Football theory...

[IrishAZ]

I'm a chess player.

 

I really enjoy the game, and one of the things about it which I enjoy immensely is the huge amount of intellectual fodder there is to ponder and the sheer complexity and near limitless potential of the game.

 

I'm also a football fan.

 

And, like chess, I believe football provides the same intellectual fodder, complexity and near limitless potential that the grandfather of games provides, not to mention being a tad more exciting.

 

When I deal with European friends, sports is always a hot topic - and the age-old question of "Rugby vs. American Football" comes up with regularity. I've gotten so sick of the predictable "it's not football! You barely use your feet" thing that I've started referring to *our* version of football as "Grass-Chess with Running and Violence" or just GrassChess for short.

 

And tha parallels are unmistakable: both games have specialized pieces/players. Both games seek similar goals in terms of getting and holding territory. Both games have a similar look inasmuch as there are two lines facing each other across the field

 

For all this similarity, though, there's one thing Football coaches are privy to that the average fan doesn't have, but for which Chess has in huge amounts: theory.

 

Now, I'm not talking about the "run the ball, stop the run" or "defense win championships" or "run to setup the pass" type strategies.

 

Those anectdotes are nice and mostly accurate, but not interesting enough to grab the imagination and keep us occupied for 6 months while we await the start of the real part of the year.

 

They rather lack the core questions of how and why.

 

So, I'm going to write some stuff I've been pondering for a few months, borrowing from a fair amount of loose sources to try and build a theory (or set of theories) that explain those questions of why and how.

 

And I hope you all participate and your own ideas and experiences as players, fans and coaches. At worst, it's passing time being football geeks. At best...well, you never know. We might end up developing an unbeatable strategy that will forever go down as the HuskerBoard Offense.

 

At any rate...and I'll split this into another post....the first part of my emerging theory: Space, Time, Position, and Capability.

 

IRISH!

[bigredtoad]

Interesting very interesting.

[IrishAZ]

In chess there are 4 essential elements: Space, Time, Position and Power (Capability).

 

In order to win a game, you need to have dominated at least one of these elements.

 

Space gives you room to manuever. Time is the initiative and the ability to get pieces into play before your opponent. Position is the favorite of puzzles and some of the more daring players (Tal and Fischer). And capabilty is the ability to have the right pieces in the position to achieve the goal.

 

How does this relate to football, then?

 

In football, space is obvious; in fact, it's the point of the game.

 

Gaining yards, field position, putting the ball across the goal line, punting and kickoffs. Space is the underlying concept for the entire game. Offsenses seek to gain it, defenses seek to stop offenses from gaining it and aggressive defenses seek to gain their own space.

 

Time seems obvious - I mean, there is a clock and in the NFL some teams have coaches dedicated to just clock management. But that's the larger concept and not the whole of it.

 

At the micro-level, time is subtle. The speed at which a play develops, the timing of drops and passes, delays and draws, using the play clock, snap counts and cadences, reaction time.

 

At the macro level, the game follows stages under certain situations - from kickoff to halftime to kickoff to end, each part of the game is like chess with openings, middle and end games. Included in the macro concept of time is using timeouts, 2-minute drills, time of possession.

 

Position is rather subtle in terms of the game, but is the most visible. It is simply the combination of a player being in a particular place at a particular time.

 

Most likely, the first thing a game watcher notices when the teams line up is the offensive formation. Second is probably the defensive formation.

 

Position is not only formation, though. Position encompasses player placement, coverages, assignments, blocking schemes, route running, misdirection, stunts, running and passing lances, motion.

 

Lastly, there is Capability. On a team scale, this can be the big numbers that most fans like - yards gained, defensive stats, turnover ratios, etc.

 

But, a more detailed look yields the intangibles that are often talked about - tackling ability, vision, decisiveness, soft hands, cut back ability, blocking ability, arm strength and accuracy, ball handling, awareness, separation.

 

One thing that may be missing in this list, but is often talked about, is athleticism. Where does personal talent fall into this matrix?

 

Speed and athletic ability (heretofore called "talent") is just a composite way of achieving position without having to deal with the complexities of Space and Time.

 

Ok, I know this is starting to sound more like science fiction or the Discovery Channel than football, but bear with me.

 

If the nature of Position is being in the right place at the right time, then athleticism lets you achieve that more easily. It is not, however, the *only* way to achieve Position, just the easiest.

 

So, what does all this mean?

 

I think it means that in order to win, you have to have a significant advantage in at least 2 of these categories at any point. And the context of using these resources will come up next: The Game Within the Game Theory.

 

IRISH!

[Eric the Red]

I like this Irish, keep it coming. A lot to digest.

[joshuavacek]

DAMN. I love it. So true.

[IrishAZ]

"A single battle does not make a war"...

 

Or something like that. I don't recall who said it first, but it sure seems accurate, doesn't it?

 

In football, you have a dozen little battles happening at the same time with each play as each player tries to overcome the player across from him.

 

Consider these matchups the little battles of the campaign that is a football play. Then consider the sum of all the football plays to be the war that is the game. Each of these matchups is the Game Within the Game.

 

What happens in these individual matchups is that each player tries to gain an advantage in one of the elements of Space, Time, POsition, or Ability (STPA) in order to win the individual battle.

 

At face value, it seems obvious - the offensive lineman and the defensive end trying to win Position, the receiver and the cornerback jockeying for Space, the QB using the snap count and cadence to control Time, the RB juking a linebacker out of his socks with the difference in Ability between them, and so on.

 

Analysts will look at the players on opposing sides in opposing positions, provide an arbitrary (or on rare occasion, objective) analysis of the matchup, determine who should win the matchup, and then declare a game winner based on the sum of these individual matchups.

 

So a team which wins the individual matchups wins the play, and if they consistently win the play, they win the game. Sounds reasonable and most people believe it.

 

But what if you win the majority of the plays, but don't win the game?

 

In the history of conflict and competition, we see patterns at times. A point in the confrontation when the tide is clearly turned. Waterloo. The Normandy Invasion. Midway, Denver's first punt against Indianapolis, Bush winning Ohio.

 

This is a common thing in football. One team dominates statistically in yardage, first downs, yards per play, etc. but still loses. So, how does something like this happen?

 

The answer is another familiar term: the "Big Play".

 

Let's draw a parallel to chess with this.

 

One side can have all the advantages - plenty of Space, well developed pieces (Time), every piece defended (Position), good attack chances (Capability). Then, the other side makes a daring move, or even a sacrifice! A piece crashes into the opponent's well-formed lines. Suddenly the carefully constructed game is wrecked and the player who dominated for 30 moves is on the defensive while the one who was losing for those 30 moves is charging in and going for the kill.

 

The attacker gives up vying for Space and Time and opts for Position and Cababilty in a crushing play to win.

 

In football terms, the Big Play offense forgoes trying to control the clock with a slow ground game or gain Space with yardage eating mid passing routes and goes vertical looking for the knockout. The Big Play defense goes for the pick, not the tackle or blitzes heavily.

 

No boxing, just slugging.

 

Granted, only a fool would game plan hoping for a haymaker knockout, but *every* play seeks to be a "Big Play".

 

The Big Play in terms of STPA is a massive gain in Space in a short amount of Time (the opposite of chess - but then, in chess checkmate is the goal, not moving the ball).

 

So, the Game Within the Game means there are multiple levels of play and that teams not only try to dominate STPA at all levels with regularity, but also seek to gain a crushing advantage via the Big Play.

 

In the next article, I'll talk about how these all fit together, bring up what the ancient philosophers thought of Football and include the off-field components of the game: Leadership and Emotion.

 

IRISH!

[Blackshirt]

Holy crap Irish you are killing it. Thanks for the brain dump Professor.

[IrishAZ]

Holy crap Irish you are killing it. Thanks for the brain dump Professor.

Thanks

 

Y'all feel free to jump in here as well!

 

IRISH!

[bigredtoad]

Man this is some intriguing stuff but a bit too deep for The Toad on a Friday night. Need to soak it all up over another case o the bud lights.

[turkwilliams]

Man this is some intriguing stuff but a bit too deep for The Toad on a Friday night.  Need to soak it all up over another case o the bud lights. 

Say BigRedToad, I have a philosophy of my own. It's a little more simple than that of IRISH......

Recruit the nastiest defenders you can possibly find in Nebraska, the biggest linemen you can possibly find in Nebraska, the biggest/nastiest fullback you can find and someone worthy to carry the pill. Get 'em worked out and drilled out.

 

Next, you find an opponent foolish enough to challenge the RED MACHINE.

 

Once you have them on the field and they cannot escape, apply this philosophy to the game....

 

JAM IT DOWN THEIR THROAT!!! THEY WILL EAT OPTION AND THEY WILL LIKE IT!! DO IT ON EVERY 1ST DOWN!!! GET 'EM SUCKED IN AND SLAM IT IN THERE AGAIN!!! DESTROY ALL HOPE OF STOPPING THE DIVE AND OPTION THEN for the 'coup de gras'...PLAY ACTION PASS TO THE TIGHT END ON A SEAM ROUTE!!!!AFTER YOU SCORE, UNLEASH THE BLACKSHIRTS, MAKE 'EM 3 AND OUT.....AND RESUME BEATINGS!!

 

[Blackshirt]

Right on Turk, I like it. Sound like an old schooler... you should fit in just fine around here.

 

Read your HuskerNation bio, very nice, welcome to the board man, good to have you.

[IrishAZ]

That's a perfect example of good SPTA - run to shorten the field vertically (gaining space behind the linebackers), exploit the shortened field and difference in size (position and ability) by putting a large TE into the secondary, then use use Deception (a topic I've not completed) to exploit the vulnerable Position.

 

The use of the Defense to force 3 and outs and the consistent running game is gaining advantages in Time.

 

The only way that type of strategy can be stopped is by not giving up Space - meaning, the option runs don't net enough yards to claim the defensive backfield Space and so all the other advantages fall away (Position and Time).

 

So, your theory...my theory...it's all *our* theory! :

 

More to come...I haven't forgotten this topic...I've just had a bit of a block working from my original outline.

 

IRISH!

[Eric the Red]