Frequently Asked Questions

I am a bit curious. Please send me any written material you have that describes the offense.

You can look through www.z-boyz.org but that's just a glimpse really.

This offense is a lot like Tex Winter's Triangle offense.

When I met with Idris Nolan to discuss this offense, he did offer me some advice and so I'll apply it now.

That advice is basically this; don't think of this offense as an either or situation.  Instead of thinking of the motion O as a replacement to whatever offense you're running, think of it as an augmentation.  These concepts won't be taking away from what you are doing, they'll be complimenting it and in fact could be used against any kind of defense thrown at you from clam to zone to man to whatever.

Everyone participating in the Motion Offense clinics will obtain at least a dozen valuable and easily discernible new skills and be able to perform them with precision.  These skills are universal and could be applied to any offensive system.

With regards to balance, this means several things all in one.  Personal physical balance as well as a more balanced attack both individually and as a team.  Again, who wouldn't want their players and team more balanced no matter what offense they were running?

Conversely, along the lines of adding these same two additions, an unbalanced team with a diminished skill set would have to work significantly harder to compensate for these two deficiencies.  Make sense?  What this means is that a team with these two additions wouldn't have to work so hard and instead could let the game come to them.  When this happens players would probably begin to make decisions on the field a bit differently.

So this is where my third prong in my approach to coaching the offense comes into play.  I have a practical system for scrimmage that is objective (anyone could do it once they learned the basics) that highlights decisions that are made on the field so they can be examined and changed if appropriate.

Each one of my practice sessions are set up to execute two new drills, one on technique, the other on balance and then we run this analytical based scrimmage to incorporate and reinforce those two things that we just learned.  The results I've seen so far in running practices like this have been dramatic.  Essentially, I know what I'm looking to achieve and while others may not see the big picture just yet,  my system for integrating these new skills and balance has consistently exceeded my expectations.

I honestly don't think that anything I've said is hyperbole.  You add these techniques, balance and decision making abilities to a team as athletic as today's elite teams and they'll destroy their competition.  I've watched them all.  There is nobody who is remotely close to this type of approach to the game.  Your offense will be unstoppable.   And guaranteed to be very fun.

What I need to understand is how you move forward. There is a lot of emphasis on moving away from your defender, which often will have you moving negatively. How do you move positively?

Think soccer.  That's where I borrowed the word 'negative' from.  In soccer, the offense is moved negative all the time.  If you watch, frequently its more than just passing the ball negative, the whole offense (or at least a sub-component of it) moves backwards for just a bit before it moves forward.  Like unhooking a fishhook. Sometimes you have to move back first before you can easily move forward.

The end result of a balanced attack is that you wield more control over the defense.  You dictate tempo to the D instead of the other way around.

European soccer may differ from Brazilian soccer in the positive/negative ratio and could be 70/30 vs. 60/40 or whatever.

What would you say the ratio is In Ultimate?  98/2? I think I'm being generous here.  In my system, I don't usually qualify a dump or dump-swing as 'negative'.  A 98/2 ratio is not a balanced attack in any sport and from my perspective, I see that kind of lopsided lack of balance everywhere in Ultimate, not just in the positive/negative ratio.  And I'm not proposing to make it 2/98, probably 80/20 would be a good ratio but that's not important right now.

If you take any lopsided system, be it a V8 engine running on five cylinders or a guy and a girl carrying an awkward couch up a flight of stairs, it takes significantly more work to accomplish your goals.  Yeah?  Balance out the system and get all the sub components working in harmony and everything gets a lot easier.

When I watch and elite team and the 'quarterback' throwing to a comeback cut, I would suggest that for a moment, when the receiver catches the disc, their offense is running negative, they just don't think about it in those terms and capitalize on it like they could.  They just worked their butts off to elude the defense and get a completion off and the first thing they do is automatically & immediately confront the defense again.  They're so used to the effort required operating within an unbalanced system that its just taken for granted that everything is a struggle.  "This is the way It has to be" is almost a mantra**.  As a consequence, there's too much of a premium on athleticism in the sport relative to both skills and 'ultimate IQ'.

**even in your last point at the botton of this page, you're telling me "This is the way It has to be" and I'm here to tell you "NO, it DOESN'T have to be that way; your beliefs are based on antiquated thinking"

In a balanced attack, once you've established to the defense that your offense is multi-dimensional, they have to honor your versatility and guard you differently and when they adjust in whichever way they decide to, moving the disc positively is much more effortless.  Moving negative makes outflanking your opponent a standard part of your attack as opposed to attacking head on.  Attacking head on then becomes the exception to the rule instead of the norm.

In basketball, when a point guard picks up the dribble, the defense can clamp down harder.  Right?  It's like that.  By being one dimensional, you're allowing the defense to dictate tempo instead of the other way around.  A big part of what I teach is how to 'dribble' and to make players multidimensional as well as making the team as a whole multidimensional.  Ironically, in Ultimate, there is no such thing as picking up the dribble as a player can always penetrate but they just don't know any better.

A big part of any defense in any sport is knocking the offense off balance and in conventional ultimate, the offenses already do this for them.

The emphasis on moving the disc negatively (as well as emphasis on 'moving without the disc', keeping the ball moving, always maintaining multiple options, and other areas in the game where there is pretty much a void right now) creates wide open throwing opportunities.  In this O, you'll be able to run plays where your best deep throwers will be launching hucks (or midrange throws) without a marker.  Get the ball to the open shooter, just like in hoops.  

Please address the specifics. Do not write me with concepts. I get the concepts. Like Idris, I agree with the majority of the fundamental concepts.

That being said, you continually are comparing ultimate to other sports to prove your point about balance, but then you conveniently ignore the places where this comparison breaks down. Soccer has lots of negative movement and ball control, but there are a lot of turn overs and a lot of the time teams aren't even trying to score because they do not have to. You ignore one of the closest sports to ultimate.... football. In football there is no negative movement. Why? If I'm playing defense on you and you are moving backward, I'm ecstatic in football and in a lot of cases ultimate.

But let's focus on your positive ultimate offense. If you are not stepping out (off balance) to make a throw, how is the offense moving positively?

In reverse order, your specific question first

I basically never throw by stepping out and I rarely ever get hand blocked.   I stand straight up and throw what I want, when I want, without compromising throwing mechanics. 

In answer to your question and not to be smarmy, the offense moves positively down field because I am applying the principals that I've discussed. I hope I am not sounding like I'm talking in circles here but these are not just some untested conceptual theories.  I've been applying and refining the neural pathways in my head for two decades and am only now putting the pen to paper to document them.

To be very specific, every time I catch the disc (90% of the time), I am focused on the 'running game'.  Like I said, this is what I live for.  In real estate, the three most important things are location, location and location.  In the motion O, the three most important things are penetration, penetration and penetration. 

To be as specific as I can be, as quickly as possible, when I catch the disc I gather my balance and start to figure out where the next optimal vector is to penetrate into.  In general, it's probably not 90 degrees perpendicular  to the endzone but probably closer to 45 degrees to the sideline but it could be in any direction of the 360 degrees really.  When the offense is running properly, you can start to gather your balance before you catch the disc.  I know this sounds wrong in conventional Ultimate ideology but it is conventional ultimate ideology that is 'wrong' because it is based on a lopsided system to begin with.

I don't just look to pass the disc to someone else.  I'm looking to 'break down' the defense.  Where can I throw and go where I have the highest possibility of getting the disc back (and be balanced) so that I can do it again.

This has a few predictable effects.  When you break down a defense, you've caused a 'breach' that you can then exploit, usually getting the disc to an 'open shooter' and almost always for a positive gain.

But most importantly, I've sent the message to the defense (the marker) that he can't stop me.  I know you said 'don't talk in terms of concepts' and I'm not.  In my game, when I'm doing my thing, I am intentionally putting the thought in the marker's head that I'm about to do something and he'd be foolish to try and stop me.  (you ever see Billy Jack?)  I realize the exact same thing could be said about throwing by using good faking skills but when it is applied to penetration as well, the combination allows me to get throws off in a positive direction without extending out around the marker or compromising my throwing mechanics (in a direct answer to your question).

This gets him to back off even more and allows me to be even more balanced. "You can't stop me, you can only hope to slow me down".  If you're playing basketball with a good point guard and every time you reach in to steal the ball, he drives to the hoop for an easy layup, at some point you're going to give up reaching in and instead start guarding against the penetration.  True?  If you can be comfortable with this analogy, then all you need to buy into is that not only can I 'drive to the hoop at will', but I could teach any player to do the same.  I can.  On both counts.

We all seem to agree that conceptually, dictating tempo instead of allowing the defense to do so is desirable but when it comes time for the rubber to meet the road, you're not willing to concede that the addition of a negative component to the offense is necessary to get this accomplished.  It runs contrary to what you know to be true.

Is this a fair assessment?

Is working the disc negatively absolutely necessary?  No.  Is it risky?  Not really.   Does the negative component require more work? No.  Overall it's less work because it alleviates pressure elsewhere.  It serves to tame the D.

It may seem paradoxical but the more of a negative component you introduce, the less it is required.  So if you use it a lot, it's not needed at all.  You don't need to do it, you just need to let the defense know that you could use it if you chose. 

Just out of curiosity, were you a football player in your past?

I understand how from your perspective, having the other team move backward is sweet, especially if you feel that it was your defensive pressure that forced them to retreat.  But if they did it of their own volition to get leverage on you and were able to consistently get a net positive gain out of it, your ecstasy would turn to frustration and annoyance, would it not?


Bottom line is that I'm 100% confident I can increase any team's offensive potency by an order of magnitude.  

You're naturally skeptical.  I don't blame you.

I'm not trying to discredit your ideas. I'm just trying to understand them. In my mind, they have flaws, but so does the standard offenses that teams run. Yours are well thought out and might have less flaws than standard offenses.

1) Look up the analysis done by Parinella about lots of easy passes vs a few hard ones. Statistically a few hard ones is better?
2) You say that you don't want to score if its 10-5. I disagree because playing long capped games vs. short games is easier over a long tournament. And if its 5-10 you need to be able to push the pace.
3) What do you do on the side line against a trap? Do you just refuse to go there?

In my mind the concepts are strong, but I think your philosophy about how to move forward is under developed and against a good team it will be exposed. Running around, keeping the defense off balance by being a triple threat is all well and good, but you need to address what happens when the defense manages to put you in a tough spot..... and they will.

For instance players behind the line of scrimmage will not be covered. So you can play it back to them and they will not have a mark for awhile, but they will also not have anyone to throw to because the defense will largely outnumber the offense down field. In order to move defenders out of the way, often times you have engage them down field and be a threat.

However, I do not support the deceleration in the catching motion. That is a recipe for disaster and out of everything you have said I strongly urge you to reconsider that part of your style of play. It will lead to game changing blocks for the other team, guaranteed.

This is one of the cornerstones of the offense.  Refute it all you want.  It works.

The concept is that when you penetrate, and you become proficient at it, and start running misdirection plays (where you get significantly more separation), you begin to get a feel for how much space you've created between you and your defender.

So if you know you achieved 10 feet separation, you're aware that you can safely give back half of that in the deceleration into the catch.  In fact, youwant to do this to encourage the D to believe they could get the block and lunge for it.  The more they lunge, the more you'll be able to get even more separation by running yet another misdirection play off of their over pursuit.  It's like the half pipe.   Accelerate, decelerate, get balanced, do your 540 inverted vertical board grab, hit the pipe and accelerate and do it all over again.

It's this part of the game that I absolutely live for.  This is where you can start running play action plays, pick and rolls, counter plays, etc.

The question back at you is, If there were an offense out there that allowed you to safely decelerate into catches so you could more quickly attain balance, wouldn't that be preferable?  The motion offense is this offense.

I understand that deceleration into catches is totally antithetical to standard offensive philosophy but SO philosophy is inherently unbalanced.  I ran a standard offense for 10 years before I started doing this so it's not like I am ignorant to conventional O.  I was pretty good back in the 80s but just got bored with it.  Blame it on Santa Barbara.

Back around '87, playing against the Condors, I got tired of them laying out on D for every throw.  They rarely got the block but by their incessant fouling, they disrupted our offense constantly so I began developing an O that eliminated their ability to anticipate.  voila.