|
Post by powerfootball71 on May 15, 2014 18:16:07 GMT -6
Thanks coach just the thread of been looking for going in to spring very mentally invigorating after the monotony of the off season. A few more thoughts reading threw.
1) football is like war. I'd argue football was like war. Much like Fisher talked about the purity and creative strategy of chess was lost to mindless memorization of opening theory making modern chess inferior football has become the same in a sense. Unlike war the technology's of football have not changed the basic rules and theater of the game are set in stone. So more so on defence it's pretty basic what the basic strategy is cover your gaps and match wr's which brings me to the next thought.
2) is anything in football save the trick play really paradoxical? Using the examples of counter, play action and a 5 wide set do they work because they surprised anyone? Modern defenses have keys for pap, players responsible for counter and cut back and base adjustments to 5 wide or any other set. So if they work it purely comes down to execution or lack of preparation.
3) the idea that teams can line up and run power I iso with bigger stronger players and always win is basically true at the higher levels. I mean granted if your a weaker team it makes no sense to do that and you need to do Something to even the playing field to score the occasional upset. At the end of the day thought it seems the more physically gifted us the one winning the whole thing. Could count many unconventional offence (air raid flexbone) that make runs but have yet to win the whole thing.
3) really with the game being around as long as it has and the information available what can you really do that hasn't been done? To me it has become a game of drilling and discipline. A big reason for so many zone schemes and base defenses you see in the game today.
4) for those reasons I don't think paradoxical logic really applies to football in the past it did.a more accurate example is more at the level of individual sports. A wrestler baiting a take down, a pitcher throwing back to back change ups, a tennis player lobing instead of smashing, a basketball player going left hand on a one on one and in football a under sized dl bull rushing a mammoth ot. Grated it's not the grand strategy of football past but it's what we got today.
Granted I'm talking about a concept I'm very unfamiliar with but this is my early interpretation of it relating to football.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 20:12:14 GMT -6
Personally, "football is war" metaphors creep me out. Football is a hard hitting, physical, awesome sport. War is hell where people die by the thousands and frequently for no good reason. There are just as many parallels between football and war as there are between football and theater, religion, literature, and human sacrifice. 1. "Football is a strategic war game" ≠ "football is war". 2. Football is an organized clash between opposing forces, where every step taken by either side is confronted by "a live enemy opposite, who is reacting to undo everything being attempted, with his own mind and his own strength." This is not true of theater, nor of religion, literature, or human sacrifice. It is true, however, of chess, diplomacy, propaganda, and geo-economics, as well as, of course, war. There are analogies made all the time to football as "a game of chess" on some level or another. In other words, two strategic war games are being compared to each other -- but without the kind of objections this thread has already generated. Why is this, do you think? How can the comparison be made if football is not, as chess so clearly is, a strategic war game? Or do you believe, as some here seem to imply by analogy, that chess is a simple matter of each piece "beating the guy across from" it? This board talks about strategy all the time -- Chris Brown's "constraint plays", for example, or Malcolm Gladwell's "David" and "Goliath" strategies. All I am attempting to do in referring to football as a strategic war game, and in referencing Professor Luttwak's "paradoxical logic" of strategy, is to fill in some of the WHY behind the strategic WHATs which are discussed here every day. Period. I never claimed you were saying that "football is war." I know you're too smart for that. I sort of went off onto my own tangent there. But I'd hesitate to call football a "war game," nor would I ever use that term in regards to chess. Both are games of strategy yes, whose development has been shaped by military ideas, but "strategy" =/= "war." When the military conducts training exercises and calls them "war games," those are specific simulations to model actual military combat situations. You can take this concept and apply it to Call of Duty or even paintball, which are actual combat simulations, but once you get beyond such very narrowly focused things the connection is tenuous, at best. There is a lot of strategy involved in playing poker, getting a date with that certain woman, or buying a used car, but would you classify those as war games, too? Like a lot of the more intellectual arguments on here, this really just all comes down to semantics. Personally, I feel that throwing around "war" as an adjective or metaphor cheapens what it actually means--I dislike the term "war game" on face value---but I also cannot deny the influence it's had on football, nor do I think someone is necessarily wrong when they find parallels there, just as I also don't think it's wrong when someone finds links between designing an offensive or defensive system and computer programming. As far as examining Luttwack's ideas and applying them to football, that is another matter entirely (I agree with the idea you put forth from Luttwack's work, BTW), but if you're going to look at military ideas for inspiration in football (or politics, or business, or self help, or whatever), the fact is that the human mind is such a great, creative thing that any human being can look at ANYTHING and find symbolic parallels to whatever field he is working within and make connections. You can study Luttwack, von Schlieffen, Sun Tzu, Rommel, Patton, Stonewall Jackson, Horatio Nelson, Alexander the Great, Caesar, or Napoleon and look at how they masterfully manipulated or outflanked opponents and think "Hmmm... I want to do that..." but whatever idea comes out of that is really not their idea applied to football, it's your own new creation in your own context that was merely inspired by them, and it may or may not be appropriate to that context. For example, if you want to go back to the D-Day analogy I mentioned earlier, you could apply that to football by rejecting the classic "do not attack walled cities" analogy and throw everything you've got at an opponent's strong point in an effort to crush them and overwhelm them. Hey, it worked to win one of the most famous battles in history, didn't it? However, in football, where you're limited to only putting 11 men on the field, this probably won't work unless you are already superior anyway, and once you've overwhelmed their line and scored a TD, you kickoff and the ref will just spot the ball and you'll line right back up for play after play until the clock runs out--it's not like you get to occupy that territory and keep a supply line open to the endzone.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 15, 2014 20:20:03 GMT -6
Brophy: Thanks for the focus! Luttwak's book gets a lot better after that passage, believe me. The next line in his book is: Sounds like paradoxical conduct is an erudite way of saying "I know that he knows, that I know that he knows that I know that he knows....." Apparently you have never seen John Curtis play. They have won 25+ state championships in football in Louisiana, and have won a few of those titles running NOTHING but a based blocked give read the entire championship game. To say nothing of how many of the 500+games JT has won doing exactly that. I have personally witnessed 2 of their games where they went into half time having scored a touchdown on each play they ran from scrimmage. I wouldn't say that counters/play actions etc are necessary at all. They obviously facilitate victory, and trying to just run iso every play to prove a point would be counter productive--but I wouldn't hesitate to say that MANY HS football teams who are the "bigger/stronger" teams could do exactly that and win. They choose not to, but they could. Ted, I think it is unfortunate that you chose to introduce the "just hit somebody" coach (and the negative connotations it carries) and package that with someone who doesn't wish to view football strategy as akin to war strategy. [/quote]
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on May 16, 2014 11:19:57 GMT -6
Sounds like paradoxical conduct is an erudite way of saying "I know that he knows, that I know that he knows that I know that he knows....." Surely you wouldn't deny a coach a bit of erudition... Apparently you have never seen John Curtis play. They have won 25+ state championships in football in Louisiana, and have won a few of those titles running NOTHING but a based blocked give read the entire championship game. To say nothing of how many of the 500+games JT has won doing exactly that. I have personally witnessed 2 of their games where they went into half time having scored a touchdown on each play they ran from scrimmage. Bad example, coach. John Curtis has been running SBV for years now, usually with at least two WRs, and they predicate a great deal of what they do on the misdirection inherent in the triple option. This is a far reach from lining up every down in Power-I and running Iso every play, and winning every game. None of those things apply to John Curtis Christian HS. That said, J.T. Curtis clearly "gets it" when it comes to the strategy of modern football: "Nothing we do is revolutionarily new. But we know this: We have an answer for what you’re going to try to do to us. We’ve been doing it long enough and consistently enough, that if you do this, we have answer for it. That’s what you need to be able to develop, both offensively and defensively." -- J.T. Curtis, Coach & Athletic Director interview So what am I trying to do? Discover the underlying reasons for the give-and-take of football strategy which Coach Curtis discusses above and provide them to football coaches so that they don't have to personally reinvent the wheel. I wouldn't say that counters/play actions etc are necessary at all. They obviously facilitate victory, and trying to just run iso every play to prove a point would be counter productive--but I wouldn't hesitate to say that MANY HS football teams who are the "bigger/stronger" teams could do exactly that and win. They choose not to, but they could. See my points above on John Curtis -- if they don't do it ("it" being EXACTLY what I posited above as the opposite of paradoxical logic, i.e. football playcalling based on linear logic), who does? I think you're trying to tiptoe through a semantic minefield here, coach, and I'm not sure you'll make it. Why do counters/play action "facilitate victory" if, as you imply, they have no separate utility? And what is that utility, if not to demonstrate the paradoxical logic of strategy by overcoming an active opponent through exploiting his expectations of your likely actions? Or as I've called it before, to use the "unity of apparent intent" to mislead the other side? Ted, I think it is unfortunate that you chose to introduce the "just hit somebody" coach (and the negative connotations it carries) and package that with someone who doesn't wish to view football strategy as akin to war strategy. Re-read the start of the thread, coach -- I didn't introduce ad hominem into this discussion, and I won't let it stand unopposed. To do so is, I believe, to abandon the hope of reasoned discourse. Consider it a use of deterrent force. Disagree with my ideas all you like -- attack with vigor. Attack me, OTOH, and you'll have your (semantic) hands full.
|
|
|
Post by joelee on May 16, 2014 11:53:11 GMT -6
Ted I appreciate the provoking of thought. One of the most valuable things I have ever read was sun-tzu "art of war. Some of the beauty of football to me is the comparison to chess, poker, and the asian game of "go". One of the cooler parts is the clash of startegies. If i'm playing poker with you and you think we are playing chess; who wins?
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on May 16, 2014 12:24:39 GMT -6
Ted Hope all is well my friend. I miss the good old days when you had more time for your true passion....football. Sheesh its been nearly 15 years since you introduced me the Unity of Apparent Intent. Thank you for that! I have bookmarked your Blog. Looking forward to it even though Im a simpleton and have to keep looking up dem biggin wurds you like to use.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 18, 2014 10:31:35 GMT -6
Re-read the start of the thread, coach -- I didn't introduce ad hominem into this discussion, and I won't let it stand unopposed. To do so is, I believe, to abandon the hope of reasoned discourse. Consider it a use of deterrent force. Disagree with my ideas all you like -- attack with vigor. Attack me, OTOH, and you'll have your (semantic) hands full. Ted I don't see any ad hominem in the discussion. Coaches enjoy different aspects of the game. Some coaches enjoy the working with youngsters/mentoring aspect. Some coaches REALLY get off on the x's and o's, the schematics, etc. Some coaches REALLY get off on winning. A coach stating potential reasons why you do things or enjoy aspects that he doesn't neither makes him a "hit somebody coach" nor does it mean he "attacked you"
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on May 18, 2014 18:27:18 GMT -6
Ted I don't see any ad hominem in the discussion. Coaches enjoy different aspects of the game. Some coaches enjoy the working with youngsters/mentoring aspect. Some coaches REALLY get off on the x's and o's, the schematics, etc. Some coaches REALLY get off on winning. A coach stating potential reasons why you do things or enjoy aspects that he doesn't neither makes him a "hit somebody coach" nor does it mean he "attacked you" I also bristle at HCs that act like this is some game of chess where you just move inanimate pieces around the board as if it is just you against the other HC or DC or OC. I tend to think it has very little to do with a match up of whits between you and the other sideline. It's more about you and your ability to get kids motivated and to perform to their best. They're not pieces of meat like Sun Tzu would like to believe they are. You treat your team as if they are pawns or just chess pieces and you're not going to have a lot of success. If I can get my kids trained correctly physically in the weight room, get them to get our schemes down and ran as well as possible and get them to buy into what I'm selling, you're going to have problems no matter what "tactics" you decide to use.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2014 19:58:56 GMT -6
I'm not going to lie. I had to google "ad hominem" to figure out what we were still talking about!
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on May 26, 2014 0:32:00 GMT -6
Re-read the start of the thread, coach -- I didn't introduce ad hominem into this discussion, and I won't let it stand unopposed. To do so is, I believe, to abandon the hope of reasoned discourse. Consider it a use of deterrent force. Disagree with my ideas all you like -- attack with vigor. Attack me, OTOH, and you'll have your (semantic) hands full. Ted I don't see any ad hominem in the discussion. Coaches enjoy different aspects of the game. Some coaches enjoy the working with youngsters/mentoring aspect. Some coaches REALLY get off on the x's and o's, the schematics, etc. Some coaches REALLY get off on winning. A coach stating potential reasons why you do things or enjoy aspects that he doesn't neither makes him a "hit somebody coach" nor does it mean he "attacked you" Sorry, coach, we'll have to disagree about this -- and the post after yours reinforces ad hominem, albeit indirectly.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on May 26, 2014 0:41:15 GMT -6
...and who, exactly, would we be discussing here, coach? Someone who actually believes in "'tactics'"? Here's some bedtime reading for you: Wild Bunch text
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on May 26, 2014 0:49:11 GMT -6
1) I never claimed you were saying that "football is war." I know you're too smart for that. I sort of went off onto my own tangent there. But I'd hesitate to call football a "war game," nor would I ever use that term in regards to chess. Both are games of strategy yes, whose development has been shaped by military ideas, but "strategy" =/= "war." 2) For example, if you want to go back to the D-Day analogy I mentioned earlier, you could apply that to football by rejecting the classic "do not attack walled cities" analogy and throw everything you've got at an opponent's strong point in an effort to crush them and overwhelm them. Hey, it worked to win one of the most famous battles in history, didn't it? 1) I write that I believe North American football to be a war game. You respond with a post expressing distaste with "football is war" analogies. What would the average reader think you were saying about this thread? 2) Whew. I don't often apply the phrase "epic fail", but when I do, it is to educators who exhibit fundamental misreadings of history: OPERATION FORTITUDE
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 26, 2014 1:09:17 GMT -6
Ted I don't see any ad hominem in the discussion. Coaches enjoy different aspects of the game. Some coaches enjoy the working with youngsters/mentoring aspect. Some coaches REALLY get off on the x's and o's, the schematics, etc. Some coaches REALLY get off on winning. A coach stating potential reasons why you do things or enjoy aspects that he doesn't neither makes him a "hit somebody coach" nor does it mean he "attacked you" Sorry, coach, we'll have to disagree about this -- and the post after yours reinforces ad hominem, albeit indirectly. Disagree on the fact that just because someone doesn't enjoy the same aspects of football coaching as you do doesn't make them a "hit somebody" coach? Bottom line, not all coaches are into the things you are into regarding football Ted. They aren't looking for the "true nature of the game" (a quote you made regarding x's and o's and the wargame nature). Yet, they win a GREAT deal of games. Keep in mind, most of the coaches here coach from school based programs--meaning they may be much more interested in the human being aspect of the game as opposed to viewing players as participants in a strategic "wargame". Again, there are many aspects to football coaching. It is obvious that x's and o's appeal to you. To others, they aren't that big a deal. Doesn't make them knuckle draggers.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 26, 2014 4:39:01 GMT -6
this thread really took off on a tangent.....Ted, perhaps if you could support your position with much more substance/examples (another blog post), folks might be equipped to move past the labels. Right now there isn't much to go off of.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on May 26, 2014 5:48:18 GMT -6
I'm about as sharp as a marble but don't some teams attack overly fortified, stout run defenses with playaction and misdirection while others simply throw the ball where the defense is not?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 26, 2014 8:04:08 GMT -6
this thread really took off on a tangent.....Ted, perhaps if you could support your position with much more substance/examples (another blog post), folks might be equipped to move past the labels. Right now there isn't much to go off of. That is the point brophy . I don't think Ted's "football statement" really needs any support. Does ANYONE on this board think that counters, bootlegs, or play action are not valuable plays in football? However, it seems that Ted's position seems to simply be that football is a war game because of paradoxical logic, and that anyone who doesn't try to find some deeper understanding and doesn't get all excited about "he knows that I know that he knows that I know..." is a "hit somebody" coach. I am not sure any support can help that. Again, bottom line, different coaches find different aspects of coaching football interesting/enjoyable. Ted, given his background, enjoys this particular aspect of football. Others, recognize that counters and having "answers" are beneficial, but they enjoy other aspects of the game a great deal more and don't seem to enjoy dwelling on such concepts. Does this make them less of a coach? Ted's attempt at finding a "deeper understanding" seems to be along a similar path as Coach Brown's with the 5-3-1 Triangle defense.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on May 26, 2014 9:13:42 GMT -6
Hey, let's play a game! It's called "Ted wins"! Because ultimately for him, you either agree with him or you're wrong. He wrote a book on the internet, so obviously he's right and knows more than you.
Mouth breathers.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on May 26, 2014 9:21:28 GMT -6
Hey, let's play a game! It's called "Ted wins"! Because ultimately for him, you either agree with him or you're wrong. He wrote a book on the internet, so obviously he's right and knows more than you. Mouth breathers. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on May 26, 2014 9:43:23 GMT -6
Hey, let's play a game! It's called "Ted wins"! Because ultimately for him, you either agree with him or you're wrong. He wrote a book on the internet, so obviously he's right and knows more than you. Mouth breathers. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Yes, because I frequently reference my E-book when discussing things with other people. I don't disagree that I don't think I'm right about most things I post. Mostly because I post on the things I think I know something about. You won't see me getting into discussions on Xs and Os or a whole list of topics because I know I don't know much of anything on those. But when I do post it's usually because I think I know something about it. Sorry to have inconvenienced you and insulted your friend Ted. Have a nice day.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on May 26, 2014 9:48:11 GMT -6
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Yes, because I frequently reference my E-book when discussing things with other people. I don't disagree that I don't think I'm right about most things I post. Mostly because I post on the things I think I know something about. You won't see me getting into discussions on Xs and Os or a whole list of topics because I know I don't know much of anything on those. But when I do post it's usually because I think I know something about it. Sorry to have inconvenienced you and insulted your friend Ted. Have a nice day. Well, you didn't inconvenience me at all because I'm here voluntarily. My friend Ted? I've never met him. When you called me a mouth breather, though, that was hurtful. It's not my fault. I have bad sinuses.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on May 26, 2014 9:51:35 GMT -6
Wasn't calling you anything. That was a reference to Ted's attitude toward all of us "hit somebody" coaches that don't get the deeper meaning of football that he has gleaned from writing his book. Perhaps if you had read more of Seus' treatise on the nature of Green Eggs and Ham you would see my sarastic aims.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 26, 2014 11:26:13 GMT -6
That is the point brophy . I don't think Ted's "football statement" really needs any support. Does ANYONE on this board think that counters, bootlegs, or play action are not valuable plays in football? I assumed Ted had some deeper meaning behind his analogy. His Wild Bunch document is a good read for any young coach to better understand how its all supposed to work. The analogy in this thread either needs more support or was entirely too simple. I could make a comparison that football shares many maxims of cellular evolution, Agile Scrum, or gourmet baking.....great, but for anyone to take notice I really need to support this position with a compelling argument to get everyone to pay attention. We've wasted entirely too much time on the throwaway comment (mouth-breather 'hit somebody' non sequitur). Lets move on / get over it
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 26, 2014 11:52:19 GMT -6
great, but for anyone to take notice I really need to support this position with a compelling argument to get everyone to pay attention. Pay attention of to what though? That is what I think the issue here is. In football you sometimes use counters/deception. In football, sometimes you break tendencies. We already know this. The rest of the thread really is just about the wargame analogy, and the "hit someebody" coach comment.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 26, 2014 12:08:53 GMT -6
great, but for anyone to take notice I really need to support this position with a compelling argument to get everyone to pay attention. Pay attention of to what though? That is what I think the issue here is. thats what I'm asking Ted to support....
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on May 26, 2014 12:33:23 GMT -6
1) I never claimed you were saying that "football is war." I know you're too smart for that. I sort of went off onto my own tangent there. But I'd hesitate to call football a "war game," nor would I ever use that term in regards to chess. Both are games of strategy yes, whose development has been shaped by military ideas, but "strategy" =/= "war." 2) For example, if you want to go back to the D-Day analogy I mentioned earlier, you could apply that to football by rejecting the classic "do not attack walled cities" analogy and throw everything you've got at an opponent's strong point in an effort to crush them and overwhelm them. Hey, it worked to win one of the most famous battles in history, didn't it? 1) I write that I believe North American football to be a war game. You respond with a post expressing distaste with "football is war" analogies. What would the average reader think you were saying about this thread? 2) Whew. I don't often apply the phrase "epic fail", but when I do, it is to educators who exhibit fundamental misreadings of history: OPERATION FORTITUDETed Interesting read. Im going to start leaving a fake playbook on my bench after our games.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 26, 2014 12:40:49 GMT -6
1) I write that I believe North American football to be a war game. You respond with a post expressing distaste with "football is war" analogies. What would the average reader think you were saying about this thread? 2) Whew. I don't often apply the phrase "epic fail", but when I do, it is to educators who exhibit fundamental misreadings of history: OPERATION FORTITUDETed Interesting read. Im going to start leaving a fake playbook on my bench after our games. Regarding Fortitude, I was wondering if anyone was going to correct @coacharnold about his thoughts on Normandy. mahonz --- Already did it. WE used to leave fake scout cards and practice scripts around the practice field when I coached college ball. Mostly as a lark, but you never know.
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on May 26, 2014 12:56:38 GMT -6
Ted Interesting read. Im going to start leaving a fake playbook on my bench after our games. Regarding Fortitude, I was wondering if anyone was going to correct @coacharnold about his thoughts on Normandy. mahonz --- Already did it. WE used to leave fake scout cards and practice scripts around the practice field when I coached college ball. Mostly as a lark, but you never know. That is awesome. If nothing else...you will waste somebody's time reading it.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on May 26, 2014 19:51:21 GMT -6
Regarding Fortitude, I was wondering if anyone was going to correct @coacharnold about his thoughts on Normandy. mahonz --- Already did it. WE used to leave fake scout cards and practice scripts around the practice field when I coached college ball. Mostly as a lark, but you never know. That is awesome. If nothing else...you will waste somebody's time reading it. But aren't you for sure wasting or at least using your time?
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on May 26, 2014 20:25:04 GMT -6
That is awesome. If nothing else...you will waste somebody's time reading it. But aren't you for sure wasting or at least using your time? Im semi retired. I have time to spare.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on May 27, 2014 3:34:21 GMT -6
Ted, indeed, wins, because his own stubbornly moronic ego has been starkly revealed to him -- again.
Coaches: Thank you all for your extremely interesting and valuable feedback.
Coach larrymoe, please accept my apology for insinuating that you might be a "just hit somebody" coach.
Brophy, more work on the way, hopefully less vague and marginally more useful.
Lord, thank You for the reminder that I am far from my own best PR agent...
|
|