Danaher doesn't seem to spend a lot of time explaining stuff. I think that's the key to using this method: you have to distill what you're talking about down to a very small number of key points and just teach those. You look at someone like Ryan Hall: obviously he's spent a ton of time breaking down technique and figuring out the best way to do things, but he hasn't spent any time (as far as I can tell) trying to figure out how to convey those learnings in a parsimonious manner. He just talks, and talks, and talks, and it's really easy to lose the thread of what's actually important.
Let's say you're teaching side control to noobs. You think it's important to block the hip and get a knee high under the armpit. You can either just say 'the two things you have to do here are block the hip and get a knee under the armpit, here's how you do that' or you can say *why* it's important to do those things which takes a lot longer. My feeling is that the 'why' isn't actually that important for white belts, and is largely a waste of time, and also what takes the biggest chunks out of class time. What you want to do is convey the cues as directly and simply as possible and then have your folks spend a lot of time practicing hitting those cues as soon as they get into the position. It actually requires a lot of self discipline to teach this way, because it's easy to go too deep and spend too much time talking when most of that knowledge would go way over the heads of your audience.
Concepts and strategy are two different things, right? My view is that people spend way too much time on concepts, which are largely useless below at least purple belt (even though everyone likes to talk about them), and not nearly enough time just telling people what to do in specific positions. Strategy sits between raw technique and conceptual theory but it seems to be largely ignored at lower levels by most coaches. Maybe that's just me.
