In 1998 during a practice for my high school rugby team a coach did something that has informed the way I have approached coaching ever since. We were practicing breaking out from a scrum. Our wings were set to the left. I was the scrum half and my coach was acting as the opposing scrum half. As the ball made its way out of the scrum I reached down, with my chest facing my coach, and grabbed the ball. He quickly lunged forward and hammered across my arms as I tried to pitch the ball, causing the ball to go stray. Without saying anything about it the coach had us reset the scrum and try again. This time I stepped over the ball, keeping my body between the coach and the ball, reached down and pitched out. He was unable to reach around to disrupt the pitch. What I learned was simple. Despite my being more comfortable pitching with my right hand, it was vulnerable to attack from the defense doing it this way. It was far better to shield it and use my less dominant hand to get the pitch off. This Socratic approach to coaching has sat with me ever since. In my head I thought “What went wrong? How can I prevent it from happening again?” I was able to reason for myself the correct way to handle the situation. The Socratic method is the idea that the best way to teach someone isn’t to give them answers - it’s to ask the right questions until they find the answers themselves. This story is about rugby, but it is just a matter of switching context. As a youth football coach I try to create similar Socratic environments for my players.

There are forces that are working against employing the Socratic method throughout a practice. The two most significant are time and the ratio of coach to player. Much of what we know from Socrates comes from his student, Plato and his “Dialogues”. Plato’s “Dialogues” are a written recording of his conversations with Socrates over hours, days, and weeks. A youth football coach simply does not have that kind of time. We meet with our team during the season 3-4 times a week for a couple hours. Often there are only 3 coaches for over 20 players. It is unrealistic to suggest that a Socratic approach to all of coaching is the solution to teaching the players what they need to know. That is why I attempt to create micro-environments. I try to think of ways I can sprinkle in the approach throughout a practice. A minute or two when we start a drill perhaps. Or quick questions right after a rep. Even these small interactions can help solidify understanding and build over the course of a season.

Football is complicated. As an example, we expect the offensive lineman to be able to execute an inside zone blocking scheme. There are a lot of decisions that a lineman has to make in order to execute it properly. Where is the Mike? Am I getting help from my teammate on this defender with a combo block? Am I solo blocking them? Which one of us is going to break off and try to get to the linebacker? That is a lot just for one play. We as coaches can repeat the steps to go through over and over. We can even tell them why, but I believe that leads to a shallower understanding of what is happening. If we are able to create an environment in which they come to the conclusion of why they need to follow those steps on their own, they won’t forget what to do in a game. They will know what they are doing and how it affects the play. They will feel more a part of the play rather than someone who is just doing a series of steps. This builds into more confidence, which spreads throughout the rest of their practice habits making the team and player better.

I have mentioned these Socratic micro-environments. How does that look exactly? Early in every season we work with our linemen’s first step out of their stance. It should be strong, quick, and short. Making sure they are keeping their knees bent in a strong athletic position. We have a drill where they take their first step (lateral for inside zone) and then drive a person holding a bag up field. What I like to do is show them the drill then let them go through it a couple of times each so I can see how they are executing. Invariably many of the players are taking too long of a first step, wider than their frame. I stop the drill and ask a simple question, “what is our first step supposed to look like?” I let them answer the question, but as soon as I hear “short” I stop them right there and ask “why do we want to keep our first step short?” New players, often the type I am working with, don’t have an answer to this. I ask one of the stronger kids to get in his stance and take a first step, but make it long. When he executes the long step I push his shoulders and he goes off balance and he stumbles. Then I ask “what happened?” They generally respond with some variation of he was knocked over, or he lost balance. I have the player do his first step again, but this time make it short. I push him again, now he is much stronger and is able to maintain his balance. Then I ask them what was the difference with the shorter step? Why was he stronger? We talk about balance, footwork, and body position and why it is important to execute that way. That football is contact, and there are players on the other team trying to knock them over. I then restart the drill and the first step is often better right away. They have internalized the point much better than if I just told them why.

Interactions can come organically if you are adopting the Socratic approach, but time is a constraint. Planning the interactions can be helpful. In this example we are still working with the lineman and their first step. This time the concentration is a consistent inside zone lateral step. The drill can be anything related to the inside zone blocking scheme. We give them the rules to follow when executing the block, and I ask them why it is so important to be consistent with the first lateral step? Answers may vary, or there could be silence. Before I move forward I need someone to speak up, even if the answer is incorrect. If they are struggling I could ask “why do you think we are even taking a lateral step? Why not straight forward downfield? Or directly at the defender?” “What is the goal of the play? Where is the running back going to go?” “How does a lateral step as a unit help with that goal?” “What happens if the guard takes a step downfield but the tackle takes the lateral step?” All of these questions are aimed at having the players come to the conclusion that the line needs to move in unison in the same way. That prevents gaps from forming in the line that allow a defender to come into the backfield before the running back can make their decision. It also helps with their angles, which makes it easier for them to block their responsibility. It is easy to see how things can get muddled in conversation if a coach is not prepared. That is why I like to plan the micro-environments ahead of time.

My older son has just recently finished his first week of freshman football camp. He is trying out for quarterback and asked me to quiz him on the formations that they provided. The process was simple, I gave him the formation call, and he drew the formation and personnel package on a white board. He had already looked at the formations and felt he knew them well enough to be quizzed. As it turned out he did not know them well enough to provide the information quickly. Instead of engaging in an exercise of rote memorization I took the opportunity to ask questions and help him reason what the formation was, using the information that he did remember. Generally this was the personnel packages, the formation call itself, and his understanding of what a legal football formation was. For example “Pistol Trips Kobe”. I asked him what the personnel package was. If it is 11 personnel, what does that mean? Where would you as a quarterback line up? And the back? Which side is the strong side? How do you know that? How about the X, Y, and Z? are they on the line or off? Why does the Z have to be on the line in this formation? The results were he was able to learn the formations, but it seemed he really understood why it had to be that way, rather than just knowing where people line up. Having a deeper understanding of why people are lined up the way they are allows him to understand, later when plays are added, why a particular player has a certain responsibility. If the Y is responsible for the linebacker, he can’t be set out at the numbers. He needs to be on the wing or in the tight end position so he can get to his block. The idea is that formations are constructed for reasons that relate to how a play can be executed. Knowing that allows you to have a greater understanding of the offense and its goals. My goal is to be a guide for kids to figure it out.