Lou Burruss
Without question, the horizontal offense is a better wind offense. That
doesn’t mean it’s the right choice for your team. The horizontal offense
offers a couple really nice advantages in a high wind situation, but if you
don’t have the personnel to run it, it’ll be worse than a vertical offense.
Ben wrote “equivalent talent,” but I ask what talent?
(Quick aside: Sockeye and Furious are the two most effective teams at running
the horizontal offense, but they are fundamentally different. Sockeye runs the
high-tempo, zig-zagging offense I describe here; Furious runs a muscular,
isolation, big cut, big throw offense that is a vertical offense in a
horizontal disguise.)
The horizontal offense opens up the area in front of the disc for aggressive
handler cutting. In a windy situation, a five yard leading pass to a handler
running across the front of the disc is safe and with the yards-after-catch,
an excellent way to advance the disc. The downfield cutting in a horizontal
offense is fundamentally different from vertical. Vertical offense relies on
long (6-12 yards) cuts to out-muscle and out-run the defenders. Horizontal
offense relies on the stop-cut; a quick change of direction cut that relies on
the cutter’s judgment (“which lane do I chose?”) and the thrower’s ability to
break the mark. When it is windy, the long comeback cuts necessary for a
vertical offense lead to some nasty and difficult catches. The stop-cut cutter
is just beginning to come back when the disc is released and they can adjust
and snap on the disc before the defender has time to react. Fronting defense
is also much more effective against vertical offense where there is only one
comeback cut lane. In the wind, it is easy to front and challenge the thrower
to huck it. In a horizontal offense, the cutter is choosing from multiple
comeback lanes and the defender can’t camp in all of them.
So why would you chose a vertical stack offense? A horizontal stack offense is
a seven-player offense. For it to really work, everyone has to have a clue. At
the high school and college (and some club teams) level, you don’t have the
luxury of seven people with a clue. Cutting in a horizontal offense really
relies on reading the field, finding lanes and knowing your thrower. It is
much easier to teach how to run a vertical offense and have it work.
Horizontal offense also depends on everyone being able to deliver the disc to
every kind of cut. You can play in a vertical offense if you can run and throw
a 2-yard dump.
In brief, tailor your offense to your talent and adjust to the wind. Don’t try
to learn two offenses. So, do you have a lot of experience and a lot of quick
handlers? Horizontal. Got a couple big throwers and a lot of tall, fast
people? Vertical.
Dan Heijman
First and foremost I will say that I am completely biased in favor of a
horizontal based offense in a non-windy environment. While there are certain
advantages in starting out of a vertical, I believe that a horizontal flow
gives players the maximum amount of freedom and space to run the offense.
However, in windy conditions (depending on the severity) vertical, if run
correctly, does have its advantages.
Provided that the wind isn’t brutal (i.e. less than 20 MPH), I think
horizontal is the way to go. Given the athletes that are playing the game
today, I think you need to put them in space and let their legs do the work.
This offense, when run correctly, is incredibly difficult to stop because it
allows tremendous freedom for all players. Cutters can choose to go in or cut
deep on a whim, and can also adjust mid-cut if they see a break lane open up.
When attacking downwind defenders are often so worried about getting beaten
deep that smart cutters can take twenty-yard unders whenever they choose. And
if the defense adjusts, you can let the hucks rain. Obviously any huck-happy
offense will face a rise in turnovers, but depending on the wind, and the
level of competition, this could be a risk worth taking. Few D-lines will be
able to effectively move the disc upwind with any consistency if they have to
go the full 70 yards to score.
When attacking upwind you could choose to go either way, but I still like
horizontal. For starters, with a correctly run flow you are receiving the disc
in the center of the field, not on the sidelines. Even with no wind, the
possibility of turnover rises exponentially once the disc gets on the
sideline, and with some wind, that percentage gets even higher. Obviously, the
disc will eventually find its way to a sideline, but the frequency in which
that occurs goes down when flowing horizontally. I also believe (although I
know some don’t) that throwing break-marks is actually easier in a horizontal,
as long as cutters standing on the break side keep potential poachers
occupied. And getting breaks going up-wind is huge for eating up chunks of
yardage and for allowing the possibility of a break-mark huck. Most likely
defenders will be fronting, and if you can get the disc to one of your big
throwers on that break side, bomb away.
When dealing with a crosswind, it is imperative that the disc gets to that
upwind side (i.e. the side that the wind is blowing from). Again, my bias will
be towards horizontal, because I think with a vertical (where the open spaces
are towards the outsides of the field) you will find yourself trapped on the
down-wind sideline more often that you would like.
The vertical stack is true to its name in that it attacks the field
vertically. This can be helpful when attacking up wind. For most windy games
O-lines will typically find themselves attacking down wind, while the d-lines
(provided they force turnovers) will be going up-wind. This means that a
team’s less offensively talented players (usually) will be asked to score
given more difficult circumstances. In this case having an offense that relies
on numerous throws, dumps and swings significantly hurts that sides chances of
scoring. When attacking the upwind end zone with consistent 20+ MPH gusts, you
may want to go vertical. Having played on a team with a very big thrower, this
offense can be your best bet to actually get the disc down the field. Try
isolating your best deep threat for your biggest thrower and pull the trigger.
Obviously this won’t work every time, but the chance of completing one longer
thrown is often higher than completing 15-20 shorter ones, depending on the
personnel. Without the threat of deep throws, defenses will sit on the unders
and make it nearly impossible to move the disc, unless your handlers can break
the mark consistently.
The windier it is, regardless of whether attacking upwind or downwind, but
especially upwind, the less likely you’ll be to string together dozens of
passes to score. Often times the chances of completing one “risky” throw are
higher than completing 20+ “safe” throws. Take the shot when its there, even
if it doesn’t pay off the defense will know you’re willing to jack it, which
will allow for easier unders later in the game.
And, when attacking downwind with a 20+ MPH wind, never turn the disc within
your brick. It doesn’t matter if the disc goes 80 yards out the back of your
opponent’s end zone; make them go the full 70 yards to score.
Gwen Ambler
Any offense is difficult in the wind, so when conditions are windy a team
should play the offense that it has practiced the most. Both vertical and
horizontal stack offenses have advantages and disadvantages in the wind and
the decision to play one over the other depends on how well your team can be
on the same page while running it’s O.
When my team first made the transition from vertical stack to horizontal stack
back in 2005, we struggled in the wind and often would switch back to the vert
stack when it was windy and we were having difficulty scoring. However, that
was comparing a vertical stack offense at which we were very experienced to a
horizontal offense that we were just learning. At the time, I was convinced
that a vertical stack was better in the wind because the emphasis on the
lateral disc movement of dumping and swinging made it hard for the defense to
overplay the open side, allowing opportunities for cutters to get open with
timing and handlers to generate movement with break mark throws. It seemed to
me that defenses were able to easily front cutters in our horizontal stack
when it was windy and handlers were often left without many options.
As my team’s horizontal stack has matured and become more dynamic, I now think
that it offers more possibilities to advance the disc confidently in windy
conditions than the vertical stack. A horizontal offense allows more
flexibility for handlers to aggressively attack and get the disc upfield. This
not only serves to catch downfield defenders out of position, but it also
provides an easy way to advance the disc down the field as the short throws
and dishy passes to handlers remain largely unaffected by wind. Additionally,
lots of handler motion combined with the coordinated movement of four cutters
filling and vacating multiple cutting lanes can find holes in a poaching
defense and isolate defenders without help deep. I have found vertical stack
offenses to be less effective at breaking down the poachy and clammy defenses
that wind invites.
While I would rather play a horizontal offense now, I recognize that its
strength lies in the complex combination of coordination and improvisation. I
think this may actually take longer for a team to practice before it can
effectively execute the offense in any condition than it does for a vertical
stack. However, the rewards are greater.
Greg Husak
To my eyes, the advantage of the spread/horizontal is that you don’t need a
whole group of people working together, but can be effective by working in
just pairs of upfield cutters or on occasion an isolated receiver. Of course,
the better teams will have coordination of all the players, but for a young
team, or a team using a new system, things can get up and running effectively
with the horizontal.
To the question as which is more effective in windy situations, again I think
you have to look at not the ability of the team, but their familiarity with
one another and the system they are using. If a team has a lot of experience
working together in a vertical stack system, I think they will make
adjustments in the wind that will be very effective. Similar for a horizontal
stack, the difference would be in a pickup team, or a team without a lot of
practice together, I think the adjustments in a horizontal system are easier
to describe and implement for windy conditions than for a vertical system.
Ron Kubalanza
I am not sure what equivalent talent is but you simply have more options in a
HORIZONTAL stack and the cutters are generally all closer to the ball. This is
important because all four cutters are options, in and out, almost
simultaneously. Additionally, using the field as 4 cutting lanes as opposed to
two, for seasoned cutters is easier. The problem is most cutters don’t know
what they are doing. I think you need to play a lot of Vertical stack to learn
how to cut. You must have an understanding of two lanes before you can have
four. You must learn to cut for your self (Vertical is a very selfish system)
before you can cut for your team. Sure you make space for your teammates by
cutting and clearing in a Vertical, but every time you cut you are trying to
get open and get a pass. Some cuts in a HORIZONTAL are not designed to get a
pass on that throw, but maybe a few throws later.
Generally, in high wind you want receivers closer to you. If you have dominant
handlers and one or two good cutters you can manage a Vertical, but a
HORIZONTAL gives you more options and I think as many options as possible to
initiate offense is key. A thrower should always have a minimum of 4 options.
In Vertical, unless you are using two dumps, it is hard to design. The
HORIZONTAL is designed with the two dumps (though they don’t necessarily line
up that way) and then I would like to think all 4 cutters could be an option.
Even if 2 are, you meet the minimum four.
Whether up or downwind, I would still stick with the Horizontal…given a team
has the players that have put in the Vertical work. In heavy downwind, the
automatic ISO situations initially set up by the HORIZONTAL formation and the
4 lanes produce more turns to cut deep. If the d adjusts, then you can hammer
under cuts.
I would only make general adjustments without specifics about what the other
team is doing. Stick to the fundamentals in high wind. Forehands, backhands
(maybe some fancy stuff downwind), short passes, throw and go, and keep the
ball moving.
Tully Beatty
Given the chess game that’s taking place, the O should be keeping the D on
their toes equally as much, so I don’t know if it’s a matter Of which type of
O I’d “rather” run. Considering the conditions are windy enough, I’d more than
likely prefer the Ho stack mainly because I’m thinking the D is coming zone or
zone for a certain number of passes. If the D looks to transition after 4/5/6
passes, the secondary outside players are already set in place. I also like to
look for a potential 2 to 3-man homey/dominator after the D’s zone to man
transition.
I think the wind can be the D’s 8th man if you’re running a vertical stack
into the wind. Running a Ho stack is more effective because running dummy cuts
or fake cuts to the open side are more believable and the D can’t necessarily
overplay the open side. Having the ability to opt for a 3-man homey after a
call/violation while facing the wind is “easier” when standing spread O rather
than in a stack; it’s an easier transition for that matter. Downwind, I’d be
more flexible to run a vertical stack. In that situation the wind might become
the O’s 8th man. Dropping a hammer to break side space downwind for example.
After feeling out the first few points in a heavy crosswind game, I’d be more
comfortable running a vertical stack. With the exception of your deep-deep in
a zone O, all the players are pretty much where they need to be. I’m sure
you’d be looking at a 1-3-3, a 4-man cup or some sort of heavy trap-side
defense for a few passes if not the entire point. That being true, I like
having players near to where you want them setup. Allow handlers to be
handlers for the first few passes. Maybe they can play a game of catch for the
first few passes before the transition; and if not then the wings can get
settled and a popper and handler/dump look for a potential 2 on 1 match-up.
Looking at that kind of wind with either offensive set, the main adjustment
I’m looking at is really not so different from a no-wind day: you don’t need 7
players to score.
Upwind or downwind: at some point I’m looking for the opportunity to use
throwers and use speed/quickness to get closer to the end zone.
Jonathan Potts
I wouldn’t say I’ve thought about this a lot, surprisingly. I find I’m
generally on a team that’s drilled a lot of vertical or drilled a lot of
horizontal, so we’re better at one particular offence in most conditions.
All other things being equal, horizontal relies on using static structure to
create space on the field, whereas vertical relies on cutting (dynamic
structure?) to create space on the field.
Wind tends to nullify cutting advantages, so theoretically horizontally
should be preferred in the wind, all other things being equal, including your
team’s ability to play either offence.
However, in wind you need to modify the static structure of the horizontal to
adjust for the wind direction and strength, and everyone needs to be on the
same page, so it could be pretty tricky to get right.
For example, obviously, going upwind you need to shorten up the stack to
maintain the deep threat, and going downwind you need to lengthen the stack so
that you get reasonable return on the in cuts.
Similarly, in a side wind you’ll probably need to adjust your spacing across
the field to allow a greater margin of error on the throws into space.
But, just like vertical, it will be more difficult to play horizontal offence
in the wind, you need a genuine deep threat at all times, and you need to
coordinate your cuts.
Jeff Eastham-Anderson
I would say that the absolute talents of your team will likely favor one
offense over the other. If you cannot consistently complete passes greater
than forty yards, a stack offense is more favorable than a horizontal. Any
situation where the defense no longer has to defend the deep pass puts the
horizontal stack offense at a significant disadvantage. This generality can be
extrapolated to any situation, not just wind condition. For example, when the
disc is on the goal-line, defenders can front the people in the stack, thus
using their position to take away the in cut, and the back of the endzone to
take away the deep cut. At any point in time your team finds itself unable to
throw deep passes, a different offense is called for. Taking this example
further, a stack offense, which favors lateral movement of the disc often with
break-mark throws, would be more effective on the goal line than a horizontal
stack. Conversely, as deep shots become more viable, the horizontal stack
would be favored over a vertical one.
Everybody knows that strong winds make throwing and catching more difficult.
This fact is often exploited by defenses by running some sort of zone defense
that forces the offense to execute many throws in the hope that somewhere
along the line a mistake will be made (see the math section below). But what
should be done if a team runs an effective man defense in windy conditions?
Every situation is different, but there are a few generalities that can be
helpful.
First, the stack must change its position on the field to facilitate the
offense’s goals. A deep cut from the back of a vertical stack with a stiff
upwind may not be viable if the back of the stack is 30 yards away. By the
time the thrower recognizes a deep cut from that position is open, the
receiver is likely too far way to complete a pass that is uncontested. On the
other hand, if the back of the stack is 15 yards away, the thrower has more
room to deliver a pass. Alternatively if you are on the downwind side of a
stiff crosswind, not only does the stack need to be shallow, but also should
move away from that sideline to facilitate line throws, or toward the sideline
to facilitate break-mark throws.
Second, in windy situations the ratio of risk to reward can be different than
when it is calm. Let’s say that if it is calm your team can complete 20 short
throws at a 100% completion rate to score, or 1 deep throw at a 70% completion
rate, then you should take the short throws. However, if you need 30 short
throws at a 90% completion rate or 2 deep throws at a 30% completion rate, the
math favors deep throws. These numbers are exaggerated to make a point;
sometimes a couple big risks are more favorable to a lot of little ones.
Miranda Roth
I guess I’m pretty old school on this one. One of the main advantages of the
horizontal offense is the deep space it affords throwers, particularly once
cutters get the disc in their hands. In a crosswind or upwind situation, deep
looks for any thrower become less of an option so I would prefer to run the
vertical stack. This usually gives the thrower multiple in looks and I find
the dump-swing to be much easier out of a vertical set. To me, dump-swing will
win you windy games just by advancing the disc a little bit each time on the
swing.
Now there are some special situations to be addressed here.
What if the disc is trapped on sideline toward which the wind is blowing? This
is a tough one. In this situation, the dump-swing is harder and it’s even hard
to throw to an in cut. One thing to do is while using the dump swing; don’t
swing it all the way to the sideline creating a trap situation. This also goes
for a similar weather situation when playing zone offense. Another thing to
consider, particularly in lower level games where more turnovers occur (and
particularly in really bad winds) is hucking and playing D.
What if you are going downwind? I actually really like running horizontal or
spread offenses in this situation because of the open deep space it creates.
Again, if you turn it over on deep looks (where more horizontal turns come),
the other team has to work it all the way up, into the wind.
What if you really want to run the horizontal offense/your team doesn’t have a
vertical stack offense? My advice, much like in a vertical stack offense, is
to keep the stack closer to the handlers the windier it is. This forces the
defense to still respect deep looks and it also makes handlers’ jobs easier
since they don’t have to throw as far to get it to a cutter. On the other
hand, if your handlers are particularly strong, you might think about running
a handler dominated offense (the cutters wouldn’t have to stack as close for
this) or at least initiate to a handler cutting up field and then to a cutter
on the second pass.
Chris Ashbrook
I want to first analyze what type of team we are and what type of team we are
playing in determining which offense (and defense) to run.
Downwind
Here I generally prefer the horizontal stack, regardless (and variations), as
I feel you a thrower is given more choices from nearly every position. Players
also tend to overplay defensively when guarding an O that is going downwind
which I feel tends to open up cutters underneath and away more often.
Additionally, there is usually plenty of space to put throws out like hammers
or scoobers if needed.
With the Ho set I prefer to be a bit more aggressive going downwind with hucks
(smart hucks though). The reason is that on a huck incompletion, you are now
making the defensive team, whose throwers are usually not the best throwers on
the team move the disc 70 yards for a goal. Watching the Sockeye/JAM 07 Semi,
this appeared to me to be one of deciding factors in the game. Although JAM
would generate turns against Sockeye, they were unable to move the disc well
against the D and turned the disc back over to Sockeye.
Crosswind
Here is where I like to see a hybrid of the two offenses.
Last year our team focused on playing a horizontal stack to begin the point
and moving the disc to the upwind side immediately if there was a crosswind.
We did this is because most teams force the disc to the ‘downwind’ sidelines
so that to break the mark you have to throw into the wind. However, if you
start on the upwind side, the throws are generally easier, and you are able to
move the disc to mid-field before you are stopped. Secondly, the option is
there to get off a big throw with a crosswind.
What we didn’t do well is then transition to a vertical stack from the
horizontal stack after crossing midfield.
The reason for moving to a vertical stack near the goal line is that I believe
the Ho stack is less effective in scoring goals than the vertical stack in a
short field (this could just be dogma as well). I tend to believe that the
horizontal stack is better with a lot of field space and that a vertical stack
is better with a short field. The reason for this is that teams are able to
maintain possession better in a vertical stack offense near the goal line than
other offenses as they focus on possession.
Upwind
Here I believe you have to go with your strength as a team, which requires an
honest assessment of your team’s skills and abilities. Two teams stick out
over the years is DoG and Furious George, both used different types of
offense, but both were very successful.
In my view, and from the couple years I saw, DoG ran a stack/iso offense. DoG
took the throws that were given to them and were very disciplined in their
throws and decision-making. Each player knew their role and executed their
offense efficiently, which allowed them to move the disc and take the big
throw on what they considered a high percentage throw.
Furious, on the other hand, had some great throwers who are able to make
outstanding hucks upwind to very good receivers and were not afraid to make
the big throw. By having great throwers, they were able to maintain the disc
until they were able to put up a huck that was a high percentage. (Maybe I’m
arguing for Ho, but I still feel that both are effective and it depends upon
personnel).
Where I think that both DoG and Furious are the same is that they ran the same
offense on pretty much every possession. Both were excellent and disciplined
in executing their strategy.
Another team I feel that did both well was JAM 04. Watching the tapes, they
were equally adept at running both vertical and a stack offense. The players
on the team knew their roles and how to execute their roles very well. This
worked to their advantage throughout the series, though whether that hurt them
is a question in and of itself.
1a. See Crosswind. I believe the strategy for the crosswind can be equally
effective, if not more effective
Ryan Morgan
There are numerous factors to consider when deciding whether to run a
horizontal stack (HO) or vertical stack (Vert) offense such as: recent success
rate with a particular offense against your opponent, probable individual
match-ups with your opponent, and how critical the particular point is. In
this scenario we are asked to discuss how another factor, wind, affects that
decision. Before that discussion, however, it is necessary to look generally
at the relative costs and benefits of the Vert versus the HO offense.
The Vert offense is systematic and mechanistic. Teams benefit from its
predictability. Everyone knows who is cutting, when he is cutting, and
generally where he is going to cut. The thrower knows when and where to look
for these cutters. Everyone else sets up subsequent cuts and movements
accordingly. The cost of the Vert offense is that it limits the players in the
stack who are not scheduled to cut.
The HO offense attempts to isolate a number of players at the same time by
spreading them across the field. Each of these players have the freedom at any
time to take advantage of open cut opportunities…either in or out. This
potential for opportunistic behavior is the benefit of the HO offense. The
necessary cost, of course, is decreased predictability. Because cutters are
not moving according to preset rules, as in the Vert offense, each one must
first decide when and where to cut and must coordinate his decision with every
other cutter’s decision. Due to this multiplayer decision-making, the thrower
cannot expect a cutter in a certain position at a certain time and must
therefore find the cutter before making a decision to throw.
Given that Vert offense favors predictability at the cost of opportunistic
behavior, and that the HO offense favors opportunistic behavior at the cost of
predictability, the question now becomes how the wind affects each of these
factors. Wind certainly decreases the predictability of any offense. Throwers
become tighter and some throws that would be made in calm conditions are
unexpectedly withheld in windy conditions. Cutters can also tighten up by
hesitating to cut or by staying too long in the lane. This seems to weigh
against playing Vert in windy situations. However, wind can also negatively
affect opportunistic behavior, especially heading upwind. The probability of
completing deep passes decreases going upwind, for example, thus cutting off
those opportunities. Since there are more of these opportunities in HO
offense, it seems to weigh against playing HO in windy situations. Ultimately,
deciding between Vert and HO in wind depends on just how much it affects the
predictability of your team’s Vert or the possibility for opportunistic
behavior in your team’s HO.
My team, Truck Stop, was a young but very athletic team. Additionally, Truck
Stop added a significant contingent of new players, myself included, who
needed to build chemistry with the rest of the team. Because of these
characteristics we generally played Vert in a strong headwind, but exclusively
HO in a downwind situation. It made sense for us to use a HO offense in that
situation because everyone can throw further going downwind, making it
possible to complete more deep opportunities. We have also utilized some
techniques to mitigate the costs of each type of offense. In an effort in
institute some predictability into our HO offense; we have a number of set
plays that establish the first few cuts off of a pull. These plays help to
jump start the offense and settle everyone down for the first few cuts and
throws. Similarly, in an effort to take advantage of opportunities in the Vert
offense, we have number of plays that initiate cuts from the middle of the
stack. For example, if a defensive handler walks to the disc after a turnover
and notices that we have a huge height advantage, he can call a play that will
send that player deep to take advantage of that opportunity.
By evaluating the effect of wind on your team’s potential for opportunistic
play in the HO and on predictability in the Vert you can chose the offense
that will give you the best chance for success in the wind. Furthermore,
addressing the shortcomings of these offenses in general with set plays will
increase your chances of success.
Chris Talarico
The horizontal stack has all but replaced the vertical stack because it does
such a good job of creating space. When run effectively, four cutters
typically are spread across the width of the field. This spacing between
cutters makes defensive switches very difficult, thereby putting each
downfield defender on an island one-on-one with their man. As any cutter will
tell you, when you know your defender doesn’t have help, you have the
advantage. There’s no need to sacrifice this advantage just because it’s
windy.
In an upwind situation (offense going into the wind), the biggest problem an
offense faces is the defense camping out underneath; always staying between
their man and the disc. This makes shorter upfield passes very difficult,
particularly in cuts (toward the disc). With the defense taking away the in
cuts, it’s the deep shots that are left open. But as an offense, you can’t
solely rely on hitting deep cuts in any weather, let alone against a stiff
wind, especially if you don’t have throwers with consistently accurate hucks
or reliable upwind throws.
A common mistake horizontal offenses make in the wind is allowing the stack to
get too deep (whether consciously or unintentionally). The thought is that if
you have more room to make an in cut, the more likely you are to make it
successfully and get open for a pass. While this is true conceptually, the
strategy really doesn’t hold up. You end up limiting yourself to 5-yard-or-so
completions and really allow the D to clamp down because they know where
you’re going.
Instead, pull the stack in tighter than normal. As an offense, you need to
establish that your cutters can get the disc going out as well as coming
underneath. Cutters need to do two things: first, keep your spacing across the
width of the field - in the wind it’s even more important to not allow your
man to poach or help on a throw to another cutter. Second, bring your defender
in towards the disc as far as he’ll go and still stay underneath you. You can
do this by starting from a set position in the stack (if you are within 10
yards or so from the thrower) OR begin with an in cut. Either way, turn and go
out decisively - don’t juke or dance. Throwers: you’re looking to get off a
pass as soon as the cutter makes his move to go out. Note that this does not
need to be a deep pass - and really shouldn’t be a deep pass unless you’re
sure you’ve got the throw - it just needs to get beyond the cutter. The best
throw in this situation is flat with a lot of spin - get it out ahead of the
cutter and let him run onto it. Once the D recognizes that you can hit out
cuts, they’ll have to adjust to play more honestly and not give up that pass
so easily. Now you have them respecting both the in and out cuts, and you can
start using both effectively.