Thursday, October 31, 2013

4 comments Gregg Easterbrook Says It Is Okay to Be Wrong, Which Means Gregg Easterbrook is Very, Very, Very Okay

Gregg Easterbrook tried to figure out what was wrong with Peyton Manning last week in TMQ and came to the conclusion he just doesn't play well in big games nor in the playoffs. Of course other great quarterbacks don't play well in the playoffs too, but Peyton is different from them because Gregg wants Peyton to be different from them. Gregg also criticized television shows for lack of accuracy, of course, and rambled about politics/bodyguards for politicians/etc. This week Gregg wants to know if the Chiefs are for real, talks about the bird population and and admits he was wrong but doesn't feel he should change his behavior or stop making stupid predictions like writing "game over" in a notebook.

They've gone from worst to first. Kansas City, laughingstock of 2012, is the sole undefeated remaining in 2013. But are the Chiefs for real?

I don't know. It's almost like the rest of the NFL season will determine the answer to this question. By the way, any followup on the 49ers and how the read-option isn't working anymore? I'm just wondering since it's been over a month since Gregg said air was leaking from the 49ers balloon and the 49ers haven't lost a game since that time.

Stretching back to his time in San Francisco, quarterback Alex Smith hasn't lost a game as the starter in more than a year. There is athletic talent aplenty, including five Chiefs elected to the 2012 Pro Bowl (and a sixth added later), and Eric Fisher, the No. 1 choice of the 2013 draft.

Yeah, but highly drafted players like Alex Smith and Eric Fisher are just glory boys who only care about themselves, right? So how can they be helping the Chiefs team win games? How about the talent aplenty on the roster, including the six Chiefs that made the Pro Bowl? Here are their draft positions...

Jamaal Charles- 3rd round
Tamba Hali- 1st round
Justin Houston- 3rd round
Derrick Johnson- 1st round
Eric Berry- 1st round
Dustin Colquitt- 3rd round

So the next time Gregg starts criticizing first round draft picks or highly-drafted glory boys as compared to undrafted players, just remember he thinks the Chiefs and their 2013 Pro Bowl representatives have talent aplenty, and no 2013 AFC Pro Bowl representative of the Chiefs was drafted later than the 3rd round.

These are full-season results: the Chiefs have six more victories after a half-season. They are sure to keep climbing.

But -- and you've already guessed a "but" was coming.

Well, of course. Gregg has to play both sides of this issue so that way he can later quote himself as being right no matter whether the Chiefs win 12 games or don't win another game. Being right is the most important thing.

The offensive line has allowed 24 sacks, close to the league-worst 32 allowed by Miami. Smith has a pedestrian 82.1 quarterback rating, lower than Jake Locker or the benched Michel Vick.

Apparently Michel Vick is the French version of the Eagles quarterback Michael Vick. 

But factor out the Chiefs, and Kansas City opponents are a combined 20-33. Kansas City victories have been posted against Jacksonville, Dallas, Philadelphia, Jersey/A, Houston, Oakland, Cleveland -- all among the league's problem children.

Gregg has got this being played both ways very well. If the Chiefs struggle in the second half of the season he can say it is because of their schedule, and he was right, or if the Chiefs don't struggle Gregg can point out what a great quarterback Alex Smith is and note how Gregg stated Smith was the best acquisition of the offseason, and he was right.

The Chiefs go home-and-home versus the Broncos twice in three weeks. After then, we will know whether Kansas City is for real -- or is the Baylor of the NFL.

Kansas City as the Baylor of the NFL really doesn't make a ton of sense. Baylor is being accused of dominating inferior competition, while the Chiefs are undefeated (like Baylor) but they aren't dominating inferior competition, but are merely winning games against teams that aren't very good. So the comparison really falters for me because the Chiefs aren't dominating the competition like Baylor has done for the most part.

In an attempt to cope with the outpouring of stats from the Mile High City, TMQ debuts Denver's Own Personal Stats of the Week. Here is the killer stat line: the Broncos are 7-1, have outscored opponents by 125 points, and if the season ended today, would be a wild-card team.

There's a reason the season doesn't end today. Of course the Broncos would be a wild-card team because of the "Peyton Paradox" where Manning is capable of winning 12 games in a season but he just can't win the "big" games that Gregg has cherry-picked as being "big" games in order to prove his point that there is such a thing as the "Peyton Paradox."

In Philadelphia's last two outings, the Eagles' offense has scored a mere three points, while punting 15 times and committing six turnovers. Quarterback injuries have been a problem -- but Kelly's offense exposes the quarterback to injures, which many NFL veterans warned the incoming Eagles coach about.

To be fair to Chip Kelly, Mike Vick (or Michel Vick, as he's known to Gregg) is usually injured and neither Matt Barkley nor Nick Foles seem like they are capable NFL starters or capable of running Kelly's offense. So Kelly's offense has failed in the NFL so far, but I'm going to reserve some judgment considering this is Kelly's first season in the NFL and he may not have the personnel he wants to run the offense effectively.

Stats of the Week No. 3: Carolina outscored its last three opponents by 96-38.

Carolina's last three opponents are 4-18 on the season. They are beating up on inferior opponents.

Stats of the Week No. 10: The Giants are 2-6, have committed 25 turnovers, and are two games out of first.

Much like how many points the Broncos have scored, how many turnovers the Giants have committed isn't relevant to how many games out of first they are. Instead, this number is relevant to the number of games the Giants have won and how far out of first the Giants are shows us how good the rest of the NFC East is.

Miami general manager Jeff Ireland's offseason decision to wave goodbye to left tackle Jake Long looks worse all the time -- Miami allowed six sacks at New England, and is last in the NFL in sacks allowed.

Doesn't Gregg mean "highly-drafted glory boy, unwanted" #1 overall draft pick Jake Long?

Ireland's decision to wave goodbye to  Reggie Bush isn't exactly looking genius-class, either. 

Doesn't Gregg mean "highly-drafted glory boy, unwanted" #2 overall draft pick Reggie Bush?

As for the 'Boys -- they continue to play as if uncoached. Early in the contest, Calvin Johnson took a routine short slant pass 87 yards as Dallas safety Barry Church air-tackled and other members of the Cowboys secondary jogged.

It also helps that a Lions player seemed to hold a Cowboys player on this play which didn't help the Cowboys chance of catching Calvin Johnson.

Then Detroit scored on fourth-and-goal from the Dallas 2 when Johnson ran the same slant on the same side of the field, with the 'Boys secondary basically just watching him. Sour performance.

It's the two-yard line. If Johnson runs a slant then there isn't much time for the Cowboys secondary to do anything but watch him catch the touchdown pass. Once the Cowboys cornerback wasn't able to prevent Johnson from catching the football, the rest of the Cowboys secondary didn't have time to react before Johnson scored a touchdown from two yards out. 

Now it's Dallas leading 27-24 with 2:38 remaining, Detroit at that point holding two timeouts, the 'Boys facing third-and-12 on their 23. A first down obviously would be nice, but an incompletion would stop the clock -- better to rush and force Detroit to spend a timeout. Instead Dallas coaches radio in a pass attempt; incompletion, the clock stops. Detroit would score the winning touchdown with 12 ticks showing. Had Dallas simply run up the middle for no gain at 2:38, the Cowboys likely would have won the game.

So it's "likely" the Cowboys would have won the game in this situation? The Lions would not have called timeout and then possibly adjusted their play-calling on the next drive and then gone the length of the field for a game-tying field or a game-winning touchdown? Gregg can't seem to understand when you change one variable in a situation then another variable will change also. It's entirely possible if the Cowboys had run the ball here, then Detroit would have called timeout and adjusted their play-calling on the following drive to account for having one timeout instead of two timeouts.

Lions stuck back on their 37, out of timeouts, needing a touchdown. Where oh where might the pass go? Maybe up the field! Flanker Kris Durham runs a basic up pattern and blows past corner Orlando Scandrick. Stafford looks right toward Calvin Johnson, whom you may have heard of, then throws back left to Durham for a 40-yard gain, the drive's big play. Not only was Scandrick making the high school mistake of looking into the backfield trying to guess the play, rather than just cover his man,

So Scandrick wasn't covering his man like he was supposed to do as dictated by the defensive play-call? That's Gregg's story in the beginning of this sentence.

but defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin appeared to have called a Cover 2 that required the corners to watch for short passes, when the play absolutely had to go up the field. 

So Monte Kiffin called a defensive play that required the corners to play the short routes? That's Gregg's new story at the end of this sentence. So either Scandrick let Durham by him because he was looking in the backfield or because that's what the defensive play-call required of him. It can't be both. So which is it, Gregg?

Perhaps Scandrick wasn't really looking in the backfield trying to guess the play (which is Gregg's standard reasoning given for why a cornerback lets his man behind him, regardless of whether it was true or not) and it was the defensive play-call that required Scandrick to cover the short routes. I realize Gregg has no clue that a defensive player must follow the defensive play-call made and can't simply choose to do whatever he wants on the field, but Gregg's criticism of Scandrick for not following Durham and allowing Durham behind him means Gregg expected Scandrick to completely ignore the defensive play-call and just do whatever the hell he wanted to do while on defense.

So maybe Scandrick wasn't making a mistake and was simply executing the defensive play-call, which is his job. Coaches tend to not look favorably on a cornerback who ignores the play-call.

When Detroit reached the 1 and was about to snap, Dallas could have called time then. Instead Dallas never stopped to regroup: presumably the unused timeouts can be donated to charity.

This joke was somewhat clever the first time Gregg said it and has gotten progressively less and less clever each time he says it, to the point now it's irritating me.

Fake blood note: Brad Pitt's "World War Z" was originally marketed as sci-fi. The Wall Street Journal reports that Paramount is now calling "World War Z" a "horror film," because that definition makes it the highest-grossing movie in a genre.

As usual, Gregg is misleading his readers here. "World War Z" wasn't marketed as a science-fiction film only. It was marketed as a zombie film that crosses several genres. Roger Ebert's old site said the film was in the genres "science fiction," "horror," "action," "drama," and "thriller." If you notice, Rotten Tomatoes reviewers can't decide on a genre for the film either. It's called a "zombie movie" and an "action-thriller." So perhaps the definition of "horror" makes it the highest-grossing movie for marketing purposes, but "World War Z" was never marketed as just a "science fiction" film.

Half a century ago, Rachel Carson's famed book "Silent Spring" predicted the extinction of North American bird life -- thus a silent spring, without chirping. Now the New York Times warns the ever-rising North American bird population is an increasing hazard to aviation.

In your face, Rachel Carson you stupid hippie whore! Gregg Easterbrook just completely owned you. Joke is on you for predicting something fifty years ago that didn't come true.

Carson's predictions were wrong because her work helped inspire environmental reforms that prevented the calamity she foresaw.

Which was probably her intent in writing "Silent Spring," so I'm not sure if that makes Rachel Carson wrong or just really, really right.

Declining toxins are probably a reason cancer deaths are down. Greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, but most other environmental indicators -- declining smog and acid rain, improving water quality and forest health -- have been positive for decades. Regardless, voters tell pollsters they think the environment is getting worse. If misconceptions rule on issues like bird populations and air quality, where the evidence is all around us, how will the nation ever to come to grips with abstractions like the federal debt?

That's a great question. If Gregg Easterbrook questions why Orlando Scandrick didn't cover Calvin Johnson running deep when there is evidence that wasn't what the play-call called for him to do, how will Gregg ever understand abstractions like NFL teams run zone and man defenses?

The Golden Tate knucklehead move will be universally mocked -- if you haven't mocked Tate yet, hurry to do so before all the slots are taken. TMQ will just ask: How often has anyone on a Super Bowl-caliber team done anything comparable?

You mean other than Cowboys defensive lineman Leon Lett holding the ball out and celebrating before he scored a touchdown during the Super Bowl, the same Super Bowl the Cowboys went on to easily win? Never. This has never happened before on a Super Bowl-caliber team.

The Rams -- how can anyone take seriously an NFL team that has reached the halfway point of the season and not scored a rushing touchdown?

As a reminder, Peter King was too focused on the Rams awesome and exciting draft to bother being worried about the Rams ability to protect their quarterback, their talent at the safety positions and the fact they had no proven running backs on the roster to help keep the pressure off Sam Bradford. This has nothing to do with what Gregg said, even though it is sort of dumb to say because a team hasn't gotten a rushing touchdown they can't be taken seriously. It just could mean the Rams have a bad short-yardage running game or have a really good quarterback who throws the ball more often than hand the ball off near the goal line. So as a general rule, Gregg's comment is kind of dumb, but the Rams really don't have a great running game and this needs to improve in the offseason.

The visiting Seahawks practically begged to be beaten, and the hosts refused. Yes, St. Louis has injuries. In the NFL, everybody has injuries.

An injury to the starting quarterback isn't just an injury. It's an injury that alters how an NFL team run its offense and how the offense utilizes certain offensive players. Yes, there is a reason teams have backups, but the Seahawks have a really good defense and the fact the Rams were starting their backup quarterback is an excuse for losing that is somewhat justified. Perhaps the Rams should have a better backup quarterback...but that's a different discussion.

For its part, Virginia Tech is no slouch in either category. The Duke at Virginia Tech contest paired a 6-1 top-division team with a 78 percent football graduation rate against a 5-2 top-division team with a 92 percent football graduation rate. That's exactly what college football needs -- games between major winning programs that both have graduation rates to be proud of. Yet if any sportscasters, including ESPNU's announcers, mentioned the two colleges' graduation rates, I missed it.

Again, it would be nice if the announcers mentioned each team's graduation rate, but it isn't their responsibility to talk about a team's graduation rate when they are announcing a college football game. What is happening on the football field is their responsibility to explain to the audience.

Comedy of Errors in Philadelphia: The Eagles' crowd steadily booed Michel Vick -- but then, that crowd had sat through nine consecutive home defeats, which was about to become 10. Eagles cheerleaders,

I'm still confused as to who this "Michel Vick" guy is. I thought at first it was Michael Vick's French cousin, but it could just be that Gregg Easterbrook is making the same spelling error over and over.

A terrible won-loss record should not be held against a high school coach, since winning games is just one of several things a high school coach should accomplish -- helping boys become men should be the essence of the high-school coach's role.

Then there are those high school coaches who are helping boys become men in more personal facets of their life and these high school coaches should be fired immediately.

Big-college programs are too quick to fire head coaches for losing.

Tell that to boosters who hate sinking money into a losing program. Tell that to an athletic director who relies on income from the football program to help fund the other sports on campus. It's not as simple as saying, "this coach loses games, but he graduates players, so let's keep him around." Other athletic programs at the school are helped with the income from the football program and crappy football programs have the potential to not produce as much money as a winning program. So big-college programs will fire a head coach quickly for losing because in college sports, due to the recruitment cycle, it can take a couple of years to turn a losing program around. Losing programs don't generate as much revenue as winning programs.

But at the NFL level, there is clarity of purpose -- all that matters is winning. NFL teams are entertainment organizations that do not serve any larger role in society. Losing isn't entertaining. It is perfectly fair to toss an NFL head coach out the door for a bad year.

It's also perfectly fair to toss a losing college head coach out the door for a bad year as well. A college football coach is hired to win football games and graduate players. If he sucks at winning football games then the school should find a coach who can do both.

TMQ's Law of Short Yardage holds: Do a little dance if you want to gain that yard.

Calling this a "law" would indicate it is something every team should do and not that Gregg only cherry-picks the times when a team doesn't use motion and then gets stopped in short-yardage. Carolina picked up a first down on fourth-and-short without using a fancy formation or doing a dance against the Buccaneers this past week, but Gregg conveniently leaves this out.

The trips receivers ran a double pick while the extra lineman provided blitz blocking. The result? A touchdown to an uncovered tight end cutting behind the combo move. Denver's Virgil Green could have been flagged for offensive pass interference as he pushed a defender out of the path of the primary receiver.

So apparently a team should do a little dance and then try to get away with a penalty to convert on on short yardage.

Misdirection pulls tend not to work in high school play, because young defenders only watch for the ball. NFL defenders watch the offensive line for cues. A tactic that doesn't work on kids may work on adults.

It also happens that some linebacker's and defensive linemen's job on a certain defensive play-call is to take out the pulling offensive linemen to free up another defensive player to make the tackle.

Panthers leading 7-3 at hapless City of Tampa, left guard Travelle Wharton pulled right. The defense reacted and followed Wharton, expecting a trap run in the direction he was moving. Tailback DeAngelo Williams ran left, away from the line motion, nearly untouched for a 12-yard touchdown.

It makes sense the Buccaneers defense reacted to the pulling guard in this situation because if they waited another second to react and Williams was running right then he would be past the line of scrimmage by the time they figured out the play wasn't misdirection. It's often the job of the outside linebacker, cornerback and defensive end on the opposite side of the play to hold containment on the outside and guarantee the running back doesn't cut back to the left. So the Buccaneers defense should have gone to fill the hole that Wharton was pulling to (seemingly) create, because if they did not then Williams would have had a touchdown to the right instead of the left had he been running right. It was the job of the defenders on the opposite side of the play to ensure Williams didn't cut back to the left.

Also, if Gregg actually watched the game he would see that DeAngelo Williams broke two tackles on his way to the end zone. It wasn't just the misdirection that caused the touchdown, but also Williams' ability to break attempted tackles by defensive players assigned to hold containment and prevent the running back from cutting back that led to Williams rushing for a touchdown.

Dewey Beats Truman, TMQ Reports: With a minute to go, the Lions looked so beaten I jumped the gun and admitted them to the 500 Club. Then I retracted the tweet rather than delete. My view is Internet errors should be corrected, but should not vanish:

Or in the case of what Gregg proclaims in TMQ, Internet errors should just be ignored completely and instead the writer should only focus on the predictions he has gotten correct.

It's OK to be wrong once in a while -- trust me, I have plenty of experience! -- so long as you admit it.

Oh really? So the air is out of the 49ers balloon huh? The read-option has been figured out by NFL defenses and the 49ers should have kept Alex Smith over Colin Kaepernick too. Where's the admitting you were wrong about that column? Not to mention, Gregg wrote two years ago that NFL defenses catch up to NFL offenses in November and this year Gregg has written like NFL defenses are never catching up to NFL offenses and the explosive offensive numbers are here to stay. One of these positions has to be wrong.

The Peyton Paradox: Last week TMQ noted that Peyton Manning has an admirable regular-season record but a losing postseason record. Readers including Marylou Jenkens of Omaha, Neb., noted that because playoff teams are as a group stronger than regular-season opponents -- there are no Jaguars A&M-class playoff opponents -- one would expect a quarterback to do better in the regular season than postseason. Reader Kirk Taylor of Summerville, S.C., broke it down further: "Only one in 12 playoff teams each postseason will escape without a loss. More than half the teams that start the postseason end it with a losing playoff record -- if you lose the first game, you don't get another chance for a win to balance it out. Only about one team in three that reaches the postseason will end the playoffs with a record over .500."

I guess the "Peyton Paradox" should be called "Useless Bullshit Theory Created by Gregg Easterbrook Based on the Result of One Game Where He Makes an Observation, Does Zero Research Regarding the Truth of This Observation and Then Writes a Column Creating a Paradox Where No Paradox Lies."

The 1,000 Club: It's more exclusive than the Trilateral Commission. It's harder to get in than Nikki Beach Club on South Beach on a Saturday night. Reader Craig McMichael notes that in juco action, in a road game at College of the Redwoods, Mendocino College gained 1,041 yards on offense, scored 10 touchdowns, did not punt, and lost.

But how could a team that doesn't punt lose a football game when punting inspires a team to play better and tells that team the head coach is playing to win the game? This goes against all Gregg Easterbrook has told us about punting and the effect it has on a football team.

TMQ has nothing against Florida State. But assuming current trends hold -- Oregon must play Stanford, FSU faces Miami of Florida -- if the BCS title pairing isn't Ducks versus Tide, best offense versus best defense, a wonderful game will be lost.

Actually, Baylor averages more points per game, more yards per game, and more first downs per game than Oregon. So the best offense versus the best defense would be Baylor v. Alabama. Facts, they are so tricky!

Next Week: Tuesday Morning Quarterback wonders again what he wondered at the season's start -- will the NFC East be won by a losing team?

Well, the last time a losing team made the playoffs (Seattle) they won a playoff game, so I'm not seeing as how it matters. Actually, it doesn't matter, because Gregg Easterbrook isn't answering this question next week anyway.


Anonymous said...

"Here is the killer stat line: the Broncos are 7-1, have outscored opponents by 125 points, and if the season ended today, would be a wild-card team."

Here's another killer stat line; because the Broncos haven't played the Chiefs yet, they control their own destiny. MIND BLOWN.

"Quarterback injuries have been a problem -- but Kelly's offense exposes the quarterback to injures, which many NFL veterans warned the incoming Eagles coach about."

Gregg's proof for making this statement...*crickets chirping* The Vikings have lost both Ponder and Freeman to injuries at various points as well, meaning the NFL game period exposes QBs to injury.

"Early in the contest, Calvin Johnson took a routine short slant pass 87 yards as Dallas safety Barry Church air-tackled and other members of the Cowboys secondary jogged."

This is hilarious. The Cowboys chased Johnson down at the 2 yard line, and Gregg says they JOGGED. He says they JOGGED. They chased down sub-4.4 40 Calvin Johnson, and Gregg says they JOGGED. Would someone fire this liar already?

"Now it's Dallas leading 27-24 with 2:38 remaining, Detroit at that point holding two timeouts, the 'Boys facing third-and-12 on their 23. A first down obviously would be nice, but an incompletion would stop the clock -- better to rush and force Detroit to spend a timeout."

I understand Gregg looks at the world through hindsight eyes, so he can't divorce his analysis from the results of the game, but at that moment stopping the clock was not that big of a deal. 2:38 remaining is too much time to just sit on your offense. Detroit had timeouts, the 2 minute far as Dallas could tell, they were going to have plenty of opportunities to stop the clock. Dallas couldn't know at that moment that Detroit was going to get two more possessions.

"TMQ will just ask: How often has anyone on a Super Bowl-caliber team done anything comparable?"

Does he ever quit with the hyperbole? Geez Gregg, never. No Super Bowl-caliber team has EVER done anything comparable. Joe Namath famously guaranteed a Super Bowl victory, but I guess that was just being charming. Deion Sanders and Michael Irvin NEVER high-stepped into the end zone. NEVER has it happened. The hyperbole is sickening.

Bengoodfella said...

Anon, yep. If the Broncos beat the Chiefs then they control their destiny. For some reason this is getting overlooked.

That's also a good point I wish I had made. Injuries happen to quarterbacks no matter what. In fact, I'm starting to believe the pocket is actually a more dangerous place for a QB to be in terms of sustaining an injury. At the very least I think a QB has an equal chance of getting hurt in or out of the pocket. Vick is injury prone anyway.

Gregg is terrible with numbers and hates hyperspecificity. He is incapable of understanding a player who runs a 4.4 isn't going to get caught by a player who runs a 4.5 once that player who runs a 4.4 has a head start. Gregg loves to lie and mislead his readers. What shocks me is there are some of his readers who don't see through him.

Hindsight is all Gregg uses to criticize coaches. He takes the knowledge he has now to point out what the Cowboys should have done, but they were being bold and trying to ice the game by getting another first down. You know what? If the Cowboys just ran the clock down and lost the game, then Gregg would say the Cowboys should have tried to get another first down since the Lions have Calvin Johnson who can score at any point. Either way, the Cowboys are going to be criticized using hindsight.

I hate hyperbole. It is the worst thing in the world.

Snarf said...

The big factor in bird population numbers is assumed to be declining releases of toxic chemicals, down about 40 percent since 1988. (Dive into the data.) Declining toxins are probably a reason cancer deaths are down.

I figured I would look into his link here... verily it came to pass that Gregg's link in no way supported his claim that "declining toxins are probably a reason cancer deaths are down." His actual link is just to a report that death rates are down, but the study that this report cites says the following in the Discussion section:

"Factors that contribute to the favorable trends for lung, colorectal, female breast, and prostate cancer death rates have been discussed in previous annual reports and include reductions in important risk factors (eg, smoking for lung cancer) and improved early detection and treatment (eg, screening as well as adjuvant chemotherapy for breast and colorectal cancers) (2–14). In contrast, reasons for the increasing death rates for pancreatic and liver cancers in men and women, melanoma in men, and uterine cancer in women have not been fully elucidated. However, the trends may, in part, reflect a high prevalence of chronic hepatitis C virus infection due to injection drug use during the period from the 1960s to the 1980s for liver cancer (55), increased obesity prevalence for liver, pancreatic, and uterine cancers (14), and increased harmful ultraviolent radiation exposure for melanoma (56). Corresponding increases in incidence rates have been noted for all of these four cancers (57). Additional cancers with increasing incidence trends include thyroid and kidney cancers. Although some studies suggest that the increase in thyroid cancer rates are largely because of increased detection of small and indolent tumors by imaging (57–59), others suggest that unidentified risk factors may also be important because rates increased for both small and large tumors (60,61). Similarly, the increase in kidney cancer incidence rates is thought to reflect, in part, increased diagnosis because of wider application of imaging techniques (62) as well as the obesity epidemic (14)."

Gregg would make the worst scientist, or anything that requires one to think analytically (come to think of it, his football analysis is probably worse).

He Went That-a-Away: Misdirection in football sometimes involves a lineman pulling one way while the runner goes the other way. You'd think this would leave the runner exposed, but if the defense reacts to the line cue, the play may succeed. Misdirection pulls tend not to work in high school play, because young defenders only watch for the ball. NFL defenders watch the offensive line for cues. A tactic that doesn't work on kids may work on adults.

Panthers leading 7-3 at hapless City of Tampa, left guard Travelle Wharton pulled right. The defense reacted and followed Wharton, expecting a trap run in the direction he was moving. Tailback DeAngelo Williams ran left, away from the line motion, nearly untouched for a 12-yard touchdown.

Gregg literally knows nothing. In HS, we were coached for our linemen to get in the hip of a pulling guard and follow him down the LOS and LBs were taught to shoot the opening gap. Essentially that a pulling lineman would tell you where the play was going.

Conversely his example in the NFL is bogus. Every NFL defense should have had a backside contain man regardless of whether the pulling lineman suggested that action was going the other way. Gregg just spouts out BS. I can't believe some people think he is sooooo smart and the "haters" just don't get him. Yes I'm bitter that this guy gets paid to write his opinions.

Bengoodfella said...

Snarf, I don't think Gregg always reads the links he provides. This isn't the first time a link he provides hasn't supported the case he was trying to make.

Gregg usually seems to be somewhat intelligent when not talking sports, but of course TMQ is a sports column. I don't think he understands NFL defenses, as shown by how he criticizes DB's for "looking in the backfield to guess the play."

Usually the pulling lineman does tell you where the play is going, but like you said, there other players responsible for backside containment. I would think Gregg would know this.