Communication in Football

The very act of writing, speaking, and articulating complex ideas disciplines the mind and its thoughts.

Football, and particularly coaching, is based almost entirely on communicating effectively. We each have to explain to our fellow coaches and our players what we are trying to do ("combo block this man, then move on to 2nd level linebacker"), how to do it effectively ("hips low, use hands, eyes up"), and why ("numerical advantage against this front, the fullback will kick out the end").

Further, football even has its own complex sub-language particular to it and to specific teams to help quickly communicate lots of information quickly, and, in some cases, to do so without revealing information to the competition.

Practice itself is a continual series of communications to reinforce desired behavior ("Good job!" "No, sink your hips, and don't false step."). In so doing we discipline our own thoughts and can often achieve new insights through the process--we have all experienced epiphany moments in the middle of practice. This is one reason that experience is so valuable: years upon years of articulating complex ideas in increasingly simple and effective terms to neophytes to that level of football (players and young coaches). This can and should be one of the goals of communication in football: to not only convey an idea but to broaden and deepen our own understanding.

To put an idea into words, to make a playbook, a gameplan, a playcall sheet and the like are essentially disciplining procedures for coaches. By forcing ourselves to write it out, to plan for various circumstances and contingencies, and--maybe most importantly--to transform it so it can be understood by others besides ourselves is often a difficult but highly rewarding process where discontinuities, excesses, and illogical ideas can be eliminated. Interestingly, sometimes it is not the superiority of the plan or even having a plan that gives a team or coaching staff an advantage, it is the process by which they created it and the fact of having gone through that process that provides them with the insight and tools to succeed.

Communicating With Players

Beyond the planning phase, the ability to communicate to our players what they want to do and how is under constant scrutiny because if they fail to understand us then, first, they will fail to even begin to resemble what we want them to do, and second, they will often tell you directly or tell other coaches that you simply don't know what you are talking about. I've met more than a few highly intelligent and knowledgable coaches whose own players all felt like that they understood the game of football more than their coach, and it could not simply be explained by labelling them arrogant kids.

With respect to relating to and communicating with players coaches are usually either portrayed by both the media and even other coaches as ones that require their players to come to them, and make little effort to understand them individually but instead to mold them into a football team in their image--the so-called disciplinarian or drill sargeant--or as "Player's Coaches", who are seen to gravitate to their players' levels, be one of the guys, and to usually be perceived as more lax with conduct, dress codes, and the like.

All coaches, if they hope to be successful--whether in building men or winning football games--have to "understand" and "relate" to their players, which includes socio-economic background, family status, age and maturity, and current environment (college campus, large city, small rural town), because effective communication of ideas to players is really all that is being judged on Friday Nights, Saturdays, and Sundays. Therefore, while the styles of communication may be different, communication is rarely effective if the intended audience, in this case the players, are not understood extremely thoroughly and in a non-critical, though still demanding, fashion.

Football Strategy and its Development

On the other side, the actual blueprint of a football program and its various strategies, decisions, and plans, despite the fact that most teams are coached by a staff of multiple coaches, is usually designed and made top down by one, maybe up to three people (Head Coach, O and D coordinators), and then articulated downwards through assistants and players in a non-collaborative way. I believe it is evident from some of my other writings that I endorse a collaborative approach, which includes involving the players whenever possible.

The common reasons cited for this consolidation of decision making and planning are a call to power or authority ("It's my team!"), experience ("I've been coaching for 20 years and I have three rings to show for it."), or simply time. I would agree with the first two before the last, time, which, I believe when used as an excuse is a fallacy given the enormous amount of inefficiently spent hours by football coaches, and the short amount of time necessary for effective collaboration (15 minutes is an excellent start). Further, assuming they don't cheat, your opponents are under the same time constraints that you are. Not collaborating can have its own side-effects, from loss of morale to lack of knowledge and growth in football knowledge by assistants and layers. Bringing coaches and players into the decision making process can help make the team theirs, which, among other effects, can increase work ethic.

For now, though, I only want to draw attention to the lack of communication involved in such a centrally-planned system, and that in a collaborative approach each person, if they want to productively contribute, must be able to communicate their thoughts in an understandable way in the form of words, drawings, powerpoint slides, handouts, videos, etc. This is a powerful incentive to think about and learn the game of football more thoroughly.

Furthermore, apart from this intra-coach communication there is an increasing amount of inter-coach communication going on now, through visits (w/ reduced travel cost being a large factor), mailings, videos, articles, and, of course, the internet, where sharing of knowledge has exploded the last few years.

In the oft-repeated story, Mike Leach of Texas Tech literally had to volunteer on the BYU staff in the 1980s in order to learn their offense; now you can track down Norm Chow's four-hour video on the subject. Or, to learn what Leach does now, attend one of his many clinics, give his staff a phone call, or visit one of the websites where you can download one of his playbooks.

When being so up front about what you do there is a very real risk of exposing your own tendencies and vulnerabilities to the competition. However, this risk is overestimated by most in practice. Looking at the NFL and Division I, transparency of tactics is high, film is readily available, and coaches (and players in the NFL) are frequently hired away and change team affiliations. This does not seem to cripple any of the established and successful teams, despite the fact that these high profile and well financed squads are in the best position to exploit this flow of knowledge.

However, offsetting that risk (which I argued was overestimated) is the fact that these coaches have to distill all their teachings, philosophies, and tactics into single, easily decipherable talks, articles, and videos, which are then heavily scrutinized by other sophisticated football minds. It can actually be looked at as a bit of an interesting paradox: your offense may not warrant making a complete installation video about, but the act of making one may make your offense that much better, because you are forced to think about it more, bounce ideas around, and make it useful to other coaches.

Therefore, giving repeated lectures about what you do may remove some secrecy (which was probably never really there to your opponents anyway), but can actually yield more gains to the coaches giving the talk or making the video than those on the receiving end. (Though I've seen some pretty informative videos!) Moreover, obviously communication is a two-way street. The more you communicate the more you will receive in return. I know this has been true for me and this website.

Conclusion

The lone inventor is a popular fallacy depicted throughout history, and is not foreign to football. Individuals, coaches included, are often elevated to "genius" status and the fact that great head coaches often spawn future head coaches from their staff is usually seen as merely justification for the original innovator. Just as likely, however, this points to the valuable collaborative process involved with making those teams and head coaches successful in the first place--coaching is far too time consuming for the all important decisions and adjustments to be left in the hands of just one or two people.

Do not be afraid to share ideas, to work through problems as a staff, to encourage dialogue at all levels of your program, including players, as well as outwardly, at clinics and even through the internet. The very act of sharing these ideas and communicating them can make them clearer and your implementation of them more effective.