The Weekly Chessmatch: Cowboys @ Eagles

Wonder what JG and RR will do to address the liabilities that have been exposed against the Eagles? Good lesson for Jason to take away as well.

but I would hope after the first half that enough adjustments could have been made to slow Philly. I did not see Philly slowed down in the second half on either side of the ball. So other factors creeped in besides initial strategy to affect the game. Maybe the shock of the demise affected players and coaches ability to adjust.

it was checkmate at the coin flip.

Garrett > captured pawn >useless

Reid > did what ever he wanted > queen>most powerful player on the board

Exactly what I saw and what pre-game comments from both sides said. I don’t think the next game will be at all like this one, first because Reid and the Eagles won’t have he luxury of a bye to modify their tendencies and because Rob and Jason have learned something in the process.

I seem to remember Jimmy doing the same thing to the 49’ers in his first Super Bowl year. If Jason learned anything from Jimmy we have something to look forward to.

What you said about Reid game-planning for himself and then countering that before the game even starts, to me seems brilliant. It was as if they knew what was coming before our own defense knew. We blitzed on one side, they were running the screen on that side and half our players had run themselves out of the play (not by their fault). Hell, I don’t know much about x and o’s but I could plainly see that at least in the first drive or two, we were killed not by poor tackling or coverage (although the rest of the game, I was disappointed to see both), but by strategy. Either Andy Reid got really lucky calling the right plays at the right times, or we were extremely predictable. Thoughts?

Good job on a very well thought out post.
There is no question that this game was won on strategy, but my question is how could Andy Reid have known so much of what Ryan was doing, especially considering how “unpredictable” his defense is supposed to be. The word “Spygate” even crossed my mind once or twice. It reminded me of a couple of years ago when a sorry ass Dolphins team beat down the Patriots and somebody in the Patriots started complaining that they knew the plays being called, etc. etc. (ironically, this was the year before the real Spygate).
What you ponder is also interesting as I have noticed that Jason Garret is too predictable as an Offensive Coordinator, and it seemed like for at least this week, it rubbed off on Rob. While I love JG as a head coach, I hear him defending his play calling too much on how the defense was playing. Well, guess what, if you always run the same kind of plays for a certain look the defense gives you, opposing DC are going to take advantage of it.
My point is: to my perception he sometimes is too robotic, like a mathematical formula if the defense is doing A and B then I do C. Maybe JG had a little input on this game-plan, being that he’s more familiar with the Eagles, but Reid was expecting this.

Superior strategy will put the player in position to succeed, but a dropped pass, a missed block, a poor throw, and so forth will impact the outcome of the play, and by extension the game. A talented player will minimize poor execution and mistakes, but there are 11 individuals on each side of the ball (just including offense and defense). If there is truly no such thing as a perfect game, that means that each individual committed at least one mistake. As long as two players do not commit an error on the same play (which is entirely possible), at least 18% of the plays will have an element of poor execution.

While I agree that superior strategy will defeat inferior strategy 100% of the time with all other things being equal, execution errors introduce an element of randomness on two fronts: the timing of the error, and the gravity of the error. A small error committed at the wrong time could have as profound effect on the outcome of a play as a big error.

Further randomness is also introduced when strategy is not considered a constant, but rather a fluid, mercurial element that is shaped by many factors: not the least of which is human imagination. Human imagination increases the possible variables for a counter strategy to near unfathomable numbers.

Remember that strategic principles include deception. Measuring a successful strategy depends upon the anticipation of change from the opponent: both anticipating the timing of the change, as well as the actual strategic change itself. A sound strategy and counter-strategy that is implemented at the perfect time is the gold standard. Poorly timed changes, however, can be as catastrophic as implementing a poor strategy.

Talent should be considered a variable. I would define talent as the relative individual athletic performance directly correlated to the frequency of the errors committed by the athlete. Talent is inherently highly random in nature when measured as a product of the number of errors committed. The specific quality of the opponent will have a powerful impact on the number of errors committed by a talented athlete. It is difficult to forecast how certain individual strengths and weaknesses will match-up with opponent strengths and weaknesses due to the infinite external circumstances surrounding each individual confrontation. The results of the individual competition will lead to errors.

Of course, I am now describing execution once again.

While I believe that strategy is undervalued and misinterpreted by many fans, it is impossible to isolate its true value given the variables that exist. Therefore, the outcome of an athletic event is the product of strategy and many other factors: making it virtually impossible to quantify the individual effects of just strategy.

Poor execution will limit the effects of good strategic planning. Good strategy without proper adaptation at the right time may not be enough to win. There is more to any athletic competition than strategy, luck, and emotion.

I enjoyed the article, by the way. Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

If I understand your logic, you see every event in an athletic competition as either a positive or a negative, a 1 or a 0. This can take on a “macro” application: either the quarterback completes the pass, or he does not.

It can also take on a “micro” application: either the receiver achieves proper hand placement on the cornerback to gain separation, or he does not. The result is measured as 100% or 0%. It either happened, or it did not.

In your view (if I understand it correctly), a series of events occur that culminate in a measurable result. Luck (or chance) dictates which result occurs, although if it were calculable, a probability could be assigned, such as P = .8, that would lead to the attainment of a certain result 80% of the time if enough repetitions were completed.

Since a result is dependant upon the series of events leading up to any specific point in time of the performance of the act, the probabilites are in constant flux. Milestones to the attainment of the result influence the outcome in varying degrees, making one “micro” event not necessarily equal to another.

Paraphrasing your answer above, luck is everything that takes place that is out of ones control. If you choose to perceive anything in the manner I interpreted from your answer, everything can be explained as luck, or chance.

At some sub-atomic level, you may be right.

But then how could, “…Rob, by teaching, increased the number of possible favorable outcomes.” That would suggest that both Rob and Bruce have influence over the outcome. That would be dangerously close to having control over a result, which by your implied definition would eliminate luck.

“The strategy is to manipulate the possibility of success through variables within our own control.”

Which changes the definition of strategy from something a coach or athlete uses to defeat an opposing action, to an all encompassing endeavor to improve performance. In other words, strategy as you see it is not:

“…every gap assignment can be countered by a proper blocking assignment. Rob’s excellence, then, comes from analyzing the blocking tendencies of an opponent, and preparing packages of gap assignments to counter those.”

But rather:

“…to manipulate the possibility of success through variables within our own control.”

Big difference between those two…

Got to go. Thanks for your time. Look forward to your next post.