Patton defined the term attack, Herb Brooks innovated it, Can Michigan do it?

Submitted by the_big_house 500th on

General George S. Patton "old blood and guts", is probably our nation's greatest general since George Washington and Andrew Jackson. His theory of "all out attack" made him symbolic during World War 2 as one of the only generals to have already laid down over 300 miles of advancement in two weeks. His method of continuance advancement and mobilization drove the Germans backwards on the defense and forced them in a position of disadvantage. Patton never liked to defend or go on the defense. His view of war was that to win the only way would be fight through it by moving nonstop. Continue through their lines until they are exhausted or can no longer hold. German field marshal Erwin Rommel was one of Patton’s biggest upsets by destroying Rommel's Afrika Korps and forcing the Germans out of North Africa and back into the Mediterranean. In relevance another individual also used this style of combat not in war but in hockey to win three NCAA championships (1974, 1976, and 1979)at the University of Minnesota.

Herb Brooks also never liked the aspect of defense or defending teams. His philosophy was taking the opponents game and basically using it against them to wear them down. Attacking nonstop would eventually lead to bad turnovers, poorly allowed goals and odd man rushes down the ice leaving the defense to back pedal just to catch up. Brooks had his theory put to the ultimate test against the USSR in the 1980 Winter Olympics. The Soviets had devised a system of play that allowed them to break through any defense, manipulate every play to perfection and be able to score at will whenever they were given the chance. The result 19 world championships and back to back gold medal championships. Brooks believed that the only way to defeat this Soviet force would be to use their game against them by perfecting it. Instead of defending them they attacked on all sides. The result, Tretiak being pulled for the first time in the team's history leaving Myshkin to hold the net for the USSR. Late in the game the world saw for the first time a tired, worn down and exhausted Soviet offense and defense that in the end had no answers for USA's momentum at the end of the final period. The United States would pull sports history's greatest upset and defeat the Soviet power house for the first time ever. Question is can the same thing apply for Michigan in 2010?

Rickl

January 15th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^

I think one ought to be careful about comparing football to war, especially when we're at war. I understand that certain strategies can cross lines. But still. And here I'll note Kellen Winslow Jr.'s (in)famous speech about being a "warrior." I'd imagine many actual soldiers took issue with his job-description.

Don

January 15th, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^

but If RR starts slapping injured players on the sideline while wearing a pearl-handled .45 he'll go the way of Kush, Mangino, and Leavitt.

HAIL 2 VICTORS

January 15th, 2010 at 4:29 PM ^

The fact of the matter is, Patton never fought against a foe that was anywhere equal in strength to him. All his fights were against forces that were either retreating or in decline. In Africa, the issue was decided. The Axis forces were retreating and their supplies almost cut off. The Germans in Sicily were fighting a retreat. In Normandy, the break-out had already happened and he was allowed to exploit it. Since he never fought an equal foe, much less an superior one, never fought a retreat, never had even a really serious situation, we'll never know how he'd be in real adversity. Adversity determines who's a great general and who's not. I am almost certain that Patton wore a red sweater vest under his uniform.

Seth

January 15th, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^

My maternal grandpa was a Lt. Colonel with Patton. He lost a lot of men in the Battle of the Bulge, and himself got a purple heart after being buried for a day in his foxhole.

Patton only broke through when he did because he marched his men in there before they could get air support. They took an awful risk to make it to Bastogne and link the 101st back up with the Allies' line.

My grandpa didn't survive to see the HBO Series. But I know what he would have responded to any 101st guy who said they didn't need to be rescued: "Oh, okay, well if you like we could leave..."

Engin77

January 15th, 2010 at 4:41 PM ^

are both conducted with continuous action, which lends itself quite well to the offensive actions which the OP so eloquently describes and correctly attributes to Brooks and Patton. Relentless attack can cause to opponent to tire or become demoralized by the constant pressure.

Football, on the other hand, has numerous stoppages of play, which allow the defense to regroup and overcome minor mistakes. If the offense does break through and score, they return the ball to the opponent with a kickoff. Now if the OP is proposing M develop a high-percenatge onside-kick recovery play, to be used 5-6 times per game, then I see the analogy. But until then, I'll side with those who say "Defense wins Championships".