Ryan's psychology - borrowing from the Civil War

[Buchanty]

I don't usually start threads but the occasion arose today while reading "April 1865 - The Month That Saved America" by Jay Winik, that a passage seemed so pertinent to last night's game that I thought it deserved it's own limelight.

For one thing, he understood the coarse art of the psychology of war: the role of fear in battle, the role of psychological operations in combat, the role of rattling the opponent and keeping him rattled. Throughout history, from Alexander the Great to Napoleon, the generals who could employ these tactics often won; the generals who couldn't, often didn't. Fear undermines morale, diminished morale breeds low-level panic, and panic fosters poor decisions. but of course (Nathan Bedford) Forest was a different kind of general, fighting not with large armies, but commanding and shuffling smaller groups of men to disorient and disable much larger adversaries. Three things enabled him to do this well. He knew how to make his command seem large, and in this case he played upon not just his adversaries' calculations but their battle-frayed emotions as well. He employed deception and skill: so he beat kettledrums constantly to mimic infantry in action; he lit and tended to fires to spread over significant areas; he shuttled artillery back and forth, from one distant point to another; and he dressed up his cavalry and paraded them as infantry. With astonishing clarity, he grasped the battle vagaries of space and time: how fast he could realistically move, and how fast his opponent was likely to move, enabling him to turn tactical risks into strategic opportunities. And perhaps most importantly, beyond his own implacable will and leadership ability, which which he relentlessly drove his men, asking them to be better, stronger, tougher, faster , and more fearless than they really were, he understood human nature - in his opponent's men as well as his own.

Props to Ryan, he coached his team to the point of victory over supposedly the better team. Obviously there are dissimilarities but this resonated with me as Ryan had all of New York convinced and damn-it he was right.

Yes the Pats didn't execute as well as they have in the past, and yes individuals made mistakes, but they didn't play a stinker. Reading this timely passage reminded me that they were up against a psychological master in this game. The good thing is that he wont necessarily win future battles as easily, our young team will be older and a little wiser.

 

[Snake Eyes]

I don't usually start threads but the occasion arose today while reading "April 1865 - The Month That Saved America" by Jay Winik, that a passage seemed so pertinent to last night's game that I thought it deserved it's own limelight.

For one thing, he understood the coarse art of the psychology of war: the role of fear in battle, the role of psychological operations in combat, the role of rattling the opponent and keeping him rattled. Throughout history, from Alexander the Great to Napoleon, the generals who could employ these tactics often won; the generals who couldn't, often didn't. Fear undermines morale, diminished morale breeds low-level panic, and panic fosters poor decisions. but of course (Nathan Bedford) Forest was a different kind of general, fighting not with large armies, but commanding and shuffling smaller groups of men to disorient and disable much larger adversaries. Three things enabled him to do this well. He knew how to make his command seem large, and in this case he played upon not just his adversaries' calculations but their battle-frayed emotions as well. He employed deception and skill: so he beat kettledrums constantly to mimic infantry in action; he lit and tended to fires to spread over significant areas; he shuttled artillery back and forth, from one distant point to another; and he dressed up his cavalry and paraded them as infantry. With astonishing clarity, he grasped the battle vagaries of space and time: how fast he could realistically move, and how fast his opponent was likely to move, enabling him to turn tactical risks into strategic opportunities. And perhaps most importantly, beyond his own implacable will and leadership ability, which which he relentlessly drove his men, asking them to be better, stronger, tougher, faster , and more fearless than they really were, he understood human nature - in his opponent's men as well as his own.

Props to Ryan, he coached his team to the point of victory over supposedly the better team. Obviously there are dissimilarities but this resonated with me as Ryan had all of New York convinced and damn-it he was right.

Yes the Pats didn't execute as well as they have in the past, and yes individuals made mistakes, but they didn't play a stinker. Reading this timely passage reminded me that they were up against a psychological master in this game. The good thing is that he wont necessarily win future battles as easily, our young team will be older and a little wiser.

Ok, exactly how did Ryan use Civil War psychological warfare, by talking smack? I'm sorry but yesterday's game didnt have anything to do with that war, they played well and we played poorly, it's happened before and is nothing revolutionary.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Wow ... an offseason of this will be more than I can take.

 

[Patspsycho]

I don't usually start threads but the occasion arose today while reading "April 1865 - The Month That Saved America" by Jay Winik, that a passage seemed so pertinent to last night's game that I thought it deserved it's own limelight.

For one thing, he understood the coarse art of the psychology of war: the role of fear in battle, the role of psychological operations in combat, the role of rattling the opponent and keeping him rattled. Throughout history, from Alexander the Great to Napoleon, the generals who could employ these tactics often won; the generals who couldn't, often didn't. Fear undermines morale, diminished morale breeds low-level panic, and panic fosters poor decisions. but of course (Nathan Bedford) Forest was a different kind of general, fighting not with large armies, but commanding and shuffling smaller groups of men to disorient and disable much larger adversaries. Three things enabled him to do this well. He knew how to make his command seem large, and in this case he played upon not just his adversaries' calculations but their battle-frayed emotions as well. He employed deception and skill: so he beat kettledrums constantly to mimic infantry in action; he lit and tended to fires to spread over significant areas; he shuttled artillery back and forth, from one distant point to another; and he dressed up his cavalry and paraded them as infantry. With astonishing clarity, he grasped the battle vagaries of space and time: how fast he could realistically move, and how fast his opponent was likely to move, enabling him to turn tactical risks into strategic opportunities. And perhaps most importantly, beyond his own implacable will and leadership ability, which which he relentlessly drove his men, asking them to be better, stronger, tougher, faster , and more fearless than they really were, he understood human nature - in his opponent's men as well as his own.

Props to Ryan, he coached his team to the point of victory over supposedly the better team. Obviously there are dissimilarities but this resonated with me as Ryan had all of New York convinced and damn-it he was right.

Yes the Pats didn't execute as well as they have in the past, and yes individuals made mistakes, but they didn't play a stinker. Reading this timely passage reminded me that they were up against a psychological master in this game. The good thing is that he wont necessarily win future battles as easily, our young team will be older and a little wiser.

That's a crock. Forrest lost in his only big battle against Grant at Fort Donelson. After that he was pure hit and run.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't usually start threads but the occasion arose today while reading "April 1865 - The Month That Saved America" by Jay Winik, that a passage seemed so pertinent to last night's game that I thought it deserved it's own limelight.

For one thing, he understood the coarse art of the psychology of war: the role of fear in battle, the role of psychological operations in combat, the role of rattling the opponent and keeping him rattled. Throughout history, from Alexander the Great to Napoleon, the generals who could employ these tactics often won; the generals who couldn't, often didn't. Fear undermines morale, diminished morale breeds low-level panic, and panic fosters poor decisions. but of course (Nathan Bedford) Forest was a different kind of general, fighting not with large armies, but commanding and shuffling smaller groups of men to disorient and disable much larger adversaries. Three things enabled him to do this well. He knew how to make his command seem large, and in this case he played upon not just his adversaries' calculations but their battle-frayed emotions as well. He employed deception and skill: so he beat kettledrums constantly to mimic infantry in action; he lit and tended to fires to spread over significant areas; he shuttled artillery back and forth, from one distant point to another; and he dressed up his cavalry and paraded them as infantry. With astonishing clarity, he grasped the battle vagaries of space and time: how fast he could realistically move, and how fast his opponent was likely to move, enabling him to turn tactical risks into strategic opportunities. And perhaps most importantly, beyond his own implacable will and leadership ability, which which he relentlessly drove his men, asking them to be better, stronger, tougher, faster , and more fearless than they really were, he understood human nature - in his opponent's men as well as his own.

Props to Ryan, he coached his team to the point of victory over supposedly the better team. Obviously there are dissimilarities but this resonated with me as Ryan had all of New York convinced and damn-it he was right.

Yes the Pats didn't execute as well as they have in the past, and yes individuals made mistakes, but they didn't play a stinker. Reading this timely passage reminded me that they were up against a psychological master in this game. The good thing is that he wont necessarily win future battles as easily, our young team will be older and a little wiser.

Whining that everyone is against me and telling everyone you will win isnt psychology. Its a guy starved for attention. He will continue to do whatever it takes to make himself the center of attention. When they win people will think its because of that when they lose people will think its because of that. It really has nothing to do with it,

 

[RobertWeathers]

I don't usually start threads but the occasion arose today while reading "April 1865 - The Month That Saved America" by Jay Winik, that a passage seemed so pertinent to last night's game that I thought it deserved it's own limelight.

For one thing, he understood the coarse art of the psychology of war: the role of fear in battle, the role of psychological operations in combat, the role of rattling the opponent and keeping him rattled. Throughout history, from Alexander the Great to Napoleon, the generals who could employ these tactics often won; the generals who couldn't, often didn't. Fear undermines morale, diminished morale breeds low-level panic, and panic fosters poor decisions. but of course (Nathan Bedford) Forest was a different kind of general, fighting not with large armies, but commanding and shuffling smaller groups of men to disorient and disable much larger adversaries. Three things enabled him to do this well. He knew how to make his command seem large, and in this case he played upon not just his adversaries' calculations but their battle-frayed emotions as well. He employed deception and skill: so he beat kettledrums constantly to mimic infantry in action; he lit and tended to fires to spread over significant areas; he shuttled artillery back and forth, from one distant point to another; and he dressed up his cavalry and paraded them as infantry. With astonishing clarity, he grasped the battle vagaries of space and time: how fast he could realistically move, and how fast his opponent was likely to move, enabling him to turn tactical risks into strategic opportunities. And perhaps most importantly, beyond his own implacable will and leadership ability, which which he relentlessly drove his men, asking them to be better, stronger, tougher, faster , and more fearless than they really were, he understood human nature - in his opponent's men as well as his own.

Props to Ryan, he coached his team to the point of victory over supposedly the better team. Obviously there are dissimilarities but this resonated with me as Ryan had all of New York convinced and damn-it he was right.

Yes the Pats didn't execute as well as they have in the past, and yes individuals made mistakes, but they didn't play a stinker. Reading this timely passage reminded me that they were up against a psychological master in this game. The good thing is that he wont necessarily win future battles as easily, our young team will be older and a little wiser.

Good effort but a bit of a stretch as it relates to Rex Ryan's strategy.

I bet he thinks NB Forest was the namesake of Forrest Gump for goodness sake.

 

[BmoreOrioleJet]

I don't usually start threads but the occasion arose today while reading "April 1865 - The Month That Saved America" by Jay Winik, that a passage seemed so pertinent to last night's game that I thought it deserved it's own limelight.

For one thing, he understood the coarse art of the psychology of war: the role of fear in battle, the role of psychological operations in combat, the role of rattling the opponent and keeping him rattled. Throughout history, from Alexander the Great to Napoleon, the generals who could employ these tactics often won; the generals who couldn't, often didn't. Fear undermines morale, diminished morale breeds low-level panic, and panic fosters poor decisions. but of course (Nathan Bedford) Forest was a different kind of general, fighting not with large armies, but commanding and shuffling smaller groups of men to disorient and disable much larger adversaries. Three things enabled him to do this well. He knew how to make his command seem large, and in this case he played upon not just his adversaries' calculations but their battle-frayed emotions as well. He employed deception and skill: so he beat kettledrums constantly to mimic infantry in action; he lit and tended to fires to spread over significant areas; he shuttled artillery back and forth, from one distant point to another; and he dressed up his cavalry and paraded them as infantry. With astonishing clarity, he grasped the battle vagaries of space and time: how fast he could realistically move, and how fast his opponent was likely to move, enabling him to turn tactical risks into strategic opportunities. And perhaps most importantly, beyond his own implacable will and leadership ability, which which he relentlessly drove his men, asking them to be better, stronger, tougher, faster , and more fearless than they really were, he understood human nature - in his opponent's men as well as his own.

Props to Ryan, he coached his team to the point of victory over supposedly the better team. Obviously there are dissimilarities but this resonated with me as Ryan had all of New York convinced and damn-it he was right.

Yes the Pats didn't execute as well as they have in the past, and yes individuals made mistakes, but they didn't play a stinker. Reading this timely passage reminded me that they were up against a psychological master in this game. The good thing is that he wont necessarily win future battles as easily, our young team will be older and a little wiser.

LOL


I don't think that motivation had anything to do with the Jets win. Ryan had a good gameplan, and was able to expose the Pats weaknesses.

The Jets have just as much talent than the Pats. Ryan was simply able to level the playing field by using a good scheme.

 

[fair catch fryar]

I think you're reaching a bit on this one....but hey whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[Gunnails]

General Rex Ryan. Has a nice ring to it.

Senator Ryan, President Ryan?

 

[PatriotSpy]

BB and the Pats are heavily influenced by Sun Tzu and the art of war. Heck there's quotes os Tzu hanging all around the Gillette offices.

the philosphies of Sun Tzu are more impactful,releveant, followed and adhered to than anything in that passage from "April 1865". Heck the art of war is required reading for all U.S. military officers. I don't necessarily know the Jets underlying philosophies are or who influences them but it's pretty much safe to say that the Patriots/BB treat football as if it were war.(as we all know, bb grew up in the shadows of the naval academy)