Belichick does what the great Generals do

[RecoveringCowboy]

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

Quite possible.

Convinced BB calls plays not expecting to gain on that play at all, but simply to setup the opponents later.

 

[PP2]

Quite possible.

Convinced BB calls plays not expecting to gain on that play at all, but simply to setup the opponents later.

It's a lot less esoteric than that.

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-...sion-not-to-take-timeout-at-end-of-super-bowl

 

[Ozymandias]

01 ~ Only a raging Moron would ever say something that stupid.

By your own definition here coach Belichick is a "raging moron" because he has often used that quote on many different occasions, heck, he even had it as a sign in front of the team locker room during the 2009 season and made it a point of emphasis during a team meeting prior to the Baltimore playoff game.

06 ~ But I've corrected your Error before, and you continue to spew that Sewage as if it's True.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. I have never had any discussions with you about anything on this board. As a matter of fact, I don't ever recall quoting you, or you quoting me prior to this. I don't even know who are you. Your attempt at being pedantic here is pretty much immaterial as the point I made that you quoted still stands - coach Belichick uses that quote often and that is why I am partial to it because of how it pertains to the game of football. The essence of it still stands, even if you feel it mistranslated by modern diction.

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

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."

Confession: I did not know BB quoted him.

But it supports that The Art of War is a timeless book.

...and strengthens my appreciation of BB the student - he will use any resource to identify success.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

Anyone knows if there are similar traits between BB and Josh McDaniels (who many speculate is being groomed to take over for Belichick whenever he leaves)? I'm told that McDaniels was the mastermind behind the ineligible receiver play and the "Edelmen as QB" TD pass, that helped us win against the Ravens.

 

[Galeb]

I disagree with the idea that "the Union government constantly undermined their commanding generals." On the operational or strategic level I have rarely come across anything the Union government did that would have undermined the success of their commanders in the field. If anything I think the Union generals were blessed with more provisions, resources, and support than their Confederate counterparts. I would instead argue that Lincoln in particular had a clearer grasp of the strategic and operational picture than many of his appointed commanders, which to me speaks more to a talent evaluation issue than meddling.

Furthermore I would say that any example of Union government meddling could be compared to a similar instance of Confederate government meddling. Both Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln effectively appointed and relieved theater commanders and made strategic "suggestions," and both were saddled with the necessity of deploying "political" generals as a quid pro quo.

Davis was fortunate in that he stumbled on his ace theater commander (Lee) due to fortuitous injury to his predecessor (Joe Johnson, making this more of a Brady/Bledsoe thing) in the most visible theater of the war (Eastern). Lincoln was fortunate in that he later stumbled on his ace theater commander (Grant) in the more crucial theater of the war (Western).

I think this viewpoint implies that Lee and Grant had the success they did because at the time they took command, their respective governments quit trying to govern them. I would instead say that in their cases their governments quit apparently "undermining" them because Lee and Grant actually did what their governments wanted effectively. Davis wanted Johnson to attack and maneuver more instead of retreating and entrenching, and that's what Lee did well. Lincoln wanted a commander that could fight an occupational campaign without needing to disrupt operational tempo to regroup, and that's what he finally got in Grant.

Undermining was probably the wrong choice of words. Because of the slaughter required to achieve objectives, many Generals were more than a little reluctant to attack. Combined with Pinkerton's flawed troop number calculation methods and sub par commanding Generals, the Union army suffered from indecision and, at times, even paralysis. The Union government grew very impatient for victories and pushed the Union generals to attack, even in the face of an obvious massacre. Hooker at Chancellorsville was a perfect example.

Grant's strategy was a long one that took tremendous patience. The Union government gave him a much longer leash to accomplish this goal. Sherman's rampaging into the deep South probably helped.

I don't think Jefferson Davis' interference ever really lessened. His insistence on defending Richmond put a tremendous strain on Lee's forces and was a key factor in the stretching that was the foundation of Grant's strategy.

The man Lincoln was when he died was a very different one than the one who took office. He learned much during his tenure and grew to really understand the terrible cost of the war to both sides. He was 100% committed to moving forward in a universally constructive manner and to give meaning to the great sacrifice suffered by so many. The murder of Lincoln and his "Malice Towards None" philosophy created a rift in this country that, to this day, isn't fully healed.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

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

Somewhat as he had the D on the field for Seattle's alignment. No TO prevented Carroll from strategizing on the fly. BB was prepared, Carroll was less prepared.

 

[Galeb]

Wow. Not to get all Helen Hunt in As Good As It Gets on ya, but that's maybe the best Compliment I've ever received!! A Thousand times more so, coming from you, Brother Galeb.

A Thousand Thanks, Sir!!

 

[PP2]

Undermining was probably the wrong choice of words. Because of the slaughter required to achieve objectives, many Generals were more than a little reluctant to attack. Combined with Pinkerton's flawed troop number calculation methods and sub par commanding Generals, the Union army suffered from indecision and, at times, even paralysis. The Union government grew very impatient for victories and pushed the Union generals to attack, even in the face of an obvious massacre. Hooker at Chancellorsville was a perfect example.

Grant's strategy was a long one that took tremendous patience. The Union government gave him a much longer leash to accomplish this goal. Sherman's rampaging into the deep South probably helped.

I don't think Jefferson Davis' interference ever really lessened. His insistence on defending Richmond put a tremendous strain on Lee's forces and was a key factor in the stretching that was the foundation of Grant's strategy.

The man Lincoln was when he died was a very different one than the one who took office. He learned much during his tenure and grew to really understand the terrible cost of the war to both sides. He was 100% committed to moving forward in a universally constructive manner and to give meaning to the great sacrifice suffered by so many. The murder of Lincoln and his "Malice Towards None" philosophy created a rift in this country that, to this day, isn't fully healed.

You're starting to exasperate me.

Chancellorsville was entirely Hooker's idea. Nobody told him to go there.

 

[Galeb]

Lee did not care about the larger strategic vision of the war. He only cared about the defense of his native state, Virginia, and his actions are very suggestive of this. He was notorious for refusing to lend out brigades or for attention towards other theaters.

I don't understand where you get the impression that the Union generals were attacking on behest of their government. Both of Grant's predecessors, McClellan and Halleck, as commanders of the army, were sacked for their reluctance to take the war to the enemy.



Lee did not have "hundreds of thousands of men." His army, the Army of North Virginia had a rough figure of around 70,000 men, give or take a few thousand. It's also been documented many times over that his men were pretty good at living off the land.

The North did not bother converting the rail system of the South, they spend their time tearing it up (Sherman, et al).




The only importance that LRT contributed to the battle of Gettysburg was the Union being able to hold off the South there. It would have ended in a stalemate if Lee hadn't forced his hand by throwing Pickett's division at them.

Lee's personal writing betrays a rather immersive vision of the war than what you suggest. The other strong theme is the great belief in that the War part of God's plan and that no man could know God's will. Lee may have had his flaws, but he was a General who truly loves his men, and was loved by them.

If you don't understand that Union Generals were tentative to attack and that they received intense prodding from the Union government, then you really need to go back and do some serious research.

How many support personnel do you think were required for the conservative estimate of 70K troops. How many people lived in the area? How many union troops were across the river?

If you understood the war, you would realize that Sherman was not part of the main force, and during his attack into the deep south, he didn't use supply lines. He conquered and pillaged what he needed and burned what he didn't. That ******* burned Atlanta. The main armies of the war were focused in a relatively small area much further north.

My perception of Grant's skills as a tactician may be wrong. I will have to go back and re-evaluate.

 

[Galeb]

You're starting to exasperate me.

Chancellorsville was entirely Hooker's idea. Nobody told him to go there.

You are absolutely right. I did some fact checking and was shocked to learn that my memory of several leaders of the Union army and the battles around the Potomac were jumbled together. I argued way to hard without fact checking on a topic that I haven't seriously studied in almost 2o years.

I sincerely apologize for spreading false information and my pompous and hippocratic posting in this thread. Thank you for helping me realize that I was wrong. Please excuse me as I awkwardly fall out of this thread.