10 comments Gregg Easterbrook Doesn't Know What Defense the 49ers Run, Bases This TMQ on Them Running a 4-3 Defense

Gregg Easterbrook told us in last week's TMQ that he will be attending the Super Bowl, but he won't sit in the press box because he thinks the way to watch an NFL game is in the stands. Plus, he's really not the press any more than he is a pretentious guy who has coached a few football teams and believes this makes him qualified to talk about the NFL on a weekly basis. This may shock you, but last week Gregg continued to make things up, like saying the Colts were emboldened by the Chiefs continuing to throw the football when up 20+ points, and he misled his readers by claiming Ben Grubbs was "unwanted" by the Ravens when he actually signed a big free agent contract with the Saints. Gregg decides this week that the West Coast defense is all the rage, whatever "West Coast defense" may be. Gregg also takes on The Big Bang Theory because this is a column about the NFL and football so obviously a discussion of space is relevant. Finally, someone in the sports world has the guts to take on scientific theories about the universe's origins.

For years, the Pacific side of the United States has been associated with the West Coast offense. Sunday, the NFC title game will showcase the West Coast defense.

I see what Gregg did there. Pretty soon the Pacific side of the United States will be known for it's West Coast special teams. It's an exciting time.
 
The breakthrough idea of the West Coast offense was throwing passes that are designed to be short. Before Bill Walsh, nearly all passing routes were drawn up with long gains as the goal. Walsh realized that short passes could be like extended handoffs. Today at the prep, college and professional levels, football playbooks contain far more short passing routes than long ones.

Of course the veracity of this statement depends entirely on what your opinion of "short" passing routes are compared to "long" passing routes. A certain play will involve multiple receivers running different routes, some of which may be long routes, others may be short routes. So basically Gregg seems to be full of shit, depending on what you think a "short" passing route may be. As usual, Gregg may be right or he may not be right, but his statement is entirely unprovable really since each receiver runs a different route with different depth than another receiver on the same play call.

What's the breakthrough idea of the West Coast defense? Back to basics. During this young century, "unorthodox" has been the favorite word of defensive coordinators.

It's really easy to go back to basics when a defense has talented players who don't need complicated schemes to be successful. The players are always the reason for success, not a "back to basics" mantra. What may be "back to basics" for the Seahawks and 49ers could be a vanilla defense for another team with lesser defensive players.

This is not the theory of the West Coast defense. The Seahawks and 49ers play conventional fronts, usually a vanilla 4-3-4, and rarely blitz.

I didn't know the 49ers played a conventional front that was a vanilla 4-3-4. Gregg may want to inform the 49ers of what defense they play because the defensive coordinator for the 49ers seems to believe he runs a 3-4 defense. Obviously Vic Fangio just doesn't know what he is talking about and Gregg is right that the 49ers really run a 4-3-4 defense. This also explains why Aldon Smith, who is a linebacker,  has 42 sacks in his career because the 49ers rarely blitz.

I guess we are just lucky Gregg knows that the 49ers play in San Francisco and not Sacramento because it seems like otherwise he doesn't know very much about them. I think it's fantastic that Gregg's basic premise for this TMQ is complete shit due to him not even knowing what type of defense the 49ers play. Keep staying ignorant Gregg, don't ever change.

There's no mystery about where Seattle or San Francisco defenders are going to be. Offenses know exactly where they're going to be; the problem is outperforming them. Seattle's maddeningly effective corners are not trying to fool quarterbacks, rather, they want to stay glued to receivers. Both teams' front fours usually are coming straight ahead -- maybe a twist, but little funky stuff. Linebackers for both teams crash on rushes and drop on passes, like linebackers of a generation ago.

So much wrong with this group of sentences. I'll put the problems in list form.

1. Offenses don't know where the 49ers and Seahawks defenses are going to be. That's why they are good at playing defense.

2. Other team's cornerbacks are not trying to fool the quarterback either when playing coverage. The Seahawks run a lot of man coverage because they have the corners that are capable of doing this.

3. A Seahawks linebacker, Bobby Wagner, has five sacks on the season. He blitzes a lot. The starting linebackers for the 49ers have 25 sacks on the season, which is 65.8% of the entire team's total. But again, the 49ers play a straight defense with no fancy twists and the linebackers certainly don't blitz.

4. The 49ers don't have a front four really because they run a 3-4 defense.

5. Again, the linebackers for both teams blitz. In fact, the Seahawks linebackers can blitz because they have such great cover corners and safeties.

The West Coast defense is refreshingly simple. Seattle and San Francisco use old-fashioned tactics and outperform offenses. 

Apparently the 3-4 defense, which Gregg had previously referred to as a "fad" is now an old-fashioned tactic. Good to know.

The West Coast defense is refreshingly simple. Seattle and San Francisco use old-fashioned tactics and outperform offenses. 

It doesn't seem important that neither the Seahawks or the 49ers defense is lazy, but now that you have pointed it out Gregg this does seem important. Thanks!

And of course Seattle and San Francisco have good players. But most NFL defenses have good players; the Seahawks and 49ers have good players who reach their potential, and they're doing it the old-fashioned way.

The 49ers and Seahawks just have better players than other teams with a better defensive scheme that brings out the best in these players.

Saturday at New England, Chuck Pagano ordered a punt for which "preposterous" is too mild a word. Colts trailing 43-22 with 10:16 remaining, they faced fourth-and-1 -- and in trotted the punting unit. Who cares if the spot was the Colts' 29? Trailing by three touchdowns in the fourth quarter of a playoff game, it's insane to punt on fourth-and-1. 

Clearly Pagano quit on the game, and was more concerned with holding the hosts under 50 points -- Indianapolis lost 59-24 the last time it visited New England -- than going all-out to win. But what to call a fourth-and-1 punt when trailing by 21 points in the fourth quarter of a playoff? Unconditional surrender.

Gregg skips over the part where Pagano admitted this was a bad decision and he would do it differently if he could do it again. But I'm sure that was just a cover-up for his real intentions of keeping the Patriots under 50 points by giving the ball back to them.

Stats of the Divisional Round No. 3: San Francisco has followed a 1-3 streak with a 13-2 streak.

Isn't it funny how Gregg doesn't acknowledge the TMQ he wrote on September 24 where he counted the 49ers out and said the air was leaking from their balloon? It seems like the 49ers were able to patch that hole in the balloon, which is something Gregg won't acknowledge for fear of being seen as wrong.

San Francisco leading 6-0 in the first half, the Panthers reached third-and-goal on the Niners 1. Carolina came out in a power set and ran straight ahead: stuffed. Then on fourth-and-goal, came out in a power set and ran straight ahead: stuffed. No misdirection either time.

But then the Panthers went for it on fourth down, so that told the Carolina offense Ron Rivera believed in them, so this would verily lead to the Panthers winning the game, right? Fortune favors the bold? Or does fortune not favor the bold if there is no misdirection involved? Also, the Panthers didn't run straight ahead. The quarterback tried to sneak into the end zone, which is different from a run straight ahead with the running back.

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

Which is exactly what Carolina did the next time they were in a goal line situation and that failed as well. I guess this "law" is more of a "suggestion" that may or may not be correct.

Scoring to pull within 24-14 with six minutes remaining, San Diego onside kicked. Nick Novak launched a terrific onside, very high in the air; the Denver man beneath the ball didn't have the presence of mind to signal fair-catch. Sweet for the Bolts. Now it's Denver 24-17 and San Diego is kicking off again with four minutes remaining. Sure, lightning isn't likely to strike twice, but the league's No. 1 offense isn't likely to punt, either. San Diego did not onside kick a second time and never touched the ball again; the clock struck midnight on the Chargers' improbable late-season run.

The odds of recovering an onside kick are probably a lot lower than the odds of getting the Broncos to go three-and-out in this situation, especially since the Chargers had held the Broncos powerful offense to 10 points in the second half. I thought kicking off here was the right call as opposed to trying an onside kick again and hoping to recover it.

Florida State won the final BCS title. In the run-up or the postgame, did you see any media coverage about the Seminoles' 58 percent football graduation rate?

No, because it wasn't the college Quiz Bowl National Championship. It was a football championship, so the football analysts talked about football.

Seminoles boosters and alums who are proud of the crystal trophy should feel embarrassed by the football program's subsidies and poor classroom performance. Of the 11 Seminoles selected in last year's NFL draft, eight graduated.

That's actually not bad. It's a 72.7% graduation rate and the three Seminole players who didn't graduate all left college early for the NFL. Can't exactly blame FSU for a college athlete not completing his degree prior to being at the college for four years can we?

Good for them! But what about the much larger number of Florida State football players who will never take a snap in the NFL, and never walk to "Pomp and Circumstance?" They are used up and thrown away. Florida State and its coaches exploit those players; the sports media is complicit.

Since Gregg is so worried about these players how about he contributes all profits from his book sales to help these FSU players who were exploited by being given a full scholarship to the school and for one reason or another did not graduate? Maybe college players should be paid, but that's a different discussion. FSU has an obligation to try and get their athletes to graduate, but they can't force them to graduate.

If purists must cling to the singleton PAT kick, then move the spot back. Teams could choose between spotting the ball at the 35 for a one-point PAT kick of about 52 yards -- that's where it would have to be to prevent the kick from being automatic, because NFL kickers now hit nearly all attempts from the 40 to the 49 -- or spotting the ball at the 2 for a two-point run-or-pass try. This rule could only make football more exciting!

I don't know. I think moving the ball back to the 35-yard line is probably a bit far back, but I guess this would increase excitement.

This item is a trailer for TMQ's Jan. 28 column -- the week between the title games and that Super Bowl thing -- whose subject will be how to reform football.

I'll save all my criticisms and comments for the January 28 column when Gregg officially tells us how his genius brain will reform football. I like how Gregg isn't aiming to reform the NFL, but football as a whole.

In the Bolts' surprise December victory at Denver, San Diego threw Peyton Manning off-balance by being unorthodox. The Chargers had two defenders moving around at random pre-snap; no matter how much arm-flapping Manning did, he never figured out where those defenders would be because, moving randomly, they didn't know either. Sunday in the divisional round, San Diego switched from unorthodox to a conventional West Coast defense.

Two issues with this group of statements:

1. This "West Coast defense" thing is really becoming a "thing" with Gregg isn't it? I do not look forward to his further use of these words...especially if he isn't going to consistently get the type of defense a team runs incorrect.

2. The Chargers run a base 3-4 defense, so I'm not sure this fits Gregg's definition of the conventional West Coast defense. Though since Gregg has so far named two teams from the West Coast that run a 3-4 and one team that runs a 4-3 as being the "West Coast defense" then maybe the West Coast defense is really a team that runs a base 3-4 and not a base 4-3.

But the hosts built a quick 14-0 lead, then spent the contest hanging on. Maybe San Diego figured Denver had prepared for random movement, and conventional would come as a surprise.

That's probably exactly what happened. The Chargers completely reversed the tactics that worked in the first game as a way to super-surprise the Broncos and make it easier for the Broncos to recognize the coverages the Chargers were using. I'm sure that's what happened. The Broncos were so surprised they couldn't score points, except they did score points.

The Bolts started slow -- 1 yard passing in the first half -- which perhaps made Denver overconfident. In the second half, San Diego gained 193 yards passing, and had the home crowd sweating.

These are called "halftime adjustments," Gregg. The Chargers adjusted, plus the Broncos lost one of their best corners in the second half, which may have had something to do with it as well.

Versus San Diego, this happened again: Manning's ultra-short throws resulted in an average gain per pass of only 6.4 yards, versus an 8.3-yard average during the regular season. Denver' big gainer of the day was a 21-yard catch. Maybe the coaching staff just wanted to get the Bolts out of the way and prepare for the title game. But it's going to take more voltage on offense to defeat New England.

The Broncos have been held under 400 yards three times this season. The Chargers have been responsible for the Broncos being under 400 yards every single time. So maybe the Broncos plan on scoring more points, but the Chargers defense is just good at stopping the Broncos offense.

New Jersey has been on the nation's front pages for a week, and as usual, for all the wrong reasons. Gov. Chris Christie, who not long ago was mocking those who said lane closures had been used to create traffic jams in a city whose mayor didn't support him, last week admitted this was true but claimed he was never told the traffic jams occurred.

I thought Chris Christie said he knew there were traffic jams, but denied knowing that those lane closures were retribution against a city whose mayor didn't support him? I feel like Gregg has this backwards, though I could be wrong.

The University of Louisville should at least pretend that it cares about character. And should remember TMQ's Law of Weasel Coaches: When you hire a coach who only cares about himself, you get a coach who only cares about himself.

While I didn't like the Petrino hire for Louisville, when a college program hires a weasel coach they sometimes get a coach who takes them to great postseason success, as Auburn can attest and as Alabama can attest as well. Gus Malzahn walked out on Arkansas State after one year to go to Auburn and Nick Saban has been called a weasel coach so many times by Gregg it's almost lost it's meaning.

Absent this down, Carolina held Gore to 45 yards on 16 carries. Seattle will notice that and try to take away Gore, forcing Kaepernick to throw at the Seahawks' well-regarded corners.

Wait, so the Seahawks may try to stop a run-based offense from running the football and try to force this offense that was in the very bottom of the NFL in passing offense to pass the football? No way.

There's another level to why NFL stars and coaches snarl at the media -- they want to believe what they're doing is incredibly serious and important, a life-or-death matter. Actually, what they're doing is providing entertainment, and the sports media is part of the act. Often it's terrific entertainment -- but entertainment is all that it is. When reporters are snarky to NFL stars and coaches, it's a subconscious reminder that whether the Patriots win or Lynch scores a touchdown has absolutely no lasting impact on American life.

I don't know about snarling at the media, but many times a head coach will be short or not give an answer to a question posed because the media members are wanting one of three things:

1. Information on an injured player that the coach isn't ready to provide or doesn't have an answer for.

2. A quote that can be used to create a column, which usually means a quote that would get the other team riled up. Such as "Player X said this about your offense, care to respond?" Or a reporter could ask something to a player like was asked of Steve Smith after the 49ers playoff game.

3. It is a question the coach/player has already answered once or twice. Recall how many times reporters posed the same question to Aaron Rodgers this year about when he thought he would play again after his injury.

So I won't say NFL stars and coaches don't take their job too seriously at times, but there are other reasons for a coach or player to be short with the media.

On the initial Indianapolis possession, the Colts faced third-and-2; the Flying Elvii had press corners across from every receiver. Luck threw a short stop, which can't work against a press corner, rather than audible to a go or an out.

A short stop can work against press corners if the quarterback delivers the football to the right spot away from the corner and the receiver shields the football with his body away from the corner. It's silly to say, "a short stop doesn't work against a press corner" when this type of pass can work if executed well.

New England's sudden proficiency in power rushing means for the AFC title contest, Denver coaches must prepare to face either fast-snap passing or clock-control rushing. 

Another great point. The Broncos must be prepared for the Patriots to run the football or possibly pass the football. They can't prepare for the Patriots to just throw or run the football, but have to prepare for both. I'm sure the Broncos had not thought of this.

The Football Gods Chortled: Seattle leading 16-0 late in the third quarter, punter Jon Ryan dropped the snap. It might have been a huge loss for the Seahawks and a momentum swing for New Orleans. Except -- the Saints had called a return, so no one rushed the punter. Ryan got the kick away.

The Saints should have been able to predict the future, or at least use hindsight like Gregg is using here, to KNOW that the best punting unit in the NFL would drop the snap and therefore the Saints need to rush the punter.

Gregg then begins to talk about the Big Bang Theory. I'm not as learned on space and science as I need to be in order to refute his argument, but Gregg is not convinced the Big Bang is what started the universe. Of course most of Gregg's doubts are couched in terms of him just saying, "Boy, that doesn't make sense" as opposed to any type of scientific knowledge or evidence he has, which shouldn't surprise me.

Some might wonder why Chainsaw Dan was anxious to hire Gruden, the offensive coordinator of the Bengals, just a week after the Bengals offense stunk up the joint in a playoff loss. That's why Snyder wanted Gruden! He's a perfect fit for the R*dsk*ns program.

I stick by the fact Dan Snyder thinks he has hired Jon Gruden. It's not Jay Gruden's fault. If I got offered a head coaching job when I was currently an offensive coordinator I would take the position too, especially after a playoff game where my offense didn't exactly look great.

Saturday, the Saints called six tailback screens. Two were broken up by the Seattle defense, two resulted in dropped passes, two gained first downs. Had New Orleans screen plays done better, the game result might have been different.

Is there a more non-committal and vague statement possible than this one?

"If X had turned out differently during the game then the outcome could have been different."

Oh, so if the Saints had success on all their tailback screens then the game's outcome MAY have been different. Or the game's outcome may not have been different.

The West Coast defense of the Seahawks isn't exactly a Tampa 2 but is similar: corners are in the receivers' faces and stick to receivers as if their bodies were coated with flypaper.

Oh Gregg, in the Tampa 2 defense the cornerbacks do jam the receivers at the line of scrimmage but then fall back into zones and don't stick to the receivers. The Seahawks have cornerbacks who are great man-to-man coverage guys and the Tampa 2 defense doesn't require corners who are great in man-to-man coverage. Please stop talking about defenses if you aren't going to sound like you know what you are talking about.

Still, Pete Carroll can't be happy that the Saints outgained the Bluish Men Group 409-277 in offensive yards and 25-13 in first downs. The visitors missed two field goals and failed twice on fourth downs in the Maroon Zone. Had even one of those four snaps turned out differently, the game might have too.

Or the game may not have been different. Gregg constantly uses the example of multiple plays turning out differently to state the game COULD have been different if those multiple plays worked out for a certain team. I can understand discussing one play in this manner, but Gregg uses multiple plays in terms of having a different outcome and then can't even state the game would be different for sure if these multiple plays had worked out well for that team.

Last Week's Horse Collar Item: I wondered whether the horse collar tackle should be a foul. Reader Sean Austin of Bozeman, Mont., asked, "What about the voluminous Roy Williams compendium of horse-collar induced injuries from recent years? They were detailed by The Dallas Morning News.

You can write it Gregg and it won't hurt your ego too much. You were obviously and very clearly wrong about horse-collar tackles having rarely injured NFL players over recent years. Just write it. "I was wrong and I make shit up because I'm too lazy to do research." It's okay to say, because your readers know.

Your columnist is with Troy Aikman who, calling the contest, said he is really tired of Boldin's strut-around act. Me too. Boldin is a good player, but needs to stop acting like a 14-year-old.

Peter King says not to fuck with Anquan Boldin, Gregg. This is Anquan's time of year, and whatever, he does what he wants.

TMQ has noted that the primary function of NBA general managers is to get rid of players in order to create salary cap space to acquire new players to get rid of.

"TMQ has noted that..." should be changed to "TMQ has speculated because he/it doesn't have the knowledge about the NBA required nor the energy to actually do the research in order to find out that..."

NBA General Managers can be incompetent at times, but many of the trades they make do have a larger purpose other than to just find new players to get rid of.

Last summer, the Cavs signed Andrew Bynum to a megabucks deal. "We are very excited about" obtaining Bynum, Cavs general Manager Chris Grant said.

This is a great example of Gregg's lack of knowledge about the NBA. The Cavs signed Bynum to a fairly low-risk two year deal that was essentially a one-year deal if the first year on the contract didn't work out for the Cavs.

Cleveland stopped being excited, trading Bynum, and multiple draft picks with multiple asterisks, to Chicago for Luol Deng. Chicago wanted to get rid of Deng's contract in return for someone whose contract they could also get rid of.

Sure, this is what happened if you don't pay attention to the NBA. If you follow the NBA then you know the Bulls wanted to get rid of Deng because he was a free agent after the season and the Bulls traded for Bynum because they could immediately waive him and get cap relief. The Bulls are rebuilding. It wasn't Deng's contract the Bulls wanted to get rid of, in fact quite the opposite. They didn't want to sign him to a new, larger contract. The Bulls weren't giving Deng a new contract, so they traded him in order to get immediate cap relief after the season. The issue here isn't goofy NBA trades, but Gregg Easterbrook's inability to understand the economics of the NBA.

Back at the Cavs, Grant said, "Luol reflects all that we are striving for." How long until Cleveland is working the phones, trying to get rid of Deng?

Well, Deng is a free agent after this season, so unless the Cavs tank very quickly and have no chance of making the playoffs then they won't be trying to get rid of Deng this season.

Weasel Coach Watch No. 4: Bill O'Brien coached at Penn State just two years before sprinting out the door for more money. Since Penn State averted its eyes from children being exploited, the school cannot complain about being exploited by O'Brien.

Well that makes sense. Gregg doesn't believe Bill O'Brien is a weasel coach because Penn State averted its eyes from children being exploited. So it's fine for O'Brien to break his promises to his current players, break his contract and lie to potential recruits because these players/recruits deserve to be lied to because they chose to go to a school that employed Jerry Sandusky. Got it. I have no issue with O'Brien going to the NFL nor do I believe he is a weasel coach, but I always find it interesting the reasoning Gregg uses to state a certain coach isn't a weasel coach. Apparently it's fine to lie to current players and break promises to recruits if the school somehow deserves it. Nevermind the Penn State players/recruits are getting hurt by O'Brien in the same way other weasel coaches (like Nick Saban) hurt players/recruits when he chooses to go to a different school. That doesn't matter because the Penn State players and recruits deserve it.

in July 2012, when football team members were offered the option of transferring to other colleges without NCAA restrictions, O'Brien begged them to stay, saying of a players meeting, "I talked to them about the bond they've formed with this football staff." Nearly all stayed, believing O'Brien would honor his side of the bond. Then the moment money was waved, O'Brien broke his promises and left.

Oh, so he is a weasel coach? Or he isn't a weasel coach? It seems Gregg is being wishy-washy on this in order to criticize Bill O'Brien for being a weasel coach if he fails as the Houston Texans head coach.

Next Week: One way or the other, the Super Bowl will be West Coast defense versus no-huddle offense.

Except the West Coast defensive, when understood by the examples Gregg has given us, isn't the same defensive scheme as explained to us by Gregg in this column.