Fluke, gimmick, success

Taking an intellectual break from reading a rather detailed paper on cardiovascular training.

Pause for a moment.  Coaching is the most detail oriented, wide knowledge base...activity that I've ever done.  I realize that might be stating the obvious but it becomes more clear every year how much "extra" knowledge one must possess in order to be successful.

Since deciding that I would become a coach, I've also become a nutritionist, psychologist, physiologist, strength trainer, sleep study pro, the list is endless.  I am not an expert in any of these fields which is why I am studying up on cardio training vs. strength training.  It's also why I pick the brain of everyone I possibly can regardless of their connection to rowing or otherwise.  And it's why I hung out with the trainers and med staff at the university as often as I could, not to learn to do their job, but to learn how to identify when something is going wrong.

I think of the CPR/First-Aid training advice:  work within the scope of your training - when it comes to things outside coaching, and since that scope is limited at best, I always refer to the experts.  However, it hasn't stopped me from trying to learn more.

The more you know...

I was reading an article on ESPN, about Gus Malzahn.  It's an interesting article to say the least, but what popped out was the section of him taking over as head coach at Shiloh Christian where he installed a new offense.

In 1996, before Malzahn installed the hurry-up no-huddle, Floyd (a sophomore) threw for 1,440 yards and 13 touchdowns. Shiloh averaged 15.5 points a game. The following year, Floyd threw for 4,075 yards and 45 touchdowns and Shiloh averaged 30 points a game. "We were scoring so fast, we played teams and they were winded and dead tired at the end of the first quarter," Floyd said. "Our conference didn't want to play us anymore. We ended up having to play games all over the state because teams wouldn't schedule us."

Football coaches throughout the state grumbled that Malzahn's new philosophy was a gimmick, a fad that would soon collapse. But his players kept putting up video game numbers and his teams kept winning. Floyd's senior year, Shiloh went 15-0, and he threw for a jaw-dropping 5,221 yards and 66 touchdowns (a national record). "He had a way of instilling confidence in us through sheer repetition," Floyd said. "The joke used to be he'd say, 'One more play and we're done with practice.' Then we'd run it 10 or 20 more times before we'd actually be done."

- Kevin Van Valkenburg

The highlighted segment is what stood out to me, talking about his, "gimmick" offense.  And that got me thinking.

What is a "gimmick" or more importantly, what defines a "gimmick?"  Traditionally defined, a gimmick is a trick, so it can be inferred that a gimmick offense is one full of tricks.  I'm not a football coach, but when I hear announcers talk, "old school" football, it usually means pounding the ball on the ground, with some passing to keep the defense honest.  

Malzahn isn't the first coach who comes to mind with a hurry-up offense.  Chip Kelly, now with the Philadelphia Eagles, and former coach at Oregon and New Hampshire, comes to mind.  I saw the University of Washington do something similar against Stanford, and the New England Patriots and Denver Broncos run fast offenses.  I wouldn't say it's rampant, but I would say that a hurry-up offense is known, and spreading.

So is it a "gimmick?"  If your entire offense is built around it, is it a gimmick?  And is it a "gimmick" if it's successful?  The Oregon Ducks are an offensive juggernaut and scores points in bunches.  Denver and New England can pile up the points - Denver just broke the 600 point margin in the NFL.  

Is it fair to call something new a, "gimmick" especially if it works?  Is it fair to call it a a "gimmick" if the team runs it consistently, rather than a new wrinkle, or a trick play?  And is it fair to call it a "gimmick" if we're looking at innovation in progress?  

The paper I'm reading, put together by Coach Bob Kaehler, discusses the changes in training mentality during the 50's and 60's, where coaches and programs began to implement strength training, training cycles, and nutrition into training plans.  These days we take that for granted.  You want to get better at your sport, it's not enough just to be on the field or on the water.  We have "gym rats" and coaches and athletes who spend hours in the film rooms studying.  We understand now that water is great hydration, but Gatorade and chocolate milk are excellent tools to use as well.  

The point I'm trying to make here is that using the word, "gimmick" or "fluke" if you'd like, seems almost as flippant as our use of "epic."  Everything is "epic" these days, regardless of whether or not said activity is truly epic.  Are we now over using the word, "gimmick" in sports, where successful coaches who are thinking outside the box are taking our teams, or our favorite teams to the wood shed?  Is this truly a "gimmick" or simply something that's before it's time?  In 1996, I'd say that the hurry-up offense was before it's time, back when hurry-up was used to tie or win the game only.  

I think there's room in sports for all sorts of systems, especially if they work.  Labeling something as a "gimmick" is simply the refusal to understand that progress happens.