|
Post by 19delta on May 4, 2009 17:56:40 GMT -6
Took me 30 seconds to find it. The logo or the arrow?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2009 19:01:07 GMT -6
The real creator of double wing was not Don Markham, it was Sun Tzu. He, not Kurt Bryan, created the A-11. Sun Tzu would move his players effortlessly between the offensive "packages" depending on the enemy, er team, he was facing. damn I thought he was a defensive coach..
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on May 4, 2009 19:18:57 GMT -6
Is the FedEx logo really that good.? What I mean is, that is cool that there is a hidden arrow in it, but I have never ever seen it until today. So is it good or not?
I know that maybe, maybe my mind has subliminally seen it all along. But even if it has, does that "arrow" really make my want to use FedEx?
Maybe that arrow is too hidden.
Anyway, now that I have found the arrow, and since that relates to Sun Tzu, and since that relates to football, and since football relates to life, I think I will have a good day.
Dangit, spilled water on my pants. Shouldn't have ever tried to find the arrow.
|
|
|
Post by coachweav88 on May 4, 2009 19:30:50 GMT -6
Kind of like the 11 in the Big 10 Conference logo
|
|
|
Post by champ93 on May 4, 2009 19:52:43 GMT -6
One thing about the FED Ex arrow is that children typically see the arrow first or only, especially before they can read. Once we learn to read, we tend to focus on the letters and ignore (at least consciously) the arrow. In other words, we miss things that are obvious when we become focused on a task. It's often called Perceptual Blindness I did not read SUn Tzu, but I imagine he had something similar to say about that. Here's something similar to the Fed Ex Arrow. Count the number of passes the players in the white shirts pass the ball back and forth. Then watch it again without counting. viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on May 4, 2009 20:11:59 GMT -6
we're we not supposed to see the gorilla walking by the first time?
|
|
|
Post by coachwilley on May 4, 2009 20:12:14 GMT -6
One thing about the FED Ex arrow is that children typically see the arrow first or only, especially before they can read. Once we learn to read, we tend to focus on the letters and ignore (at least consciously) the arrow. In other words, we miss things that are obvious when we become focused on a task. It's often called Perceptual Blindness I did not read SUn Tzu, but I imagine he had something similar to say about that. Here's something similar to the Fed Ex Arrow. Count the number of passes the players in the white shirts pass the ball back and forth. Then watch it again without counting. viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php"You'll have to excuse my friend, he's a little slow..." Ok, what was the point of that video?
|
|
|
Post by coachwilley on May 4, 2009 20:14:06 GMT -6
One thing about the FED Ex arrow is that children typically see the arrow first or only, especially before they can read. Once we learn to read, we tend to focus on the letters and ignore (at least consciously) the arrow. In other words, we miss things that are obvious when we become focused on a task. It's often called Perceptual Blindness I did not read SUn Tzu, but I imagine he had something similar to say about that. Here's something similar to the Fed Ex Arrow. Count the number of passes the players in the white shirts pass the ball back and forth. Then watch it again without counting. viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php"You'll have to excuse my friend, he's a little slow..." Ok, what was the point of that video? Oh crap!! No wonder I can't teach my team to pick up the OLB Blitzes! Duh
|
|
|
Post by los on May 4, 2009 20:15:04 GMT -6
Yeah, pretty cool....you don't even notice the guy in the gorilla suit walking thru the crowd and pounding his chest, while you're focused on the counting, lol....
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 4, 2009 21:04:43 GMT -6
I'm halfway convinced it was a compendium of teachings that Sun Tzu put together, as opposed to something he came up with on his own. My source said someone else put them together long after and attributed them to him.
|
|
|
Post by champ93 on May 5, 2009 7:48:55 GMT -6
One thing about the FED Ex arrow is that children typically see the arrow first or only, especially before they can read. Once we learn to read, we tend to focus on the letters and ignore (at least consciously) the arrow. In other words, we miss things that are obvious when we become focused on a task. It's often called Perceptual Blindness I did not read SUn Tzu, but I imagine he had something similar to say about that. Here's something similar to the Fed Ex Arrow. Count the number of passes the players in the white shirts pass the ball back and forth. Then watch it again without counting. viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php"You'll have to excuse my friend, he's a little slow..." Ok, what was the point of that video? typically, more than 50% do not see the gorilla walk by the first time. The point is, we sometimes become so focused on a task that we will miss things right in front of us that may be obvious to others.
|
|
|
Post by tiger46 on May 5, 2009 8:06:20 GMT -6
Not actually focusing on the task will allow people to see the gorilla more easily. For those that do see the gorilla the first time they view the video, even fewer see the gorilla the first time and keep an accurate count of the passes.
|
|
dustinwmills
Freshmen Member
"Make excellence a habit, not a hobby."
Posts: 33
|
Post by dustinwmills on May 5, 2009 11:04:33 GMT -6
The Civil War was indeed the first war to see the "mass carnage" as you described it. This was due to a lack of understanding of changing tactics. Both sides (although the Confederates had a somewhate better understanding) used antiquated Napoleonic tactics of standing 50yds apart and blasting each other into oblivion. With the smoothbore musket, wildly inaccurate and slow to load, these tactics make sense...with the advent of the rifle and especially a repeating rifle and pistol, these tactics became old and useless. I don't need 5 guys next to me to hit you at 50 yards with a rifle...I can do it from 200 by myself and behind cover.
But, such was the way of the leaders of the day, especially the Union. They were unyielding and stubborn, full of pride, seeing other tactics as cowardly and weak...which is why the war took 4 years. If the North had analyzed and adapted Southern tactics, it would have been short work.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 5, 2009 11:27:35 GMT -6
The Civil War was indeed the first war to see the "mass carnage" as you described it. This was due to a lack of understanding of changing tactics. Both sides (although the Confederates had a somewhate better understanding) used antiquated Napoleonic tactics of standing 50yds apart and blasting each other into oblivion. With the smoothbore musket, wildly inaccurate and slow to load, these tactics make sense...with the advent of the rifle and especially a repeating rifle and pistol, these tactics became old and useless. I don't need 5 guys next to me to hit you at 50 yards with a rifle...I can do it from 200 by myself and behind cover. But, such was the way of the leaders of the day, especially the Union. They were unyielding and stubborn, full of pride, seeing other tactics as cowardly and weak...which is why the war took 4 years. If the North had analyzed and adapted Southern tactics, it would have been short work. Read "Attack and Die" by Grady WcWhiney (sp?).
|
|
dustinwmills
Freshmen Member
"Make excellence a habit, not a hobby."
Posts: 33
|
Post by dustinwmills on May 5, 2009 12:13:34 GMT -6
Looks like an interesting read...definitely have to look it up. Although reading the reviews on Amazon, I don't know how much I'd agree with the book. I think that attacking was the only way the South stood a chance. They didn't have the manpower to stand up to the Union military machine...as proved when U.S. Grant took over and just overwhelmed them...
Plus, they had to win a propaganda war and a political war. They almost did a couple of time with their invasions of Maryland and PA.
|
|
lgoody
Freshmen Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by lgoody on May 5, 2009 19:23:36 GMT -6
The belief in the tactical offensive and gauging success through land taken, coupled with the advance of technology in warfare, was the reason the first World War was so terrible. Everybody had these plans and contingencies for attacking, and people figured out that Machine Guns made real short work of you when you attack, and then try and establish your position with the people behind you. Not so much fun.
I really need to look into the Civil War warfare more. IIRC though, many of Lee's victories were centered around maintaining his position and forcing the Union to come attack him. Once Grant figured he could basically throw manpower at the problem though, the South got desperate quick. If Lee could have won a victory in Union territory, England might have been interested in helping the Confederate States out.
Anyway...back to football. Ha.
|
|
dustinwmills
Freshmen Member
"Make excellence a habit, not a hobby."
Posts: 33
|
Post by dustinwmills on May 6, 2009 6:36:08 GMT -6
Coach Goody, You are correct, if the South had won a battle in Northern territory, it would have changed a lot of things. Which is why I'm refuting the author of the books initial point, that being on the defensive was a good thing. Lee was good at dictating the ground which was fought on (a la Sun Tzu). But he had to be aggressive in invading the North to do this. He knew Lincoln would not allow a Southern army to move with impunity through his territory, which is how he was able to force the issue at Antietam. Which in many scholars opinions was either a tactical draw or a Southern victory, yet Lincoln stole the chance to issue the Emancipation Proclamation and spin it as a Union victory. But if Lee had stayed in VA, the war would have ended much sooner.
|
|
dustinwmills
Freshmen Member
"Make excellence a habit, not a hobby."
Posts: 33
|
Post by dustinwmills on May 6, 2009 7:34:39 GMT -6
To take this back where it started...lol... It amazes me how much football and warfare have in common. While I hate to use the word "battle" about a football game, there are definite similarities. As coaches, we seek to find an opponent's weakness and exploit it. We are trying to prove that we are superior to the other team. We attack flanks and weakpoints, except we call them "holes" and "corner". We are trying to find the opponent's weakest player and overwhelm them, or the coaches weakness and exploit that. It truly makes for an interesting comparison, which is why there are so many military references in football.
|
|
|
Post by Rooster on May 6, 2009 18:03:13 GMT -6
You know Sun Tzu would still be alive and coaching football if it weren't for Chuck Norris. D@mn it, that is what I was thinking the whole time I have been reading up till this point.. Scary Huh.... And I must really cant focus, because I am looking for an A-R-R-O-W, not a damn little block arrow..... What Gorilla? Sun Tzu invented 8 in the box. As well as a one gap defense. I think he even coined the term "force", "alley" and "that is why you lift all them damn weights" Rooster
|
|
|
Post by piquaindian on May 7, 2009 9:27:20 GMT -6
I saw this on last week but didn't want to start watching it in the middle. I have the DVR set again and I believe it's on again this Saturday (check your guide).
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on May 9, 2009 14:27:10 GMT -6
It's coming on again today Saturday May 9th at 2:00 Pacific Time on the History Channel.
|
|
|
Post by schultbear74 on May 9, 2009 15:11:54 GMT -6
I'm watching it now. Came on Right after Patton 360
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on May 9, 2009 23:28:28 GMT -6
Very good show. I liked how they tied his wisdom into recent wars and battles.
|
|