forums

Lashlee picks up the tempo, breaks down attack unit after Tuesday drills

View as article
grover said:
Empirical, I'd like to see those studies. To me, the offense looked like it was overthinking both in 2018 and 2019. QBs holding onto the ball to long both on RPO runs and all types of passes, or trying to force it into tight windows, WRs not running good routes, OL missing blocks. I never felt like they were in a rhythm. Also, there are a lot of pretty famous athletes who are legendary for the amount of repetition they would do in practice. Your argument suggests that practice wasn't a significant factor in their success.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting discussion. I would like to point out that perhaps some in this thread may be missing the point that @Empirical Cane is trying to make. I don't think that he is suggesting that 1000's of hours of practice don't pay any dividends. Those 1000's of hours of practice absolutely factor in someone becoming better or even elite at what it is they do. I believe his point is that in that initial 20 hour period the assessment can be made wether or not that player has the ability or potential to be very skilled or elite at whatever it is they are doing. In short the theory states that 20 hours of deliberate practice is enough of a sample size to accurately judge if it is worth putting in the time and resources to develop that player in said activity.

Does this theory have any validity? I couldn't say since I have not studied the research. Do I think that this theory is plausible? Yes I do but that's just my opinion.
 
Advertisement
FrancisSaywer said:
This is an interesting discussion. I would like to point out that perhaps some in this thread may be missing the point that @Empirical Cane is trying to make. I don't think that he is suggesting that 1000's of hours of practice don't pay any dividends. Those 1000's of hours of practice absolutely factor in someone becoming better or even elite at what it is they do. I believe his point is that in that initial 20 hour period the assessment can be made wether or not that player has the ability or potential to be very skilled or elite at whatever it is they are doing. In short the theory states that 20 hours of deliberate practice is enough of a sample size to accurately judge if it is worth putting in the time and resources to develop that player in said activity.

Does this theory have any validity? I couldn't say since I have not studied the research. Do I think that this theory is plausible? Yes I do but that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

👆

You complete me.
 
Advertisement
I remember when I was a kid and I'd get frustrated with something new and my father would get mad and ask me if I wanted to be a quitter. He'd say that I didn't want to be one of those people who quit everything because they weren't good at right from the start. Turns out he was wrong.
 
Glad to see the talent evaluators and scouts here have confirmed Zion will never be a player.

Somebody please notify the powers that be.
 
Laughable to take the general and generic musings of the latest self-appointed business theory guru and apply them to a basically unrelated and extremely unique skill, ie, playing offensive lineman in college.
 
Advertisement
FrancisSaywer said:
This is an interesting discussion. I would like to point out that perhaps some in this thread may be missing the point that @Empirical Cane is trying to make. I don't think that he is suggesting that 1000's of hours of practice don't pay any dividends. Those 1000's of hours of practice absolutely factor in someone becoming better or even elite at what it is they do. I believe his point is that in that initial 20 hour period the assessment can be made wether or not that player has the ability or potential to be very skilled or elite at whatever it is they are doing. In short the theory states that 20 hours of deliberate practice is enough of a sample size to accurately judge if it is worth putting in the time and resources to develop that player in said activity.

Does this theory have any validity? I couldn't say since I have not studied the research. Do I think that this theory is plausible? Yes I do but that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...
As someone working in assessments (behavioral, academic), the theory is based on decent enough science, I guess, re: what kind of data is needed to make a prediction of likelihood in that setting, but seems to be taken way too far in how it's extended here. I'm not sure 20 hours is close to enough to determine if Zion will be a legitimate LT in his college career.

Side note: 3 hours and 45 minutes should have been enough to see he wasn't likely to be a legitimate LT for last year's team (in last year's offense). And, this isn't hindsight. On last year's season kickoff pod, I plainly stated I thought Scaife should be our starting LT for the Gates game. That they took two games to even bump him out to RT was a horrendous sign.
 
Golsen82 said:
Refreshing to hear this, past coaches would mix and match
Click to expand...
I hated that so much.........it was pathetic.....in and out was like driving on I-95.....know your position, learn, implement and play it....... sounds like a **** good plan.
 
Home Slice said:
A few things. Thanks for the Tommy Kono reference. Agree, he is the GOAT of American Oly lifters. Also, I know a few Elite esport "athletes" even some that will probably compete in the Olympics if we indeed have the Olympics this year. They have no idea about the 10,000 hour theory, but it's interesting that they have all told me they didn't begin to have elite level success in their "sport" until they had 8-10,000 hrs of competitive play in.
As for Zion, I'm still bullish on him, but for down the road. I believe if he survives this year that he's going to be a good player for us Junior year.
Click to expand...
JD08 said:
I remember when I was a kid and I'd get frustrated with something new and my father would get mad and ask me if I wanted to be a quitter. He'd say that I didn't want to be one of those people who quit everything because they weren't good at right from the start. Turns out he was wrong.
Click to expand...
20 minutes > 20 hours
 
Advertisement
Einstein.webp


We the Boss said:
20 minutes > 20 hours
Click to expand...
 
Empirical Cane said:
Did he face significantly better pass rushers in games than he saw every single day in practice? I would offer no (please correct me if wrong). His performance during real snaps was no different than play after play on Greentree. My speculation is the coaching staff fell into a classic trap of "the light will come on any minute now because he has so much potential".
Click to expand...

The Big Red Flag for the O-line for me was Spring 2018 when they were saying how the DE's were tearing it up, including the young Rousseau who had 3 sacks in the spring game. They started the musical chairs and from there it only got worse. Those woes were entrenched with the 2019 O-line. So I'm left with hoping again that the time this line spent playing together will show some dividens. But I'd be hard pressed to argue with your reasoning.
 
Samson Doyo said:
This was music to my ears. I hate the OL rotation and making them familiar with a couple of different positions. Seems like a method to make up for ****** recruiting at OL.

Go Canes!
Click to expand...

The air raid doesn’t believe in moving guys around, even at receiver. Guys usually play the left or the right instead of x and z. It’s all about becoming an expert at a handful of routes from your side of the field. Learning both sides of the field is perfecting twice as many routes.

That philosophy seems to be applicable to o line as well
 
Advertisement
Lashlee said, “He’s done a nice job of just going out there and doing a good job.”

One of the greatest lines I’ve ever heard uttered.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top