Fateful Decisions

In football, as in war, it is sometimes one decision, by one person, that determines the outcome of a crucial battle. That was certainly the case last night in the Patriots vs. Titans game, but before we get to that, let's talk about the war example as a bit of context.

In 1863, the outcome of the Civil War was very much in doubt. The Southerners won most of the early battles, and there was strong anti-war sentiment in the North. Somewhat by accident, two great armies from the North and South engaged in a three-day battle in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania that became the turning point in the war. The Confederates got the better of it on Day One, and Day Two's fighting focused on a small hill called Little Round Top. Joshua Chamberlain, formerly a professor at Bowdoin College, commanded the 20th Maine Regiment and he was ordered to hold a specific piece of ground at all costs. He did his best, but when his men began to run out of ammunition and the rebels were closing in on them, he had to make a fateful decision on his own---no time to ask permission or advice!

Chamberlain ordered his men to fix bayonets and charge, which seemed like a suicide mission, but it worked, perhaps because the enemy was so surprised at this unexpected action. Most historians agree that if the 20th Maine had retreated or been captured, the Confederates would have mauled a much larger Union force and turned the tide in the South's favor, probably winning the Battle of Gettysburg. Most historians also agree that the North's victory at Gettysburg was the beginning of the end for the rebellion.

Fast-forward more than 150 years and another Joshua makes a fateful decision that loses a wild-card playoff game and likely signals the end of a football dynasty that seemed as if it might last forever. In the first half, the New England Patriots were moving the ball briskly against the Tennessee Titans, leading 10-7. They found themselves on the Titans' one-yard line, first and goal. All they needed to do was score and give themselves a comfortable lead of 17-7. The next three plays make me wonder, "What was Josh McDaniels thinking?" The first play was a run that lost yardage. The second play was a run that went nowhere. The third play was yet another run that was stuffed, and they had to settle for a field goal. The Titans marched up the field and scored, making it 14-13 Titans at the half, not 17-14 Patriots.

I am sure that Tom Brady and every other Patriot fan was asking, "Shouldn't we throw the ball at least once?" It was clear to the Titans they were not going to do that and so the defense was prepared for the run. It is kind of like Joshua Chamberlain saying, "Okay, men, we are surrounded, and I was told to stay right here and not go anywhere, so let's surrender. I know it means we will lose the battle and the the North will lose the war, but I can't think of anything else to do."

A pass on the second play, even if incomplete, would have forced the Titans to change their defensive alignment and maybe, just maybe, the Patsies would have scored. Of course, we don't know that, just like we don't really know if having Malcolm Butler on the field would have helped win the Super Bowl against the Eagles. What we do know is that those two decisions defied common sense.

Let's assume, though, that the Titans had scored after that, and the half ended with the Patriots ahead 17-14. The entire complexion of the game would have changed. The second half was a defensive battle, not unlike the Super Bowl contest with the Rams last year, a game the Patriots won.

I don't know what Josh McDaniels was thinking down there on the goal line, but I do know one thing. He is being courted by other teams to try his hand at head coaching again, and he couldn't talk to anybody until the Pats' season ended. I am not accusing him of throwing the game or anything like that, but I feel that his mind was not fully focused on the present, which has always been a key to the Patriots being successful. (For that matter, where was Tom "Free Agent" Brady's brain last night?)

Anyway, the interception at the end of the game was embarrassing, but not relevant and wouldn't have happened if the Patriots had not been so desperate at the time. In fact, that "Pick Six" reminds me of "Pickett's Charge," Robert E. Lee's last, futile effort to win the Battle of Gettysburg...but that's a story for another time.

Just Sayin'

Okay, that was a pretty bad performance against the Dolphins, once again, last Sunday and it made a mess of the Patriots' hopes for a Super Bowl repeat. What is it about the Dolphins, who haven't been good in a very long time, that they manage to sneak up on the Pats at the end of the year so often?

I don't know and they don't know, but it does keep happening, and this time it happened in Foxboro!

Anyway, Tom Brady blamed himself for the loss, as did a lot of other people, and it adds fuel to the fire of debate about his performance this year. Certainly, this was a nondescript outing and that "pick six" was an awful pass that could be seen as the difference in the final score.

But I'm just sayin' ---as bad at Tom was, he did put the team in a position to win with a few minutes left in the game. All the defense had to do was hold the Miami offense, and they couldn't. It was eerily reminiscent of the 2008 Super Bowl, when a heavily favored, undefeated Pats got pushed around by a mediocre Giants crew for most of the game. Yet, Brady put his guys in a position to win with a few minutes left. All they had to do was, yes, hold the Giants on their final drive and they couldn't manage it. The 2012 Super Bowl with the Giants was less dramatic, but, again, similar.

This is a really good defense this year, even though they played poorly in this game. It makes me wonder if, on the three occasions mentioned, the fault lies with the coaching. Are they playing "Bend, don't break," which is fine, until you get in the Red Zone and you need to stop bending?

Bill Belichick could answer that question, but...well, you know, he wouldn't deign to stoop so low and actually talk to us fans about what he's doing. He would just mutter, "We're preparing for the Titans now."

I didn't think the Patriots had much chance of winning the Super Bowl when all of us assumed they would scorch the Dolphins and get a bye. Common sense would say they have no chance to win it now, or even to get there.

If I knew what is going to happen, I would be betting on it, not writing a blog.

But I have a hunch this defeat will light a fire under the team, which has been somewhat somnolent all season. Maybe they will let go and go all-out, try new things, indulge in some trickery, and maybe, just maybe, win the Super Bowl again.

Just sayin'...

At a Loss for Words

In my previous two posts, about the Patriots vs. the Chargers and vs. the Chiefs, I felt I knew the other teams and had a lot to say. I don't have that feeling as we approach the Super Bowl. I don't know the Rams and I just have a sense that the Patriots are likely to win by a score of 27-10 As always, just a guess, and it seems highly unlikely as a prediction. All of the Patriots Super Bowl games have been very close and the Madden game "simulation" has the Pats (losing!) and Rams in a "nail-biter."

If I were Bill B., though, a couple of things would concern me. First, I would look at the past two games and note that the Patriots got off to a roaring start in the first half, then took their foot off the gas in the second half. Granted, the Chargers had a steep hill to climb, but they almost got back in it, and everyone knew 14-0 was not enough against the Chiefs. So I would have preached "60 minutes of football" like crazy these past two weeks. I would also be concerned that the entire Patriot fan base is really complacent about this game. That was true in the two Giants games and the second Eagles game (last year, as you recall) and those are Super Bowls that the Brady/Belichick combo lost.

Having the New England region be complacent should not necessarily affect the team, but who knows? Maybe it does, in some unknown way. Anyway, if I were BB, I would tell the team to ignore the fans and BE THE UNDERDOG!

Beyond the metaphysical and getting into physical reality, I would advise Belechick to start with the same game plan he has been using on defense. Blitz, blitz, blitz and try to rattle the young QB. On offense, of course, think about success in battles and always remember to capitalize on the element of surprise.

What might be surprising to the Rams today? Well, I still want to suggest to BB using Gronk as a decoy for three quarters and unleashing him in the fourth. On a few occasions this year, they have gone to the fullback James Develin and he has gained some yards and scored some touchdowns. How about trying that around the third quarter, especially if Sony Michel has been bottled up by a strong Rams defense? 

I would also throw to Hogan a lot more than they have been so far. I don't think the Rams will give him a lot of attention today.

If the Rams are smart, they will also be blitzing and trying to throw Brady off his game, so Edelman and White will be more important than ever, and they will do their job. 

Okay, Bill, that's the game plan that will win it 27-10. The rest is up to you!

PS: And remember that it's always darkest before the dawn!

If I Were Bill Belichick (Pats vs Chiefs 2)

Looking back to the Chargers game, it was very effective to throw out the tendencies of the past against that opponent. For example, take the opening kickoff, march for a score and then blitz all afternoon. Don't defer and abandon"Bend/Don't Break."

Philip Rivers spent most of the game crying to the officials about his treatment because it really was brutal---but it was also legitimate and within the rules.

Against the Chiefs, it would be great to do that again, but what would work? Maybe some of the same tactics, maybe something new.

Well, Bill B. has one basic strategy, which is to take away the strength of the other team and let them try to beat you with one hand tied behind their backs. What is the Chiefs' strength? You guessed it: PH II.

But how do you take him out of the game? Unlike Rivers, he can't be blitzed because he can scramble out of the pocket and pass sidearm, or left-handed (!) or run for a bunch of yards himself.

I suggest that he do the following things:

(1)  If the Pats win the toss, defer. It will be tough to score on the first possession because it will be cold and the Arrowhead crowd will be into it, making signal calling difficult. The goal is to stop Mahomes first time around and then try to score.

(2)  Tell the offense they have to win the game. Tell them, "The defense is like the Spartans at Thermopylae, holding the pass against impossible odds until reinforcements can arrive. You need to match what you did against the Chargers (40-plus point) and we'll ask the same of our 'Spartans' on defense."

(3)  Come out passing. After Sony's performance last week, they will be looking for the run. Use James White a lot; you can always depend on him. Also, no one is paying attention to Hogan these days. Throw a few bombs his way. Maybe start running in the second half.

(4)  Use Cronk as a secret weapon in the fourth quarter: everyone has bought into the "He's a shell of his former self" idea. And the concept that he is just a blocker. Confirm that perspective for three quarters and then start throwing to him. We've seen Cronk take over in the final period before. It is very possible the Pats will be behind at this point and will need to do something totally different. The Chiefs will be overly confident if they are ahead, and will be surprised by a "Cronk attack."

(5) The key: if you can't take away Mahomes, take away his receivers. Do whatever you can to stop Kelcey and Hill. Double-team one, then double-team the other. Confuse them. Mahomes is great, but he needs people to catch the ball when he throws it. Bottling up the receivers will lead to interceptions.

Following this plan might, just might, lead to a final score of 35-27 Pats or 42-27, something like that. Again, though, that is pure guesswork.

A final note: Football is a simulation of a battle. In the history of warfare, a couple of things stand out: "It is indeed always darkest before the dawn" and "The element of surprise is critical." I could cite a lot of examples, but this post is already too long. My point is: don't despair if the Pats fall behind and have something ready for the Fourth Quarter, like the "Cronk attack." (Or bring in Malcolm Butler; just kidding!)

Hey, what would you do if you were Bill?

The great thing about football: it really isn't warfare, it's entertainment.

So I say "Go Pats" and enjoy the show!

Pats vs Pat

Patrick Mahomes' mother has said of him that, because his father was a major league baseball player, and he grew up playing catch with the likes of A-Rod, he doesn't get too excited about anything. This was in an SI article I read about him that was very revealing. https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/10/05/patrick-mahomes-kansas-city-chiefs-high-school-texas-tech-parents-andy-reid

She also said that when they took him to Disneyland and places that usually impressed little kids, "He didn't get too excited there either," or something to that effect.

That sounds a lot like the Patriots' mantra, "Not too high, not too low." When you combine it with extraordinary talent, it's a recipe for success. Forget that he is a rookie on a big stage. He is not likely to get rattled and throw the game away (literally and figuratively).

One other thing: the article said that he almost quit football growing up in Tyler, Texas, because the coach wouldn't let him play quarterback. That suggests someone who knows his own mind and is willing to give up a lot to get what he wants. He was also a very good baseball and basketball player, so he thought he might concentrate on those sports.

Growing up in Mississippi, I played a little bit of junior high and high school football, and I know something about quitting the football team. In Meridian, Miss., you could not quit without having a one-on-one meeting with our head coach, whose nickname was "Dawg." As I recall, he had been a guard at Alabama and he was tough, really tough. If he didn't like the way you were blocking on the practice field, he would get down, without pads, and go one-on-one with you, right then and there. I had to quit the team to get a job and help support my family, so I had to have that meeting with Dawg. He wasn't too hard on me but it wasn't a pleasant encounter and I suspect Mahomes would have had to go through something similar to quit the Tyler East squad.


Why didn't he quit football? According to the SI article, it was because no one went to the baseball and basketball games and everyone went to football games. He didn't want to excel without an audience! That suggests someone who knows he is talented and wants to be appreciated for it.

All of this and his teammates on the Chiefs say he is quiet and modest!

Why am I going on and on about Mahomes? Well, the question before the Patriots is, "How do you beat somebody like that?" And make no mistake about it: that is who they have to beat, not the Chiefs. They are a very good team, but the Pats just beat a very good team by flummoxing their very good quarterback. Mahomes is more than "very good," he is a transcendent talent and the Pats will lose if they don't figure him out.

When I posted about the Chargers and the Pats (a post I should now dub "Charge(rs) Account Canceled"), I realized something about football: just about everybody was predicting the outcome of the game before it happened. When I wrote the blog, I started describing what I thought our guys needed to do to win the game. I would much rather do that for many reasons. The main one is that I don't want to predict a Patriot loss! If I did, my ego would be rooting against them because I would want to be right. However, my heart would be with the B/B gang, and I would spend the whole game conflicted.

Prediction, no matter how much data you have from the past, is just a guess anyway. Each game is unique and there are elements to it that elude predictive analysis. It's fun, but not very realistic.

In my next post, then, I will share what I would do if I were Bill B.

Pats vs. Chargers

Here's my take on today's game: even the local "Homers" on Talk Radio are giving it to the Chargers. Even though the Pats are "favored," everyone seems to be betting on the Chargers. They are a very good team and I thought for a few days they would win, I also think the Pats like being underdogs.

Everyone also thinks Gronk will be a blocker today and the Pats will run the ball a lot. What a setup! I think they should come out throwing and that Gronk can have a great day. Also, do not count out James White.

I also have a reason they will win that has to do with playing at home, which I will share with you inn another post.

I will say 31-21 Pats, but that is just a guess.

Another topic of conversation in New England is whether this is the "End of the Brady-Belichick Era."

I think we are close to it, regardless of today's game. I still think Bill has lost the team, even though they recently won two easy games. All empires must fall, as Larry Lucchino famously said, and this one is no exception. Actually, why don't we look forward to it, just a little? As enjoyable as the winning has been, wouldn't a changing of the guard be interesting?

Has Belichick Lost the Team?

The Patriots play the Bills today and the Jets next week. The pundits are assuming victory in these two games and pontificating about the Pats' chances of getting to the Super Bowl. I do not assume a victory today or next week because the last two losses convince me of one thing: Bill Belichick has lost the team.

I think it started with the much-maligned decision to bench Malcolm Butler in the Super Bowl, which was equivalent to saying, "Let's lose the game." Then, there was the amazing decision to put Cronk in for the final play against the Dolphins. No one can fathom that, also as Bill said, "Nobody died." Well, no, but you used to coach like every game was, in fact, life and death.

The team was incredibly sloppy in the Pittsburgh game, but it is overlooked that they were also lackadaisical against the Dolphins right up until the end.

People will put up with authoritarian leaders if they are successful, but will rebel if they aren't.

The great thing is that we will soon find out if I am right or wrong. If the team stabilizes and goes on to play well in the playoffs, I will use this blog to apologize and admit that I was totally wrong. Actually, I hope so!

The Patriots

The New England Patriots, a team I long admired, are having a tough time this year. They are 1-2 and have been beaten badly in the past two games. I think they will beat the 3-0 Dolphins by three points today, however. If they succeed, I will reveal my theory about them with my next post.

American Revolution Reconsidered

When I was a graduate student at Oxford in the late 1960's, I wrote a novel called American Revolution. Dell bought it, and American International Productions bought a film script based on it. The film was never made and the novel was not published until I put it on Kindle.

Polarization of our country is very similar today to what it was in the 60s. The book is looking increasingly relevant to our current situation, and I am thinking of promoting it as a think piece and/or updating it to take into account recent events.

Regardless of your own political leanings, I would very much appreciate your thoughts on this novel and where I should go from here with it.

Thanks,
Frank

https://www.amazon.com/American-Revolution-Frank-White-ebook/dp/B004EHZWJO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496363233&sr=8-1&keywords=Frank+White+American+Revolution

New Hampshire Speaks!

Well, I have been watching the news from New Hampshire almost nonstop since the very close finish in Iowa, and I guess it's time to make a few comments and a prediction.

It seems to me that Mitt Romney's magic word is "electability." While there isn't much enthusiasm about him in the Republican Party, people believe he can beat Barack Obama. And it seems to me that Ron Paul's key word is "consistency." You may not like his philosophy, but it is consistent and always goes back to his belief in the Constitution. However, his opponents and the media want to make his key word "non-electability." They point out that he is a bit quirky, and say that he can't beat Obama. And then, there is Jon Huntsman. His defining word is "civility." He says, rightly, that people are tried of the polarization and partisan squabbling, and they want someone who can get beyond it. This is especially true of the Independents, and there are a lot of them in New Hampshire.

I could go on, but I focused on these candidates because I think they will finish 1-2-3, with Huntsman a surprisingly strong third. I think it might be something like Romney 33 percent, Paul 21 percent, and Huntsman 20 percent. And Huntsman will do well, again, because of the Independents.

1860 and 1960

Not long ago, it occurred to me that the years 1860 and 1960 had something in common other than being 100 years apart. The year 1860, of course, was the year before the American Civil War began, and it was also the year Abraham Lincoln was elected. The year 1960 was the year that John F. Kennedy was elected, and while open Civil War did not break out in 1961, a quiet war has in fact been going on ever since.

Like all good ideas, someone else had this one as well, sort of. Adam Goodheart of the New York Times is now blogging about 1860 and 2010, and comparing the two, with a lot more knowledge of the Civil War than I have. Anyway, having acknowledged that, let me move on to my own analysis.

As soon as Lincoln was elected, war was inevitable. Everyone knew that he was an anti-slavery candidate, but even more than that, he was anti-secession. Lincoln was determined to preserve the Union, and he did, at the cost of many lives, including his own.

John Kennedy also aroused strong passions. He was clearly a break with the past, being quite liberal and also the first Catholic to be elected president. He committed his administration to ridding he country of the last vestiges of slavery in the form of segregation, and made great progress in doing so. His time in office was, as we know, cut short, and there is no way of knowing what he might have accomplished with a full four-year term.

For the past 50 years, since we lost President Kennedy, the nation has been struggling with its identity. The lines are not neatly drawn along state boundaries, but along ideological fault lines. And now we have a new president who identifies strongly with Lincoln and was endorsed by the Kennedy family. He came into office promising to bring the nation together, but instead, our polarization has heightened enormously.

Unity seems ever more elusive in these times.

My life's work is unity, so this is disappointing to me. The question is, how do we get to greater unity when we are in the midst of such disunity?

Looking back at 1860, it seems that the issue of slavery had been papered over with compromise after compromise, starting with the Constitution in 1787. As it turned out, this was an issue where compromise was, ultimately, impossible. There may be similar issues today, where compromise is not the answer, but neither is overwhelming your opponents.

The good news is that most of the polarization is actually within the Democratic and Republican Parties. As Independents become more dominant, they are playing a balancing role, making corrections in the direction the country is taking, without too much regard to party or ideology.

I think that's what the Independents will try to do today, and tomorrow we will begin to see how well they have played their new role.