|
Post by coachd5085 on May 27, 2014 4:37:42 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? Absolutely. It was more of a joke/decompression thing. We would always inspect the opponents fields on road trips, and once I actually found some evidence that suggested they might run some option. Without making a huge deal of it.. we made sure to review option responsibilities during walkthrough at hotel, and sure enough, they tried to open the game with some option. So after that I just spent 3/4 minutes leaving FAKE evidence for our home games. Mostly just a fun thing to do, and decompressing during the season is never wasted time.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on May 27, 2014 6:24:04 GMT -6
As a grandson of 2 WWII vets (one wounded in the neck and survived, if you can believe that) one thing I'm pretty sure war and football don't have in common is I can't see too many WWII vets getting this worked up about much of anything, let alone a little bit of name calling. I'm pretty sure they had bigger fish to fry.
PS - Before anybody "jumps in my foxhole" this is meant to be humorous.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Jun 1, 2014 5:32:14 GMT -6
Gents: Please have a look at my new blog, which in addition to conflict theory and arms control in general, will discuss in great detail the most advanced and complex athletic war game on earth: North American (American & Canadian) football. Where the CAART Was Built: The Wild Bunch Football OffenseFrom The Wild Bunch..."the crucial importance of deception, especially given limited resources.Whether it is ambiguity designed to baffle an opponent by presenting him with multiple-choice clues to your true intentions,...the power of deception is critical to levelling the playing field against even the strongest opponent." In the context of football as a war game, wasn't the A-11 Offense perhaps the greatest innovation to the "battlefield" since the forward pass?
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 1, 2014 12:44:34 GMT -6
Gents: Please have a look at my new blog, which in addition to conflict theory and arms control in general, will discuss in great detail the most advanced and complex athletic war game on earth: North American (American & Canadian) football. Where the CAART Was Built: The Wild Bunch Football OffenseFrom The Wild Bunch..."the crucial importance of deception, especially given limited resources.Whether it is ambiguity designed to baffle an opponent by presenting him with multiple-choice clues to your true intentions,...the power of deception is critical to levelling the playing field against even the strongest opponent." In the context of football as a war game, wasn't the A-11 Offense perhaps the greatest innovation to the "battlefield" since the forward pass? It's not much of an innovation if it can be killed simply by closing a loophole in the rules.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jun 1, 2014 14:56:12 GMT -6
It's not much of an innovation if it can be killed simply by closing a loophole in the rules. The same could be said about the forward pass.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 1, 2014 15:05:25 GMT -6
The same could be said about the forward pass.
Seriously coach, when you post stuff like this, makes me inclined to skip over everything you message.
And yes, I know you don't give a rat's azz if I do or not.
But I might not be the only one.
And that would be too bad, because you're no dummy (in spite of avatar) and have much to offer here.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jun 1, 2014 15:23:57 GMT -6
When it was first utilized it was indeed a grey area in rules. They didn't close the loophole and today the game without passing is unthinkable. What about my post was apparently so wrong?
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 1, 2014 15:33:34 GMT -6
When it was first utilized it was indeed a grey area in rules. They didn't close the loophole and today the game without passing is unthinkable. What about my post was apparently so wrong?
Besides the snarkiness (apparent even on a message board),
There is no comparison between the Forward Pass which has been a legal tactic for over 100 years and the intent to circumvent the numbering rules designed to create unfair competition through deception of the A-11.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Jun 1, 2014 15:54:42 GMT -6
When it was first utilized it was indeed a grey area in rules. They didn't close the loophole and today the game without passing is unthinkable. What about my post was apparently so wrong?
Besides the snarkiness (apparent even on a message board),
There is no comparison between the Forward Pass which has been a legal tactic for over 100 years and the intent to circumvent the numbering rules designed to create unfair competition through deception of the A-11.
To the OP, isn't deception the marker indicating that football is indeed a war game? If so the A-11, in so far as philosophy and method, was a brilliant tactical strategy. Ted...what are your thoughts on the A-11?
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jun 1, 2014 16:58:13 GMT -6
Besides the snarkiness (apparent even on a message board),
There is no comparison between the Forward Pass which has been a legal tactic for over 100 years and the intent to circumvent the numbering rules designed to create unfair competition through deception of the A-11.
So, the difference in the two is one happened a long time ago and one just happened? What about hurry up offense? There are certainly many who think it is an exploitation of a loophole in the rules and are taking aim at closing the hole. Just ask Nick Saban. Is that not comparable? 100 years ago there were certainly people that wanted to close the passing loophole just as people want to close the A-11 and hurry up holes. That was my point. PS- by no means am I a proponent of the A-11. I just bristle at the suggestion that any innovation of the game is exploitation. Nearly everything about the modern game of football was once thought to be someone just exploiting loopholes.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jun 1, 2014 16:59:51 GMT -6
If so the A-11, in so far as philosophy and method, was a brilliant tactical strategy. I wouldn't argue it was brilliant. I think that something truly brilliant would have had more of an impact on the game.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 1, 2014 17:02:41 GMT -6
Besides the snarkiness (apparent even on a message board),
There is no comparison between the Forward Pass which has been a legal tactic for over 100 years and the intent to circumvent the numbering rules designed to create unfair competition through deception of the A-11.
So, the difference in the two is one happened a long time ago and one just happened? What about hurry up offense? There are certainly many who think it is an exploitation of a loophole in the rules and are taking aim at closing the hole. Just ask Nick Saban. Is that not comparable? 100 years ago there were certainly people that wanted to close the passing loophole just as people want to close the A-11 and hurry up holes. That was my point. PS- by no means am I a proponent of the A-11. I just bristle at the suggestion that any innovation of the game is exploitation. Nearly everything about the modern game of football was once thought to be someone just exploiting loopholes. Innovations last. When others see them they like the idea and keep it. That happened with the forward pass. It didn't happen with the A-11.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jun 1, 2014 18:02:37 GMT -6
Besides the snarkiness (apparent even on a message board),
There is no comparison between the Forward Pass which has been a legal tactic for over 100 years and the intent to circumvent the numbering rules designed to create unfair competition through deception of the A-11.
So, the difference in the two is one happened a long time ago and one just happened? What about hurry up offense? There are certainly many who think it is an exploitation of a loophole in the rules and are taking aim at closing the hole. Just ask Nick Saban. Is that not comparable? 100 years ago there were certainly people that wanted to close the passing loophole just as people want to close the A-11 and hurry up holes. That was my point. PS- by no means am I a proponent of the A-11. I just bristle at the suggestion that any innovation of the game is exploitation. Nearly everything about the modern game of football was once thought to be someone just exploiting loopholes. The issue is that you didn't state this from the beginning. you went with the shock value of "hey all you dumbarses, same thing was said about the forward pass., that is all, so stfu". at least, that is slowly how more and more of your posts are being interpreted. however, if you are so adamant that there is more to the story then i'm curious as to why you didn't begin with this post, rather than the one you did. the above post has something of substance to it that attempts to substantiate your initial premise. or, were we to read it like, "guys, come on now, you can't be that dumb to see that this is no different than the forward pass. i shouldn't have to spell it out for you." basically, state your case rather than the snarky one-liners. use more of your intellect than emotion jmho.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jun 1, 2014 18:08:42 GMT -6
Innovations last. When others see them they like the idea and keep it. That happened with the forward pass. It didn't happen with the A-11. The A-11 wasn't allowed to be adopted. It was around for what? 2 years before it the loophole was closed?
Around here, it was adopted by a few programs for 1 year before the hole was closed. Most of them weren't real successful with it because the people that ran it did so because they knew they needed some magic bullet to be competitive and they didn't know much about it or how to implement it.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jun 1, 2014 18:11:18 GMT -6
The issue is that you didn't state this from the beginning. you went with the shock value of "hey all you dumbarses, same thing was said about the forward pass., that is all, so stfu". at least, that is slowly how more and more of your posts are being interpreted. however, if you are so adamant that there is more to the story then i'm curious as to why you didn't begin with this post, rather than the one you did. the above post has something of substance to it that attempts to substantiate your initial premise. or, were we to read it like, "guys, come on now, you can't be that dumb to see that this is no different than the forward pass. i shouldn't have to spell it out for you." basically, state your case rather than the snarky one-liners. use more of your intellect than emotion jmho. Time was not on my side for my original post. Yard needed some mowing. I was only able to follow up that post while I waited for a rain storm to pass by. I also figured I would match the dismissive tone of the post toward the A-11. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Jun 2, 2014 9:22:14 GMT -6
My statement about the A-11 being a brilliant, tactical move wasn't in the context of do you like it or not, it simply was following the logic of Coach Seay's manual regarding deception when facing superior forces.
Chapter 11 of his self-referenced playbook/manual states, "...Sun Tzu argues that warfare -- and, I suggest, the wargame of American football -- can only be mastered by those with a perfect understanding of deception.) What is the purpose of deceiving your opponent in football? I believe it is to force him to be slow and reactive."
Furthermore, in describing the Wild Bunch as Ambiguity (A) deception, whereby it "attempts to fool a defender by increasing the number of options he has to worry about. It increases his uncertainty about the offense's eventual course of action by offering more than one alternative, causing the defender to 'spread resources thinly to cover all important contingencies.'"
Again, I'm not so much concerned about opinions of the A-11 as a loophole. However, within the "rules of engagement" at the time it was first introduced, it seems to me that this was the ultimate wargame maneuver.
Coach Seay...please share your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 2, 2014 10:03:34 GMT -6
My statement about the A-11 being a brilliant, tactical move wasn't in the context of do you like it or not, it simply was following the logic of Coach Seay's manual regarding deception when facing superior forces. Chapter 11 of his self-referenced playbook/manual states, "...Sun Tzu argues that warfare -- and, I suggest, the wargame of American football -- can only be mastered by those with a perfect understanding of deception.) What is the purpose of deceiving your opponent in football? I believe it is to force him to be slow and reactive." Furthermore, in describing the Wild Bunch as Ambiguity (A) deception, whereby it "attempts to fool a defender by increasing the number of options he has to worry about. It increases his uncertainty about the offense's eventual course of action by offering more than one alternative, causing the defender to 'spread resources thinly to cover all important contingencies.'" Again, I'm not so much concerned about opinions of the A-11 as a loophole. However, within the "rules of engagement" at the time it was first introduced, it seems to me that this was the ultimate wargame maneuver. Coach Seay...please share your thoughts. I'll ask this question in the same spirit as yours: Do you consider the chemical warfare of WWI to be a brilliant innovation?
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on Jun 2, 2014 10:06:21 GMT -6
My statement about the A-11 being a brilliant, tactical move wasn't in the context of do you like it or not, it simply was following the logic of Coach Seay's manual regarding deception when facing superior forces. Chapter 11 of his self-referenced playbook/manual states, "...Sun Tzu argues that warfare -- and, I suggest, the wargame of American football -- can only be mastered by those with a perfect understanding of deception.) What is the purpose of deceiving your opponent in football? I believe it is to force him to be slow and reactive." Furthermore, in describing the Wild Bunch as Ambiguity (A) deception, whereby it "attempts to fool a defender by increasing the number of options he has to worry about. It increases his uncertainty about the offense's eventual course of action by offering more than one alternative, causing the defender to 'spread resources thinly to cover all important contingencies.'" Again, I'm not so much concerned about opinions of the A-11 as a loophole. However, within the "rules of engagement" at the time it was first introduced, it seems to me that this was the ultimate wargame maneuver. Coach Seay...please share your thoughts. Im not Coach Seay but I did run the A-11 one season. One of my good friends who is the HC of one of the HS Programs in my town purchased the System and ran it. Worked great for them ( 5 Officials ). At the same time I ran it with a very talented 8th grade team. Worked terrible for me ( 3 Officials ). The reason? It was so deceptive the Officials couldn't call a decent game. If I could have convinced them to stop counting to 7 and start counting to 4 that would have helped. If I used the same 5 receivers all the time that would have helped. If I used a huddle that would have helped. If we didn't shift on and off the LOS that would have helped. Basically if I toned down the deception it would have worked better...oddly enough. It was the ultimate in deception without question but to the point it backfired on us. I am not the least bit surprised they closed the loophole. Im sure Officials everywhere struggled with the formations and eligibility at times....as did the Defenders. Im not sure we faced a common philosophy from the DC's that entire season. They were all over the place. The A-11 destroys the basic rules for every Defense. That in itself says something. It was genius in its design....had Bryant just done his thing locally and didn't go National...I say the A-11 might still legal today but I wouldn't run it....too deceptive. My take.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Jun 2, 2014 12:02:19 GMT -6
My statement about the A-11 being a brilliant, tactical move wasn't in the context of do you like it or not, it simply was following the logic of Coach Seay's manual regarding deception when facing superior forces. Chapter 11 of his self-referenced playbook/manual states, "...Sun Tzu argues that warfare -- and, I suggest, the wargame of American football -- can only be mastered by those with a perfect understanding of deception.) What is the purpose of deceiving your opponent in football? I believe it is to force him to be slow and reactive." Furthermore, in describing the Wild Bunch as Ambiguity (A) deception, whereby it "attempts to fool a defender by increasing the number of options he has to worry about. It increases his uncertainty about the offense's eventual course of action by offering more than one alternative, causing the defender to 'spread resources thinly to cover all important contingencies.'" Again, I'm not so much concerned about opinions of the A-11 as a loophole. However, within the "rules of engagement" at the time it was first introduced, it seems to me that this was the ultimate wargame maneuver. Coach Seay...please share your thoughts. I'll ask this question in the same spirit as yours: Do you consider the chemical warfare of WWI to be a brilliant innovation? From a morality and human decency perspective, no, not a brilliant innovation. But then again, when talking actual warfare, what is? That said, is anything more deceptive than a gas? One cannot escape it and one could argue it's insidious nature is quite deceptive. When our forefathers chose to shoot from the trees instead of head-to-head on the battlefield, wasn't that innovative too? When David struck down Goliath, he did not fight on expected terms of hand-to-hand combat at close range. He changed the game, flipped the script and deceptively conquered a giant who grossly underestimated a smaller shepherd for what he really was...a sharp shooter. Goliath was infantry, David was artillery, a projectile warrior. I should have prefaced all of this with the qualifier that I'm not a fan of the A-11 because it likely would have changed the entire game as we know it. That said, in the context of the OP, I still contend that it was an innovation based on the premise of deception within the "rules." So, if for sake of argument football is a war game, yes, the A-11 was brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 2, 2014 12:42:50 GMT -6
I'll ask this question in the same spirit as yours: Do you consider the chemical warfare of WWI to be a brilliant innovation? From a morality and human decency perspective, no, not a brilliant innovation. But then again, when talking actual warfare, what is? That said, is anything more deceptive than a gas? One cannot escape it and one could argue it's insidious nature is quite deceptive. When our forefathers chose to shoot from the trees instead of head-to-head on the battlefield, wasn't that innovative too? When David struck down Goliath, he did not fight on expected terms of hand-to-hand combat at close range. He changed the game, flipped the script and deceptively conquered a giant who grossly underestimated a smaller shepherd for what he really was...a sharp shooter. Goliath was infantry, David was artillery, a projectile warrior. I should have prefaced all of this with the qualifier that I'm not a fan of the A-11 because it likely would have changed the entire game as we know it. That said, in the context of the OP, I still contend that it was an innovation based on the premise of deception within the "rules." So, if for sake of argument football is a war game, yes, the A-11 was brilliant. I think that what we have here is a difference in defining our terms. To me. an innovation is a new idea that completely changes how things are done. It has staying power. Something new that's used only for a little while then disappears is just a good idea. After WWI pretty much everybody agreed not to use gas again (It's a pretty lousy tactical weapon. If the wind shifts suddenly you're gassing your own people). For that reason I don't consider it an innovation, according to my definition. Blitzkrieg changed the way that armies fight wars. That's an innovation.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Jun 2, 2014 13:16:44 GMT -6
From a morality and human decency perspective, no, not a brilliant innovation. But then again, when talking actual warfare, what is? That said, is anything more deceptive than a gas? One cannot escape it and one could argue it's insidious nature is quite deceptive. When our forefathers chose to shoot from the trees instead of head-to-head on the battlefield, wasn't that innovative too? When David struck down Goliath, he did not fight on expected terms of hand-to-hand combat at close range. He changed the game, flipped the script and deceptively conquered a giant who grossly underestimated a smaller shepherd for what he really was...a sharp shooter. Goliath was infantry, David was artillery, a projectile warrior. I should have prefaced all of this with the qualifier that I'm not a fan of the A-11 because it likely would have changed the entire game as we know it. That said, in the context of the OP, I still contend that it was an innovation based on the premise of deception within the "rules." So, if for sake of argument football is a war game, yes, the A-11 was brilliant. I think that what we have here is a difference in defining our terms. To me. an innovation is a new idea that completely changes how things are done. It has staying power. Something new that's used only for a little while then disappears is just a good idea. After WWI pretty much everybody agreed not to use gas again (It's a pretty lousy tactical weapon. If the wind shifts suddenly you're gassing your own people). For that reason I don't consider it an innovation, according to my definition. Blitzkrieg changed the way that armies fight wars. That's an innovation. Great discussion. Gas was certainly a game changer, though, was it not? So much so, that the "rules of warfare" were amended and treaties signed. The A-11 threatened to significantly change the game as well. In both cases, governing bodies deemed them illegal. I also understand your definition of innovation. Can we agree that the A-11 was, as you say, "a new idea that completely changes how things are done"? What determined its staying power was not whether it was effective, rather what a group of men decided. If the A-11 was "used for only a little while then disappear[ed]" of its own accord/ineffectiveness, then it clearly was not innovative. However, since it never had the opportunity to prove itself the way other schemes and concepts have (think forward pass), who can say whether it would have succeeded? --------------------------------------------- Back to the OP, if we... 1. assume, for sake of argument, football, through its deceptive nature, is indeed a war game, and 2. look completely objectively at the A-11, it was a brilliant, tactical war game strategy.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Jun 3, 2014 7:10:43 GMT -6
I think that what we have here is a difference in defining our terms. To me. an innovation is a new idea that completely changes how things are done. It has staying power. Something new that's used only for a little while then disappears is just a good idea. After WWI pretty much everybody agreed not to use gas again (It's a pretty lousy tactical weapon. If the wind shifts suddenly you're gassing your own people). For that reason I don't consider it an innovation, according to my definition. Blitzkrieg changed the way that armies fight wars. That's an innovation. Great discussion. Gas was certainly a game changer, though, was it not? So much so, that the "rules of warfare" were amended and treaties signed. The A-11 threatened to significantly change the game as well. In both cases, governing bodies deemed them illegal. I also understand your definition of innovation. Can we agree that the A-11 was, as you say, "a new idea that completely changes how things are done"? What determined its staying power was not whether it was effective, rather what a group of men decided. If the A-11 was "used for only a little while then disappear[ed]" of its own accord/ineffectiveness, then it clearly was not innovative. However, since it never had the opportunity to prove itself the way other schemes and concepts have (think forward pass), who can say whether it would have succeeded? --------------------------------------------- Back to the OP, if we... 1. assume, for sake of argument, football, through its deceptive nature, is indeed a war game, and 2. look completely objectively at the A-11, it was a brilliant, tactical war game strategy. Yup.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Nov 19, 2014 18:41:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by morris on Nov 19, 2014 20:20:22 GMT -6
I'm interested to know how much new stuff is in it?
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Nov 19, 2014 20:27:26 GMT -6
I'm interested to know how much new stuff is in it? Two entire new sections, a new emphasis on strategy in football decision-making, and a revision of the core offense itself to focus on Fly, non-motion 4 Verts and conversions, Run & Shoot GO package, and Bunch stuff...very largely revised, otherwise I wouldn't have put it up for sale, I would just have cranked out another freebie...
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Nov 24, 2014 11:30:24 GMT -6
...out of three total. Here is an excerpt from Chapter 3 on the logic of conflict as it applies to football:
|
|
|
Post by tiger46 on Nov 24, 2014 16:38:09 GMT -6
"...when there is a live enemy opposite, who is reacting to undo everything being attempted, with his own mind and his own strength."
-- Edward Luttwak, "Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace", pp. 2-3.
"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."- Mike Tyson
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Nov 26, 2014 18:41:40 GMT -6
tiger46: Exactly!
"No operation extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main body of the enemy."
-- Moltke the Elder
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Nov 28, 2014 11:46:36 GMT -6
Both paperback & Kindle editions now available from the link above. Brophy, I'm ready, able & willing to engage on substance on the importance of identifying the logic which underpins both football and armed conflict -- no more "just hit somebody" moments, but I do suggest coaches approach this with an open mind. Just to get the party re-started: BG Robert Neyland knew American football was a war game, and he knew more about football and war than all the rest of us combined...
|
|
|
Post by tiger46 on Nov 30, 2014 17:12:01 GMT -6
Ted,
Maybe some coaches are getting confused with the definition of "war game" and 'warfare'. Obviously, one is not the other. I think it would be difficult to legitimately exclude American football as a war game. But, there will be no substantive debate on the worth of applying military strategy to football until the distinctions between war game and warfare are understood.
BTW, I think dodgeball is a great war game, also. But, I'm not trying to hijack the thread.
|
|