategy for awhile, don't forget to try it again later in the game.
    
    2. Guard her on her inside hip so that you can always see both your woman and the disc and try and push her out wide to the open side. This is a containment-type defense where you concede certain passes but try to take away the player's most damaging un-marked throws. This positioning should make a handler stay near the disc because she would seem more open cutting in than away, but the defender is close enough to make a play on a bad pass, or put on a mark if she does catch it. A good marker is vital for this defense. By positioning yourself in the inside-out space, you ensure that she is less likely to catch a pass on the break-side and get off a huck. When she catches the disc, the sideline should yell, "Thrower!" to alert the downfield D that a huck might be coming. The defense's priority is to only have her throw open side hucks so that the downfield D can anticipate where the deep looks are coming from.
    
    3. If the downfield defense is still getting burned by her long throws, I would then set up a clam defense where the player in question and the other two handlers are marked person-on, while the four remaining players play more of a zone downfield, covering players only when they cut into their space. This should ensure that there is always a defender last back ready to defend any deep pass that gets put up. Even if this defense is only used as a transition D, forcing the offense to adjust to multiple defensive looks during a point can be effective.
    
    4. The last specific defense I would consider is a box-and-one. Even if it is not windy, this defense can be effective if your opponent is used to relying on its main thrower to run its zone offense. Set up a 3-2-1 zone where the extra person guards the target handler person-on, fronting her and trying to deny any easy reset. If the handler goes deep, the defense will have help from the zone's deep deep defender.
    
    How many different defensive looks your team will need to use in a game to shut down a specific player really depends on how good she is and how much her team relies on her. The better the player and the more well-rounded the team, the more quickly they will adjust to a specific defense. That's why it's important to have numerous defenses to alternate between so you keep your opponent guessing and you can narrow down what sort of defensive options seem most effective.
     
  • GWEN AMBLER
• Question Your First-Half Performance
  
  
  
  • I like to look at the bigger picture before making adjustments for just one player. (This is assuming you have used the same strategy in previous meetings and have been successful).
    
    Assumptions
    1. The third goal was scored in the normal flow of the O (whether Man or Zone).
    2. Two goals were scored while the D was in a straight man D, ie no zone transition.
    3. The game is not determined by the wind, ie a windy upwind/downwind game.
    
    1. How has the D squad performed in the first half?
    
    A. Did the D squad generate turnovers during the first half at a higher rate than if the O player was handling, but the D squad did not convert those turnovers into goals? If the D is generating turnovers, pull play excepted, then this probably indicates that the D is playing well and you may only want to make small tweaks to the D and not worry so much about that one player. A small tweak could be to insert a strong O player (one who is very good on D) onto the D line in certain situations to improve the D team scoring efficiency.
    
    B. Did the O squad not turn the disc over at all? If this is the case, then it might be time to adjust your overall strategy. This could involve playing a zone, a zone transition, or a different type of man D based upon the conditions.
    
    2. What type of hucks did the player catch, including the pull play huck.
    
    A. Were they hucks off of a break mark? This indicates a breakdown in team defensive strategy or in executing the team defensive strategy.
    
    B. Were the hucks made by players you want to make hucks? That is, was the player who hucked it a weak thrower, but just happened to make a great throw? (It happens). This should not necessarily indicate that the strategy for the one player needs to change.
    
    C. Was the defensive player in a position to make a play on each of the hucks, including the pull play? If he is playing good D and is in a position to make plays, unless you have a player who matches up better against that player, you would probably want to keep your best defensive matchup player against him. (Note that I did not indicate your best defensive player overall, as this might not necessarily generate the best results defensively).
    
    By answering these questions you can best identify if your current strategy is working and make adjustments as necessary as a team, and on an individual player level. Secondly, if you do make adjustments, I feel the adjustments must stay within the framework of your defensive strategy.
     
  • CHRIS ASHBROOK
• The Answer May Be On The Field Already
  
  
  
  • I'll go ahead and assume we're pulling, so that will give our guy what we hope to be two chances to make up for the first half, even the score, and allow us to see if what was said at halftime served any purpose; or was the guy simply standing there nodding his head like a boxer, in one ear and out the other, all the while wondering if he should've run off to the Honey Bucket or maybe he should put on a different wrist band, maybe someone has some tape he can borrow, maybe some Gu will help, maybe some Red Bull, maybe he should go mess around in his bag and look for something he knows isn't there—the things they didn't carry.
    
    There are times when, despite your effort, you have to tip your hat and take 70. And of course there are other times when you have to say, f*** all that s***, enough is enough. My feeling is that if this troublemaker is a handler, then make him handle. I'm not against fronting him in order to push him away from the disc, so I'd only buy in to half of that scouting report. It's important to keep in mind that he's not a handler by himself. That is, he's has someone to complete the chemistry and that guy may be the one to really clamp down on. Someone else has to step in and step up and place tremendous pressure on the other handler. And hopefully that defender isn't addressed directly and instructed to step up. Simply, they know the drill and what's at stake and their game becomes something that it wasn't before, because obviously that is what our opponent has done with his game. And perhaps some gamesmanship is in order: during a stoppage you whisper under your breath, "Whatcha you gonna do, fluffy? You taking me deep? You gonna go deep?"
    
    And then again maybe not.
    
    Above all else, I'm looking at two defenders who know how to play an off-man high count; I'm lucky if I can get one. So other than me, I'm looking for someone a little more than half-witted. Immune to exhaustion with an overall toughness about them and smart enough to know that once you've earned the turn, you have to score, and while doing that, tire this guy out as much as you can to make him twice the liability on the next point. If the right adjustments have been made, then this stud will get more points in the 2nd half than he did in the first. Maybe that proves to be the difference and he gets extended and maybe a bit frustrated because the O isn't clicking like they did in the first half. And maybe, just maybe, he finds his place in the sun in the second half and then you and your team, but probably just you, walk off seemingly content in knowing that the reward is in the effort, and sometimes that's all there is.
     
  • TULLY BEATTY
• Stay Resilient
  
  
  
  • "You take away a team's strength and make them beat you with their weakness. If they do, you make them do it again, because it’s their f***ing weakness!" — Jon Gewirtz
    
    This situation is so similar to what Jam did with Damien Scott in the 04 finals that I almost think that "The Huddle" ripped it right off of the video. All season long, Damien had handled. He wasn’t a great hucker, but he could always get open for a reset and hand a very nice forehand inside out. (Want to see it? Watch the '04 videos).
    
    Until the finals, Alex Nord had been covering Damien and really destroying him. Nord is big, quick and tenacious, but doesn’t have Damien’s out-and-out foot speed in the open field. In the final, Damien ran deep, Idris Nolan ripped it to him, and Jam got easy scores. We made an adjustment by putting Blaine Robbins on Damien. Blaine was much less experienced, but fast enough to keep pace with Damien and we got two blocks out of it. But mostly we followed Jonny’s advice and worked to limit Damien’s reset and throwing opportunities and shrugged our shoulders when he went deep.
    
    Kirk Savage of Furious used deep cuts successfully throughout his entire career. The best defense we used against him were flexible, experienced defenders. Typically, if a handler runs downfield from the area right around the disc, defenders will let them go. Why bother chasing them when you know they’re coming back to the disc? But if you let Kirk go, he’d be gone and you’d be postered. So the experienced defender would pursue immediately when he made a move to go downfield.
     
  • LOU BURRUSS
• Old School Vs. New School
  
  
  
  • There seems to be two diverging philosophies on how to defend against a very skilled deep thrower that has also hurt you going deep. The first philosophy is perhaps considered old school, focusing on team defense and changing the team's defensive strategy. The second, new school, philosophy is what I like to call the "hack-a-Shaq" tactic, and although not exactly the same as its namesake, the results are comparable. The hack-a-Shaq consists of intentionally fouling the thrower to significantly disrupt the offensive flow (and deep shot) without consequence to the defending team and, I hate to say, is indelibly efficacious.
    
    Currently, I still prefer the so-called old school strategy of changing up the team D. I somehow feel the second is a violation of SOTG but will freely admit that it is increasingly tough to play against teams that use the hack-a-Shaq approach. The old school philosophy begins with recognizing that the very skilled deep thrower does the most damage to your team when they have the disc on the front half of the field - the ability to open up their team's offense with seemingly unstoppable long throws makes lane cutters difficult to defend. There are a few things your team can do to limit the damage this handler does against your team.
    
    Likely this handler is adept at getting open and thus getting the disc. Pushing them deep is still killing you. One approach is to acknowledge that you can't stop the thrower from either getting the disc (in or out) or putting it deep. To limit the damage, you want to herd and "allow" the thrower to get the disc on the open side with the defender close enough to put on a mark that will only give up the huck on the open side. Too often, the handler-defender attempts to totally deny this handler from getting the disc and this often backfires with the handler getting the disc in a position without a mark and the whole field in which to throw. This approach relies heavily on downfield D, and this might still be ineffectual even if you try and help deep or do a lot of switching. So what next?
    
    The next strategy is to play some sort of zone or poachy, junky D for a few passes or until half field and then switch to man. The basic idea of the junk/zone is to reduce the ability for the O to isolate lane cutters deep, push them into help, and once you've shortened the field and taken away the dangerous deep threat, switch back to man. A further move is to play zone/junk D with man D on that handler. The goal of this is to make it more difficult to get the disc to the handler, neutralize the deep threat with the zone/junk D, and to encourage the O to get the disc to less dangerous players - this is obviously a combination of two basketball tactics (1) variations of the box and one with your zone/junk D and (2) making it easier to put the ball in the hands of someone who ain't the best shooter and let them shoot.
    
    The hack-a-Shaq philosophy is extremely effective and used in both the men's and women's games. This strategy is implemented a couple different ways. One method is to constantly bump and foul the thrower in the first 5-6 seconds and then step back as the count gets higher to avoid the foul call and to avoid resetting the stall to zero. Teams generally don't want to call fouls in the first few seconds because this stops the flow of the offense and the D gains a tremendous advantage to survey the field with the stoppage in play. However, if you don't call the foul, then your O has missed the first and/or second shot because you couldn't get the throw off and often your O is onto your 3rd or 4th option. So, do you call a foul and stop play or do you hope that your O is running on all cylinders that day?
    
    Another hack-a-Shaq method is to intentionally foul the thrower only when they attempt to throw (open/break, it doesn't matter) and the marker doesn't contest the foul call. Obviously this approach is also very effective as the deep throw, or any throw, is unlikely to be completed and even when it is, the thrower is always being hit and hacked when they throw. In the women's game, this approach of "intentional fouling during the throw" seems to be more prevalent than the the first type of hack-a-Shaq strategy I described. It feels like this type of hack-a-Shaq is becoming more and more common in the women's game over the last couple of years.
    
    There isn't anything in the rules against either of these hack-a-Shack defensive strategies. They are overwhelmingly effective not only in taking away the offensive flow but can cause even a seasoned handler to lose their composure under the constant physical duress. I have to say that as more and more teams move towards either version of the hack-a-Shaq philosophy, it becomes harder and harder for me to cling to SOTG and stay with the old school approach. Perhaps it has nothing to do with SOTG, but is simply a further evolution of the game. The efficacy of the hack-a-Shaq tactic is certainly persuasive but before it becomes systemic, I wonder and perhaps hope there will be some change in the rules to even the playing field for the offense (not to mention, the constant stoppages of play is unfriendly to viewers). One thought is to tally uncontested marking fouls and after a certain number of uncontested marking fouls, the O gets to advance the disc 10-15yards thereafter for each additional uncontested marking foul. But that is straying into a whole different issue. For now, we will be sticking with the old school D.
     
  • VY CHOW
• Box-And-One
  
  
  
  • A player like this, who clearly has multiple offensive weapons, presents a serious match up challenge. Individual defensive match ups are an odd thing, and it can be difficult to predict which defender would be most effective. Given the past experience of this player being most effective as a deep thrower, I would continue to push them away from the disc. I would try different defenders on them until finding a player who could be successful in keeping the player away from the disc, and in containing their deep game.
    
    As a second possibility, if my team had a strong zone defense, and this player was the opposing offense's primary weapon, I would consider playing a "box-and-one" zone. Match up someone individually on the skilled deep thrower, and play zone with the other six defenders. This makes it difficult for that one player to get the disc, and limits his/her throwing options after receiving the disc.
    
    Above all, a defense's best weapon is to be unpredictable. Throwing different looks at this player, and at the opposing team's offense in general, forces them to constantly adjust, and to do things differently than they're accustomed to. This often leads to small mistakes or miscues that the defense can capitalize on.
     
  • MATT DUFORT
• Alternating Matchups
  
  
  
  • It's too bad you can't put the World's Greatest Defender on this person, because they sound like they are the World's Best Offensive Player.
    
    I would probably get two defenders to alternate defensive points with the intention of solely guarding this person. Ideally, one defender would be the quick/squirrelly type with a good mark to challenge him around the disc and apply pressure on the mark. The second defender would be fast and preferably able to out-jump this person, with the intention of continuing to push him deep (but maybe not quite as much as in the first half). The idea behind two defenders with two different objectives is to keep this offensive person off balance. Requiring a person to constantly switch roles in order to be effective is preferable to letting them stay in whatever zone they are in.
    
    Starting the second half, have the quick marker start out (because the offender is already in a groove going deep), and unless they are wildly successful (i.e. handblock), switch defenders the next O point. If a couple cycles of that doesn't work, there's always zone until half-field.
     
  • JEFF EASTHAM-ANDERSON
• Suggested Team & Individual Tactics
  
  
  
  • In ultimate, good offense beats good defense. Defense becomes especially difficult when the opponent has a dynamic player that is both a threat with the disc and down field. Down 8-6 at the half our defensive goal is to make the opponents offense, and most importantly this dynamic player, uncomfortable. We can do this with both team and individual defensive tactics.
    
    Suggested Team Tactics
    • Zone Defense: Makes the offense complete many throws to score.
    • Box-and-One Defense: A great way to get an offense that relies heavily on one player off-balance. Also does a good job of frustrating a player that likes to touch the disc often.
    • Sandwich Star Player On Stop Disc: Force a secondary player to get the disc underneath to start their offense.
    
    Suggested Individual Tactics
    • Switch Match Ups On Star Player: Alternate a tall player that encourages the player to cut under and provides a wide, intimidating mark with the quickest, fastest, high energy defender to pester the player.
    • Make The Star Player Work On Defense: Some offensive studs don't enjoy playing defense. Make sure once you get the turn that you run him ragged.
    • Push The Star Under: Since the star player has scored deep a couple times force him under, but mark him straight up to force him to settle for the little throws.
    
     
  • JEFF GRAHAM
• What Do They Want To Do?
  
  
  
  • Whenever lining up against a gifted opponent I have always found it helpful to ask myself: what does this player want to do? In this case, this player is most comfortable and probably most confident in a handler role, staying behind the disc and throwing goals rather than receiving them. When playing against teams that have a player like this, someone who excels in many aspects, always make them beat you with their Plan B or Plan C, never Plan A.
    
    When playing Brown in 2005 (the year they ended up winning nationals) we knew what they wanted to do. They wanted to isolate Zip (Josh Ziperstein), and allow him to do what he does best: fake someone silly and bust deep. This would usually happen when their best thrower that year (Vandenberg) had the disc. This was an incredibly effective strategy for them. They had the best player in college ultimate that year (maybe ever) and one of the best pure throwers. This was their Plan A: Zip go deep, Vandenberg throw deep. When playing Brown that year in quarterfinals of Centex (the last game they lost!) we wanted to make sure that if they beat us, it would not be because we couldn't stop Zip going deep. So, we put one of our best defenders on him (Gigo Valdivia) with instructions to back Zip and let him get the disc underneath. We wanted to force Brown out of their comfort zone, which I believe we did. We ended winning an epic game on universe point.
    
    In this above described situation, I think you need to go into the second half feeling confident number one. You are down a break to a team that isn't beating you the way they want. Sure they are happy to be up, but as this game wears on they will unconsciously (or consciously) want to return to what got them there: their thrower throwing, not receiving, deep discs. Here's what I tell my team going into the second half: so far we are executing our strategy, but the results aren't there. What we need to do is ratchet up the intensity on their throwers. Make it so they don't want the disc in their hands. I would try putting a straight up mark on the players that have been hucking, with the hopes of disrupting or deterring their chances. You don't need to stop every huck; you just need to do whatever you can to make the throw less than perfect. Downfield I would put one of, if not our best deep defender on the player beating us deep. I woud continue to front him, but maybe not by as much. I would also instruct the players on the weak side of the field, to look for opportunities to help deep if an uncontested huck does go up. I would also make sure to remind my players that we are doing what we are supposed to do, have confidence in the game plan and make your opponent feel the pressure of playing outside their comfort zone.
    
    In the end, if a team is able to beat you going outside their game plan...well, hats off to them. But allowing them to beat you how they want to beat you is unacceptable. And if the strategy you went into the game with still isn't working late in the second half, maybe you just want to jump ship. Try force middle, even going zone or switching the matchup you have on their stud. Throw the kitchen sink at them. Make them play how you want them to play, force them to dig into their pockets for Plans C, D and E.
     
  • DAN HEIJMEN
• Make Any Adjustment...Just Make It Now
  
  
  
  • This is a very interesting scenario because there are so many adjustments that could be made to respond to this player. You could assign a speedy defender to outrun him on the deep cuts, you could assign a tall defender to pull down floaty passes, you could assign a physical defender to disrupt the flow of his cuts, you could keep playing the same defense on him but put a straight-up mark on everyone else, you could go zone, you could play last back, or you could even throw your scouting report out the window and let him hang around the disc.
    
    In my opinion, it doesn't matter what adjustment you make as long as you make one. This player, who is used to hanging around the disc, has clearly gotten comfortable playing downfield against your defense. The absolute worst thing you can do is to not do anything. It doesn't matter if your best defender was guarding him in the first half, you can't just say "try harder" or "don't get beat deep anymore." At this point in an elimination game you have to make an adjustment to get him out of his rhythm. You have to throw a hurdle in his way to show him a different look.
    
    Once you disrupt his rhythm he is going to want to go back to his comfort zone — near the disc. At that point, I would return to my scouting report and continue to push him downfield. A different defender should be put on him though, so he doesn't get comfortable again. Since most handlers don't want to work hard, I would put a fast, physical player on him. That way he will have to work to get open knowing the whole time that on a long pass the faster defender will be able to run past him. But that decision just reflects my personal preference on how to guard handlers downfield without knowing more about the teams involved. So there could be a better choice considering the totality of the circumstances. But again, the most important adjustment to make is to make an adjustment.
     
  • RYAN MORGAN
• Never Lose A Game Without
  
  
  
  • As a wise woman once said (props to those who get the joke), never lose a game without playing zone. I think this thought answers the question but taken to a broader sense: never get beat over and over again without changing something.
    
    So your scouting report was wrong or the team has adjusted to all their opponents having the same scouting report on their strong player. This happens very often with great, specialized players. If an amazing receiver gets forced under enough she will become a great thrower. Now what do you do in this situation in real-time?
    
    First, play zone. If you are worried about a one on one match up, the best way to increase your chances is to allow more defenders to contribute to the match up’s offensive obstacles. Lots of zones would work, but particularly difficult for many all-star players are box and one zones or transition zones. If you play box and one then you are guaranteed to have at least a 2 on 1 situation in all deep looks (your deep-deep and your player on vs. the other team’s star) AND if she goes back to being a throwing threat, you have your player on (maybe with a straight up mark) and a wall of three close behind making her life miserable as a thrower. One thing to be cautious of with a transition zone is to make sure you transition a strong defender onto their main player—sometimes it is worth taking a little extra time or giving up a few free-ish passes to get your match ups straight.
    
    Second, take note of who has been throwing it to the player in question. Would a straight up mark help, either in discouraging the throws or pushing throws out of bounds? Do the throwers have equally good forehand and backhand hucks (maybe try forcing a different direction)? Maybe getting closer and more aggressive on the mark would really help keep those long throws from going up. I have also known some teams to foul on the mark in this situation. Though I do not encourage this as a strategy (at least not until we have foul limits for individual players), you may want to encourage your marks to be so aggressive that they MIGHT foul.
    
    Third, ditch the scouting report. Back the heck out of the player in question. Who cares what she’s done earlier in the season, the way she’s beating you in this game is what you need to deal with at the moment. This can also be used in conjunction with a change in marking strategy.
    
    One other thing I’d like to mention is an interesting strategy I’ve heard for how to get match ups to work. It’s all good and well to put your best defender on the other team’s best player, but if the other team is deeper and generally has more strong players on the field than your team does, you can think about doing what I call the "Tennis Shift."
    
    In tennis team matches, there are positions 1 through 5 with 1 being the highest (best) players and 5 being the lowest (weakest) players. Sometimes, to win more of these match ups within a match, a team will shift its 5 spot player to the 1 spot and shift the rest of their match ups down. This basically concedes the 1 spot to the opponent, but you have a way better chance at winning the other match ups and maybe the match as a whole. The way this can be applied to ultimate is that you have 1 through 7 defenders to mark 1 through 7 offenders. If you don’t think their #1 is guardable by your #1 defender, try putting your #7 on their #1 and try to win all your other match ups in such a way that the impact their #1 makes is greatly reduced by the players around her being shut down.
    
    Now, to be fair, I haven’t actually tried the Tennis Shift. My thought is that it could work, but you might not necessarily put #7 on #1 it might be a relative shift. It is very important to think about match ups. Some other things to think about might be putting your tallest defender on the player in question if she is beating you based on height or use your fastest defender if she is beating you on speed.
     
  • MIRANDA ROTH
• Cue The Comeback!
  
  
  
  • Well...the answer to a situation like this (defending a handler in the lanes) is going to be dependant on a number of factors and variables that are unknown in this scenario (athletic ability, height, speed, etc.). However, in a general sense, if you have one of the main players on the opposing team drastically altering their game due to your defensive strategy then your defensive strategy is effective. Forcing a "main handler" to strike and cut downfield is a great situation for the defensive team. This means that the handler is not quarterbacking the offence, and they are potentially getting in the way of the primary lane cutters.
    
    As such, I would not be concerned at all if the handler was in the lanes and has made a couple of lucky catches. Can they continue to do it for the rest of the game? Can the offence continue to convert at a high rate with secondary players running the show and making the big throws? I doubt it and odds are good that a comeback will be on in the second half.
    
    As far as defender choice—I would always choose a taller more athletic defender on a strong handler. On our team we have had very good success with Andrew Lugsdin marking up against all-star handlers. His agility allows him to be able to stay with the short quick cuts and his size helps him to play underneath and "push the handler away from the disc."
     
  • KIRK SAVAGE
• Make The Offense Uncomfortable
  
  
  
  • Adjustments made before during a game can win...or lose a game. Pre-game scouting reports or prior encounters can give clues for how each team's offense and defense should come out of the gate. However, there is no substitute for actually playing the game and making real-time evaluations. There is a fine line to walk between jumping the gun on an adjustment and not acting soon enough and I think that one of the hardest jobs of a team strategist is this evaluation and subsequent decision for adjustment or non-adjustment.
    
    In the given situation, it sounds like the defense tried to take away the opponents first option (banking on a low likelihood of being beat on the opponent's second or subsequent option), but the opponent made an effective pre-game adjustment, and kudos to them. Halftime is a natural time for adjustments to be made to happen and in this particular situation, I would absolutely change up the defensive plan.
    
    In close games, teams trade points, teams take turns going on runs, and at the most basic level, teams settle into a rhythm. One of the goals of a defense should be to make the offense uncomfortable, and clearly the opposing team is feeling pretty at ease with their star thrower being forced away from the disc. The decision for whether the defensive adjustment is a zone, clam, a straight up mark, backing man defense, etc., should be made with your team's strengths (and other external factors, like weather) in consideration. If the decision is to stay with man defense, the other factor to consider is the type of defender to put on the thrower. For example, on other team's big throwers, there can be much success to be had with rotating smaller-in-stature handler defenders who specialize in challenging the dump pass with more physical defenders who cover and hold lots of ground on D and provide a huge mark.
    
    Whichever method ends up being chosen, the goal with the defensive adjustement should be to disrupt the offense's rhythm enough to get a couple turns (and defensive scores) and shift the momentum of the game.
     
  • NANCY SUN
• What To Concede & What To Take Away
  
  
  
  • This one is pretty straightforward: as with any player, you have to determine what you want to give up and what you want to take away (or try to, anyway). You're going to want to deny any player's greatest strength or whatever facet of his game is capable of hurting you most. If this guy has beaten you repeatedly with his throws, it doesn't seem like a very good idea to allow him to get the disc underneath - even if he has caught a couple hucks today. You're forcing him to do something he's not as good at, which is preferable to allowing him to do what he's best at.
    
    So, without allowing him to come under (which, again, is a BAD idea), you have a couple options:
    
    1. Continue to use the same defender(s) you've been using. Make it very clear to your team that this guy now wants the deep pass, so expect the huck and stay in a position that will give you a shot at it if it goes up. Also, make sure your other downfield defenders are looking to help on a deep shot. Still deny the underneath cut first, but don't give as big a cushion (stay 1 or 2 yards underneath him if you had been farther off). This is the least strategic option, but if you're confident in the guy(s) who you've had guarding him, this might be enough.
    
    2. You're probably going to need to guard this guy with someone who is faster than he is. Put your best, fastest deep defender on him and continue forcing him out. He's still going to have looks deep, but now he has to beat your best guy if he's going to be successful. Clearly he has been a top option for the other team - your best deep defender will hopefully make them think twice about jacking one to him.
    
    NOTE: If your best deep defender is not noticeably faster than this guy, you may have to go to someone who is not as great in the air, but can beat the guy with speed to gain position (i.e. beat him to the spot).
    
    3. If you don't have anyone who can both deny the under and contest the deep throws, you've got to make more drastic changes. Throw a zone. Play a switching man that keeps at least one defender deep. Play any other defense you have, because clearly you don't have a one-man answer for this guy.
    
    Or, if you don't like these options, you can go back to shutting down the deep and allow him the underneath...and kick yourself after you lose for allowing the same guy to beat you the same way. Again.
     
  • CHRIS TALARICO
• Defensive Goals
  
  
  
  • On defense, your goal isn't to shut down all options , because that's impossible against a good offense. Rather, your goal is to dictate to the offense those options it can take. So, the first thing to realize here is: if Big Thrower hasn't been able to make big throws, you've done something successful.
    
    The question to ask yourself now: Is Big Thrower hurting us more now as a deep receiver than he/she usually does as a thrower?
    
    A few successful deep goals shouldn't automatically make you change your tactics. If, for example, you've also gotten a few turnovers on the other team's handlers because they aren't used to running their handler set without Big Thrower, then maybe those turnovers offset the damage of Big Thrower running deep. I.e., maybe having Big Thrower go deep is a good tradeoff, given the other disruptions it's causing to their offense.
    
    But then let's assume that their offense is running pretty smoothly, or that the errors in their offense have little to do with the way you're covering Big Thrower. In that case, the most important thing is to keep Big Thrower off balance. Even great throwers have a hard time switching from a deep receiver mentality to a deep thrower mentality mid-game — so force Big Thrower to (try to) make that switch, and make the switch as hard as possible. A few ways to do this:
    
    A. Defend Big Thrower by preventing him from going deep — physically prevent him: defender should keep keep his body between Big Thrower and the endzone.
    
    B. If the defender commits himself to superior positioning, then speed and quickness are probably more important here than height.
    
    C. Defender should be an excellent marker. Stay close enough to Big Thrower so that you can put a mark on him as soon as he catches it. Don't go for a layout D on an in-cut unless you're reasonably sure you can get it.
    
    D. A vast majority of the best hucks are released in flow, before stall three. So put a "no huck"/flat mark on Big Thrower for stalls one and two. (Most throwers, especially huckers, don't look to break the mark until stall 3, anyway.) To do this, marker should focus on mirroring his shoulders with the thrower's shoulders, staying on toes, eyes on thrower's chest, arms wide.
    
    Being a great player, Big Thrower is going to get the disc, and is probably going to get off a couple of good hucks. So: measure your defensive success here not by asking "did you shut him down?" but by asking "did you successfully dictate his options?" Specifically, two questions:
    
    1. Did you prevent him from getting open deep?
    2. Did you prevent him from hucking on stall 1-2?
    
    If yes, then you've done as well as you're going to do. At least in the context of a person-to-person defense. Zone/junk defense options are also worth considering, but that's a different story.
     
  • BEN VAN HEUVELEN
• Containing A Big Thrower
  
  
  
  • The best strategy for containing good deep throwers depends in part on the type of handler position they are playing. If the thrower is frequently in a dump reset position, the number one priority must be that he does not get the disc moving up field. A good thrower with momentum and a trailing mark is deadly. You will often find a defender guard this player well for the first two or three resets and then the defender will get impatient. They'll start to overplay the dump in an effort to get the block and will get beat upline or they'll get lazy with body position and fail to take away the upline cut with their body. The number one priority for defending a dangerous deep thrower lined up near or behind the disc is that they must catch the disc with their momentum moving away from the attacking endzone.
    
    If the thrower is playing upfield, I would try to have our defender play more honest D if they were beaten consistently in the first half. To make the thrower's life more difficult, I would instruct our dump defenders to "sponge" or poach the dumps when the dangerous thrower has the disc. Basically, for the first two seconds the thrower has the disc, the dump defenders should jump into the throwing lane. Again, this strategy is designed to disrupt the rhythm of the thrower and prevent the easy momentum huck. It is also designed to get the disc out of the most dangerous player's hands and to see if the team's other throwers can beat us in a pressure situation.
    
    As for they type of defender, I would first try putting my team's best marker on the thrower. By best marker, I mean the player who is always active on the mark and best understands what the hucker wants to throw. The best way for a marker to limit the damage from a hucker is to make the hucker uncomfortable at release. This can mean making the hucker take an extra pivot, causing him to extend an extra couple inches beyond the normal release point, causing the release to be rushed, or the follow through to be shortened. Good huckers have favorite release points and normal rhythms of throwing where they are most dangerous. Disrupt these by taking huckers out of their comfort zones and you greatly increase the odds of your defender having a shot at blocking the huck. In the end, with a good thrower, all you can really ask your defense to do is to increase the odds of a throw that isn't perfect and can be D'ed.
    
    I would try the revised strategy for the first three to four D points of the second half and make their thrower adjust to the different defensive look. If it doesn't work, I'd likely go back to the force the thrower deep strategy at that point and shift one of my top receiver defenders to covering him.
     
  • MIKE WHITAKER
• Make It A Team Game
  
  
  
  • They say that coaching is the art of making decisions without statistical significance in the data. Ok, they don't say that...I say that. We have 6 minutes left in halftime, and our captains are getting together to decide if Big Thrower is just having a great half, or if this is a tactical change. To any reasonable statistical measure, we are flipping a coin here. The data just doesn't exist to tell us for sure whether or not this might happen in the second half, and it's gonna be a gut call if we want to switch tactics. Is this their new playing style, or will our scouting report come around before that 15th goal?
    
    My gut usually sticks with the scouting report; I have a lot of faith in how I scout teams, and if I was sure 50 minutes ago that this guy is a better thrower than cutter, well, 50 minutes and some lost sweat shouldn't change that. In fact, nothing in the first half has contradicted our report...heck, if we had been pushing him towards the disc, maybe we are already down 8-5 or 8-4. This might just be his day.
    
    If my team is a pressure-D kind of team, then that gives me another reason to stick with the ‘push him out' strategy. I don't want to let up on their offense as a unit, giving them a free reset to their best player, just because of a couple of goals. This is, to me, just too reactionary. If the situation were reversed, and we had a player that was typically big/fast that we liked to push under...but he threw 3 good hucks in the first half...I would be more likely to switch now, since we would be amping up our own pressure on those hucking to him. Now we are trying to play our game better, rather than worry about what THEY do...all that matters is us once that first pull goes up. Any adjustment we make should be secondary towards improving what WE do, not just trying to not lose to them.
    
    So, I'm reluctant to change thoroughly and start forcing toward the disc.
    
    How can we steal some blocks from a gifted player?
    
    First off, I am likely to change some of our other matchups. I'll put my smartest/biggest defender on their worst downfield thrower, and let them know to keep their head up and bust deep to go for double-covers on hucks to Big Thrower. We might give up an under-cut to their worst thrower, but we might catch them going back to the well once too often. I might put my smartest/quickest defender on their worst handler, and have them poaching into the lanes to block hucks from that flat region about 5 yards downfield of the disc. In either case, I am looking to my experienced off-ball defenders to make this a team game instead of a series of 1-v-1 matchups while their best player has the NBA Jam flying disc. Why do you think great D-teams always have at least 2 guys over 30 years old out there? Experienced defenders can make the kind of adjustments that don't force you to abandon your game plan.
    
    (I cannot fully express my outrage at the opposite; inexperienced defender with the "at least my guy didn't do anything, so I did MY job"...what, guarding the end-zone isn't your job? Guarding the disc isn't? What good are you if you care more about the guy standing in the stack than you do about the plastic they keep catching. Can you imagine someone feeling vindicated that they were a great defender because they successfully stood in the corner with Derek Fisher while Kobe scored 60? Go get in the game, or get off the line and let someone who isn't scared to be in a poster make us a better team).
    
    I like rotating different defenders on this player, especially since this lets me do some gambling against their pull play. If I smell a huck play, I'm putting in a bigger defender and fronting...let's get aggressive and ask them to huck against someone that, before this half, they would not have wanted to go deep on. If I feel like a throw is coming, I'm obviously coming with my marker.
    
    I'm telling my team at halftime that their offense is going through one player right now; he's scored half of their goals and they are relying on him for everything from deep cuts to throws to their primary decoy. We start shutting him down, and we can bring their house of cards tumbling down. This reliance on one player is our opportunity. Sure, they are a great team, and sometimes a great team wins with a 2-point halftime lead...but let's grind out some yards on offense and start playing 21-on-1 against their star, and see who breaks first. We have the team to do it, the offense to take care of what it needs to take care of, and it's on us to prove that what we have done in practice this year, and on the track, and in the weight room is worth it. Get on that guy, mess with him game. Get your teammates back, fly to the ball when it hits the air. Let's enforce our game on this patch of grass, and win or lose we are going to show them a level of defense they aren't ready for.
     
  • BEN WIGGINS