APTom Brady and Bill Belichick are the constants. ?But what makes this 2011 Patriots go as opposed to teams in the past? What defines them?
We?d argue this era of Patriots football started the day they drafted Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez. Wes Welker is a great piece to the puzzle, but the tight ends make the offense unique.
While Gronk Nation and Hernandez represent a very modern way of attacking defenses, Belichick in some ways has been working with this approach since the 1970?s. As a member of the Lions coaching staff, Belichick helped pair Charlie Sanders and David Hill in a two tight end attack that was the first of its era.
?Yeah, that was really the first ? I mean, honestly there wasn?t a lot of two tight ends in the mid-70s, there really wasn?t,? Belichick told Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports this week.
We highly recommend checking out Cole?s piece on the evolution of the two tight end attack. Hill and Sanders combined for half of the Lions? touchdowns in Hill?s rookie year of 1976. In the past, two tight ends would only be used together in short yardage situations. Sanders, a Hall of Famer, thanks Belichick every time he sees him.
?Bill always says back to me, ?No, thank you and David [Hill] for all you did,? Sanders told Cole. ?Without you guys, none of this would have happened.???
Falcons coach Mike Smith explains the matchup problems that Gronkowski and Hernandez create, calling them ?queens on the chessboard.?
?If you want to play standard personnel on defense, they flex one or both of those guys out and force you to cover them with linebackers. If you put extra defensive backs in, they line up in double-[tight end] and maul you. You never have the right personnel on the field,? Smith said.
That becomes an even bigger problem when the Patriots use their hurry up offense. Defenses can?t substitute to get the right matchups on the field.
We expect to see the Patriots play plenty of hurry up offense Sunday against Baltimore, with Gronkowski and Hernandez at the center of it all.
Source: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/19/jerome-simpson-indicted-on-drug-charges/related/
rich forever rick ross project runway all stars elin nordegren kansas state tangled ever after king cake last house on the left
The idea that consciousness involves different streams of thought has a long history. Paul Bakan has shown that as early as the medieval writings in the Zohar, one of the books of the Jewish mystical biblical commentaries in the Kabala, one finds a distinction between two forms of cognitive thinking: hokma, or wisdom and binah, or intelligence. The former has been linked to the right brain and to synthetic mental processes, and the latter has been linked to the left brain and to analytic thought. This conception of a dual nature of ongoing mental processing is also traceable to the early flowering of neurological research and theory in the works of A.L. Wigan and J. Hughlings Jackson. This early work suggested that there might indeed be two forms of thinking, propositional or verbal-analytic and representational or what we might today call narrative or experiential.
While Kahneman?s book, and his research, has been influential in psychology and economics in helping us understand the fallibility of human reasoning and decision making, we think his emphasis on the fallibility of System 1 overlooks the important adaptive value of System 1 for creative thought and imagination. System 1 is a broad system, comprising evolutionary adaptive tendencies, domain-specific expertise acquired during an individual?s learning lifetime, episodic memories, gut feelings, and implicit learning capacities. Reflecting the diversity of System 1 processes, there are many different dual-process theories, and different theorists emphasize different aspects of System 1. While it?s certainly true that there are moments where our inability to use System 2 to override System 1 can lead to errors in reasoning and decision making, we also think there are crucial moments when one can fail to use System 1 to override System 2!
The researchers found that the more creative the participant, the more activity in their default brain network was altered. The default network brain areas are most active when individuals are focused on the contents of System 1 (their internal stream of consciousness). In this study, creative individuals had the most difficulty suppressing the precuneus area of their default brain network while engaging in the more effortful working memory task. The precuneus is the area of the default network that typically displays the highest levels of activation during rest (when a person is not focusing on an external task). The precuneus has been linked to self-related mental representations and episodic memory retrieval.
While zoning out was detrimental to creativity, those who caught themselves mind wandering performed best on a measure of creativity. Those catching themselves mind wandering also showed the highest levels of inhibitory control. These results are consistent with a recent study conducted by Jennifer McVay and Michael Kane, who found that those with the best inhibitory control are the ones who catch themselves mind wandering and have low zone out rates. This study goes beyond those findings though by also highlighting the importance of mindwandering: ?This study suggests that both creative thought and mind-wandering may both depend on being able to gain mental distance from what you are doing while maintaining meta-awareness of the contents of imagination.? As Schooler and his colleagues note in a recent review, a number of difference research studies now suggest that mind wandering reflects these two crucial processes: the capacity to disengage attention from perception as well as the ability to notice the current contents of consciousness (?meta-awareness?). In other words, the ability to harness your System 1 thought processes in a way that is accessible to System 2. It?s all about the dynamic interaction of the two modes of human cognition.
