|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 30, 2014 18:18:31 GMT -6
Ted, Maybe some coaches are getting confused with the definition of "war game" and 'war fare'. 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. I think the issue is "what is a 'wargame' " as compared to any other game where you use various strategies to try and defeat an opponent? Fakes/misdirection = misinformation=bluffing in poker...so is poker a "war game". Basically, almost any situation inwhich two people are competing will have some characteristics that some want to dub "wargame"ish. Now, does football probably share more similarities with actual combat operations on a large scale...probably. I wouldn't argue that. My biggest disagreement with Ted in this thread is that he seemed to have the mindset of "if you don't really get off on this comparison, and on schemes, then you are a bonehead coach" which simply is not true. X's and O's (the "wargame" part) is not everyones attraction to coaching.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Dec 1, 2014 8:09:04 GMT -6
I think the issue is "what is a 'wargame' " as compared to any other game where you use various strategies to try and defeat an opponent? Fakes/misdirection = misinformation=bluffing in poker...so is poker a "war game". Basically, almost any situation inwhich two people are competing will have some characteristics that some want to dub "wargame"ish. Now, does football probably share more similarities with actual combat operations on a large scale...probably. I wouldn't argue that. My biggest disagreement with Ted in this thread is that he seemed to have the mindset of "if you don't really get off on this comparison, and on schemes, then you are a bonehead coach" which simply is not true. X's and O's (the "wargame" part) is not everyones attraction to coaching. I'm just not a fan of his trying to promote and sell his own product by trying to pump up interest in it.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Dec 1, 2014 16:11:00 GMT -6
I'm just not a fan of his trying to promote and sell his own product by trying to pump up interest in it. Awesome, coach. Don't buy it.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Dec 1, 2014 16:15:32 GMT -6
My biggest disagreement with Ted in this thread is that he seemed to have the mindset of "if you don't really get off on this comparison, and on schemes, then you are a bonehead coach" which simply is not true. Coach: Any implication on my part that this might be true of anyone else on this thread, even those who equate football with "beating your man", has been retracted and apologized for -- so what is your point? You're teetering perilously close to Straw Man territory with the characterization above, BTW...that, or mental telepathy.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Dec 1, 2014 16:34:09 GMT -6
Ted, 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. I stand ready to lower the level of discourse as much as necessary in the interest of promoting understanding here...but in all seriousness, is that distinction really at issue? Let me try again: Or to return to BG Neyland. One of his former players, all-SEC fullback Andy Kozar, had this to say about the General's notebooks: Dr. Kozar's study was undertaken, BTW, by comparing BG Neyland's notebooks to the principles of war as promulgated by the U.S. Army in STP145-I-MQs: Military Qualification Standards I, Manual (Washington D.C.: Headquarters, Department of Army, 1986). So, hey -- I get it. Comparing war to a game makes people uncomfortable. But to deny that American football is a war game is to part company with reality. And why do I consider this important? Because for me, making sense of Luttwak's "paradoxical logic" of conflict allows a better idea, not just of the what and how of football, but the why, which leads in turn to a much better idea of the when.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Dec 1, 2014 16:42:16 GMT -6
I'm just not a fan of his trying to promote and sell his own product by trying to pump up interest in it. Awesome, coach. Don't buy it. I didn't know this site was for peddling products. My bad.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Dec 1, 2014 16:47:29 GMT -6
Awesome, coach. Don't buy it. I didn't know this site was for peddling products. My bad. I'm sure we'll all sleep better tonight knowing the Capitalism Police™ are on the job, coach.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Dec 1, 2014 17:32:13 GMT -6
I didn't know this site was for peddling products. My bad. I'm sure we'll all sleep better tonight knowing the Capitalism Police™ are on the job, coach. I'm one of the Capitalist Police and I have no problem with this thread. It was first posted in May and has produced four pages of discussion. Ted is a good contributor and has posted on many other topics totally unrelated to this thread or book.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Dec 1, 2014 17:41:13 GMT -6
I'm one of the Capitalist Police and I have no problem with this thread. It was first posted in May and has produced four pages of discussion. Ted is a good contributor and has posted on many other topics totally unrelated to this thread or book. Thanks, fantom, and I'll note that when I started this thread there was no book to sell -- not for another five months, in fact. Coach larrymoe, have a look at my most recent reply to tiger46 -- it's an attempt to return this thread to substance. You don't like it? Outstanding -- but how about letting discussion continue, even over your objections?
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Dec 2, 2014 14:31:06 GMT -6
Sure thing. Continue to have your nonsense discussion. Enjoy.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Dec 4, 2014 9:38:22 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. brophy: What do you think -- does my last response to tiger46 help? Happy to supply further evidence & arguments, but not interested in beating a dead horse at this point...
|
|
|
Post by coachmonkey on Dec 4, 2014 14:13:07 GMT -6
Not even sure I should post this put... Anytime I see war and football mentioned together I tune out almost immediately. Maybe your just talking strategy or out maneuvering people or whatever but there is no comparison between the two. Football is a game. War is war. Maybe I did when I was younger but after knowing guys who went to real war I haven't compared the two since. I think sometimes we over think football way to much and trying to make it into military strategy or whatever is one of those times. "Football is a kids game made complex by coaches." - Rex Ryan
|
|
|
Post by coachmonkey on Dec 4, 2014 14:17:58 GMT -6
I know the whole war analogy with football is common and convenient for most. I wonder whether or not its valid,though, because after you take more than a passing glance at the two and dig just a bit deeper, in my mind, the similarities fall apart because other than the classical military doctrine of engage/avoid, they don't share much in common, particularly in this day in age. Brophy: Here's something to stimulate debate: Sound like any games you know of? Seriously, I say North American football is a strategic war game because it reflects, better than any other game or athletic contest, the "paradoxical logic" Luttwak mentions above. Discuss amongst yourselves -- I'll be posting on this shortly. Paint Ball is pretty close... MMA is close.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 4, 2014 19:24:36 GMT -6
My biggest disagreement with Ted in this thread is that he seemed to have the mindset of "if you don't really get off on this comparison, and on schemes, then you are a bonehead coach" which simply is not true. Coach: Any implication on my part that this might be true of anyone else on this thread, even those who equate football with "beating your man", has been retracted and apologized for -- so what is your point? I was simply replying to tiger46 and explaining that my issue was not a confusion of the terms, but rather just the tone you had taken in the first few pages of the thread. Bottom line here tedseay, once you strip away the fancy lingo and citations, is that you have made an observation basically stating "There are fakes/misdirection in football, and there are fakes/misdirection in warfare. So Football is a wargame". You are looking for a discussion, but after tripping away the debate about using the "war" comparison, I think the only other comment is "Umm.. yeah, ok. Both have misdirection. And.... " How is Labeling football a wargame (or arguing that football is NOT a wargame) useful for a football coach? How does worrying about paradoxical logic change what a coach does anymore Is it your assertion that a coach who does not recognize this, or does not value the comparison fails to run counters, fakes, or utilize deception on the football field? No animosity or malice intended, I just don't think many of the coaches here would disagree that football utilizes deception, and warfare utilizes decption. So... Yes?
|
|
|
Post by CS on Dec 5, 2014 9:47:51 GMT -6
I just stumbled into this thread and this is the most protentious conversation between adults I have ever seen or heard.
I agree with the above statement made by 5085. No insult intended to anyone just an observation. In all honesty I feel this thread was created to sale an e-book and because of that I feel that it loses credibility as a thought to generate discussion and becomes propaganda to incite interest in the product.
|
|
|
Post by gdoggwr on Dec 5, 2014 11:48:17 GMT -6
I just stumbled into this thread and this is the most protentious conversation between adults I have ever seen or heard. I agree with the above statement made by 5085. No insult intended to anyone just an observation. In all honesty I feel this thread was created to sale an e-book and because of that I feel that it loses credibility as a thought to generate discussion and becomes propaganda to incite interest in the product. Saying this thread was created to sell a book is unfair to ted. He has posted on this site for years and has 3 or 4 different versions of his book available to us for free for all of that time. If you don't agree that football is a wargame, fine. If you don't care about the WHY behind the what, when, and where of football playcalling, thats fine. Saying he's just trying to sell something lumps him in with the A-11 guys and others, and if you seen/read any of Ted Seay's posts over the years, thats a truly unfair comparison.
|
|
|
Post by powerfootball71 on Dec 5, 2014 12:55:35 GMT -6
I just stumbled into this thread and this is the most protentious conversation between adults I have ever seen or heard. I agree with the above statement made by 5085. No insult intended to anyone just an observation. In all honesty I feel this thread was created to sale an e-book and because of that I feel that it loses credibility as a thought to generate discussion and becomes propaganda to incite interest in the product. Saying this thread was created to sell a book is unfair to ted. He has posted on this site for years and has 3 or 4 different versions of his book available to us for free for all of that time. If you don't agree that football is a wargame, fine. If you don't care about the WHY behind the what, when, and where of football playcalling, thats fine. Saying he's just trying to sell something lumps him in with the A-11 guys and others, and if you seen/read any of Ted Seay's posts over the years, thats a truly unfair comparison. Don't know if the thread was created to sell something but I do know the thread was dead for 5 months tell there was something to sell.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Dec 5, 2014 18:13:31 GMT -6
I just stumbled into this thread and this is the most protentious conversation between adults I have ever seen or heard. I agree with the above statement made by 5085. No insult intended to anyone just an observation. In all honesty I feel this thread was created to sale an e-book and because of that I feel that it loses credibility as a thought to generate discussion and becomes propaganda to incite interest in the product. Saying this thread was created to sell a book is unfair to ted. He has posted on this site for years and has 3 or 4 different versions of his book available to us for free for all of that time. If you don't agree that football is a wargame, fine. If you don't care about the WHY behind the what, when, and where of football playcalling, thats fine. Saying he's just trying to sell something lumps him in with the A-11 guys and others, and if you seen/read any of Ted Seay's posts over the years, thats a truly unfair comparison. How is it unfair? He literally plugged his book in this thread......... People don't write and publish books in 5 months. if you think this was started for any other reason then you are naive.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 5, 2014 19:00:03 GMT -6
Saying this thread was created to sell a book is unfair to ted. He has posted on this site for years and has 3 or 4 different versions of his book available to us for free for all of that time. If you don't agree that football is a wargame, fine. If you don't care about the WHY behind the what, when, and where of football playcalling, thats fine. Saying he's just trying to sell something lumps him in with the A-11 guys and others, and if you seen/read any of Ted Seay's posts over the years, thats a truly unfair comparison. I agree, Ted obviously doesn't frequent this board just to sell books. This thread--well maybe not to sell, but to draw attention and exposure perhaps. But he is a definitely one of the good guys, no disputing that at all.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Dec 7, 2014 7:20:37 GMT -6
Paint Ball is pretty close... MMA is close. Coach: Is there anyone who doubts that paintball is a war game?
|
|
|
Post by coachmonkey on Dec 7, 2014 7:50:14 GMT -6
Paint Ball is pretty close... MMA is close. Coach: Is there anyone who doubts that paintball is a war game? Comparing football to war is a disservice to service men and women who fought, many losing their lives, their minds, and in some cases their soul. Football is a kids game. Does football require strategy, yes, but so does chess.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 7, 2014 8:20:58 GMT -6
Coach: Is there anyone who doubts that paintball is a war game? Comparing football to war is a disservice to service men and women who fought, many losing their lives, their minds, and in some cases their soul. Football is a kids game. Does football require strategy, yes, but so does chess. That has been discussed and hashed out 2 pages ago in this thread. Come on man Football is a GAME... but wasn't invented by "kids" and when you break it down, I don't know if one would say it is a "kids game". Tag, is a kids game. Duck Duck Goose...is a kids game. A game in which it is impressed upon the contestants to physically dominant each other to the point where such physicality results in the impairment of one's opponent probably isn't a "kids game". Couldn't one make the same statement that using the word "kills" as in "speed kills" as a synonym for disrupts, impedes, allows one to defeat etc. is a disservice to men and women who have lost their lives tragically through violent crime? Looking back, I do think there is a difference in using a wargame analogy as tedseay has done here (to describe x and o tactics, strategy etc) and the stereotypical "coaching using war" as a metaphor to compare the rigors of a ball game to the rigors of battle. That is not what is happening here. As critical as I have been in this thread, I don't believe THAT is the point to be critical of.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Dec 7, 2014 8:51:21 GMT -6
Looking back, I do think there is a difference in using a wargame analogy as tedseay has done here (to describe x and o tactics, strategy etc) and the stereotypical "coaching using war" as a metaphor to compare the rigors of a ball game to the rigors of battle. That is not what is happening here. As critical as I have been in this thread, I don't believe THAT is the point to be critical of. WHEW! Thank you, coach! If anyone wants to hear me engage further on the substance of this argument (which really does pre-date the idea of this book by several months -- it actually stems from two other books I am writing on conflict theory, both of which are under review for publication by academic presses in the UK and Australia), please tune in to Coach Big B's "Red Zone" show on BlogTalk Radio Monday night, December 8, at 11 PM EST: Coach Big B's Red Zone show - Ted Seay/Wild Bunch offense
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2014 9:06:37 GMT -6
I do not have problem with your argument.But if, and I am not suggesting you are, but if you are targeting the coaching demographic for sale of your book? As another coach suggested, you had better consider seriously reframing your argument. I hope you will let us know when your books become available. Best of luck.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 7, 2014 9:06:56 GMT -6
WHEW! Thank you, coach! If anyone wants to hear me engage further on the substance of this argument (which really does pre-date the idea of this book by several months -- it actually stems from two other books I am writing on conflict theory, both of which are under review for publication by academic presses in the UK and Australia), please tune in to Coach Big B's "Red Zone" show on BlogTalk Radio Monday night, December 8, at 10 PM EST: Coach Big B's Red Zone show - Ted Seay/Wild Bunch offense Ted-- I think that most of us here would say there really isn't an "argument" for which there is substance. At least not any substance that is useful for football coaches. All that seems to be happening here is that you are pointing out ways in which football x's and o's mirror campaign tactics. For academics this may be interesting, but for football coaches, it doesn't seem useful. Football coaches would rather discuss concrete ways to stress the flat defender, not discuss how stressing the flat defender is similar to ________ statement made by ___________ general, etc. Just my thoughts on why this thread is 4 pages without much going for it. You didn't say "Tom Brady is the greatest of all time" or "Tom Brady vs Peyton Manning...discuss". You said "Tom Brady is a really good quarterback", to which I am not sure anyone is going to differ.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Dec 7, 2014 10:11:51 GMT -6
I do not have problem with your argument. But if, and I am not suggesting you are, but if you are targeting the coaching demographic for sale of your book? As another coach suggested, you had better consider seriously reframing your argument. I hope you will let us know when your books become available. Best of luck. Thank you coach. I will certainly let you all know when the books are picked up for publication. I am in fact targeting the coaching demographic, and I realize that it's a risky strategy to subtitle a book "A Conflict-Theoretical Approach to Offensive Football" under any circumstances, but most of all when aiming for the Coaches Choice crowd. That's a risk I can live with, however, as I'll try to explain in my next reply on this thread -- I believe some education is required on the art and science of deception in football coaching, and I aim to undertake that education.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Dec 7, 2014 11:39:12 GMT -6
Ted-- I think that most of us here would say there really isn't an "argument" for which there is substance. At least not any substance that is useful for football coaches. All that seems to be happening here is that you are pointing out ways in which football x's and o's mirror campaign tactics. For academics this may be interesting, but for football coaches, it doesn't seem useful. Football coaches would rather discuss concrete ways to stress the flat defender, not discuss how stressing the flat defender is similar to ________ statement made by ___________ general, etc. I disagree strongly, coach, and here's why: I have no interest in making "campaign tactics" a topic of interest for football coaches -- at least, not a football topic of interest. What I have got an interest in is examining the vast literature on military deception as a potential road map for how to do deception better in football. To me, it matters very much that a team of researchers from Sandia Labs has codified deception into two general types: In my opinion, A-type deception corresponds directly with option football in all its guises, while M-type deception explains the enduring success of series-based attacks such as the Single Wing, the Markham/Wyatt Double Wing, the Wing-T, and, as I argue [ahem] elsewhere, my Wild Bunch offense. All of which makes me wonder why the push-back on this thread has been so vociferous. I believe, as I have stated previously in this thread, that comparing war to any sort of game makes some people unhappy, and I think coachmonkey's remarks reinforce that point. Indulge me, if you would, in a comparison of discussions on this board. The threads dealing with "constraint plays", as so expertly delineated by Chris Brown and others, and those on Malcolm Gladwell's David and Goliath strategies, both generated a great deal of discussion and no little heat in the tenor of disagreements which took place. In neither case, however, was the level of unhappiness with the current thread duplicated. Would it help people to better understand why I started this thread if I said one of my objectives was to demonstrate why and how a play obtains "constraint" status, on the one hand, and why deception is the only useful foundation for "David" strategies, on the other? Would that be considered legitimate football coaching discourse, and germane to this board? Then what, apart from the football-as-war-game analogy, has coaches so exercised over this thread? Just my thoughts on why this thread is 4 pages without much going for it. You didn't say "Tom Brady is the greatest of all time" or "Tom Brady vs Peyton Manning...discuss". You said "Tom Brady is a really good quarterback", to which I am not sure anyone is going to differ. Coach -- does that really strike you as a useful analogy in the context of this thread?
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Dec 7, 2014 11:41:23 GMT -6
If anyone wants to hear me engage further on the substance of this argument (which really does pre-date the idea of this book by several months -- it actually stems from two other books I am writing on conflict theory, both of which are under review for publication by academic presses in the UK and Australia), please tune in to Coach Big B's "Red Zone" show on BlogTalk Radio Monday night, December 8, at 11 PM EST: Coach Big B's Red Zone show - Ted Seay/Wild Bunch OffenseCorrected/updated link, above.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 7, 2014 11:53:43 GMT -6
makes me wonder why the push-back on this thread has been so vociferous. respectfully, I think it is largely because this subject isn't moving anywhere. It sputters, roars and hisses but the motor is not turning over and isn't turning the wheels. In plain concise English, what exactly are you driving with the anecdote in simple terms within two sentences? I've read it more than a dozen times and I cannot find a practical application to learn from as a (competent)football coach. This may be an academic discussion for the George Plimpton's of the board, but to everyone else it is coming off as
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Dec 7, 2014 12:13:27 GMT -6
In plain concise English, what exactly are you driving with the anecdote in simple terms within two sentences? I propose to study deception's role in football by analogy with its role in military thought; this will only work if football is, in fact, a war game.
|
|