Belichick does what the great Generals do

“Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”

and

“All warfare is based on deception. (my comment: like the Ravens playoff game) Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Napoleon, Rommel, Zuklov, Robert E. Lee, Patton...they all identified an enemy weak spot, then pounded it when they did not expect it. Don't know if growing up at Annapolis had anything to do with it, but BB knows this well.

An example of deception: Gronk appearing to go for a pass, at full speed at the line of scrimmage as the ball is snapped, then flattens a lineman.

Yes, it would be great if you simply could beat a team to death with brute strength, but with parity it does not happen that often. That's where coaching comes in - pitting your strengths against the opponents weaknesses or lack of preparedness.

Communication on the fly is another thing great generals. Rommel and the blitzkrieg.....the no huddle offense is thinking faster than your opponent.

"Fatigue makes cowards of us all" - Patton (also Lombardi, others)

Notice the Patriots are well-conditioned? It's not just positioning to win the two-minute drill, but fatigue increases the chance of injury.

RecoveringCowboy said:

“Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”

and

“All warfare is based on deception. (my comment: like the Ravens playoff game) Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Napoleon, Rommel, Zuklov, Robert E. Lee, Patton...they all identified an enemy weak spot, then pounded it when they did not expect it. Don't know if growing up at Annapolis had anything to do with it, but BB knows this well.

An example of deception: Gronk appearing to go for a pass, at full speed at the line of scrimmage as the ball is snapped, then flattens a lineman.

Yes, it would be great if you simply could beat a team to death with brute strength, but with parity it does not happen that often. That's where coaching comes in - pitting your strengths against the opponents weaknesses or lack of preparedness.

Communication on the fly is another thing great generals. Rommel and the blitzkrieg.....the no huddle offense is thinking faster than your opponent.

"Fatigue makes cowards of us all" - Patton (also Lombardi, others)

Notice the Patriots are well-conditioned? It's not just positioning to win the two-minute drill, but fatigue increases the chance of injury.

Click to expand...

I think Belichick draws upon many resources for his coaching philosophies and have no doubt this is one of them. Going into the Super Bowl I was confident the Patriots would come away with the win because I was certain Belichick would win the coaching battle, and he did that going away. The Seahawks are can really good team but Belichick and his staff were ready for them and they executed their game plan about as well as anyone could have hoped for. MacDaniels in particular has a good a game as coordinator as he has ever had and they outplayed the Seahawks for 3 out of 4 quarters. Looking at it again this afternoon made me feel really good about next year's team despite the players they have lost. In fact it made me feel good about the next few years as I don't think this team has peaked yet.

RecoveringCowboy said:

Napoleon, Rommel, Zuklov, Robert E. Lee, Patton...they all identified an enemy weak spot, then pounded it when they did not expect it.

Click to expand...

Robert E. Lee was a great General, but his style differs dramatically from what you suggest. He understood that Napoleonic tactics were made obsolete because of the increased accuracy of both artillery and firearms. He won so many battles because his men took cover and fired accurately while Union soldiers were torn apart by artillery as they marched towards the entrenched Confederates.

Galeb said:

Robert E. Lee was a great General, but his style differs dramatically from what you suggest. He understood that Napoleonic tactics were made obsolete because of the increased accuracy of both artillery and firearms. He won so many battles because his men took cover and fired accurately while Union soldiers were torn apart by artillery as they marched towards the entrenched Confederates.

Click to expand...

I meant Lee finessed opponents - not overpower them....Grant had that luxury.

But I think we are in general agreement that you outhink opponents and exploit weaknesses.

Belichick is a military history buff ... so absolutely it is weaved into his thought process as it relates to coaching. The players spend some of their time learning so they can keep up with the speeches.

Galeb said:

Robert E. Lee was a great General, but his style differs dramatically from what you suggest. He understood that Napoleonic tactics were made obsolete because of the increased accuracy of both artillery and firearms. He won so many battles because his men took cover and fired accurately while Union soldiers were torn apart by artillery as they marched towards the entrenched Confederates.

Click to expand...

Lee was a great tactician, but a terrible general. Rather than fight a war of attrition which would have broken the spirit of the North, he chose to take the battle to them which was his fatal mistake (see: Gettysburg). He ignored the warning signs from the earlier Maryland campaign (his first attempt at invading the North).

Belichick has a library of military strategy books in his office.

Anytime you are quoting Dwight Eisenhower, or anyone from Bill’s military history background—warriors and statesmen, that’s not normal in the NFL,” said defensive end Jake Bequette. “You don’t hear a lot about Sun Tzu or anyone like that in most locker rooms.

"In the game of chess, never let your opponent see your pieces." - Zapp Brannigan's Big Book of War

PP2 said:

Lee was a great tactician, but a terrible general. Rather than fight a war of attrition which would have broken the spirit of the North, he chose to take the battle to them which was his fatal mistake (see: Gettysburg). He ignored the warning signs from the earlier Maryland campaign (his first attempt at invading the North).

Click to expand...

Although going on the offensive ultimately proved a failure, the reason that Lee wanted to go on the offensive was precisely because he knew he'd lose a war of attrition, which he eventually did. At the time, both armies were getting much of their food from the Southern farms. Lee wanted to go North, feed his troops with food from the North and hopefully break the Union's political will for war.

Had the Generals under Lee followed orders and attacked on the first day of Gettysburg, they likely would have driven the Union from the field. If not for Joshua Chamberlain, they likely would have won the battle anyway. That said, even if Lee won at Gettysburg, a Confederate military victory was still very unlikely. An agriculture-based economy has little chance to defeat an industrial economy with a much larger population.

The quality and quantity of men lost in that war is something from which humankind has still not recovered.

RecoveringCowboy said:

I meant Lee finessed opponents - not overpower them....Grant had that luxury.

But I think we are in general agreement that you outhink opponents and exploit weaknesses.

Click to expand...

Grant was not a great tactician, but he understood the situation. He just kept spreading Lee out further and further until Lee had to defend a larger front than was possible for a force of his size. I wonder if Grant would have had the political clout to do that had his predecessors not paid the butcher so handsomely. Come to think of it, BB's situation with the Krafts is eerily similar to Grant's situation with the Union government.

I'm partial to Sun Tzu's The Art of War quote that coach Belichick has often used - "Every battle is won before it's ever fought."

Applicable in many ways, but as it pertains to the Super Bowl, I'd like to add that to this as well. Part of what makes a great general/coach is preparing his troops for situations that may or may not even ever arise in the game/battle, but preparing them for it nonetheless. No one does this better than coach Belichick, now or arguably ever.

The fact that he had the prescience to have an undrafted rookie fifth-stringer, who may or may not have even been active for gameday, ready for the exact same situation in the exact same specific circumstance is astonishing. Malcolm Butler was able to make that play because he was prepared, and he was prepared because he was initially beaten in practice by the same play (knowing your opponent) and with Coach Bill Belichick's guidance Butler learned from his mistake and then made the play of a lifetime.

That in and of itself was poetic justice and was in more ways than one legacy defining. It was a tremendous testament to coach Belichick's coaching acumen and skill in his preparing his players for everything. Winning the game before ever playing the game.

The Robert E. Lee analogy works good: V. Smart, wily, audacious, soldiers (players) loved to go to battle for him, mystique, use your knowledge of history (sport) to your advantage, under-assuming, dogged for details, discipline without being over-bearing, out-work the lieutenants, good with numbers, modest.

Galeb said:

The quality and quantity of men lost in that war is something from which humankind has still not recovered.

Click to expand...

As Robert Millikan said of his colleague Henry Moseley:

“In a research which is destined to rank as one of the dozen most brilliant in conception, skillful in execution, and illuminating in results in the history of science, a young man but twenty-six years old threw open the windows through which we can now glimpse the subatomic world with a definiteness and certainty never even dreamed of before. Had the European war [i.e., World War I] had no other result than the snuffing out of this young life, that alone would make it one of the most hideous and most irreparable crimes in history.”

Click to expand...

I have always viewed BB as our "12th man", for the many game winning strategies that he has used in key games..

His preparation for the next opponent is legendary, many times we have been made aware that after a late night game after returning to Gillette he descends into the bowels and begins reviewing film and making game plans for the next opponent..

Always thought the "Art of War" parallels a lot of his game philosophy..

The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand.

Click to expand...

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

Click to expand...

Galeb said:

The quality and quantity of men lost in that war is something from which humankind has still not recovered.

Click to expand...

That's also true of the Holocaust in WWII. For all we know the cure for cancer could have been burned or buried to death.

Galeb said:

Although going on the offensive ultimately proved a failure, the reason that Lee wanted to go on the offensive was precisely because he knew he'd lose a war of attrition, which he eventually did. At the time, both armies were getting much of their food from the Southern farms. Lee wanted to go North, feed his troops with food from the North and hopefully break the Union's political will for war.

Had the Generals under Lee followed orders and attacked on the first day of Gettysburg, they likely would have driven the Union from the field. If not for Joshua Chamberlain, they likely would have won the battle anyway. That said, even if Lee won at Gettysburg, a Confederate military victory was still very unlikely. An agriculture-based economy has little chance to defeat an industrial economy with a much larger population.

The quality and quantity of men lost in that war is something from which humankind has still not recovered.

Click to expand...

Had Lee stuck to a war of attrition (sustained strategic attacks and constant harassment) instead of putting all his eggs in one basket as he did at Gettysburg, the war would have gone in a completely different direction. As it was, the Union victories at Gettysburg and then Vicksburg represented the turning point of the war and gave Lincoln a late popularity surge that won him the election of 1864.

If not for those victories, Lincoln's opponent on the ballet, McClellan (his former CinC) would have won the election for the presidency, sued for peace, and we would be looking at two countries on opposite sides of the Mason-Dixon line today.

Contrary to popular notions, the Confederates had shorter and better supply lines, and they often lived off the land, as the famous Stonewall brigade did because it moved so fast.

It's also another myth that the defense of Little Round Top (Chamberlain) was decisive as far as the battle itself. Pickett's fatal charge (of which the order was given by none other than Lee, and he himself accepted the blame, saying afterwards: "It's all my fault") was the beginning of the end, as Pickett's division and Stuart's cavalry were the last uncommitted forces of the Confederates at Gettysburg. But Meade is also to blame for not counterattacking with V and VI corp from their respective positions as that would have been a very decisive counterstroke.

What do you guys think....did BB intentionally induce/deceive Pete Carroll into passing the ball, by not calling a timeout?

Galeb said:

Grant was not a great tactician, but he understood the situation. He just kept spreading Lee out further and further until Lee had to defend a larger front than was possible for a force of his size. I wonder if Grant would have had the political clout to do that had his predecessors not paid the butcher so handsomely.

Click to expand...

It irritates me every time I see Grant being characterized as a "butcher" and a poor "tactician." The characterization of Grant as being a "butcher" was coined first by the media of the day, and then propagated by the "lost cause" school of disgruntled historians from the South engaging in revisionist history which literally continues to this day.

Grant was the first Northern general to commit fully to a battle (Shiloh) and throw everything he had into it, without backing down. Up to this point, the civil war had for the most part been mere skirmishing and light battles, and only after Shiloh did many realize how terrible the war was going to be. Easy to blame Grant rather than face the stark reality of how much the country was going to suffer.

Grant's Vicksburg campaign of the war is considered by military historians to be the best tactical campaign of the entire war in that Grant cut off from his own supply line, paralyzed two divisions (Pemberton and Johnston) with his feints and deceptions, and laying seige to Vicksburg, deep in enemy territory. His backdoor moves kept Johnston from joining up with Pemberton, and actually put strain on Lee's attempt to start the Gettysburg campaign (Davis had asked Lee to lend a few brigades or regiments to the Western theater; Lee refused).

Grant lost in two months of combat, the same amount of men that Lee lost in just 4 days at Chancellorsville.

Galeb said:

Come to think of it, BB's situation with the Krafts is eerily similar to Grant's situation with the Union government.

Click to expand...

Grant, as a military commander would not have answered to the government. Only when he was given command of the entire army, in 1864, did he then have to answer to the president.

BB's situation with Kraft bears zero resemblance to Grant's relationship with his superior who was in this case, Gen. Halleck, a vain man full of venom and resentment. Halleck resented Grant's skyrocketing popularity and literally was an active saboteur, shelving Grant post-Shiloh, and undermining Grant to the point where Grant had literally planned his own resignation and very fortunately for history, was talked out of it by his best friend, General Sherman.

If there is any sort of comparison between Grant and BB, it's that both of them were quite brilliant in their respective fields but their victories were characterized by anything but their brilliance (Grant only won because he was a "butcher" and Belichick only won because he had "cameras," a.k.a. "Belicheat").

Chiuba E. Obele said:

What do you guys think....did BB intentionally induce/deceive Pete Carroll into passing the ball, by not calling a timeout?

Click to expand...

He decided not to call a timeout when he saw Seattle send in a 311 package on 2nd down. He already had his goal line package on the field and had elected to defend against the run over the pass.

This of course froze Carroll who probably didn't plan for such a scenario.

PP2 said:

Had Lee stuck to a war of attrition (sustained strategic attacks and constant harassment) instead of putting all his eggs in one basket as he did at Gettysburg, the war would have gone in a completely different direction. As it was, the Union victories at Gettysburg and then Vicksburg represented the turning point of the war and gave Lincoln a late popularity surge that won him the election of 1864.

If not for those victories, Lincoln's opponent on the ballet, McClellan (his former CinC) would have won the election for the presidency, sued for peace, and we would be looking at two countries on opposite sides of the Mason-Dixon line today.

Contrary to popular notions, the Confederates had shorter and better supply lines, and they often lived off the land, as the famous Stonewall brigade did because it moved so fast.

It's also another myth that the defense of Little Round Top (Chamberlain) was decisive as far as the battle itself. Pickett's fatal charge (of which the order was given by none other than Lee, and he himself accepted the blame, saying afterwards: "It's all my fault") was the beginning of the end, as Pickett's division and Stuart's cavalry were the last uncommitted forces of the Confederates at Gettysburg. But Meade is also to blame for not counterattacking with V and VI corp from their respective positions as that would have been a very decisive counterstroke.

Click to expand...

Lee disagreed with the idea that the North's will for the war would have ended if he had stayed put. Historians are pretty divided on that idea. If the Union government kept forcing the Union generals to attack, it very well may have ended the way you, and some historians, suggest. That said, the Union government learned an expensive lesson at Chancellorsville (Terry Glen) and then adopted a policy of letting the Generals make command decisions.

Your idea about supply lines is very incomplete. Although a single Brigade on the move may be able to "live off the land", but hundreds of thousands of men in a small area simply can't, especially for months or years on end. Sure, the North's supply lines were longer and they had to change the rail widths on the tracks of all the land they coquered, but they had the manpower and resources to do it. The South lacked a standard rail width, had very limited manufacturing capability and the Union was pillaging tons of food from Southern farms.

I realize that there is a group of historians that downplay the importance of Little Round Top, but their perspective relies on two very poor assumptions; that the Confederate artillery would be ineffective because of the terrain on Little Round Top, and mistakenly thinking that that the Union army was aware, coordinated and nimble enough to retreat back to a "superior" position further back fast enough. By the time Picket's Charge happened (which would not have if the Confederates took Little Round Top), the battle was already lost.

We disagree along similar lines that historians do, and I doubt either one of us will change the others' mind.