Offseason amusements

Sun Tzu could take Vlad down with an army of concubines.

Aaron Williams a chance to surpass Aaron Ross as "greatest all around athlete" in the pantheon of Texas defensive backs.

Johnnie Johnson, IMO

I can’t decide what to make of everything that you wrote under “Geekdom.” I’m a little freaked out that you know all that stuff. I’m even more freaked out that I am now thinking about it. Regardless you are probably a pretty interesting guy to pound beers with. Does the show take anything into account other than a straight toe to toe type comparison? Sounds like the Attila/ Alexander/ Vlad/ Sun Tzu might be the most interesting.

There are those in this world who think Kobe Bryant is one of the greater basketball players in the league’s history and those of us that don’t enjoy Nickelback. If you are in the first group I’m not inclined to convince you to join the rest of us.

Holy balls that was funny. Brought tears to my eyes.

Attila was not a Mongol, he was a Hun.

He was also the star of a beloved BBC sitcom.

My geek fu is stronger than yours. And Carol Cleveland was a stone cold fox.

I really enjoyed the Deadliest Warrior the few times I watched it, but feel the numerous commercials and re-hashing really hurt my experience. The show could easily be trimmed to 30 minutes and be more enjoyable to me.

Crap, good catch Joe. I confused myself with 3 of history’s most deadly horsed archers all getting mentioned. I’m going to correct it and confuse everyone who reads the comments section. Also, you have one of the best pseudonyms on the site so, good job.

Whiskey: do you live in Austin? The show takes experts on the various warrior peoples, including people who are bored enough with life to take on mastery of their respective weapons, and then test those weapons CSI-style for data to use in a computer simulation.
It’s awesome for its scope, the cool knowledge you can glean from it, and the unintentional hilarity of watching the nerdy experts talk trash to their counterparts (I defy anyone to watch last season’s Spartan vs. Ninja without laughing at the douchebaggery of the ninja expert).
As far as Alexander vs. Attila/Impaler vs. Tzu I’m not sure how they’ll measure it. As individual fighters or their commands? The latter is more interesting but like I said, would take the show in a new direction.

Regarding Dan Shaughnessy: Here, let me google that for you. His douche fu is stronger than Tim’s.

Shaughnessy is an idiot. Not only is Duncan one of the best ten players in NBA history, he has a better argument than most think for being in the top five. Shaughnessy himself notes:

“Since I was in my home office at the time, I went to a reliable source: Elliott Kalb’s Who’s Better, Who’s Best in Basketball? Imagine my horror when I flipped through the book (published in 2004) and discovered that Kalb had Duncan ranked the ninth-best player in NBA history?”

That was before two more Spurs titles, of course (and another Finals MVP for Duncan).

Basketball database ranks Duncan’s total Hall of Fame score as 10th—ahead of O’Neal’s, among others (behind Malone’s, though — interesting).

Duncan’s boring. He makes up for it by being dependable. He makes up for that by playing for a small market team completely built to stifle high-scoring transition games (like the Steve Nash Phoenix Suns’, for example). Most basketball fans don’t understand his genius, apparently that extends to NBA beat writers.

At least he will make the Hall of Fame. Put him on this all-time boring team with four guys who won’t make the Hall of Fame and watch the titles roll in:

1 Maurice Cheeks
2 Dennis Johnson
3 Bobby Jones
4 Tim Duncan
5 Artis Gilmore

Boring players, all of them. All they know how to do is win.

Johnnie Johnson, IMO

This.

Akeem was better than Duncan.

Kevin McHale and Julius Erving better than Duncan? Nope, not even close. Also, I’m going to say this and make a few of you fools cry. Tim Duncan, who I don’t like by the way, has had a better career than Larry Bird. Larry is always mentioned in the tip top tier and I just don’t see it. Had he stayed healthy longer, then maybe. Shaughnessy’s a Boston guy, no? That explains the Cousy b.s.

I can’t stand Malone, but I think he gets the edge over Duncan. Best mid range jumper of a PF ever. Akeem wasn’t better than Duncan, but Hakeem was.

Shaughnessy is one of those horrific Boston homer writers that dominate the national sports writing scene for whatever reason. Just like the rest of them (particularly that douche Bill Simmons) he went from being that prick local sports writer who constantly writes negative articles about the local teams (who as far as I can tell exists in every city) to douchetastic frontrunning homer when the Pats and Red Sox started winning world championships. He’s basically the one who created the “curse of the Babe” from whole cloth. Like most Irish guys from Boston he unreservedly loves every white guy who was a star for the C’s in 60s-80s, which explains why he would have Coosey and McHale on the team.

Disclaimer: I am a Red Sox fan who hates both Shaughnessy and Simmons. Before the Sox started winning championships they were just low-level whiny annoyances. Now they’re smug Massholes except without the funny.

He’ll always be “Akeem” to me Magnus.

Alexander is known for his Macedonian Phalanx but he was a cavalryman when he rode into battle

The secret to Alexander’s tactical success was his effective use of mixed forces. While Alexander employed an improved phalanx (originated by his father, Philip), the real crux of his battlefield strategy was the use of the cavalry to create, and then exploit, gaps in the enemy line. Also, unlike most of his opponents, Alexander used the cavalry to pursue and massacre fleeing enemy armies.

Malone’s not even in Duncan’s league as a defensive player. He’s also four titles behind him.

I don’t know where I come down on Olajuwon. In a way, Hakeem is just as underrated. Olajuwon went 13 straight excellent seasons without much drop off. Duncan, at 12 seasons, is starting to show his age.

I hear you, I’m just saying he didn’t become truly great until after he matured, by that time he added the ‘H’.

That show is awesome. I do agree with you Hookem, it could be longer, or they could rehash less.

Nickel, are you still in college? If so, I’d recommend the classical civs class “greek warfare” Fucking awesome. I’d also recommend the intro to roman civ class if they angry long haired hippy who taught me hasn’t died of lung cancer or lost his voice yet. I have no idea why they pitted a ninja against a spartan. It’s a dude ruining around in a flannel night suit against a man tank. No brainer. Before guns, battles more or often than naught went the way of the person with more metal.

jones, the title thing can throw everything off in every sport. Terry Bradshaw wasn’t half the qb that Marino was.

If not for Jordan, Malone gets two rings. I’m not militant about this, as I don’t care much for either Duncan or Malone.

Nickel is in 10th grade. He’s like that kid that can perform heart surgery with a ballpoint pen and confidently tells older women to call him.

Dude is scared shitless about buying his first car though.

magnus — you are in rare form today and I think you have Nickel pegged

Titles matter far more to an NBA player’s legacy than in any other sport.

If not for Duncan, the Spurs have zero titles. The 2003 Spurs, whom Duncan completely carried, may have been the least talented (and most boring) NBA champs ever.

Hakeem was better than Akeem.

What has Brewster done in his time here to make you want to put him on the field over Gideon or anyone else? I think he’s the least athletic guy we have back there.

Duncan is without a doubt in the top 10 ever… unless you see basketball greatness as amassing the best highlight reel, in which case you make room for Dominique Wilkins. If you want a team to win, then you add a guy like Duncan. He does dozens of things every game that never show up on the game recap/highlights, but that lead to actual victory. If you had paired him with Stockton all those years, there’d be multiple championship banners hanging in Utah. If the Celtics had won the coin toss all those years ago, they’d have several more hanging, and the Spurs’ rafters would hold only retired jerseys. Maybe that’s why Shaughnessy feels the way he does….

I recall years ago reading a comment from some anonymous scout about Chris Webber – something along the lines of: “He’ll give up an open 3, then race downcourt to throw down a monster dunk, and he thinks he’s ahead…” I always thought that kind of summed him up, and his results bear that out. Well… Tim Duncan has always been the ‘anti-Webber’. Everything he does on court is predicated on leading his team to another win. So ESPN can show a bunch of “whoooooooo!!!” dunks, maybe throw in one “boring” bank shot and then throw in as an aside that the Spurs won. This was especially delicious for those few years where the Suns were everyone’s darling, and everyone came up with reasons they were the better team, and must have been robbed by the Spurs, never once checking to see that they almost NEVER won against them.

Another way to think about it is to consider who the next-best player is on someone’s team. Shaq had Kobe/Wade (and vice-versa), Malone/Stockton, Jordan/Pippen, West/Baylor, Jabbar/Magic, Bird/McHale, and Russell had basically an entire wing of the Hall of Fame… Duncan had a too-old Robinson and a too-young Parker. Probably his best teammate has been Ginobili – another vastly underrated player, but nobody’s putting him in the mix with Pippen, Stockton, Kobe and such (although that might be another good conversation; if you think about it, the years the Spurs have not won it were when either Duncan or Ginobili were injured… and of course, when refs swallowed their whistles as Nowitski climbed on Duncan’s neck to keep him from completing a simple putback – not that I’m still bitter….)

Anyway… if LeBron and co. can win it all this year, you’d have to say that on this criterion he would have to make a really serious jump in whatever place he’s going to be on the mythical ‘best ever’ list. In my mind though, even if he jumps into top 10 (and before his career is over, I don’t see how he would not), Duncan wouldn’t be the one on the bubble he’d be knocking out…

Hakeem was better than Akeem

Hakeem < Akeem < The One Man Gang

This is my list of best all-around basketball players. They all had dynamic all-around offensive games, presented mismatches and could D-up. This would preclude centers like Shaq, Wilt and Bill Russel, who each had limitations. In Wilt’s case, his free throw shooting was too much of a liability and he would not dominate as much in today’s game even with improved conditioning. This also precludes shorties like Isaiah, Stockton & Cousy.

C Hakeem – Best all-around center ever. Had marginal talent around him and owned a winning lifetime record against Jordan’s Bulls.
PF Duncan – Already discussed his consistant greatness.
SF Robertson – Did he really average a triple-double over a season?
SG Jordan – Best player ever.
PG Magic – 6’8 point guard.
C David Robinson – Why is he on the list? He had unmatched quickness and strength for a legitimate seven-footer. Also, had a good outside jumpshot. The only center who owned him was Hakeem. Outside of Hakeem, he was the best defensive center for his time. Played on two teams with 30-40 win turnarounds (his rookie year, Duncan’s rookie year the year after he sat out injured). He also played without a decent point guard for the majority of his career.
PF Baylor – Never saw play, but heard he was good and athletic.
SF Bird – A little slow, but was an exceptional shooter, passer, rebounder and team defender.
SG Bryant – Great scorer. Great all-around game. As on the Redeem-team, he’d be your defensive stopper.
SF James – The best all-around player right now. He would out-athlete any other generation. The rings will come if he stays healthy.
SF West – An iconic scorer with underrated athleticism and length.
PF Barkley – Great all-around offensive game and team defender. Edges out Malone, who relied on Stockton and the refs.

You simply could not beat this team because each player does so many things great. None of these guys would need to be feeded the ball to contribute. These guys would wreak havoc in any era.

I’d add Bob Pettit, the Stan Musial of basketball.

After reading Blood Meridian, I wouldn’t want to get within a 1000 miles of some Commanches. Ruthless.

Eskimo,

That’s a good list. The only exception is that outside of Hakeem, Robinson wasn’t the best defensive center. You’re forgetting Deke.

NY,

Henry rifle > bows and arrows
Whiskey > smoke’m peace pipe’m

Magnus,

Mutombo was a little slow-fitted. Robinson could cover much more ground. Who would you have covering a pick and roll, Mutombo or The Admiral? Also, Robinson was counted on on the offensive end, so he could not play as agressively on the defensive side.

And, just because Mutombo waived his finger, The Admiral still averaged more blocked shots per game (3.0 vs 2.8), though Mutombo was slightly better at it per minute played.

Nickel, I’m actually in the D.C. area. Sucks. Anyway, thanks for the heads up on the show I’ll check it out. Sounds like it leans towards the American viewpoint that better weapons (technology) = victory but I’ll give it a look. Not much else to watch in the spring anyway.

Football -
 
I don’t see an upside for Brewster over Gideon unless we stay in permanent nickel. Gideon runs slightly better, even if he disgraced himself against Bama tackling.
 
Basketball -
 
Cousy was a lifetime 37% shooter. The only thing more parochial and ignorant than Boston Sports Guy is New York City sports guy. Olujawon and Duncan are both Top 10 all time. Boston also has some of the most shockingly pale human beings I’ve ever encountered.
 
Geekdom -
 
I took both of John Lamphear’s military history classes at UT and was his TA as well. Great guy. The Deadliest Warrior is right up my alley, no matter how silly some of the match-ups.
 
including -
 
Somali Pirate vs. Medellin Cartel
 
Oh, lord.

Attila vs. Alexander

The more I think about this, the more convinced I become that it should be a slaughter in favor of the Greeks. Attila was defeated by Aetius well into Rome’s military decline. I see no reason that Alexander, a military genius without peer, couldn’t replicate Aetius’ success.

Despite facing a variety of different opponents (traditional hoplite phalanxes, enormous and diverse Persian armies, irregular guerrilla forces, elephant-mounted cavalry, legendary impregnable fortresses, etc.), Alexander never lost a single battle. Attila’s hit-and-run steppe cavalry style would not catch Alexander off-guard, as it did most of the fodder conquered by the Huns. I would expect the Macedonian to quickly formulate and implement a strategy to counter Attila’s tendencies, and then rout them on the field.

Well, Attila lacked the tactical genius of Subotai and Genghis Khan, but if he caught Alexander the Great on an open plain and without barricades then you have to like Attila’s chances. Flanking cavalry and mobile archers are nearly unstoppable against an army of foot soldiers on an open plain. so despite Alexander’s genius, technology would probably dictate defeat if Attila got to choose the ground.

The same principles, with tanks in place of cavalry, explain the Bltizkrieg and Israel’s success in the Seven Days War.

ghost -

Flanking cavalry and mobile archers are nearly unstoppable against an army of foot soldiers on an open plain. so despite Alexander’s genius, technology would probably dictate defeat if Attila got to choose the ground.

Alexander did not rely solely – or even primarily – on infantry. The beauty of the Macedonian army is that it consisted of heavy infantry, light infantry, archers and cavalry. Alexander used much of his cavalry to prevent his opponents from out-flanking him, and other units to drive a wedge in the middle of the line. Once this was achieved, he could push his enemy against the awaiting (and nearly impenetrable) phalanx.

I don’t see how the Huns could offer a challenge beyond Alexander’s capabilities. He faced far more diverse enemies in his day. Horse-borne raiders are one-trick ponies (no pun intended). Feign retreat, take the advantageous ground and then launch cavalry archer attack with lightning quickness. Repeat as needed. Alexander’s army, on the other hand, was a diverse, malleable and masterfully disciplined force under the direction of a military polymath.

The same principles, with tanks in place of cavalry, explain the Bltizkrieg and Israel’s success in the Seven Days War.

The Blitzkrieg is not much different than Alexander’s modus operandi, with a cavalry unit slicing through the opponent’s defensive lines and attacking from the rear.

You may know more on this than me, and if so then I apologize, but wasn’t Alexander’s cavalry primarily heavy cavalry armed with spears and shields? A mobile Hun army capable of shooting accurately from horseback is a different beast. That was the Huns big technological advantage. And I’m not taking away anything from Alexander’s genius, but the cavalry archers made a big difference.

Brick seems to be skilled in military tactics and the arts of war.

Just like that light on his toes twink that Longshanks threw out the window.

Was Attila actually using bows that would have been that useful versus Alexander’s army? Half the Persian’s problems were the fact that I could probably throw an arrow harder than their 40 pound bow could propel it (yes, a bit of an exageration). It was nice to have archers and all. Good for hit and runs, especially if they were on horse. But I didn’t think that the bow was that much of a game changer on large battelfields until they 1) developed heavier ~150+ lb bows sometime around 600 AD, and 2) started using a volley approach to hammer a group of infantry (think braveheart)

I don’t think I was very clear. I don’t know if this will clarify. Anyway, what I’m trying to say is wasn’t most of Attila’s success with horse archers due to the fact that he wasn’t shooting at armies in ‘heavy’ armor, like Alexander’s army.

magnus’s gaydar is second to none.

The Huns used a composite bow that was actually very effective. It was much better than the standard Persian bow, if not nearly as deadly as the later Mongolian composite bows. They could kill the shit out of you.

You may know more on this than me, and if so then I apologize, but wasn’t Alexander’s cavalry primarily heavy cavalry armed with spears and shields?

I’m no expert, and my knowledge is limited to what I’ve read on the subject in my free time. While Alexander’s main cavalry units (the Companions, which he rode in, and the Thessalians) were heavy cavalry, my understanding is that Alexander had several light cavalry detachments. These included foreign horse-borne archers, as well as other units armed with javelins and spears.

Alexander was very flexible in his tactics, and not afraid to reorganize his army or incorporate new tactical units to overcome new challenges. Certainly, the Huns were expert light cavalry archers. But, given Alexander’s track record, I have little doubt that he would successfully adapt to such a foe.

I still think Alexander would kill the shit out of the Huns.

The Huns used a composite bow that was actually very effective.

That is true. The composite bow was a force to be reckoned with. I’m interested to see the DW experts’ analysis on the effect of its use against the Macedonians. It certainly wasn’t enough to overcome the Romans under Aetius, but perhaps they had some countermeasure I’m unfamiliar with.

ghost – have you studied military history? You seem to know your shit in that department.

Generally, these debates quickly regress into What if Napoleon Had a Sherman Tank At Waterloo? but consider a few things:
   
We’re talking about a 700 year gap in weapons technology and a completely different tactical mindset.
 
Steppe composite recurved bows vs. circa 300 BC archery?
 
Huns are using horses as a mobile fighting platform – a degree of fighting mobility the Greeks wouldn’t initially comprehend. Alexander’s Cretan archers would possess bronze mix arrow heads, total immobility, short range, and lack of punch vis a vis the composite recurve. Not good.
 
His slingers and javelin guys would be worse than useless against horse archers. Skirmishing with horse archers? That should go really well.
 
For any sort of decisive blow, you’re counting on Alexander’s cavalry, who have no projection weapons, herding the Huns on to the anvil of the sarissas. Not likely.
 
The problem the Huns would have is the inability to inflict a decisive blow and their inability to fight in unfavorable terrain – mountains, forests, swamps, a prepared battlefield set by Greek engineers.
 
Alexander would run a scorched earth campaign on their camps, forage, and grazing, probably forcing a withdrawal. The Huns would swoop in periodically and inflict losses and then retreat. Classic war of attrition.

Waste of time? Undoubtedly. Massively enjoyable dorkfest? Yep.

And Brick, like you I’m just a hobbyist. But military history is a fascinating subject, and far more enjoyable than practicing law, as I discovered too late.

Tim Duncan totally dominates Alexander the Great in the low post. Plus, his ability to hit the 18-footer from either side of the glass negates the ability to outflank him with cavalry.

Scip -

Change one factor, then. Give Alexander access to steppe composite bows. Who wins now? I would argue it’s not even close.

But military history is a fascinating subject, and far more enjoyable than practicing law

That’s unpossible!

Eskimo,

David Robinson wasn’t even the best center in Texas, much less the league at any time during his career. He won a title as the 2nd or 3rd banana on his own team. You can’t be one of the best ever and not be the alpha dog on your own team.

Same argument for Karl Malone. He wasn’t even the best player on his own team.

BTW – Alexander did tangle with Horse Archer 1.0 when he fought the Scythians. Took him three years to deal with them, the longest single campaign he ever had to undertake.
 
I don’t know how instructive that is for Horse Archer 3.0.

“Change one factor, then. Give Alexander access to steppe composite bows. Who wins now? I would argue it’s not even close.”

See: The Napolean With Sherman Tanks Theory

Blackbeard in a nuclear sub vs. Chesley Sullenberger in an F-22 Raptor…..discuss.

Change one factor, then. Give Alexander access to steppe composite bows. Who wins now? I would argue it’s not even close.
 
And with that, we now have What if Napoleon Had A Sherman Tank at Waterloo. Like I said, I’ve got experience in how these debates go from my time as a Military History TA.
 
On thing is for certain, there is no more devious or clever military commander than Alexander – if there was an angle to play he would have found it.

Tim Duncan totally dominates Alexander the Great in the low post. Plus, his ability to hit the 18-footer from either side of the glass negates the ability to outflank him with cavalry.
 
Alexander’s low post defense would be to stab Tim Duncan in his kidney. See story of Gordian Knot.
 
He’d give up the technical foul and the free throws.

Duncan is taller than Alex, but Alex almost certainly has him on hops. Not to mention Alexander is probably going to be more comfortable playing man-to-man than most NBAers, other than John Amaechi.

And with that, we now have What if Napoleon Had A Sherman Tank at Waterloo.

It’s not the same inquiry in the slightest, really. The question relates to how Alexander and Attila would fare if given access to the same technology, not whether Alexander could dominate his contemporaries if given access to dramatically superior technology. It’s impossible to determine who the best pure commander is without somehow adjusting for technological inequity. Artificially instilling such inequity into the analysis is, as you rightly point out, silly.

And I’m glad you brought up the Scythians. I was just about to post on that subject. Alexander’s difficulties had more to do with their lack of political cohesion and, thus, inability to inflict a single strategic deathblow. But he overcame them nonetheless, consistently routing the Scythians in battle. He was not tactically outmatched, which I think is more relevant to the Deadliest Warrior comparison.

Come on folks, lets rein this in a little shall we? Back off the the improbable “what if” technology scenarios, please.

Now, how about Wookiees vs Spartans. Go.

Duncan’s only problem is that he has the same type of game typically associated with white NBA players. If he were actually white (or if he played for the Celtics), all those Boston sports journalists that seem to have infiltrated the entire country would be trying to convince the world he was the best power forward ever.

The NBA should have some sort of +/- stat for games won versus games you should have won if not for your stupid, selfish antics. Yes Allen Iverson I’m talking about practice.

BrickHorn -
 
I know. I think you understand my broader point, too. Once you get into the hypotheticals and technological parity issues, forget the political context, have each army line up nicely on a football field, ignore supply train and logistics, you’re basically just engaging in a dorm room BS session. Which is fun too. So carry on, by all means.
 
As for the Scythians – it took him a loooong while to deal with those pesky fuckers. It may be instructive.

Once you get into the hypotheticals and technological parity issues, forget the political context, have each army line up nicely on a football field, ignore supply train and logistics, you’re basically just engaging in a dorm room BS session.

True. But, lacking such hypotheticals, there’s really no debate to be had. A single technological advantage renders the analysis’s outcome inevitable.

As for the Scythians – it took him a loooong while to deal with those pesky fuckers.

Three years to quell an insurgency on foreign soil really isn’t that long. A rabble of bazooka-toting Afghans have kept the invincible United States military occupied for nearly a decade.

Burnt O Wookie – That is an excellent question and I’m disappointed in myself for not asking it.

I sat down with my Rome prof during my soph year. I’d already figured out ancient history and warfare were much more interesting than engineering (although I did/do enjoy engineering and science). I told him I was thinking about transfering in to the classical civs program. He told me I was stupid and i would starve with all the other liberal arts students since there are approximately 5 jobs in the country directly related to classical civs.

Now I’m a ChemE and make decent money. I also work in a plant that is probably going to give me cancer or fuck my brain with heavy metals by the time I’m 50. I don’t know if I should hate him or thank him.

Do the wookies get to use their bowcasters? If so, it isn’t even close. I think the better question would be a Wookie versus a Klingon in hand to hand.

“a rabble of bazooka-toting Afghans have kept the invincible United States military occupied for nearly a decade”

Yes, but I don’t think Alexander would approve of the use of smart bombs and “rules of engagement” more ruthless tactics might subdue the Afghans a bit faster.

I’d forgotten but this came up before.

I love Google. Some IRA terrorism enthusiasts found that post and protested my mockery of the IRA.

UT_06,

If the huns get their bows, wookiees get their bowcasters. Maybe I should say wookiees vs Israeli special forces. I like the wookiee in a fight with a klingon.

Then again, the Russians were pretty ruthless in Afghanistan—at least according to Rambo the 13th.

I think Scipio hit it pretty well with the fact that Alexander had no effective way to engage the Huns but then they aren’t going to run down the phalanx either. Who wins that war of attrition? We’ll have to wait for the show’s ballistic reports on the composite bow on bronze armor to have a better idea but you would expect Alexander to win a drawn out contest. Better coaching usually prevails in a 7 game series. If it turns out the bow will just rip through the Macedonian armor though I don’t know if the series goes past 4 or 5.

06 UT: I’m a graduate already, I took Morgan for Rome the Republic and he is still alive and interspersing shouts with his normal tobacco-torn voice. One of the best.
I didn’t take Greek warfare but I took enough Greek classes where it probably would have been a lot of repeated knowledge. I did take Medieval warfare which was a great topic but lessened by the professors’ lecture style (reading entire lectures from paper).

Lawdog13: Why Brewster? Seems like a lot of people have this question. Here’s why, I like 2010 Texas better as a 2-deep team than as a cover-1 team like the 2009 group. In 2009 they let Gideon hang back and chase deep flys while Thomas patrolled the shorter middle and flats.
I don’t know if Scott’s strengths match Thomas’ in recognition and short area explosion against the pass and I would rather see the safeties playing in a 2-deep shell rather than leave Gideon or anyone else to clean up when Scott isn’t Thomas. Well, we also know Gideon isn’t much of a run-supporter in the 2-deep and Texas doesn’t really want to have to use him as a force player against any competent running team.
Brewster may lack the centerfielding skills of Gideon but he’s at least a stronger tackler and more of a cover-2 safety. I would rather neither see the field but we’re waiting on Vaccaro or old Benny Wells to show something.

My favorite classes at UT were in the classics department. I had John Kroll for the 2nd half of the history of Greece. We spent probably close to a 3rd of the class covering Alexander. That was the best class I ever took.

Morgan! I’d forgotten his name. He was fun. I had him over the summer. I wish I’d had him during a spring or fall when things wouldn’t have been so rushed. I took the intros to Greek, Rome, myth, and greek ware fare. The first 3 had a lot of overlap. I had some santa looking guy for myth. Very easy class and enjoyable. The greek war fare was an Aussie teaching his first class. I enjoyed it a lot. Much different from the other 3 because we skipped all the cultural stuff (duh), most of the political stuff, and just focused on weapons, tactics, battles and what not.

What are you doing your grad school in?

I didn’t know they had a medieval war fare. I probably would have taken it (assuming you didn’t have to be a major) if i’d known. From your discription, I’m glad I didnt.

Did anyone here ever take the hobbit classes they were starting? There was huge wait list.

Scipio Africanus, Callimachus, and Themistocles always get ignored in these discussions, and its criminal. Only people who cruise off and conquer a bunch of folks get recognition for it. The people who stayed where they were and stomped invaders just don’t get credit as they should.

Eh, you sit around, build some forts, have easy access to supplies. You should win on your home court.

Real men conquer shit.

Holy hot balls, Scipio and you other guys know way too much crap about old guys that fought with sticks and bows. But, you also didn’t know that the Shankill Road is the most loyalist road in all of Belfast, so I won’t hold your geekdom against ya.

Spartans were bad ass. Nothing like men who turned themselves into ancient tanks. Seeing that guy with that massive shield, no wonder they killed the light armored immortals by the thousands. The sheer mass of it.

Magnus, that is one of my favorite movie quotes of all time. You need to watch when he is thrown from the window and lands below in reverse. Hilarious.

ernie –
 
Yeah, I knew it. My post was supposed to read “fresh off of planting a bomb on Shankill road.”

Pretty sure the fanatical “Duncan gets no respect” decriers are all from San Antonio. The next time you care about something Shaughnessy says should be the first.

“Well, we also know Gideon isn’t much of a run-supporter in the 2-deep and Texas doesn’t really want to have to use him as a force player against any competent running team.
Brewster may lack the centerfielding skills of Gideon but he’s at least a stronger tackler and more of a cover-2 safety. I would rather neither see the field but we’re waiting on Vaccaro or old Benny Wells to show something.”

Nickel-
You are aware that if we are a 2 deep team, the safeties do not have run responsibilities. That is why teams are constantly trying to force teams out of a two deep shell by running so that they can pass the ball effectively. Thus the idea that Gideon isn’t much of a run-supporter actually implies that he very much should be a 2 deep safety, and or single high safety in a cover-1 scheme. He has the ability to play the QB eyes and possess a decent range.

Brewster on the other hand is larger dude, with less fluid hips, who is a better tackler… thus it would make more sense to play him in the box. From what I have seen of Brewster he does no possess the range to be an effective cover 2 safety.

I think Scott will be a pretty complete player by the seasons end. I think he is capable of playing in the box and in a two deep shell. The only concern I have of him is being over aggressive in the run game which will result in some PA TDs occasionally. That of course will be corrected with time and experience.

huge,

Does that really matter if they are right and he is wrong?

And yes, I am absolutely a Duncan fan. I’ll make no bones about it, but Shaughnessy’s been an identified moron for awhile. I’m a big NBA guy, and the consensus is that Duncan is one of the all time greats and few, if any, would put guys like Stockton or Isiah (both great) ahead of him. Lebron may well end up being better (I believe it will happen too), but to put him ahead right now is ludicrous. Dude needs to win some rings first.

Can we please get off the boring NBA talk and back to the really important discussions?…

3 way death match: Balrog with BFG versus Rock Biter with a PoV gun vs Jason Bourne with a rolled up magazine.

GO.

You need to be a really powerful elf or a possessor of the secret flame of arnor (basically be a BAMF), so I’d put my money on the balrog.

Yeah, a Balrog can’t be beat by much. Plus any one who defeated a Balrog died in the act. So they won’t do any better than tie.

Gandalf killed a Balrog and got a promotion out of it. So there.

Fico: in the 2-deep man-under game the safeties have to be able to quickly attack the play as it develops in front of them. Downhill run support, where I prefer Brewster over Gideon. Also, I was thinking of some 2-deep quarters stuff where the safeties have a lot more freedom to attack the middle of the field and the running game because the corners are also in deep support.
The difference between a deep free safety and a cover-2 safety can very well mean a lot more run support. Think about the 2005 team, a classic cover-2 team that relied on Griffin and Huff to come up and clean up with 100 tackles apiece. You try to force teams like that out of the 2-deep look because of safeties like Gideon trying to come down with speed and tackling. With aggressive and/or fast safeties mixed with some quarters coverage you can get away with a 2-deep look without sacrificing as much in the running game.

Nickel-
In no 2 deep scheme, man or true cover 2, do the safeties have primary run responsibilities. They are pass defenders first. The whole purpose of two deep schemes is to prevent plays over the top and thus the safeties by design are not supposed to have their eyes in the "backfield." They read through the LOS for a pass run / read, take their drive steps while getting a read on the QBs drop, which determines the depth of the safeties drive 18-24 yards, they then put eyes immediately on the #2 receiver, which is whom all DBs are reading.

Safeties in cover 2 are never primary run defenders, they are never force players, leverage players, or spill players… In fact many times they are instructed not to aggressively attack the LOS until after the ball carrier has crossed.

In a 2 deep man scheme, the backs are taken by the linebackers/nickel/ dime players. As stated before the safeties are not primary run defenders.

There is no 2 deep quarters coverage unless you are talking about split coverages. Quarters coverage is a very popular coverage in which the safeties are very much involved in the run game, as they are force/leverage players.

We have run versions of cover 2 every year as almost every team in America does. None of our recent teams are what I would call "classic" cover 2 teams. None of those teams ran cover 2 as their base. We used Huff very much like E. Thomas last year and M.Griffin was Gideon with significantly more athleticism.

Teams try to get the opposing teams out of 2 deep shells in order to gain numbers in the passing game and vice versa in the running game.

Gandalf was a minor deity in a human suit, and the promotion was just by attrition at the higher levels.

Well said, General.

Brewster’s package vs gideon’s offer sheet

Fico: duh. And quarters often starts as a two-deep shell so it can be mixed with cover-2 and then end up with strength at different parts of the field. It’s useful to have quarters as a big part of the package to confuse run-heavy spread teams, the team used it heavily in 06 and 07. And I’m reasonably sure that 2005 played predominantly cover-2.

My point is this, in quarters would you rather have as a force player, Blake Gideon or Nolan Brewster? Who would you rather have come down and clean up messes after missed tackles or well-blocked run plays, Blake Gideon or Nolan Brewster? Who would you rather have over the top to come down on routes over the middle or to the sideline, Blake Gideon or Nolan Brewster?

I understand that you don’t play cover-2 to stop the run, I haven’t really explained myself very well. I think that losing Earl Thomas might mean that more 2-deep looks (including quarters which I understand doesn’t end up as a 2-deep scheme) would be beneficial but I don’t trust Gideon to respond with aggressiveness, speed, and strong tackling like a cover-2 or cover-4 safety should.
It may be that more Cover-1 with Scott patrolling the short field and offering run support with Gideon deep again is the best way to go, and this conversation has challenged me to consider that, but if the team wants to play more 2-deep than I don’t want to see Gideon back there over the other options. I want, in a 2-deep to see a completed pass or run end with a thud as the safety comes up and cleans up. Unless he has some more tricks up his sleeve as an upperclassmen, and he doesn’t, Gideon isn’t offering that.

Yes cover 4 is often run out of a 2 shell. That however that would not be cover 2 as you were stating previously and stated at the end of your last post. Unless you are referring to running split coverages as I stated earlier. If you are talking about running cover 2 as a base coverage then I will pick Gideon 10/10 times over Brewster. If you want to be a primary quarters team then Brewster might be a better answer. If you want to be flexible but remain in a cover 2 shell pre-snap then I think Gideon is your choice over Brewster. I think Gideon is better in cover 2 than Brewster is in quarters.

Well clearly you think Gideon is superior in just about every regard to Brewster. To me there is little that Gideon offers as a 2-deep safety that I don’t think Brewster can handle with more physical play and surer tackling. All that said, I don’t love either of them starting and wish one of the more talented prospects would catch on enough to take over.
Sorry for all the cover-4/cover-2 confusion, I consider quarters to be a natural combo-with playing cover-2 and something that would be a large part of a cover-2 team’s package.

I would want my safeties to be physical enough, as I think I’ve made very clear, to handle force responsibilities against the run as well be intimidating on intermediate routes while in the deep coverage responsibility of the base coverage.

Of course having particularly physical play at both safety positions hasn’t mattered much save for the National Championship game and a few other tough contests which Texas still won.

I have to state, you selected your words well. The ideas you wrote on your encounters are nicely placed. That is an unbelievable weblog!