Yes. It’s a way to think about defense. I talked to a lacrosse coach yesterday and I think the language is probably most important. A way to think about things and communicate to help players with a shared mental model.
Yes, I believe you can apply nada to any specific defensive system.
In NADA, you speak of matching up immediately rather than the traditional sprint back. Do you feel this would work at all levels or is their a skill level where it would no longer be feasible?
There are two ways to look at it. My first feeling is I don’t think it’d work in nba, as an example. But offenses are so good anyway, maybe the risk is worth the potential benefits 🤷♂️
I’d say it could work up through college but probably need right personnel at college. Wouldn’t try it with everyone. But again I think it also depends on other strengths/weaknesses. May be worth it for a poor shooting team as a example.
We didn’t use it with my last mens team, but we also had no designated safety and did not sprint back on defense as is traditionally taught. I think we could have been a little more aggressive especially if we practiced it more.
Would it be fair to say that NADA isn’t a set of defensive tactics so much as an approach to teaching defense, ie, that you should focus on teaching players to triage based upon a set of priorities and preferred tactics rather than just drilling some platonic ideal of defense?
That you could use NADA to teach pressure man, pack line or even zone defense depending on your priorities or rules of thumb?
Yes. It’s a way to think about defense. I talked to a lacrosse coach yesterday and I think the language is probably most important. A way to think about things and communicate to help players with a shared mental model.
Yes, I believe you can apply nada to any specific defensive system.
The defensive version of SABA.
In NADA, you speak of matching up immediately rather than the traditional sprint back. Do you feel this would work at all levels or is their a skill level where it would no longer be feasible?
There are two ways to look at it. My first feeling is I don’t think it’d work in nba, as an example. But offenses are so good anyway, maybe the risk is worth the potential benefits 🤷♂️
I’d say it could work up through college but probably need right personnel at college. Wouldn’t try it with everyone. But again I think it also depends on other strengths/weaknesses. May be worth it for a poor shooting team as a example.
We didn’t use it with my last mens team, but we also had no designated safety and did not sprint back on defense as is traditionally taught. I think we could have been a little more aggressive especially if we practiced it more.
Would it be fair to say that NADA isn’t a set of defensive tactics so much as an approach to teaching defense, ie, that you should focus on teaching players to triage based upon a set of priorities and preferred tactics rather than just drilling some platonic ideal of defense?
That you could use NADA to teach pressure man, pack line or even zone defense depending on your priorities or rules of thumb?