I usually go through Gregg Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback pretty quickly, since most of what he says is anecdotal bullshit. But occassionally I'll read something he's written about a play I didn't see, and then I'll try to find the play. It just so happens that this week's "worst play of the season, so far" was easy to find. I'll let Gregg tell you about it.
Single Worst Play of the Season -- So Far: Michael Vick fumbled near the Arizona goal line on a play that began with six seconds remaining before intermission. James Sanders of the Cardinals recovered and was racing up the sideline. By the time he reached midfield, only two Eagles were even attempting to chase him -- though the clock expired during the play. All Philadelphia had to do was push Sanders out-of-bounds, and the half would have ended without Arizona scoring. Instead nine of 11 Eagles quit on the play, and Arizona got a touchdown.
Philadelphia Eagles offense, you are guilty of the single worst play of the season. So far.
Here is the play (courtesy of The Big Lead). Go watch it. Yeah, I'm way to lazy to embed something.
Who, the fuck, was going to catch James Sanders here? Who had a snowballs chance in hell of pushing him out of bounds?
Easterbrook makes it sounds like 5 guys could have given chase but said..."aww maaaaaan...I don't want to run....that's haaarrrrrd."
When Sanders picks up the ball he is already in front of all but 1 Eagle, and he already running in the direction of the endzone. Sanders is immediately swarmed by FOUR Cardinals who were running at the fumble and are therefore now running stride for stride with him to block potential tacklers. In fact, when he is chased down, one of his blockers takes care of clearing his path again.
Receivers and tight ends, as you can imagine, were not close to the ball and were not in a position to react quick enough to do much....though everyone gave chase until it was clear that they had no chance. Linemen had no hope.
All they had to do was simply push Sanders out of bounds! Well, they actually needed to (mostly likely) change direction, make up 10-20 or so yards, run down a pretty fast guy, and get by his blockers and catch up to him, and push him out of bounds.
Showing posts with label Gregg Easterbrook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gregg Easterbrook. Show all posts
Friday, September 28, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
Gregg Easterbrook: You Owe Ed Liddy an Apology
Chances are you've read this post (like 200 times) from a few years ago where Gregg Easterbook expresses outrage at Ed Liddy's "kings ransom" like compensation package that he and AIG LIED about. Well the wait is over, because now we have the exciting conclusion to this story.
While looking up Apple's proxy for the last post, I remembered the old AIG post and I thought it was a good time to do a follow up.
For reference, Gregg took issue with AIG paying certain of Liddy's living expenses - calling it out as being essentially the same as base compensation. See, Liddy lived in Chicago, and he was asked to step in as CEO during an insanely turbulent time (remember that financial crisis thing? No? Remember Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers? Riiiighhht....that crisis). They structured his compensation as $1 salary, he declined stock options, and AIG would pay certain living expenses for him in NYC since he already was paying for ongoing living expenses in Chicago. Sounds reasonable, right? The intent, as disclosed by AIG, was to make it so that Liddy wasn't paying to work for AIG. What did Easterbrook say about Liddy's $1 a year salary and zero stock options?
Yet he lied through his teeth about this and got away with it.
Sure. He said that the living expenses WERE salary and said that zero stock options was actually 200,000 stock options, based on what a different CEO was given. Kind of a jerky thing to do, right?
What does this encourage? More CEO lying. Liddy also received stock options. AIG has never said how many; suppose it was 200,000, the number just granted Benmosche. When Liddy went to AIG, its share price was hovering around $5; if that's the strike price, 200,000 shares would be worth about $7 million right now. Plus AIG quietly said Liddy may receive a bonus payable in 2010. The man who was widely praised for claiming to work for $1 may end up with a king's ransom in his pockets, all pilfered from the average taxpayers. Why have the media dropped this story?
At the time, I took issue with Easterbrook's hypothetical stock option grant and $7 million gain being passed off as if it was in Liddy's bank account. AIG specifically disclosed that Liddy turned down an option award, and Easterbrook still told you the opposite.
I checked AIG's proxy for 2009 here. What did I find?
Final tally of options granted to Ed Liddy during his tenure at AIG: 0 shares
Restricted Stock awarded Ed Liddy: 0 shares
Gain on exercise of stock: $0
Gain assumed by Easterbrook in calling Liddy a liar: $7 million
Amount Easterbrook was off by: $7 million
% Easterbrook was of by: 100%
Bonus paid to Ed Liddy: $0
Why did the media drop the story? There was no story. You made up the story.
So Easterbrook frequently rails on the New York times for making mistakes in their reporting, but not issuing corrections with the same level of prominance.
Where was his correction? Since he insulted someone's integrity - where was his apology?
While looking up Apple's proxy for the last post, I remembered the old AIG post and I thought it was a good time to do a follow up.
For reference, Gregg took issue with AIG paying certain of Liddy's living expenses - calling it out as being essentially the same as base compensation. See, Liddy lived in Chicago, and he was asked to step in as CEO during an insanely turbulent time (remember that financial crisis thing? No? Remember Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers? Riiiighhht....that crisis). They structured his compensation as $1 salary, he declined stock options, and AIG would pay certain living expenses for him in NYC since he already was paying for ongoing living expenses in Chicago. Sounds reasonable, right? The intent, as disclosed by AIG, was to make it so that Liddy wasn't paying to work for AIG. What did Easterbrook say about Liddy's $1 a year salary and zero stock options?
Yet he lied through his teeth about this and got away with it.
Sure. He said that the living expenses WERE salary and said that zero stock options was actually 200,000 stock options, based on what a different CEO was given. Kind of a jerky thing to do, right?
What does this encourage? More CEO lying. Liddy also received stock options. AIG has never said how many; suppose it was 200,000, the number just granted Benmosche. When Liddy went to AIG, its share price was hovering around $5; if that's the strike price, 200,000 shares would be worth about $7 million right now. Plus AIG quietly said Liddy may receive a bonus payable in 2010. The man who was widely praised for claiming to work for $1 may end up with a king's ransom in his pockets, all pilfered from the average taxpayers. Why have the media dropped this story?
At the time, I took issue with Easterbrook's hypothetical stock option grant and $7 million gain being passed off as if it was in Liddy's bank account. AIG specifically disclosed that Liddy turned down an option award, and Easterbrook still told you the opposite.
I checked AIG's proxy for 2009 here. What did I find?
Final tally of options granted to Ed Liddy during his tenure at AIG: 0 shares
Restricted Stock awarded Ed Liddy: 0 shares
Gain on exercise of stock: $0
Gain assumed by Easterbrook in calling Liddy a liar: $7 million
Amount Easterbrook was off by: $7 million
% Easterbrook was of by: 100%
Bonus paid to Ed Liddy: $0
Why did the media drop the story? There was no story. You made up the story.
So Easterbrook frequently rails on the New York times for making mistakes in their reporting, but not issuing corrections with the same level of prominance.
Where was his correction? Since he insulted someone's integrity - where was his apology?
Monday, September 10, 2012
Gregg Easterbrook Distorts Tim Cook's CEO Restricted Stock Award
Ahhh the NFL season is upon us, which means that Gregg Easterbrook has his forum on ESPN to write misleading half-truths and totally point out when people prepare for Christmas too soon.
Anyway, a couple of weeks ago, Easterbrook took issue with Apple CEO Tim Cook's compensation. Let's see if he played it straight, or if he was misleading (he was misleading).
Is Apple the New Exxon/Mobil?
Timothy Cook, CEO of Apple, received $378 million in compensation for 2011.
Well, that’s clearly a lot of money – imagine if your compensation was $377,996,537 of cold, hard cash – all of it “received” in 2011. Pretty crazy! Now, what if I told you that $376,180,000 of that compensation would be paid in stock? Does that change your opinion? Maybe not. Sell stock, convert to cash. Couldn’t be more simple, right? What if I told you that 50% of that stock (500,000 shares) wouldn’t be yours unless you’ve been successful at your job for 5 years (your job requires you to maintain Apple’s impossibly high growth rates and market share). You may reply, “okay, but I get the other 500,000 shares now?” No – you get the other 500,000 shares in 10 years. A bit of a catch. So what Gregg has done is he's latched onto the proxy compensation reported by Apple. Not wrong, but horribly misleading. Usually, it's a good proxy (see what I did there) for annual compensation. But when I saw Gregg's note, I knew it was impossibly high, and quick control-f in the proxy would tell the real story. Let's see...
This is appalling avarice: Cook could have paid himself half as much and still been the highest-paid CEO in the United States! Cook pulled down $126,000 per hour, more per hour than the typical American family makes in a year.
Does my above paragraph change your view on whether or not Tim Cook “PAID HIMSELF” $378 million in 2011? The board paid him $900,000 of salary, a $900,000 bonus and gave him 1,000,000 shares of stock, vesting 50% in 5 years and 50% in 10 years.
But how could I possibly know this information, and why the board decided to give him that award? Well, maybe we could read the public filing?
In connection with Mr. Cook’s appointment as CEO, the Board granted Mr. Cook 1,000,000 RSUs as a promotion and retention award. The RSUs are payable, subject to vesting, on a one-for-one basis in shares of the Company’s common stock. Fifty percent (50%) of Mr. Cook’s award is scheduled to vest on August 24, 2016 (five years after the award date) and fifty percent (50%) of Mr. Cook’s award is scheduled to vest on August 24, 2021 (ten years after the award date), subject to Mr. Cook’s continued employment with the Company through the applicable vesting date. In light of Mr. Cook’s experience with the Company, including his leadership during Mr. Jobs’s prior leaves of absence, the Board views his retention as CEO as critical to the Company’s success and smooth leadership transition. The RSU award is intended as a long-term retention incentive for Mr. Cook, and, accordingly, should be viewed as compensation over the 10-year vesting period and not solely as compensation for 2011.
Interesting, what else?
Except for the longer 10-year vesting term, Mr. Cook’s award is subject to the same standard terms and conditions that apply to the Company’s RSU awards generally. Accordingly, the award provides that Mr. Cook’s unvested RSUs will be forfeited if his employment terminates in any circumstances, other than death or disability.
Sounds like a nice gig, 500,000 shares of Apple in 5 years, and another 500,000 in 10 years. All you have to do it is keep cranking out world class performance as the CEO of Apple and making your shareholders richer and richer. Sounds easy enough.
Recently The Wall Street Journal reported that Hon Hai Precision Industry, manufacturer of the iPad, pays workers about $345 per month. So if Cook had merely taken half as much, the money saved could have been used to double the wages of 46,000 Chinese workers. So which is more important, a better life for 46,000 people or greed for Apple's CEO?
There was no money to do anything with. You either didn’t read the filing (lazy) or you did and you’re being intentionally misleading to your readers (asshole).
Workers in China are not the sole issue. Apple's U.S. retail workers are much more productive than Costco or Best Buy workers, yet earn significantly less. Cook might say his extremely high pay is based on his being productive. But Apple's U.S. employees are productive, and are shafted on pay.
I have two counter points: Apple products are easy to sell (high demand, despite high prices), and you don’t make money in retail sales.
Also, nowhere in that article does it say that Apple employees earn less than counterparts at Best Buy and Costco. Though I didn't read the whole thing, I did some word finds.
Cook would probably say that his extremely high pay is based on Apple designing and manufacturing expensive products at a low cost that fly off of retail shelves.
Apple products are cool and offer value. But when the social equation is taken into account, Apple becomes disturbing. How did this happen to what was once a progressive firm?
Apple becomes disturbing when you cherry pick information and ignore material facts.
Anyway, a couple of weeks ago, Easterbrook took issue with Apple CEO Tim Cook's compensation. Let's see if he played it straight, or if he was misleading (he was misleading).
Is Apple the New Exxon/Mobil?
Timothy Cook, CEO of Apple, received $378 million in compensation for 2011.
Well, that’s clearly a lot of money – imagine if your compensation was $377,996,537 of cold, hard cash – all of it “received” in 2011. Pretty crazy! Now, what if I told you that $376,180,000 of that compensation would be paid in stock? Does that change your opinion? Maybe not. Sell stock, convert to cash. Couldn’t be more simple, right? What if I told you that 50% of that stock (500,000 shares) wouldn’t be yours unless you’ve been successful at your job for 5 years (your job requires you to maintain Apple’s impossibly high growth rates and market share). You may reply, “okay, but I get the other 500,000 shares now?” No – you get the other 500,000 shares in 10 years. A bit of a catch. So what Gregg has done is he's latched onto the proxy compensation reported by Apple. Not wrong, but horribly misleading. Usually, it's a good proxy (see what I did there) for annual compensation. But when I saw Gregg's note, I knew it was impossibly high, and quick control-f in the proxy would tell the real story. Let's see...
This is appalling avarice: Cook could have paid himself half as much and still been the highest-paid CEO in the United States! Cook pulled down $126,000 per hour, more per hour than the typical American family makes in a year.
Does my above paragraph change your view on whether or not Tim Cook “PAID HIMSELF” $378 million in 2011? The board paid him $900,000 of salary, a $900,000 bonus and gave him 1,000,000 shares of stock, vesting 50% in 5 years and 50% in 10 years.
But how could I possibly know this information, and why the board decided to give him that award? Well, maybe we could read the public filing?
In connection with Mr. Cook’s appointment as CEO, the Board granted Mr. Cook 1,000,000 RSUs as a promotion and retention award. The RSUs are payable, subject to vesting, on a one-for-one basis in shares of the Company’s common stock. Fifty percent (50%) of Mr. Cook’s award is scheduled to vest on August 24, 2016 (five years after the award date) and fifty percent (50%) of Mr. Cook’s award is scheduled to vest on August 24, 2021 (ten years after the award date), subject to Mr. Cook’s continued employment with the Company through the applicable vesting date. In light of Mr. Cook’s experience with the Company, including his leadership during Mr. Jobs’s prior leaves of absence, the Board views his retention as CEO as critical to the Company’s success and smooth leadership transition. The RSU award is intended as a long-term retention incentive for Mr. Cook, and, accordingly, should be viewed as compensation over the 10-year vesting period and not solely as compensation for 2011.
Interesting, what else?
Except for the longer 10-year vesting term, Mr. Cook’s award is subject to the same standard terms and conditions that apply to the Company’s RSU awards generally. Accordingly, the award provides that Mr. Cook’s unvested RSUs will be forfeited if his employment terminates in any circumstances, other than death or disability.
Sounds like a nice gig, 500,000 shares of Apple in 5 years, and another 500,000 in 10 years. All you have to do it is keep cranking out world class performance as the CEO of Apple and making your shareholders richer and richer. Sounds easy enough.
Recently The Wall Street Journal reported that Hon Hai Precision Industry, manufacturer of the iPad, pays workers about $345 per month. So if Cook had merely taken half as much, the money saved could have been used to double the wages of 46,000 Chinese workers. So which is more important, a better life for 46,000 people or greed for Apple's CEO?
There was no money to do anything with. You either didn’t read the filing (lazy) or you did and you’re being intentionally misleading to your readers (asshole).
Workers in China are not the sole issue. Apple's U.S. retail workers are much more productive than Costco or Best Buy workers, yet earn significantly less. Cook might say his extremely high pay is based on his being productive. But Apple's U.S. employees are productive, and are shafted on pay.
I have two counter points: Apple products are easy to sell (high demand, despite high prices), and you don’t make money in retail sales.
Also, nowhere in that article does it say that Apple employees earn less than counterparts at Best Buy and Costco. Though I didn't read the whole thing, I did some word finds.
Cook would probably say that his extremely high pay is based on Apple designing and manufacturing expensive products at a low cost that fly off of retail shelves.
Apple products are cool and offer value. But when the social equation is taken into account, Apple becomes disturbing. How did this happen to what was once a progressive firm?
Apple becomes disturbing when you cherry pick information and ignore material facts.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
News Flash - Gregg Easterbrook Massages the Truth to Make a Point
Haven't posted in 9 months....yeah why not.
I don't read much about Sports on the Internet these days. But I usually blow through TMQ for about 10 minutes a week. Here's the thing about Gregg - if you aren't very knowledgeable about his subject, and you don't pay much attention while you're reading it - and you don't research what he says....he sounds brilliant. But, as usual, his smugly made point completely falls apart when you actually pay attention or research the subject.
This paragraph caught my eye from the latest TMQ:
Groupon Issues Coupons for Its Own IPO: Groupon just had a successful IPO, raising $805 million. Eleven months ago, the same company turned down a $6 billion purchase by Google. Had Groupon accepted the Google proposal, its early investors and founding management would have $6 billion; instead, following the IPO they are holding a much smaller sum.
The IPO was only for approximately 6% of the company's shares. True, they are holding less cash - but they are holding $805 million in cash, and equity in a company now worth approximately $15 billion. So if Google wants to buy Groupon NOW? They'd have to pony up probably $16+ billion to buy everyone out.
Does that sound like they made a bad decision? It does if you ignore the fact that he's comparing 6% of the stock to 100% of the stock without quantifying the difference.
True, they also still hold equity,
94%!
and could wind up ahead in the long run.
"could" - if the stock goes down 50%.....they still wind up ahead.
Or they may end up way behind: Your columnist noted 11 months ago that Groupon someday may wish it had accepted the Google offer.
"May" "May" .......what the fuck is your point? This is meaningless non-analysis to mislead your readers into thinking you're smarter than some really smart people.
At any rate, rather than getting $6 billion in 2011, Groupon insiders got $805 million. Groupon issued discount coupons for itself, offering 87 percent off!
No! They didn't! They held out and the value of the company more than doubled!
Check my archives for more Easterbrook commentary.
I don't read much about Sports on the Internet these days. But I usually blow through TMQ for about 10 minutes a week. Here's the thing about Gregg - if you aren't very knowledgeable about his subject, and you don't pay much attention while you're reading it - and you don't research what he says....he sounds brilliant. But, as usual, his smugly made point completely falls apart when you actually pay attention or research the subject.
This paragraph caught my eye from the latest TMQ:
Groupon Issues Coupons for Its Own IPO: Groupon just had a successful IPO, raising $805 million. Eleven months ago, the same company turned down a $6 billion purchase by Google. Had Groupon accepted the Google proposal, its early investors and founding management would have $6 billion; instead, following the IPO they are holding a much smaller sum.
The IPO was only for approximately 6% of the company's shares. True, they are holding less cash - but they are holding $805 million in cash, and equity in a company now worth approximately $15 billion. So if Google wants to buy Groupon NOW? They'd have to pony up probably $16+ billion to buy everyone out.
Does that sound like they made a bad decision? It does if you ignore the fact that he's comparing 6% of the stock to 100% of the stock without quantifying the difference.
True, they also still hold equity,
94%!
and could wind up ahead in the long run.
"could" - if the stock goes down 50%.....they still wind up ahead.
Or they may end up way behind: Your columnist noted 11 months ago that Groupon someday may wish it had accepted the Google offer.
"May" "May" .......what the fuck is your point? This is meaningless non-analysis to mislead your readers into thinking you're smarter than some really smart people.
At any rate, rather than getting $6 billion in 2011, Groupon insiders got $805 million. Groupon issued discount coupons for itself, offering 87 percent off!
No! They didn't! They held out and the value of the company more than doubled!
Check my archives for more Easterbrook commentary.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Gregg Easterbrook Decided to Write Another Column This Week
Seriously, here it is. This guy is relentless. Every week, he writes thousands of words. I can barely squeeze out an unfunny, half-assed blog post. BUT – I bang out some quality work at my real job. So fuck you, Gregg Easterbrook.
The Crabtree Curse continues. San Francisco was 3-1, with its only defeat a fluky last-play loss; then the 49ers signed Michael Crabtree, and are 0-3 since. All that work Mike Singletary did building team spirit on the Niners went out the window when management decided a player could jerk the team around all he wanted and still get a $17 million reward.
Is the takeaway here that San Francisco, with their shitty quarterback, was going to beat arguably the best team in football, the undefeated Colts, if they did not sign Michael Crabtree a few weeks ago?
Is that what you’re telling me?
If that’s what you’re telling me, that’s fine. I just want to be clear. A clearly inferior team lost to a clearly superior team because of how they dealt with a draft pick almost a month ago?
Is that it, really? It’s that simple?
Stats of the Week No. 5: Jim Caldwell and Josh McDaniels, who had never been head coaches at any level before becoming NFL head coaches this season, are a combined 13-1.
This is the part where Gregg should point out that he frequently criticizes NFL teams for hiring coaches with no head coaching experience at any level.
He did not point that out.
Maybe coach Tony Sparano, who continued wearing ultra-dark sunglasses even after the sun declined behind the stadium wall, couldn't see the scoreboard correctly.
This guy is fucking fascinated with what people wear in what conditions. I wonder what it’s like to be with Gregg 5 minutes after the sun has gone down and you still have your sunglasses on or if you’re overly dressed for an unseasonably warm November afternoon.
My guess: non-stop ridicule.
Sweet 'N' Sour Play No. 1: Place-kicker Josh Brown of St. Louis threw a 36-yard touchdown pass to Daniel Fells on a fake field goal attempt, then kicked the extra point; that was sweet. The two situations in which a fake field goal attempt are likely are fourth-and-short, or a long attempt that would probably miss anyway. Les Mouflons lined up for what would have been a 53-yard kick. Yet Detroit fell for the fake. Also, Detroit had no one back deep to return a potential short kick -- if there had been a deep man, he might have stopped the touchdown. The Lions' falling for an obvious trick was sour.
Well obviously it was a trick. Obviously. Obvious trick. 53 fucking yards? No one ever tries kicks from that far. When I’m an NFL coach, and the other team sets up for a 53 yard field goal attempt, I’m going with a dime package every time. I will stand on the sidelines and yell to the other coach… “nice try jackass, I’m all over your shit!” You’re not fooling me. Josh Brown is 9-14 lifetime over 50 yards indoors? Fuck you, you’re not fooling me. Fake field goal coming. Every time. Obviously.
Gregg then goes of on one of many NCAA hoops sidebars.
And it inculcates an attitude that all that matters is showing off for the NBA draft, not achieving anything lasting. Think of the Ohio State team that lost the NCAA men's championship game in 2007, or the Memphis team that lost the following year. Either team, if together a while, might have become really memorable -- Ohio State had Greg Oden and Mike Conley Jr., Memphis had Derrick Rose and Chris Douglas-Roberts. Since three of those four were freshmen, if they'd all stuck around in college longer and stayed eligible, those teams might have improved and become truly great a year or two down the road. Instead, everybody split early for the pros. It's said that in the locker room after Memphis botched the final two minutes of what would have been a national championship, Rose cried inconsolably. He'll make lots of money in the pros, but will he ever be involved in anything worth crying about?
Derek Rose also cried uncontrollably when his mother bought him the “clean” version of Nelly’s Country Grammar for Christmas in 1999. So that immediately is more important than any moment in his life when he didn't cry. I only rank things by number of tears shed, regardless of the maturity of the person.
If Chicago gets to the NBA finals this year and have it locked up in the final minutes of game 7, and then piss it away, my money is on Rose caring more about that than the NCAA final. Ed O'Bannon and Miles Simon led their teams to NCAA Championships. The NBA is the man's game, and it matters more.
I’m not sure what Easterbrook’s point is the last couple weeks regarding the interplay between college hoops and the NBA. We get it; you want college players to stay in college longer and the NBA to somehow require them to. You have many stupid anecdotes to support this.
If the Packers hold the Vikings to a field goal, they face a manageable eight-point deficit; if the Vikings get a touchdown, the game is over. As six Green Bay defenders crossed the line at the snap, TMQ said aloud, "Minnesota wins." And yea, verily, it came to pass, in this case, a touchdown pass.
Do you think he really said (aloud) “Minnesota wins”? Really? How often does he do this and end up wrong? I bet it drives his son nuts. Also, this is just a partial view of this paragraph. Bottomofthebarrel (see links) pointed out something else retarded about it.
“Yea, verily, it came to pass” has to be the most annoying phrase that I've ever read.
In Court, Confess; in Sports, Do Not Confess: Marcus Trufant of the Green Men Group was called for pass interference three times as Dallas pounded Seattle. On the third occasion, as he collided with a receiver, Trufant threw his hands up in the "I didn't do anything" gesture -- and only then did the nearby zebra reach for his flag. Never make the "I didn't do anything" gesture! It only alerts officials that you did, in fact, do something.
Let me get this straight. AS HE COLLIDED with the receiver, he began motioning that he didn’t do “anything”. ONLY THEN did the official throw a flag. Was the official going to throw the flag before he collided? What the hell are you talking about?
Also, clearly not making the "I didn't do anything" gesture wasn't helping either, since it was his third flag.
The Cardinals are quietly struggling: Dating back to the Super Bowl, they are on a 4-4 stretch. One reason is lack of discipline. Cards cornerback Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie has nine interceptions in his past 19 starts, the kind of stat announcers praise, but he gambles constantly and gets torched. Carolina ran a simple hitch and go to Steve Smith -- Smith took one step backward as if to catch a hitch, then shot down the field. Rodgers-Cromartie so totally bought on the hitch action, gambling for an interception, that he was barely in the picture as Smith caught a 50-yard touchdown pass. The game started at 2:15 p.m. local time, a time no football player's body clock is set to.
Can you just pause on the “body clock” note?
They play Monday nights, Thursday nights, Sunday Nights, Saturday afternoon, Sunday early, afternoon, Sunday nights, etc. They play in different time zones. But woah woah….NO football player's body clock is set to this 2:15 nonsense! Another stupid, contrived observation/point.
As seven defenders crossed the line at the snap, yours truly said aloud, "Miami wins." And yea, verily, it came to pass.
Please stop doing this.
The Crabtree Curse continues. San Francisco was 3-1, with its only defeat a fluky last-play loss; then the 49ers signed Michael Crabtree, and are 0-3 since. All that work Mike Singletary did building team spirit on the Niners went out the window when management decided a player could jerk the team around all he wanted and still get a $17 million reward.
Is the takeaway here that San Francisco, with their shitty quarterback, was going to beat arguably the best team in football, the undefeated Colts, if they did not sign Michael Crabtree a few weeks ago?
Is that what you’re telling me?
If that’s what you’re telling me, that’s fine. I just want to be clear. A clearly inferior team lost to a clearly superior team because of how they dealt with a draft pick almost a month ago?
Is that it, really? It’s that simple?
Stats of the Week No. 5: Jim Caldwell and Josh McDaniels, who had never been head coaches at any level before becoming NFL head coaches this season, are a combined 13-1.
This is the part where Gregg should point out that he frequently criticizes NFL teams for hiring coaches with no head coaching experience at any level.
He did not point that out.
Maybe coach Tony Sparano, who continued wearing ultra-dark sunglasses even after the sun declined behind the stadium wall, couldn't see the scoreboard correctly.
This guy is fucking fascinated with what people wear in what conditions. I wonder what it’s like to be with Gregg 5 minutes after the sun has gone down and you still have your sunglasses on or if you’re overly dressed for an unseasonably warm November afternoon.
My guess: non-stop ridicule.
Sweet 'N' Sour Play No. 1: Place-kicker Josh Brown of St. Louis threw a 36-yard touchdown pass to Daniel Fells on a fake field goal attempt, then kicked the extra point; that was sweet. The two situations in which a fake field goal attempt are likely are fourth-and-short, or a long attempt that would probably miss anyway. Les Mouflons lined up for what would have been a 53-yard kick. Yet Detroit fell for the fake. Also, Detroit had no one back deep to return a potential short kick -- if there had been a deep man, he might have stopped the touchdown. The Lions' falling for an obvious trick was sour.
Well obviously it was a trick. Obviously. Obvious trick. 53 fucking yards? No one ever tries kicks from that far. When I’m an NFL coach, and the other team sets up for a 53 yard field goal attempt, I’m going with a dime package every time. I will stand on the sidelines and yell to the other coach… “nice try jackass, I’m all over your shit!” You’re not fooling me. Josh Brown is 9-14 lifetime over 50 yards indoors? Fuck you, you’re not fooling me. Fake field goal coming. Every time. Obviously.
Gregg then goes of on one of many NCAA hoops sidebars.
And it inculcates an attitude that all that matters is showing off for the NBA draft, not achieving anything lasting. Think of the Ohio State team that lost the NCAA men's championship game in 2007, or the Memphis team that lost the following year. Either team, if together a while, might have become really memorable -- Ohio State had Greg Oden and Mike Conley Jr., Memphis had Derrick Rose and Chris Douglas-Roberts. Since three of those four were freshmen, if they'd all stuck around in college longer and stayed eligible, those teams might have improved and become truly great a year or two down the road. Instead, everybody split early for the pros. It's said that in the locker room after Memphis botched the final two minutes of what would have been a national championship, Rose cried inconsolably. He'll make lots of money in the pros, but will he ever be involved in anything worth crying about?
Derek Rose also cried uncontrollably when his mother bought him the “clean” version of Nelly’s Country Grammar for Christmas in 1999. So that immediately is more important than any moment in his life when he didn't cry. I only rank things by number of tears shed, regardless of the maturity of the person.
If Chicago gets to the NBA finals this year and have it locked up in the final minutes of game 7, and then piss it away, my money is on Rose caring more about that than the NCAA final. Ed O'Bannon and Miles Simon led their teams to NCAA Championships. The NBA is the man's game, and it matters more.
I’m not sure what Easterbrook’s point is the last couple weeks regarding the interplay between college hoops and the NBA. We get it; you want college players to stay in college longer and the NBA to somehow require them to. You have many stupid anecdotes to support this.
If the Packers hold the Vikings to a field goal, they face a manageable eight-point deficit; if the Vikings get a touchdown, the game is over. As six Green Bay defenders crossed the line at the snap, TMQ said aloud, "Minnesota wins." And yea, verily, it came to pass, in this case, a touchdown pass.
Do you think he really said (aloud) “Minnesota wins”? Really? How often does he do this and end up wrong? I bet it drives his son nuts. Also, this is just a partial view of this paragraph. Bottomofthebarrel (see links) pointed out something else retarded about it.
“Yea, verily, it came to pass” has to be the most annoying phrase that I've ever read.
In Court, Confess; in Sports, Do Not Confess: Marcus Trufant of the Green Men Group was called for pass interference three times as Dallas pounded Seattle. On the third occasion, as he collided with a receiver, Trufant threw his hands up in the "I didn't do anything" gesture -- and only then did the nearby zebra reach for his flag. Never make the "I didn't do anything" gesture! It only alerts officials that you did, in fact, do something.
Let me get this straight. AS HE COLLIDED with the receiver, he began motioning that he didn’t do “anything”. ONLY THEN did the official throw a flag. Was the official going to throw the flag before he collided? What the hell are you talking about?
Also, clearly not making the "I didn't do anything" gesture wasn't helping either, since it was his third flag.
The Cardinals are quietly struggling: Dating back to the Super Bowl, they are on a 4-4 stretch. One reason is lack of discipline. Cards cornerback Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie has nine interceptions in his past 19 starts, the kind of stat announcers praise, but he gambles constantly and gets torched. Carolina ran a simple hitch and go to Steve Smith -- Smith took one step backward as if to catch a hitch, then shot down the field. Rodgers-Cromartie so totally bought on the hitch action, gambling for an interception, that he was barely in the picture as Smith caught a 50-yard touchdown pass. The game started at 2:15 p.m. local time, a time no football player's body clock is set to.
Can you just pause on the “body clock” note?
They play Monday nights, Thursday nights, Sunday Nights, Saturday afternoon, Sunday early, afternoon, Sunday nights, etc. They play in different time zones. But woah woah….NO football player's body clock is set to this 2:15 nonsense! Another stupid, contrived observation/point.
As seven defenders crossed the line at the snap, yours truly said aloud, "Miami wins." And yea, verily, it came to pass.
Please stop doing this.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Gregg Easterbrook Seems Much Smarter When He’s Talking about Stuff I Know Nothing About
Easterbrook starts out this week's column with a long-winded opinion that play calling doesn’t matter in the NFL. This makes zero sense when combined with his thousands of words each season where he criticizes the play calling of coaches for having cost their teams victories.
In the cult of football, surely few things are more overrated than play calling. Much football commentary, from high school stands to the NFL in prime time, boils down to: "If they ran they should have passed, and if they passed they should have run." Other commentary boils down to: "If it worked, it was a good call, if it failed, it was a bad call," though the call is only one of many factors in a football play. Good calls are better than bad calls -- this column exerts considerable effort documenting the difference.
My take on Sherman Lewis' play calling Monday night? When he ran, he should have passed -- when he passed, he should have run.
I guess that’s a joke.
Yeah, I think it’s much more useful to say that a play succeeded or failed because of the way the cheerleaders are dressed, the coaches are dressed, based on some random anecdote that has nothing to do with the play, the impact of football gods, curses and how the front office deals with free agents (see next paragraph). I think it's laughable that Easterbrook is condemning poor football analysis as just being about second guessing.
When Michael Crabtree finally signed with the 49ers, TMQ warned of a Crabtree Curse -- Mike Singletary had spent a year in San Francisco instilling the message that nobody is bigger than the team, and suddenly it seemed you could jerk the 49ers around all you wanted and get $17 million guaranteed as your reward. Before the signing, the 49ers were 3-1; since the signing, they are 0-2, and have been outscored 69-31. Beware the Crabtree Curse!
So signing Michael Crabtree sent a message to the 49ers defense and that’s why they’ve given up 69 points in the last 2 games. Okay, fruitcake.
Kickoff temperature in Pittsburgh on Sunday was 52 degrees -- so why did Brett Favre wear a woolen ski cap to the postgame news conference? TMQ has noted that while Favre once shrugged at inclement Green Bay weather, now the aging quarterback's performance declines sharply when it's cold. If 52 degrees now makes him reach for a ski cap, good luck to the Vikings when they play at Chicago on Dec. 28.
What is with the fascination with clothing? Seriously? This isn’t interesting or relevant. OMG I knew the Patriots were going to win when I saw Peyton Manning wearing gloves and a hat when he got off the team bus in Foxborough!
Christmas Creep: James McShane of Cincinnati reports, "I attend Xavier University. On October 20th, the university put up Christmas lights. It was 70 degrees out!" Peter Weiss of Green Bay writes that on Oct. 21, "As I returned to the office from lunch, I noticed workers hanging Christmas decorations from the lampposts in downtown Green Bay."
So places that get pretty cold in the winter aren’t waiting until its fucking freezing out before hanging up Christmas lights.
Scandalous!
This week’s column is littered with NBA facts and opinions. One of the subjects Easterbrook dives into is the age restriction for incoming players.
There's no "right" to be a 19-year-old doctor or airline pilot, and no "right" to play in the NBA. The league is a private enterprise that sets its internal rules, and a 20-years minimum would very much be in the interest of the NBA. Allowing players to jump into the league at 19 lowers quality of play; older players are both physically more mature, and have more polished games.
I’m not disagreeing with this, as a whole. Requiring players to attend multiple years of college would, in theory, weed out players better for the draft and better prepare most players for the NBA….freaks like Lebron James and Dwight Howard aside.
The current "one and done" exception -- one year of college, then declare for the pros -- means players who might have become well-known college stars, and arrived in the NBA with high public standing, instead are barely known at the college level, then enter the pros as unknowns with little promotional potential.
My view on this is….who cares? Why do I care if a player (and Easterbrook has some examples) declares for the draft when he’s not ready and suffers the consequences. Easterbrook’s examples of players who may have benefited from a year or two of college ignores a simple fact; it’s their own fault (even if the kid has a stereotypical greedy agent telling him to sign, it's his fault). It also ignores the fact that if they are as good as Easterbrook suggests, they would have made it in the NBA, just as plenty of other players who didn’t play college have. Lastly, it ignores the simply truth that plenty of high school stars go to college and fizzle out (either in college or as soon as they hit the pros), just like his examples did in the pros, because they weren’t good enough to dominate on the next level. There isn't a 100% success rate in any challenging profession on this planet.
When the age limit was 18 for a while, quality of NBA play notably declined, and the fans aren't fools -- ratings and ticket sales fell. Since the 19-year standard took effect in 2005, quality of play has improved; so have ratings and the gate.
Here is where I have a problem. This is just blind, lazy, bullshit speculation passed of as a key supporting fact. I have a number of observations here.
1.) Easterbrook doesn’t watch a lot of basketball (or he hates it, and he does....who would hate something but watch it anyway, that's like hating a columnist but reading his column for 45 minutes every week....let's move on), he’s talking out of his ass for the convenience of his general point when he says “the quality of NBA play notably declined”.
2.) Even if the quality of play “notably declined”, you’re making a leap to blame that on the players who came straight out of high school to the pros, especially when so many of them (Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Dwight Howard, Tracy McGrady, Amare Stoudamire, Kevin Garnett, Al Jefferson, Rashard Lewis, Jermaine O’Neal, etc.) were contributing a high level of play during that time.
3.) He also noted that ticket sales had fallen and then had risen again. This is the attendance from ’03-’04 through ’07-’08.
03-'04 - 20,272,195
04-'05 - 21,296,497
05-'06 - 21,595,804
06-'07 - 21,841,480
07-'08 - 21,395,576
Notice the sharp trends here? Neither do I. The reality is there appears to be marginal movement from year to year. Again, owing any of this to high school NBA players is silly. It’s a strain on your common sense and a lie to imply that you can tell anything about the rule by looking at these numbers. But Easterbrook thinks he can just take any two purported facts (or opinions, even) and say without hesitation that fact 1 caused fact 2. That’s why I can’t stand him.
4.) On to ratings. These are the average regular season ratings for the network (ABC) games.
2003 - 2.6
2004 - 2.4
2005 - 2.2
2006 - 2.2
Does that tell you anything about the impact of the age restriction? Me neither. If NBA teams don’t think players are ready, don’t draft them. The reason why they are so appealing to draft is because so many of them have succeeded.
NBA Officials Check Passports Before Calling Traveling: TMQ has long contended that football rules are too complex; also, the NFL refuses to reveal its officiating manual, which explains such things as how a zebra determines what counts as pass interference. The NBA by contrast recently put its rulebook online, complete with multimedia examples of what is and isn't legal. Great idea -- do the same, NFL. In the new rulebook, I did find this interesting definition:
TRAVELING. If the player with the ball walks off the court and out of the arena, hails a cab, goes to the airport, and buys an airline ticket, at the point that he boards the plane, he shall be whistled for "traveling."
Wait a minute…that IS traveling! Like normal people do! :) LOL! :)
Easterbrook then randomly goes after Stephon Marbury.
But if a player wants the privilege of performing in the NBA, he must perform by its standards. Finally someone, in this case D'Antoni, made that clear. On the day Marbury signed with defending champion Boston, the Celtics were 47-12 (.797). Boston immediately lost to Detroit on national television, and for the remainder of the season went 23-15 (.605) and was bounced from the playoffs. Sure, the injury to Kevin Garnett was a huge factor, but Garnett was out well before Marbury arrived.
Um, no. The Celtics season was not derailed by Stephon Marbury. It was curtailed by Kevin Garnett’s injury and a regression to the mean. Garnett had missed a total of 7 games during the year before Marbury joined the team. The reality is the Celtics started 27-2 and were never going to keep up that pace. That fact, along with Garnett’s injury, is what is driving the disparity in the records above.
Stop taking nuggets of information and making crazy cause and effect assertions around them.
In the cult of football, surely few things are more overrated than play calling. Much football commentary, from high school stands to the NFL in prime time, boils down to: "If they ran they should have passed, and if they passed they should have run." Other commentary boils down to: "If it worked, it was a good call, if it failed, it was a bad call," though the call is only one of many factors in a football play. Good calls are better than bad calls -- this column exerts considerable effort documenting the difference.
My take on Sherman Lewis' play calling Monday night? When he ran, he should have passed -- when he passed, he should have run.
I guess that’s a joke.
Yeah, I think it’s much more useful to say that a play succeeded or failed because of the way the cheerleaders are dressed, the coaches are dressed, based on some random anecdote that has nothing to do with the play, the impact of football gods, curses and how the front office deals with free agents (see next paragraph). I think it's laughable that Easterbrook is condemning poor football analysis as just being about second guessing.
When Michael Crabtree finally signed with the 49ers, TMQ warned of a Crabtree Curse -- Mike Singletary had spent a year in San Francisco instilling the message that nobody is bigger than the team, and suddenly it seemed you could jerk the 49ers around all you wanted and get $17 million guaranteed as your reward. Before the signing, the 49ers were 3-1; since the signing, they are 0-2, and have been outscored 69-31. Beware the Crabtree Curse!
So signing Michael Crabtree sent a message to the 49ers defense and that’s why they’ve given up 69 points in the last 2 games. Okay, fruitcake.
Kickoff temperature in Pittsburgh on Sunday was 52 degrees -- so why did Brett Favre wear a woolen ski cap to the postgame news conference? TMQ has noted that while Favre once shrugged at inclement Green Bay weather, now the aging quarterback's performance declines sharply when it's cold. If 52 degrees now makes him reach for a ski cap, good luck to the Vikings when they play at Chicago on Dec. 28.
What is with the fascination with clothing? Seriously? This isn’t interesting or relevant. OMG I knew the Patriots were going to win when I saw Peyton Manning wearing gloves and a hat when he got off the team bus in Foxborough!
Christmas Creep: James McShane of Cincinnati reports, "I attend Xavier University. On October 20th, the university put up Christmas lights. It was 70 degrees out!" Peter Weiss of Green Bay writes that on Oct. 21, "As I returned to the office from lunch, I noticed workers hanging Christmas decorations from the lampposts in downtown Green Bay."
So places that get pretty cold in the winter aren’t waiting until its fucking freezing out before hanging up Christmas lights.
Scandalous!
This week’s column is littered with NBA facts and opinions. One of the subjects Easterbrook dives into is the age restriction for incoming players.
There's no "right" to be a 19-year-old doctor or airline pilot, and no "right" to play in the NBA. The league is a private enterprise that sets its internal rules, and a 20-years minimum would very much be in the interest of the NBA. Allowing players to jump into the league at 19 lowers quality of play; older players are both physically more mature, and have more polished games.
I’m not disagreeing with this, as a whole. Requiring players to attend multiple years of college would, in theory, weed out players better for the draft and better prepare most players for the NBA….freaks like Lebron James and Dwight Howard aside.
The current "one and done" exception -- one year of college, then declare for the pros -- means players who might have become well-known college stars, and arrived in the NBA with high public standing, instead are barely known at the college level, then enter the pros as unknowns with little promotional potential.
My view on this is….who cares? Why do I care if a player (and Easterbrook has some examples) declares for the draft when he’s not ready and suffers the consequences. Easterbrook’s examples of players who may have benefited from a year or two of college ignores a simple fact; it’s their own fault (even if the kid has a stereotypical greedy agent telling him to sign, it's his fault). It also ignores the fact that if they are as good as Easterbrook suggests, they would have made it in the NBA, just as plenty of other players who didn’t play college have. Lastly, it ignores the simply truth that plenty of high school stars go to college and fizzle out (either in college or as soon as they hit the pros), just like his examples did in the pros, because they weren’t good enough to dominate on the next level. There isn't a 100% success rate in any challenging profession on this planet.
When the age limit was 18 for a while, quality of NBA play notably declined, and the fans aren't fools -- ratings and ticket sales fell. Since the 19-year standard took effect in 2005, quality of play has improved; so have ratings and the gate.
Here is where I have a problem. This is just blind, lazy, bullshit speculation passed of as a key supporting fact. I have a number of observations here.
1.) Easterbrook doesn’t watch a lot of basketball (or he hates it, and he does....who would hate something but watch it anyway, that's like hating a columnist but reading his column for 45 minutes every week....let's move on), he’s talking out of his ass for the convenience of his general point when he says “the quality of NBA play notably declined”.
2.) Even if the quality of play “notably declined”, you’re making a leap to blame that on the players who came straight out of high school to the pros, especially when so many of them (Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Dwight Howard, Tracy McGrady, Amare Stoudamire, Kevin Garnett, Al Jefferson, Rashard Lewis, Jermaine O’Neal, etc.) were contributing a high level of play during that time.
3.) He also noted that ticket sales had fallen and then had risen again. This is the attendance from ’03-’04 through ’07-’08.
03-'04 - 20,272,195
04-'05 - 21,296,497
05-'06 - 21,595,804
06-'07 - 21,841,480
07-'08 - 21,395,576
Notice the sharp trends here? Neither do I. The reality is there appears to be marginal movement from year to year. Again, owing any of this to high school NBA players is silly. It’s a strain on your common sense and a lie to imply that you can tell anything about the rule by looking at these numbers. But Easterbrook thinks he can just take any two purported facts (or opinions, even) and say without hesitation that fact 1 caused fact 2. That’s why I can’t stand him.
4.) On to ratings. These are the average regular season ratings for the network (ABC) games.
2003 - 2.6
2004 - 2.4
2005 - 2.2
2006 - 2.2
Does that tell you anything about the impact of the age restriction? Me neither. If NBA teams don’t think players are ready, don’t draft them. The reason why they are so appealing to draft is because so many of them have succeeded.
NBA Officials Check Passports Before Calling Traveling: TMQ has long contended that football rules are too complex; also, the NFL refuses to reveal its officiating manual, which explains such things as how a zebra determines what counts as pass interference. The NBA by contrast recently put its rulebook online, complete with multimedia examples of what is and isn't legal. Great idea -- do the same, NFL. In the new rulebook, I did find this interesting definition:
TRAVELING. If the player with the ball walks off the court and out of the arena, hails a cab, goes to the airport, and buys an airline ticket, at the point that he boards the plane, he shall be whistled for "traveling."
Wait a minute…that IS traveling! Like normal people do! :) LOL! :)
Easterbrook then randomly goes after Stephon Marbury.
But if a player wants the privilege of performing in the NBA, he must perform by its standards. Finally someone, in this case D'Antoni, made that clear. On the day Marbury signed with defending champion Boston, the Celtics were 47-12 (.797). Boston immediately lost to Detroit on national television, and for the remainder of the season went 23-15 (.605) and was bounced from the playoffs. Sure, the injury to Kevin Garnett was a huge factor, but Garnett was out well before Marbury arrived.
Um, no. The Celtics season was not derailed by Stephon Marbury. It was curtailed by Kevin Garnett’s injury and a regression to the mean. Garnett had missed a total of 7 games during the year before Marbury joined the team. The reality is the Celtics started 27-2 and were never going to keep up that pace. That fact, along with Garnett’s injury, is what is driving the disparity in the records above.
Stop taking nuggets of information and making crazy cause and effect assertions around them.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Hey This Rumor I Made Up is Wrong
Greg Easterbrook starts this week by devoting over 2,200 words to dispel the hot rumor that scoring is actually up in the NFL and NCAA. I have not heard this rumor about the NFL. I don’t pay 5 minutes of attention all season to the NCAA.
Now, let’s follow up on the running theme that Easterbrook only sporadically talks about coaches being more manly men versus “fraidy cat” (his words) based on fourth down attempts. As Gregg already had a 2,200 word opening, he didn’t have to make up a trend to comment on. However, he would have had a legitimate point as this week there were only 26 fourth down attempts, but far the lowest this season (.93 per team game versus 1.32 last week – a 30% decline). In week 2 it increased 0% over week 1, which warranted an intro from Easterbrook about an increase in attempts. In week 4 it increased 1% over week 3 and made the intro as implying that there was a big increase. In week 3 it increased 24% over week 2 and that warranted a comment because Easterbrook thought that his week 2 “manly men” pronouncement was premature, even though teams went for it more in week 3. So he had it backwards. His inconsistency, and the shoddy wording of this paragraph, has probably confused the shit out of you. Let’s move on.
NFL news, is there a Crabtree Curse? San Francisco broke out of the gate 3-1, in part because management's no-compromise attitude toward holdout diva Michael Crabtree sent the message that nobody is bigger than the team. Then last week, suddenly Crabtree is granted $16 million guaranteed even though he skipped training camp, doesn't know the playbook, and spent the first month of the season relaxing on the couch. Suddenly the message sent is that you can jerk the 49ers around and get away with it. Immediately San Francisco lost to Atlanta 45-10 at home.
Yes, 100% of the reason they lost to the Saints is because the players ceased viewing the organization as a "no-nonsense – nobody is bigger than the team” organization.
What a fucking fruitcake.
In other football news, is Cincinnati this year's Team of Destiny? I advise you not to get up for a beer during the final minute of any Bengals game. I strongly advise you not to defy TMQ's law, Cold Coach = Victory. On a 30-degree day at Denver, Bill Belichick came out in a heavy winter parka plus woolen ski hat, with tassel; Josh McDaniels wore a hoodie with a baseball cap. At kickoff, seeing how they were attired, TMQ said, "This game's over." And yea, verily, it came to pass.
Fruitcake.
What to make of the Flaming Thumbtacks' collapse? Since the moment Tennessee took the field in the playoffs holding home-field advantage throughout the postseason, Tennessee has lost six straight. The loss of Albert Haynesworth cannot be the explanation, as his new team is struggling.
Wow. Is that a stupid thing to say. Wow.
Holy shit. Wow.
The loss of a key defensive player to a bad team can’t the explanation, because that key defensive player is now playing on a bad team! Wouldn’t the comparison be the Titans with Haynesworth’s productivity last year versus his replacement’s performance this year, to figure out if the loss of Haynesworth has had an impact?
What if Haynesworth had remained a Titan but died in the offseason? Would you say…."well the death of Haynesworth isn’t the explanation. He’s a dead guy. He can’t even move. If they put him out there he would do absolutely nothing positively for the team. It would be 11 versus 10. So that’s not the reason.”
Congratulations Gregg Easterbrook, you are guilty of the stupidest thing a columnist wrote about the NFL this week.
Sarah Palin has an instant book out next month, and in keeping with the Unified Field Theory of Creep, it's already on bestseller lists though no volumes actually have been shipped from the warehouse.
You can sell books that haven’t shipped. This isn’t some cute thing you noticed.
It’s not on a list of most widely read books, just most purchased.
Single Worst Play of the Season -- So Far: San Francisco trailing 35-10, Dre' Bly of the Squared Sevens intercepted a pass and saw green in front of him. Bly started showboating for the home crowd at his own 40, then was caught from behind by Roddy White -- one of the league's fastest players, the sort of thing Bly is paid to know -- and fumbled. Atlanta ball. Showboating when you are about to score the winning points, as Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie did for Arizona, is bad enough. Showboating on your own 40 and when your team is down by 25 points is inexcusable. Dre' Bly, you are guilty of the single worst play of the season -- so far.
Yeah I actually agree with this.
Here is the clip.
Now, let’s follow up on the running theme that Easterbrook only sporadically talks about coaches being more manly men versus “fraidy cat” (his words) based on fourth down attempts. As Gregg already had a 2,200 word opening, he didn’t have to make up a trend to comment on. However, he would have had a legitimate point as this week there were only 26 fourth down attempts, but far the lowest this season (.93 per team game versus 1.32 last week – a 30% decline). In week 2 it increased 0% over week 1, which warranted an intro from Easterbrook about an increase in attempts. In week 4 it increased 1% over week 3 and made the intro as implying that there was a big increase. In week 3 it increased 24% over week 2 and that warranted a comment because Easterbrook thought that his week 2 “manly men” pronouncement was premature, even though teams went for it more in week 3. So he had it backwards. His inconsistency, and the shoddy wording of this paragraph, has probably confused the shit out of you. Let’s move on.
NFL news, is there a Crabtree Curse? San Francisco broke out of the gate 3-1, in part because management's no-compromise attitude toward holdout diva Michael Crabtree sent the message that nobody is bigger than the team. Then last week, suddenly Crabtree is granted $16 million guaranteed even though he skipped training camp, doesn't know the playbook, and spent the first month of the season relaxing on the couch. Suddenly the message sent is that you can jerk the 49ers around and get away with it. Immediately San Francisco lost to Atlanta 45-10 at home.
Yes, 100% of the reason they lost to the Saints is because the players ceased viewing the organization as a "no-nonsense – nobody is bigger than the team” organization.
What a fucking fruitcake.
In other football news, is Cincinnati this year's Team of Destiny? I advise you not to get up for a beer during the final minute of any Bengals game. I strongly advise you not to defy TMQ's law, Cold Coach = Victory. On a 30-degree day at Denver, Bill Belichick came out in a heavy winter parka plus woolen ski hat, with tassel; Josh McDaniels wore a hoodie with a baseball cap. At kickoff, seeing how they were attired, TMQ said, "This game's over." And yea, verily, it came to pass.
Fruitcake.
What to make of the Flaming Thumbtacks' collapse? Since the moment Tennessee took the field in the playoffs holding home-field advantage throughout the postseason, Tennessee has lost six straight. The loss of Albert Haynesworth cannot be the explanation, as his new team is struggling.
Wow. Is that a stupid thing to say. Wow.
Holy shit. Wow.
The loss of a key defensive player to a bad team can’t the explanation, because that key defensive player is now playing on a bad team! Wouldn’t the comparison be the Titans with Haynesworth’s productivity last year versus his replacement’s performance this year, to figure out if the loss of Haynesworth has had an impact?
What if Haynesworth had remained a Titan but died in the offseason? Would you say…."well the death of Haynesworth isn’t the explanation. He’s a dead guy. He can’t even move. If they put him out there he would do absolutely nothing positively for the team. It would be 11 versus 10. So that’s not the reason.”
Congratulations Gregg Easterbrook, you are guilty of the stupidest thing a columnist wrote about the NFL this week.
Sarah Palin has an instant book out next month, and in keeping with the Unified Field Theory of Creep, it's already on bestseller lists though no volumes actually have been shipped from the warehouse.
You can sell books that haven’t shipped. This isn’t some cute thing you noticed.
It’s not on a list of most widely read books, just most purchased.
Single Worst Play of the Season -- So Far: San Francisco trailing 35-10, Dre' Bly of the Squared Sevens intercepted a pass and saw green in front of him. Bly started showboating for the home crowd at his own 40, then was caught from behind by Roddy White -- one of the league's fastest players, the sort of thing Bly is paid to know -- and fumbled. Atlanta ball. Showboating when you are about to score the winning points, as Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie did for Arizona, is bad enough. Showboating on your own 40 and when your team is down by 25 points is inexcusable. Dre' Bly, you are guilty of the single worst play of the season -- so far.
Yeah I actually agree with this.
Here is the clip.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
TMQ - Denver Won Because They Couldn't Convert a 4th Down
TMQ - Week 4. That's the intro.
In other football news, going for it on fourth down continues to rise in NFL popularity: Chicago, Cincinnati, Miami, Minnesota, New England, New Orleans, Pittsburgh and Washington were among the teams that converted key fourth-down attempts this week when they could have kicked, and then went on to victory.
In week 2, he was all happy because teams were going for it more. In week 3, he spoke vaguely of a regression and teams going for it less. Using the crude measure of 4th down attempts per team per game, this is how it’s trending so far this season:
Week 1: 1.06
Week 2: 1.06 (When Gregg said there was a sudden burst of manhood, presumably over the week 1 total?)
Week 3: 1.31 (When Gregg said he was premature in week 3, even though it actually increased a lot)
Week 3: 1.32 (Virtually the same as week 3)
I am confused.
Of course, going for it doesn't always work; Denver was stuffed on a fourth-and-1 try, though the "challenging players to win" mindset that going for it on fourth down instills seemed to help the Broncos down the stretch.
Well obviously.
The Broncos probably don’t win that game if that 4th and 1 isn’t stuffed. Even when I’m wrong I’m 100% right. When I’m 100% right I’m 1,000% right. I am the smartest man alive. Verily. Cheerbabes. Flaming Thumbtacks and Jersey A/B!
Fortune Favors the Bold! No. 2: After the Redskins failed on fourth-down tries -- when they could have kicked -- in three straight games, Jim "Dan Snyder Hasn't Fired Me Quite Just Yet" Zorn still went for it on fourth-and-2 from the City of Tampa 36. For your faith you will be rewarded, spoke the football gods! Conversion, touchdown on the drive, Washington avoids losing to the winless Bucs, and Zorn's job is safe another week.
Okay. You got me. I take it all back. Football gods clearly exist and this is uncontestable proof that going for it on fourth down is always the right answer. The Redskins, like many other teams this year, have gone for it on fourth in a few different games, and they won in weeks 2 and 4. I have no idea what this means or proves or how it is the least bit interesting. They went for it on fourth in the second game, apparently, and failed, but they won the game. Gregg would say “alas, ye gods rewardeth the (stupid nickname) for showing such bravery and, yea, verily their faith was rewarded with a win! I like girls!!” But if you go for it and fail and lose, as they did in week 3, well shit that’s just part of the equation for winning in week 4. Make sense? I’m confused.
Single Worst Play of the Season -- So Far: Talk, talk, talk -- they sure can talk in Dallas. But when the pressure's on, they jog, jog, jog. Not only did multiple Cowboys defenders miss Brandon Marshall on the 51-yard zigzag scamper that won the game with two minutes remaining at Denver, other Cowboys didn't even try to chase the runner. Marshall cut back across the field twice; if more Cowboys had hustled to chase the play, Marshall would have run out of room. Linebacker Bradie James switched from running to jogging when Marshall was still at the Dallas 10. Dallas Cowboys, you are guilty of the single worst play of the season -- so far.
Here is the play. Great run. There are 7 cowboys chasing him. What does Easterbrook want? Sure, there were missed tackles, as there often are on runs like this, but that was just an amazing run. Brady James is number 56 and he is chasing Marshall for much of the play. He does let up a little early, but he was not catching Marshall anyway. There are players who stop giving chase when they have no chance on every play.
Yeah, pretty boring.
In other football news, going for it on fourth down continues to rise in NFL popularity: Chicago, Cincinnati, Miami, Minnesota, New England, New Orleans, Pittsburgh and Washington were among the teams that converted key fourth-down attempts this week when they could have kicked, and then went on to victory.
In week 2, he was all happy because teams were going for it more. In week 3, he spoke vaguely of a regression and teams going for it less. Using the crude measure of 4th down attempts per team per game, this is how it’s trending so far this season:
Week 1: 1.06
Week 2: 1.06 (When Gregg said there was a sudden burst of manhood, presumably over the week 1 total?)
Week 3: 1.31 (When Gregg said he was premature in week 3, even though it actually increased a lot)
Week 3: 1.32 (Virtually the same as week 3)
I am confused.
Of course, going for it doesn't always work; Denver was stuffed on a fourth-and-1 try, though the "challenging players to win" mindset that going for it on fourth down instills seemed to help the Broncos down the stretch.
Well obviously.
The Broncos probably don’t win that game if that 4th and 1 isn’t stuffed. Even when I’m wrong I’m 100% right. When I’m 100% right I’m 1,000% right. I am the smartest man alive. Verily. Cheerbabes. Flaming Thumbtacks and Jersey A/B!
Fortune Favors the Bold! No. 2: After the Redskins failed on fourth-down tries -- when they could have kicked -- in three straight games, Jim "Dan Snyder Hasn't Fired Me Quite Just Yet" Zorn still went for it on fourth-and-2 from the City of Tampa 36. For your faith you will be rewarded, spoke the football gods! Conversion, touchdown on the drive, Washington avoids losing to the winless Bucs, and Zorn's job is safe another week.
Okay. You got me. I take it all back. Football gods clearly exist and this is uncontestable proof that going for it on fourth down is always the right answer. The Redskins, like many other teams this year, have gone for it on fourth in a few different games, and they won in weeks 2 and 4. I have no idea what this means or proves or how it is the least bit interesting. They went for it on fourth in the second game, apparently, and failed, but they won the game. Gregg would say “alas, ye gods rewardeth the (stupid nickname) for showing such bravery and, yea, verily their faith was rewarded with a win! I like girls!!” But if you go for it and fail and lose, as they did in week 3, well shit that’s just part of the equation for winning in week 4. Make sense? I’m confused.
Single Worst Play of the Season -- So Far: Talk, talk, talk -- they sure can talk in Dallas. But when the pressure's on, they jog, jog, jog. Not only did multiple Cowboys defenders miss Brandon Marshall on the 51-yard zigzag scamper that won the game with two minutes remaining at Denver, other Cowboys didn't even try to chase the runner. Marshall cut back across the field twice; if more Cowboys had hustled to chase the play, Marshall would have run out of room. Linebacker Bradie James switched from running to jogging when Marshall was still at the Dallas 10. Dallas Cowboys, you are guilty of the single worst play of the season -- so far.
Here is the play. Great run. There are 7 cowboys chasing him. What does Easterbrook want? Sure, there were missed tackles, as there often are on runs like this, but that was just an amazing run. Brady James is number 56 and he is chasing Marshall for much of the play. He does let up a little early, but he was not catching Marshall anyway. There are players who stop giving chase when they have no chance on every play.
Yeah, pretty boring.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Check it Out I Found this Hidden Gregg Easterbrook Column
Before I get to TMQ, can someone help me out with something. This is from Scoop Jackson's column about the Michael Crabtree holdout:
But in truth, he does have recourse. Despite reports that the Jets may be interested in talking with Crabtree, there's still a backup plan: re-enter the draft next year and hope to get picked higher than he did this year. Yet this tactic is something that could and probably would affect his entire career, not just his rookie season. (It's the same move that agent Charles Tucker tried with the Milwaukee Bucks and Glenn Robinson in 1994, a move that haunted Robinson throughout his career. Just something to think about.)
A. Glenn Robinson was the number 1 pick. I don't think he had any designs on holding out to be re-drafted at the zero slot in 1995.
B. The hold out did not "haunt" Glenn Robinson throughout his entire career. That's made-up bullshit.
Now to the T&A loving badboy Gregg Easterbrook!
In other football news, perhaps Tuesday Morning Quarterback was premature in declaring last week that courage was breaking out across the NFL. (examples of coaches not going for it). So when courage might have saved the day, an NFL coach was hyper-conservative, desperate to avoid responsibility; when it made absolutely no difference what he did because the game was lost, the coach went for it. See other examples of NFL coaching timidity below.
That's funny, because just last week I declared that your declaration was probably just a lazy lead-in to your column, since teams went for it on fourth down at the same level as week 1 and not at a level that was too anomalous with previous seasons. In week 3 teams had 42 fourth down attempts. This is versus 34 in both weeks 1 and 2. Now, I understand that Easterbrook is not just talking about the quantity of attempts, but the scenarios in which the attempts were made (when the game was up for grabs versus when the game was essentially lost). However, I have to think that over 3 weeks, behaviors haven't changed that much - especially from week 1 to week 2 and from week 2 to week 3.
Sweet 'N' Sour Play No. 2: Note 3: (play recap...). San Diego versus Miami -- why wasn't this game played on a beach with the cheerleaders in bikinis?
Because the TMQ likes girls in bikinis, right! T&A man! Right on! He's just like us, only he likes to write 1,000 words about "cosmic thoughts"! Shut up.
Hidden Play of the Week No. 1: Hidden plays are ones that never make highlight reels, but stop or sustain drives. Highlight reels are showing Carson Palmer's last-snap-of-the-game touchdown pass to Andre Caldwell, enabling Cincinnati to defeat defending champion Pittsburgh. (Cincinnati also was in trips at the goal line, and Pittsburgh didn't jam either.) Twice on that winning drive, the Trick-or-Treats faced fourth down -- fourth-and-2 and fourth-and-10. Palmer completed conversion passes both times, helped by solid pass-blocking. These hidden plays made the game winner possible.
All highlights I saw of the game showed these 4th down conversions. This would be the opposite of “never making highlight reels”.
Yeah it's not much, but I had to fly through this week's column.
But in truth, he does have recourse. Despite reports that the Jets may be interested in talking with Crabtree, there's still a backup plan: re-enter the draft next year and hope to get picked higher than he did this year. Yet this tactic is something that could and probably would affect his entire career, not just his rookie season. (It's the same move that agent Charles Tucker tried with the Milwaukee Bucks and Glenn Robinson in 1994, a move that haunted Robinson throughout his career. Just something to think about.)
A. Glenn Robinson was the number 1 pick. I don't think he had any designs on holding out to be re-drafted at the zero slot in 1995.
B. The hold out did not "haunt" Glenn Robinson throughout his entire career. That's made-up bullshit.
Now to the T&A loving badboy Gregg Easterbrook!
In other football news, perhaps Tuesday Morning Quarterback was premature in declaring last week that courage was breaking out across the NFL. (examples of coaches not going for it). So when courage might have saved the day, an NFL coach was hyper-conservative, desperate to avoid responsibility; when it made absolutely no difference what he did because the game was lost, the coach went for it. See other examples of NFL coaching timidity below.
That's funny, because just last week I declared that your declaration was probably just a lazy lead-in to your column, since teams went for it on fourth down at the same level as week 1 and not at a level that was too anomalous with previous seasons. In week 3 teams had 42 fourth down attempts. This is versus 34 in both weeks 1 and 2. Now, I understand that Easterbrook is not just talking about the quantity of attempts, but the scenarios in which the attempts were made (when the game was up for grabs versus when the game was essentially lost). However, I have to think that over 3 weeks, behaviors haven't changed that much - especially from week 1 to week 2 and from week 2 to week 3.
Sweet 'N' Sour Play No. 2: Note 3: (play recap...). San Diego versus Miami -- why wasn't this game played on a beach with the cheerleaders in bikinis?
Because the TMQ likes girls in bikinis, right! T&A man! Right on! He's just like us, only he likes to write 1,000 words about "cosmic thoughts"! Shut up.
Hidden Play of the Week No. 1: Hidden plays are ones that never make highlight reels, but stop or sustain drives. Highlight reels are showing Carson Palmer's last-snap-of-the-game touchdown pass to Andre Caldwell, enabling Cincinnati to defeat defending champion Pittsburgh. (Cincinnati also was in trips at the goal line, and Pittsburgh didn't jam either.) Twice on that winning drive, the Trick-or-Treats faced fourth down -- fourth-and-2 and fourth-and-10. Palmer completed conversion passes both times, helped by solid pass-blocking. These hidden plays made the game winner possible.
All highlights I saw of the game showed these 4th down conversions. This would be the opposite of “never making highlight reels”.
Yeah it's not much, but I had to fly through this week's column.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Gregg Easterbrook Lies About AIG Lies
This week’s TMQ had 2 paragraphs I felt like commenting on. In the first, he talks about the outbreak of courage in the NFL this weekend because of the increase in teams going for it on 4th down.
Has courage broken out in the NFL? This weekend, team after team went for it on fourth down, eschewing fraidy-cat kicks…..(deleted: a bunch of examples)…..Overall in Week 2, there were 34 fourth-down conversion attempts -- some in desperation time when coaches had no choice, but most when kicking was a reasonable option.
Why this sudden burst of manhood?
The answer: because of cheer babes and football gods!
The real answer: There wasn’t, really. There were 34 fourth-down conversion attempts in week 1 too. This works out to 1.06 fourth down attempts per team per game. This is up from the 2008 season, which saw .96 fourth down attempts per team per game. I’m not trying to minimize this difference (10%), but it doesn’t strike me as huge and it probably won’t hold. Multiplying that out, it means that, on average, each team will attempt just under 17 fourth down attempts this season versus just over 15 last season. The way Easterbrook led off his column I expected it to be 20-40% higher.
So there is a slight increase over last year (as noted above). However, if you look at 2007, there were 1.04 fourth down attempts per team per game. This is virtually the same as 1.06. In 2006, it was .92. There actually was a much more significant increase from 2006 to 2007 than there has been in the small 2 week sample so far in 2009, when Gregg is applauding teams for being more manly men. In 2007 he was doing his usual (mostly correct) schtick of hammering the teams for being “fraidy cats” for punting too often.
Conclusion: Nothing to see here (yet)… keep moving. He probably just needed something to lead the column with.
The other piece I’m going to pick on is Gregg calling out the former interim CEO of AIG for essentially being misleading and dishonest. See, Liddy was asked by our government to come in to run AIG for a while to help maintain our economic system, which AIG had become an immense and important part of by insuring a large portfolio of subprime loans and basically propping up Wall Street for a couple of years. Ed Liddy was not the CEO of AIG when it helped to crash our financial system, but Easterbrook won’t clarify that for you. Ed Liddy was requested by our Government to be the CEO of AIG to help stabilize the company (and therefore the economy). Here’s what Easterbrook had to say:
Meanwhile, previous AIG CEO Edward Liddy repeatedly said he was working "for $1 a year." He asserted this on "60 Minutes" and in sworn congressional testimony, and was broadly praised for his dollar-a-year service. Now it turns out he was lying.
This is incredibly petty. Liddy did not say he was “working for $1 a year”. He was making a $1 per year salary. He wasn’t lying. Easterbrook says “now it turns out” like this is any big secret being uncovered or this is even recent news. Here is the Proxy statement filed with the SEC on June 5th. Scroll down to 2008 compensation. There it is. Nothing hidden.
AIG quietly said Liddy received $38,368 for a New York apartment, $47,578 for personal airline flights, $31,348 for car services and $180,431 "to cover tax obligations” " In what sense are these not income?
How did they quietly say this? Should they have issued a press release about some perquisites that frankly are quite small in the context of a CEO’s compensation package? What would you have done, if you were running AIG? They did not say he had no expenses paid, they said he had a $1 salary. I'll tell you in which sense those payments are not income. The entire purpose of the above expenses was to make sure that Liddy, in working for $1, was not actually paying to work for AIG. Since his home is not in New York, that required an apartment and transportation home. This is unfair and misleading, how?
You work at a job in order to be able to pay for your housing and transportation. You must earn income to pay your taxes; nobody pays them for you. If AIG was paying for Liddy's housing, personal travel and taxes, then he wasn't earning $1 a year.
He was earning a $1 salary. The expenses were paid for so that he wasn’t paying to work for AIG (at the government’s request, by the way).
Yet he lied through his teeth about this and got away with it.
This is an entirely inaccurate, misleading way to represent the situation, more so in any way than Liddy’s compensation package was a lie.
That's the core lesson of corporate scandals -- the CEOs tell lies, pocket cash and never pay any penalty.
What cash did he pocket? He had use of an apartment, a plane and some money went to federal, state and local governments. He did not live in New York, but was asked to run AIG. Was he supposed to call a realtor up and go apartment hunting or was he supposed to get busy running the company?
What does this encourage? More CEO lying. Liddy also received stock options. AIG has never said how many; suppose it was 200,000, the number just granted Benmosche.
Yeah, that seems fair, let’s just speculate that he received 200,000 stock options even though you have no evidence of that and then criticize him for it! I have been unable to find a record of Liddy receiving stock options (only positive statements to the contrary) and Easterbrook linked nothing to support this claim. If anyone has proof of this, please forward to me. I’m genuinely curious.
When Liddy went to AIG, its share price was hovering around $5; if that's the strike price, 200,000 shares would be worth about $7 million right now. Plus AIG quietly said Liddy may receive a bonus payable in 2010. The man who was widely praised for claiming to work for $1 may end up with a king's ransom in his pockets, all pilfered from the average taxpayers. Why have the media dropped this story?
This is very shady. If Liddy had been given 200,000 options upon arriving at AIG (which is what Easterbrook is implying/making up, because he’s using the beginning stock price as the strike price), then that would certainly be in the proxy I linked above. This is the number of Options that Liddy received upon joining AIG in September 2008: 0. Zero fucking options. Yes, but IF HE HAD THEN HE WOULD HAVE MADE A LOT OF MONEY! That's awesomely interesting. Except he didn't. If I had a 19 inch cock I'd be a porn star. Also interesting and made up. Fun, right?
This is from the proxy: “Mr. Liddy volunteered to receive only $1 in salary. He has received no cash incentive compensation and no equity-based compensation. It was expected that Mr. Liddy ultimately would be compensated through an equity grant. However, Mr. Liddy declined to move forward on work toward that arrangement as AIG addressed the immediate challenges facing it.”
This is directly in conflict with what Easterbrook said above. Is Easterbrook lying? At a minimum, his fictitious $7 million gain that he’s criticizing Liddy is wrong. Maybe Liddy did receive stock options, but name a cite and use those numbers in computing a gain to rail him on.
Here’s what they said about his tax obligations: “AIG also made additional payments to offset any tax obligation Mr. Liddy incurred in accordance with the preceding arrangements to avoid his effectively having to pay to work at AIG. AIG does not believe that any of the amounts described in this paragraph represents an actual compensation benefit for Mr. Liddy.”
Let’s say that you live in Florida. The government asks you to spend 9 months helping to build affordable low-income housing in Wisconsin. They provide a few trips home and an apartment in Wisconsin. Since you are still paying rent/mortgage in Florida, is that not reasonable? Is that really “income”? Easterbrook would call you a lying thief if you didn't call it income.
In the very same Bloomberg article that Easterbrook links to, it says this: "Liddy declined to accept equity grants for compensation, AIG said, canceling what was to be the largest component of his pay under an arrangement disclosed on Nov. 25.” But that didn’t stop Easterbrook from somehow computing a $7 million option gain for Mr. Liddy and calling him a liar for this $7 million gain.
Easterbrook is being more dishonest here than AIG or Ed Liddy.
Has courage broken out in the NFL? This weekend, team after team went for it on fourth down, eschewing fraidy-cat kicks…..(deleted: a bunch of examples)…..Overall in Week 2, there were 34 fourth-down conversion attempts -- some in desperation time when coaches had no choice, but most when kicking was a reasonable option.
Why this sudden burst of manhood?
The answer: because of cheer babes and football gods!
The real answer: There wasn’t, really. There were 34 fourth-down conversion attempts in week 1 too. This works out to 1.06 fourth down attempts per team per game. This is up from the 2008 season, which saw .96 fourth down attempts per team per game. I’m not trying to minimize this difference (10%), but it doesn’t strike me as huge and it probably won’t hold. Multiplying that out, it means that, on average, each team will attempt just under 17 fourth down attempts this season versus just over 15 last season. The way Easterbrook led off his column I expected it to be 20-40% higher.
So there is a slight increase over last year (as noted above). However, if you look at 2007, there were 1.04 fourth down attempts per team per game. This is virtually the same as 1.06. In 2006, it was .92. There actually was a much more significant increase from 2006 to 2007 than there has been in the small 2 week sample so far in 2009, when Gregg is applauding teams for being more manly men. In 2007 he was doing his usual (mostly correct) schtick of hammering the teams for being “fraidy cats” for punting too often.
Conclusion: Nothing to see here (yet)… keep moving. He probably just needed something to lead the column with.
The other piece I’m going to pick on is Gregg calling out the former interim CEO of AIG for essentially being misleading and dishonest. See, Liddy was asked by our government to come in to run AIG for a while to help maintain our economic system, which AIG had become an immense and important part of by insuring a large portfolio of subprime loans and basically propping up Wall Street for a couple of years. Ed Liddy was not the CEO of AIG when it helped to crash our financial system, but Easterbrook won’t clarify that for you. Ed Liddy was requested by our Government to be the CEO of AIG to help stabilize the company (and therefore the economy). Here’s what Easterbrook had to say:
Meanwhile, previous AIG CEO Edward Liddy repeatedly said he was working "for $1 a year." He asserted this on "60 Minutes" and in sworn congressional testimony, and was broadly praised for his dollar-a-year service. Now it turns out he was lying.
This is incredibly petty. Liddy did not say he was “working for $1 a year”. He was making a $1 per year salary. He wasn’t lying. Easterbrook says “now it turns out” like this is any big secret being uncovered or this is even recent news. Here is the Proxy statement filed with the SEC on June 5th. Scroll down to 2008 compensation. There it is. Nothing hidden.
AIG quietly said Liddy received $38,368 for a New York apartment, $47,578 for personal airline flights, $31,348 for car services and $180,431 "to cover tax obligations” " In what sense are these not income?
How did they quietly say this? Should they have issued a press release about some perquisites that frankly are quite small in the context of a CEO’s compensation package? What would you have done, if you were running AIG? They did not say he had no expenses paid, they said he had a $1 salary. I'll tell you in which sense those payments are not income. The entire purpose of the above expenses was to make sure that Liddy, in working for $1, was not actually paying to work for AIG. Since his home is not in New York, that required an apartment and transportation home. This is unfair and misleading, how?
You work at a job in order to be able to pay for your housing and transportation. You must earn income to pay your taxes; nobody pays them for you. If AIG was paying for Liddy's housing, personal travel and taxes, then he wasn't earning $1 a year.
He was earning a $1 salary. The expenses were paid for so that he wasn’t paying to work for AIG (at the government’s request, by the way).
Yet he lied through his teeth about this and got away with it.
This is an entirely inaccurate, misleading way to represent the situation, more so in any way than Liddy’s compensation package was a lie.
That's the core lesson of corporate scandals -- the CEOs tell lies, pocket cash and never pay any penalty.
What cash did he pocket? He had use of an apartment, a plane and some money went to federal, state and local governments. He did not live in New York, but was asked to run AIG. Was he supposed to call a realtor up and go apartment hunting or was he supposed to get busy running the company?
What does this encourage? More CEO lying. Liddy also received stock options. AIG has never said how many; suppose it was 200,000, the number just granted Benmosche.
Yeah, that seems fair, let’s just speculate that he received 200,000 stock options even though you have no evidence of that and then criticize him for it! I have been unable to find a record of Liddy receiving stock options (only positive statements to the contrary) and Easterbrook linked nothing to support this claim. If anyone has proof of this, please forward to me. I’m genuinely curious.
When Liddy went to AIG, its share price was hovering around $5; if that's the strike price, 200,000 shares would be worth about $7 million right now. Plus AIG quietly said Liddy may receive a bonus payable in 2010. The man who was widely praised for claiming to work for $1 may end up with a king's ransom in his pockets, all pilfered from the average taxpayers. Why have the media dropped this story?
This is very shady. If Liddy had been given 200,000 options upon arriving at AIG (which is what Easterbrook is implying/making up, because he’s using the beginning stock price as the strike price), then that would certainly be in the proxy I linked above. This is the number of Options that Liddy received upon joining AIG in September 2008: 0. Zero fucking options. Yes, but IF HE HAD THEN HE WOULD HAVE MADE A LOT OF MONEY! That's awesomely interesting. Except he didn't. If I had a 19 inch cock I'd be a porn star. Also interesting and made up. Fun, right?
This is from the proxy: “Mr. Liddy volunteered to receive only $1 in salary. He has received no cash incentive compensation and no equity-based compensation. It was expected that Mr. Liddy ultimately would be compensated through an equity grant. However, Mr. Liddy declined to move forward on work toward that arrangement as AIG addressed the immediate challenges facing it.”
This is directly in conflict with what Easterbrook said above. Is Easterbrook lying? At a minimum, his fictitious $7 million gain that he’s criticizing Liddy is wrong. Maybe Liddy did receive stock options, but name a cite and use those numbers in computing a gain to rail him on.
Here’s what they said about his tax obligations: “AIG also made additional payments to offset any tax obligation Mr. Liddy incurred in accordance with the preceding arrangements to avoid his effectively having to pay to work at AIG. AIG does not believe that any of the amounts described in this paragraph represents an actual compensation benefit for Mr. Liddy.”
Let’s say that you live in Florida. The government asks you to spend 9 months helping to build affordable low-income housing in Wisconsin. They provide a few trips home and an apartment in Wisconsin. Since you are still paying rent/mortgage in Florida, is that not reasonable? Is that really “income”? Easterbrook would call you a lying thief if you didn't call it income.
In the very same Bloomberg article that Easterbrook links to, it says this: "Liddy declined to accept equity grants for compensation, AIG said, canceling what was to be the largest component of his pay under an arrangement disclosed on Nov. 25.” But that didn’t stop Easterbrook from somehow computing a $7 million option gain for Mr. Liddy and calling him a liar for this $7 million gain.
Easterbrook is being more dishonest here than AIG or Ed Liddy.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Gregg Easterbrook Will Not Believe Your Crazy Comic Book Stories!
I read this week’s TMQ and had three separate paragraphs to comment on. Yeah, that’s all the introduction you’re getting, I’m busy.
"Wall-E" was a terrific flick, the finest Hollywood romance in years, despite starring two mute robots; "The Dark Knight" was a terrible film. People felt "The Dark Knight" had to be praised owing to the death of Heath Ledger; that movie was terrible.
Really, just because Heath Ledger died? Do you really think the Dark Knight made over 7 trillion dollars at the Box Office because people said “hey let’s go see that movie that stars that guy who died recently”? Do you really think guys like Roger Ebert are swayed by this? I don’t. That guy can be pretty vicious when he thinks a movie sucks.
The big chase scene at its center made absolutely no sense -- no matter what street the van turned down, the Joker's tractor-trailer truck was already on that street and approaching from the opposite direction. Huh?
It wasn’t approaching in the opposite direction, it was running parallel. If the Joker was approaching in the opposite direction, he would have just flown right by the van. So huh…to you!!!! See how I turned that around?
The Joker made no sense. How did he know where everyone in Gotham City was at every moment?
He didn’t, why do you say he did? Do you really know how much time was elapsing in this movie? Everyone…..every moment? It’s easy to discard something as stupid when you make up “facts” about it.
How did he enter guarded buildings without being detected?
As I noted in my post last year about this same goddamn subject, he’s a fucking criminal mastermind. In Gregg Easterbrook’s version of Batman, when the joker and his henchmen break into the bank at the beginning, they are immediately swarmed and taken down by the 66 year old security guard Cliff and his 18 year old assistant (who would be Cliff’s grandson, Jason…on his first day). Cliff would go on to get a $500 bonus from the bank and a plaque from the Mayor. The rest of the movie is mainly just Bruce Wayne shagging random NFL cheerleaders and watching Star Trek re-runs and pulling his hair out when NFL teams punt on 4th and 3 from the opponent’s 45 when the average NFL play yields 4.85 yards so they are guaranteed a first down. Also, Harvey Dent would be a raging anti-semite.
How did he command an army of super-competent ultra-loyal henchmen, including engineers and surgeons, despite having no money and boasting of murdering his own assistants for amusement?
Who says he had no money? How are any of those super villains in any movies with armies of henchman able to command them? Who are the engineers and surgeons (I may just be forgetting)? WHO FUCKING CARES? It’s a comic book movie, turn your brain off for two hours and watch the pretty explosions. How did Hitler command hundreds of thousands of people? With fear? Well that's my answer. The Joker did it with fear.
And that scene of gibberish pseudo-philosophizing about society by the Joker, puh-leeze.
Seriously, what scene is this?
I don’t remember the Joker philosophizing about society in any grandiose way, he just said he likes to cause mayhem and see what happens. Good god you must be a miserable fuck to watch a movie with.
Moving on, let’s talk about apologies and false analogies.
Serena Williams was fined $10,000 for cursing out and threatening to harm a line judge in the U.S. Open. It's not just that in the Masterpiece Theater environment of tennis, the hushed crowd can hear a player curse; threatening another person with physical harm is in most states a crime akin to simple battery, such as throwing a punch. Williams, who is wealthy, was assessed a minor fine -- yet LeGarrette Blount of Oregon loses his entire senior season for throwing a punch. Blount's punch was wrong and punishment was required, but taking away his senior season -- in high school and college football, the senior season is the most important season by far -- for losing his cool in the heat of the moment is excessive punishment.
It's been a while since I took Criminal Justice, but I don't believe throwing and landing a punch is “simple battery”. What LeGarrette Blount did was assault and battery. Simple battery would have been knocking the other player’s helmet out of his hand or something. What Serena Williams did was assault, only because she raised her racket and motioned towards the line judge in a threatening way (pointing at her)…even though everyone who saw it knew the Williams would not actually physically do anything to the line judge. What Serena Williams did was not battery, because she never actually touched the line judge (or even "simple battery"). Taking a cheap shot punch at another player from an angle where you are hidden is not analogous to yelling at someone. He lost his entire season not for “simple battery” caused by throwing a punch. He assaulted a player with the intent of doing him great physical harm. Note: I’m not a lawyer, so don’t all 8 of you e-mail me lawery stuff. You get my point.
I don’t disagree with Easterbrook’s larger point in the paragraph above, which is that Blount’s punishment is very severe, perhaps overly so. But his analogy here is not very good. Here’s where it gets worse.
What Blount did is not hugely different from what Williams did. Yet she is slapped on the wrist while he is severely punished.
I have a problem with this. This is the youtube video of Serena Williams. She lost her cool and yelled at a line judge. She motioned towards her. She said bad things. But the line judge was not, for one second, in true physical danger. This is the US open. There are 10’s of thousands of people there, and the match is televised. The actually likelihood of Serena Williams doing something to physically harm the line judge is zero point zero per cent. People yell at officials/refs/umpires/line judges all the time. To analogize it to punching someone from the side is insane.
This is the youtube video of LeGarrette Blount blindsiding Byron Hout. If he hits Hout in the temple with that punch, who knows what happens? Blount is a big strong guy, and he didn’t just “lose his cool”, he put another person’s livelihood at risk. This is not in the same universe as an athlete cursing out an official. There was no real threat of physical harm, and everyone knows this.
Let’s turn this around. Let’s say that Serena Williams had punched the line judge when the judge had her head turned and LeGarrette Blount has said “I will kill you” and pointed at another player. Would you still think these things are not hugely different?
Plus, whatever happened to the value of the apology? Blount apologized to Byron Hout, the player he struck, and Hout graciously accepted.
So if Hout doesn’t accept, then the apology is not as valued. This is stupid logic. What he does is minimized if he apologizes for it….IF….the apology is accepted!
Life is full of screw-ups. The apology, if accepted, lets us go forward without nursing grudges. Rep. Joe Wilson was incredibly rude to President Barack Obama last week. Wilson apologized; Obama accepted. The matter should now be closed. Blount's apology was genuine, and ought to count for a lot.
No, the matter is not closed. There’s still the little matter of a player punching another player. THE LAST THING WE NEED TO TEACH PEOPLE WHO CAN’T CONTROL THEMSELVES IS THAT YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT AND FACE A MUCH MORE LENIENT POLICY IF YOU APOLOGIZE. Blount learns no lesson if he’s given a small penalty simply because he apologized.
Football spectators, TV fans and boosters are hypocritical to demand violent contact during games, then theatrically call for extreme punishment of a player whose heat-of-battle emotions had not cooled a mere two minutes after the contest ended.
He fucking blindsided another player with a punch that could have done serious damage. This is a serious thing. This wasn’t two Pop Warner kids at school the next day behind the jungle gym. He should have known people would see him do this and there would be repercussions. By being so brazen, he practically obligated the NCAA and his school to hit him with a super harsh penalty. Stop glossing over this. A full season seems extreme to me, I’d have suspended him for a few games, but this is not the same as Serena Williams or Joe Wilson. Exchanges like this happen all the time and don’t lead to violence, so I don’t buy the argument that this is hypocritical to expect this instance to have not resulted in violence.
Okay, moving on again. One thing Gregg does all the time is take plays and describe them with total revisionist history. If you just read his column and never actually see the plays, you will not notice this. But frequently when Gregg says “no one moved”, a few guys moved. When he says 4 players were involved, 2 were involved, etc. When he says that he likes cheerbabes in skimpy outfits, he’s sucking on a dildo. Anyway, that brings us to his recap of the Brandon Stokley reception this week.
Single Worst Play of the Season -- So Far: Just maybe you've seen a highlight of the Brandon Stokley play that won the Denver-Cincinnati game. Forget the ball bouncing or Stokley running, where were the Bengals? Leading 7-6 with 28 seconds remaining and the opponent pinned on its 13, Cincinnati coaches sent only a nickel, not a dime, onto the field. At the snap, the deepest safety was only 12 yards off. Once Stokley grabs the tipped pass, linebacker Dhani Jones is the sole Bengal who chases him all-out. Other Broncos, and Bronco coaches, ran down the sideline with Stokley. The linesman ran with him almost stride-for-stride. Where are the other Bengals?
The underlines are mine.
Wow, that’s powerful stuff. The linesman ran with him! So did the coaches! But the well paid professional athletes on the Bengals didn’t even try. Based on what you just read, don’t you have this vision of a bunch of Bengals DB’s being beaten on a route or something and then when Stokley is in front of them, they just stop running because they are lazy assholes? All the while, a parade of people are stride for stride with Stokely on the sideline….even the much older linesman!
Here is the play. Watch it.
The DB’s fell and were out of the play once the ball was tipped. The linesman ran about 15 feet and not at all with Stokley. A couple of Bronco players ran about 15 yards, not at all with Stokley’s pace. Lastly, the part about the Bronco coaches is unverifiable from this clip. I couldn’t see anyone running. I suspect the TMQ made it up.
Easterbrook does this all the time.
"Wall-E" was a terrific flick, the finest Hollywood romance in years, despite starring two mute robots; "The Dark Knight" was a terrible film. People felt "The Dark Knight" had to be praised owing to the death of Heath Ledger; that movie was terrible.
Really, just because Heath Ledger died? Do you really think the Dark Knight made over 7 trillion dollars at the Box Office because people said “hey let’s go see that movie that stars that guy who died recently”? Do you really think guys like Roger Ebert are swayed by this? I don’t. That guy can be pretty vicious when he thinks a movie sucks.
The big chase scene at its center made absolutely no sense -- no matter what street the van turned down, the Joker's tractor-trailer truck was already on that street and approaching from the opposite direction. Huh?
It wasn’t approaching in the opposite direction, it was running parallel. If the Joker was approaching in the opposite direction, he would have just flown right by the van. So huh…to you!!!! See how I turned that around?
The Joker made no sense. How did he know where everyone in Gotham City was at every moment?
He didn’t, why do you say he did? Do you really know how much time was elapsing in this movie? Everyone…..every moment? It’s easy to discard something as stupid when you make up “facts” about it.
How did he enter guarded buildings without being detected?
As I noted in my post last year about this same goddamn subject, he’s a fucking criminal mastermind. In Gregg Easterbrook’s version of Batman, when the joker and his henchmen break into the bank at the beginning, they are immediately swarmed and taken down by the 66 year old security guard Cliff and his 18 year old assistant (who would be Cliff’s grandson, Jason…on his first day). Cliff would go on to get a $500 bonus from the bank and a plaque from the Mayor. The rest of the movie is mainly just Bruce Wayne shagging random NFL cheerleaders and watching Star Trek re-runs and pulling his hair out when NFL teams punt on 4th and 3 from the opponent’s 45 when the average NFL play yields 4.85 yards so they are guaranteed a first down. Also, Harvey Dent would be a raging anti-semite.
How did he command an army of super-competent ultra-loyal henchmen, including engineers and surgeons, despite having no money and boasting of murdering his own assistants for amusement?
Who says he had no money? How are any of those super villains in any movies with armies of henchman able to command them? Who are the engineers and surgeons (I may just be forgetting)? WHO FUCKING CARES? It’s a comic book movie, turn your brain off for two hours and watch the pretty explosions. How did Hitler command hundreds of thousands of people? With fear? Well that's my answer. The Joker did it with fear.
And that scene of gibberish pseudo-philosophizing about society by the Joker, puh-leeze.
Seriously, what scene is this?
I don’t remember the Joker philosophizing about society in any grandiose way, he just said he likes to cause mayhem and see what happens. Good god you must be a miserable fuck to watch a movie with.
Moving on, let’s talk about apologies and false analogies.
Serena Williams was fined $10,000 for cursing out and threatening to harm a line judge in the U.S. Open. It's not just that in the Masterpiece Theater environment of tennis, the hushed crowd can hear a player curse; threatening another person with physical harm is in most states a crime akin to simple battery, such as throwing a punch. Williams, who is wealthy, was assessed a minor fine -- yet LeGarrette Blount of Oregon loses his entire senior season for throwing a punch. Blount's punch was wrong and punishment was required, but taking away his senior season -- in high school and college football, the senior season is the most important season by far -- for losing his cool in the heat of the moment is excessive punishment.
It's been a while since I took Criminal Justice, but I don't believe throwing and landing a punch is “simple battery”. What LeGarrette Blount did was assault and battery. Simple battery would have been knocking the other player’s helmet out of his hand or something. What Serena Williams did was assault, only because she raised her racket and motioned towards the line judge in a threatening way (pointing at her)…even though everyone who saw it knew the Williams would not actually physically do anything to the line judge. What Serena Williams did was not battery, because she never actually touched the line judge (or even "simple battery"). Taking a cheap shot punch at another player from an angle where you are hidden is not analogous to yelling at someone. He lost his entire season not for “simple battery” caused by throwing a punch. He assaulted a player with the intent of doing him great physical harm. Note: I’m not a lawyer, so don’t all 8 of you e-mail me lawery stuff. You get my point.
I don’t disagree with Easterbrook’s larger point in the paragraph above, which is that Blount’s punishment is very severe, perhaps overly so. But his analogy here is not very good. Here’s where it gets worse.
What Blount did is not hugely different from what Williams did. Yet she is slapped on the wrist while he is severely punished.
I have a problem with this. This is the youtube video of Serena Williams. She lost her cool and yelled at a line judge. She motioned towards her. She said bad things. But the line judge was not, for one second, in true physical danger. This is the US open. There are 10’s of thousands of people there, and the match is televised. The actually likelihood of Serena Williams doing something to physically harm the line judge is zero point zero per cent. People yell at officials/refs/umpires/line judges all the time. To analogize it to punching someone from the side is insane.
This is the youtube video of LeGarrette Blount blindsiding Byron Hout. If he hits Hout in the temple with that punch, who knows what happens? Blount is a big strong guy, and he didn’t just “lose his cool”, he put another person’s livelihood at risk. This is not in the same universe as an athlete cursing out an official. There was no real threat of physical harm, and everyone knows this.
Let’s turn this around. Let’s say that Serena Williams had punched the line judge when the judge had her head turned and LeGarrette Blount has said “I will kill you” and pointed at another player. Would you still think these things are not hugely different?
Plus, whatever happened to the value of the apology? Blount apologized to Byron Hout, the player he struck, and Hout graciously accepted.
So if Hout doesn’t accept, then the apology is not as valued. This is stupid logic. What he does is minimized if he apologizes for it….IF….the apology is accepted!
Life is full of screw-ups. The apology, if accepted, lets us go forward without nursing grudges. Rep. Joe Wilson was incredibly rude to President Barack Obama last week. Wilson apologized; Obama accepted. The matter should now be closed. Blount's apology was genuine, and ought to count for a lot.
No, the matter is not closed. There’s still the little matter of a player punching another player. THE LAST THING WE NEED TO TEACH PEOPLE WHO CAN’T CONTROL THEMSELVES IS THAT YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT AND FACE A MUCH MORE LENIENT POLICY IF YOU APOLOGIZE. Blount learns no lesson if he’s given a small penalty simply because he apologized.
Football spectators, TV fans and boosters are hypocritical to demand violent contact during games, then theatrically call for extreme punishment of a player whose heat-of-battle emotions had not cooled a mere two minutes after the contest ended.
He fucking blindsided another player with a punch that could have done serious damage. This is a serious thing. This wasn’t two Pop Warner kids at school the next day behind the jungle gym. He should have known people would see him do this and there would be repercussions. By being so brazen, he practically obligated the NCAA and his school to hit him with a super harsh penalty. Stop glossing over this. A full season seems extreme to me, I’d have suspended him for a few games, but this is not the same as Serena Williams or Joe Wilson. Exchanges like this happen all the time and don’t lead to violence, so I don’t buy the argument that this is hypocritical to expect this instance to have not resulted in violence.
Okay, moving on again. One thing Gregg does all the time is take plays and describe them with total revisionist history. If you just read his column and never actually see the plays, you will not notice this. But frequently when Gregg says “no one moved”, a few guys moved. When he says 4 players were involved, 2 were involved, etc. When he says that he likes cheerbabes in skimpy outfits, he’s sucking on a dildo. Anyway, that brings us to his recap of the Brandon Stokley reception this week.
Single Worst Play of the Season -- So Far: Just maybe you've seen a highlight of the Brandon Stokley play that won the Denver-Cincinnati game. Forget the ball bouncing or Stokley running, where were the Bengals? Leading 7-6 with 28 seconds remaining and the opponent pinned on its 13, Cincinnati coaches sent only a nickel, not a dime, onto the field. At the snap, the deepest safety was only 12 yards off. Once Stokley grabs the tipped pass, linebacker Dhani Jones is the sole Bengal who chases him all-out. Other Broncos, and Bronco coaches, ran down the sideline with Stokley. The linesman ran with him almost stride-for-stride. Where are the other Bengals?
The underlines are mine.
Wow, that’s powerful stuff. The linesman ran with him! So did the coaches! But the well paid professional athletes on the Bengals didn’t even try. Based on what you just read, don’t you have this vision of a bunch of Bengals DB’s being beaten on a route or something and then when Stokley is in front of them, they just stop running because they are lazy assholes? All the while, a parade of people are stride for stride with Stokely on the sideline….even the much older linesman!
Here is the play. Watch it.
The DB’s fell and were out of the play once the ball was tipped. The linesman ran about 15 feet and not at all with Stokley. A couple of Bronco players ran about 15 yards, not at all with Stokley’s pace. Lastly, the part about the Bronco coaches is unverifiable from this clip. I couldn’t see anyone running. I suspect the TMQ made it up.
Easterbrook does this all the time.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Easterbrook Again Makes Meaningless, Incorrect Assertion
Check out this post for a comment from last week's TMQ regarding Drew Brees potentially breaking Dan Marino's single season passing yards record.
Below is an excerpt from this week's TMQ:
• The football gods did not want Drew Brees to break Dan Marino's single-season passing yards record -- because that record was set in a Miami playoff year when the yards were needed, whereas Brees' breaking the record for the eliminated Saints would have been a stunt.
It’s an odd little swipe at Brees, attempting to discredit the yards he threw for this year as less important than the yards that Marino threw for in a 14-2 Dolphins season, when they cruised into the playoffs. By Easterbrook’s rationale, all of Tom Brady’s yards last year were needed, as the Patriots were in a playoff year. Gregg would never say that, right?
Also, this football gods thing….is tired.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Easterbrook Just Makes Shit Up
Don’t ask me why I’m breaking such a long hiatus to write this post, but this week’s TMQ includes this line in reference to the possibility that Drew Brees could break Dan Marino’s single season passing yards record:
In this case, if Brees succeeds, it will be essentially a stunt, given the finale game has no meaning to the eliminated Saints. Marino's record year came as the Dolphins reached the Super Bowl -- those were all yards the team needed to win pressure games.
The 1984 Dolphins finished 14-2. In second place in the AFC East were the Patriots at 7-9. The Dolphins were 12-2 when Marino threw for 404 and 340 yards in the last two games.
So, Greggggg, how exactly were “all” those yards needed to win “pressure” games?
New Orleans is 8-7. Maybe Brees will rack up yards because he’s a competitor who wants to win? Maybe they want to finish above .500? Maybe they are psyched up to play a good Carolina team with a good passing defense?
Nope, says Gregg, it’ll be a “stunt”.
I wasn’t going to post about this, as I mentioned it instead in the reader comments over at FireJayMariotti, but this was in TMQ a few weeks ago and it is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read from Easterbrook:
Trailing Cleveland 6-0, Tennessee went for it on fourth-and-1 on the Browns' 28 and got a touchdown; the Titans won. (Tennessee cleverly threw to blocking back Ahmard Hall, who lost a fumble on fourth-and-1 earlier in the year; knowing that, Cleveland totally ignored Hall.)
Do you really think that Cleveland “totally ignored” Hall by design? If they did, do you think it’s BECAUSE EARLIER THIS YEAR HALL HAD A FUMBLE THAT HAPPENED TO BE A FOURTH DOWN PLAY????
I do not. I think that’s asinine.
In this case, if Brees succeeds, it will be essentially a stunt, given the finale game has no meaning to the eliminated Saints. Marino's record year came as the Dolphins reached the Super Bowl -- those were all yards the team needed to win pressure games.
The 1984 Dolphins finished 14-2. In second place in the AFC East were the Patriots at 7-9. The Dolphins were 12-2 when Marino threw for 404 and 340 yards in the last two games.
So, Greggggg, how exactly were “all” those yards needed to win “pressure” games?
New Orleans is 8-7. Maybe Brees will rack up yards because he’s a competitor who wants to win? Maybe they want to finish above .500? Maybe they are psyched up to play a good Carolina team with a good passing defense?
Nope, says Gregg, it’ll be a “stunt”.
I wasn’t going to post about this, as I mentioned it instead in the reader comments over at FireJayMariotti, but this was in TMQ a few weeks ago and it is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read from Easterbrook:
Trailing Cleveland 6-0, Tennessee went for it on fourth-and-1 on the Browns' 28 and got a touchdown; the Titans won. (Tennessee cleverly threw to blocking back Ahmard Hall, who lost a fumble on fourth-and-1 earlier in the year; knowing that, Cleveland totally ignored Hall.)
Do you really think that Cleveland “totally ignored” Hall by design? If they did, do you think it’s BECAUSE EARLIER THIS YEAR HALL HAD A FUMBLE THAT HAPPENED TO BE A FOURTH DOWN PLAY????
I do not. I think that’s asinine.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
You Can Not Fool the TMQ
I’m not a batman geek. I’ve seen The Dark Night, and I liked it, but I don’t recall the details all that well. That shouldn’t overcome the general point of this post, which is that Gregg Easterbrook is a fucking killjoy who doesn’t understand when you’re supposed to take your thinking cap off and enjoy life for 2 ½ hours….and I’m not talking about pretending to be turned on by cheerleaders. There’s a difference between picking on unrealities in a Batman movie and in a movie that intends to be realistic despite the unrealistic premise, like Point Break or Speed (or any Keanu Reeves between Bill & Ted’s and The Matrix).
The latest Batman installment is a hit, and well-made from a cinematography standpoint, but the Joker character was unrealism carried to an extreme, even by Hollywood's low standards. The Joker has hundreds of obedient, superefficient henchmen, including surgeons and high-ranking police officers, who serve him without question -- even though they know he murders his own henchmen.
He is a criminal mastermind. They have a lot of henchmen. It’s a fictional movie based on a fucking comic book character.
The Joker knows things no one could possibly know, such as what street the police van carrying Harvey Dent will turn down during a wild chase. (He has henchmen positioned on that street, one of dozens the van might have turned down).
Wasn’t there a tractor trailer rigged to block the alternative path, so that they were more likely to go down the street they went down? I may be confusing scenes here. I also thought that the whole exercise of carrying Dent in the police van was a ploy to try to draw the Joker out, so they weren’t trying to be secretive.
Also, he’s a criminal mastermind in a fictional movie.
The Joker can get poison into the police commissioner's private office without anyone suspecting anything.
Well, I think he probably broke in, or had someone on the inside break in. I don’t think he just walked in during the day and put the poison in the bottle and no one suspected anything.
He was able to break in because he’s a criminal mastermind in a fictional movie, and they do things like that.
City officials make a sudden decision to load several hundred people into ferries; in just a few hours, Joker is able to place thousands of pounds of explosives aboard the ferries without anyone noticing, plus rig devices to take over the ferries' engines.
I think a ten year old would have realized that he did this well in advance of the people getting on the ferries. Also, I thought they were put on ferries as part of an evacuation, masterminded by the criminal mastermind, the Joker? Man, my memory sucks.
Anyway, he’s a criminal mastermind, and those fuckers think ahead.
Joker is able to move thousands of pounds of explosives into Gotham General Hospital without anyone noticing.
How do you know that no one noticed? Maybe 20 people noticed and he killed them all. They do that, those criminal masterminds in fictional movies.
Positioning the explosives for the two giant-blast sequences in "The Dark Night" would have required large trucks and a front-loader carrying multiple heavy objects through places crawling with police officers without anyone noticing.
Um, what about the warehouses full of explosives used on Harvey and Rachel? Wasn’t THAT unlikely!
Answer, yes. But these are both examples of scenes orchestrated by a fictional character in a fictional movie about a billionaire playboy that dresses up like a bat.
Joker always knows exactly where everyone he wants to kill is in a huge city (how?);
Maybe he follows them? The people he wants to kill are, like, the most famous people in the city and they are frequently the target of media. I guess the Joker (criminal mastermind) finds them the same way that paparazzi find Britney Spears. I don’t think he “always” knows “exactly” where they are. He first finds Harvey Dent at a fundraiser thrown….for….Harvey Dent.
he's beaten to a pulp by Batman, yet just minutes later, easily overpowers a huge policeman;
He really wasn’t beaten up that much really, and that police officer was not huge and he looked about 50.
Joker steals from the mob, yet no mob soldier simply shoots him.
Because they are frightened of him, and also because he guarantees he can deliver things to them (the Asian dude, all their money back, Batman).
Joker has a bomb sneaked into the jail where he's being held -- somehow he knew in advance what cell he would be in! -- and it blasts open the jail wall, plus kills all the police officers standing around the Joker, but does not hurt him.
Wow! IT'S ALMOST LIKE HE'S NOT REAL!
The latest Batman installment is a hit, and well-made from a cinematography standpoint, but the Joker character was unrealism carried to an extreme, even by Hollywood's low standards. The Joker has hundreds of obedient, superefficient henchmen, including surgeons and high-ranking police officers, who serve him without question -- even though they know he murders his own henchmen.
He is a criminal mastermind. They have a lot of henchmen. It’s a fictional movie based on a fucking comic book character.
The Joker knows things no one could possibly know, such as what street the police van carrying Harvey Dent will turn down during a wild chase. (He has henchmen positioned on that street, one of dozens the van might have turned down).
Wasn’t there a tractor trailer rigged to block the alternative path, so that they were more likely to go down the street they went down? I may be confusing scenes here. I also thought that the whole exercise of carrying Dent in the police van was a ploy to try to draw the Joker out, so they weren’t trying to be secretive.
Also, he’s a criminal mastermind in a fictional movie.
The Joker can get poison into the police commissioner's private office without anyone suspecting anything.
Well, I think he probably broke in, or had someone on the inside break in. I don’t think he just walked in during the day and put the poison in the bottle and no one suspected anything.
He was able to break in because he’s a criminal mastermind in a fictional movie, and they do things like that.
City officials make a sudden decision to load several hundred people into ferries; in just a few hours, Joker is able to place thousands of pounds of explosives aboard the ferries without anyone noticing, plus rig devices to take over the ferries' engines.
I think a ten year old would have realized that he did this well in advance of the people getting on the ferries. Also, I thought they were put on ferries as part of an evacuation, masterminded by the criminal mastermind, the Joker? Man, my memory sucks.
Anyway, he’s a criminal mastermind, and those fuckers think ahead.
Joker is able to move thousands of pounds of explosives into Gotham General Hospital without anyone noticing.
How do you know that no one noticed? Maybe 20 people noticed and he killed them all. They do that, those criminal masterminds in fictional movies.
Positioning the explosives for the two giant-blast sequences in "The Dark Night" would have required large trucks and a front-loader carrying multiple heavy objects through places crawling with police officers without anyone noticing.
Um, what about the warehouses full of explosives used on Harvey and Rachel? Wasn’t THAT unlikely!
Answer, yes. But these are both examples of scenes orchestrated by a fictional character in a fictional movie about a billionaire playboy that dresses up like a bat.
Joker always knows exactly where everyone he wants to kill is in a huge city (how?);
Maybe he follows them? The people he wants to kill are, like, the most famous people in the city and they are frequently the target of media. I guess the Joker (criminal mastermind) finds them the same way that paparazzi find Britney Spears. I don’t think he “always” knows “exactly” where they are. He first finds Harvey Dent at a fundraiser thrown….for….Harvey Dent.
he's beaten to a pulp by Batman, yet just minutes later, easily overpowers a huge policeman;
He really wasn’t beaten up that much really, and that police officer was not huge and he looked about 50.
Joker steals from the mob, yet no mob soldier simply shoots him.
Because they are frightened of him, and also because he guarantees he can deliver things to them (the Asian dude, all their money back, Batman).
Joker has a bomb sneaked into the jail where he's being held -- somehow he knew in advance what cell he would be in! -- and it blasts open the jail wall, plus kills all the police officers standing around the Joker, but does not hurt him.
Wow! IT'S ALMOST LIKE HE'S NOT REAL!
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Gregg Easterbrook Totally Calls out DC Comics
This paragraph is in this week's Tuesday Morning Quarterback on ESPN.com:
Meanwhile, I read that Christian Bale, who plays Batman in "The Dark Knight" -- the movie bore no relation whatsoever to Frank Miller's 1986 graphic novel "The Dark Knight," which revived the Batman craze -- says his favorite of the many Batman graphic novels is "Dark Victory." I got a copy. In it, Batman battles the Joker, Harvey Dent, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Pengy and the rest in the sewers of Gotham City. The sewers are cavernous, with only trickles of water running along the bottom; so large the giant Solomon Grundy, who's 20 feet tall, strides through them easily. The sewers lead to doors that open throughout Gotham City, allowing Joker and the rest to strike, then vanish. Gotham's enormous cathedral-ceiling sewers appear to be the greatest public-works project in human history, yet no one knows they exist. Batman has to discover the sewers to determine how the super-villains are moving around the city. And the sewers have a door that leads to the Batcave, which contains -- a bottomless pit.
What the fuck DC Comics? Can’t you write a story about a billionaire playboy who moonlights as a bat while fighting crime against a grown man-penguin, a guy in a cryogenic suit who shoots ice and a guy with a half normal/half terribly deformed face that flips a coin to decide if he’s going to kill someone AND INCLUDE A BELIEVABLE PORTRAYAL OF THIS FICTIONAL CITY’S SEWER SYSTEM! You can’t fool the TMQ, bitches!
Now, who will answer to the TMQ about the insanity of the subway system in Metropolis or the Daily Bugle’s lack of any required Federal labor laws posted in the break room! Please answer the comic gods!
Meanwhile, I read that Christian Bale, who plays Batman in "The Dark Knight" -- the movie bore no relation whatsoever to Frank Miller's 1986 graphic novel "The Dark Knight," which revived the Batman craze -- says his favorite of the many Batman graphic novels is "Dark Victory." I got a copy. In it, Batman battles the Joker, Harvey Dent, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Pengy and the rest in the sewers of Gotham City. The sewers are cavernous, with only trickles of water running along the bottom; so large the giant Solomon Grundy, who's 20 feet tall, strides through them easily. The sewers lead to doors that open throughout Gotham City, allowing Joker and the rest to strike, then vanish. Gotham's enormous cathedral-ceiling sewers appear to be the greatest public-works project in human history, yet no one knows they exist. Batman has to discover the sewers to determine how the super-villains are moving around the city. And the sewers have a door that leads to the Batcave, which contains -- a bottomless pit.
What the fuck DC Comics? Can’t you write a story about a billionaire playboy who moonlights as a bat while fighting crime against a grown man-penguin, a guy in a cryogenic suit who shoots ice and a guy with a half normal/half terribly deformed face that flips a coin to decide if he’s going to kill someone AND INCLUDE A BELIEVABLE PORTRAYAL OF THIS FICTIONAL CITY’S SEWER SYSTEM! You can’t fool the TMQ, bitches!
Now, who will answer to the TMQ about the insanity of the subway system in Metropolis or the Daily Bugle’s lack of any required Federal labor laws posted in the break room! Please answer the comic gods!
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Gregg Easterbrook Thinks He’s Smarter Than Every NFL Team
If you’ve read Gregg Easterbrook’s Tuesday Morning Quarterback before you know that he likes to go off and discuss, at length, random things. Cheerleaders, astronomy, economics, environmental policy, etc. are the usual fare for Easterbrook. He also has a running commentary about the executive structure of NFL teams, which he finds to be ridiculously layered with executives. He spent some time on this topic in this week's column. I will focus on what he said about the New England Patriots for the simple reason that he says they are the most “top-heavy” and because I believe it’s a good example of how he doesn’t know what he’s talking about here.
First, a portion of his commentary:
• The Patriots, this year's winner for most top-heavy front office, have a chairman and CEO, a president, a vice president of player personnel, a chief administrative officer, a chief financial officer, a chief operating officer, three other vice presidents, two executive directors, two people who both hold the title director of sales, a director of strategic initiatives, and 12 other directors.
Morons! Easterbrook could run that shit with 5 people and a monkey. He’d of course add an Executive VP, Football God Compliance because he thinks Football Gods are real or something. Anyway, so that’s 26 executives.
Later he says:
When pondering football title inflation, bear in mind that individual NFL franchises are fairly small economic entities. Forbes magazine estimates that the Patriots earn about $255 million in annual revenue, with about $200 million in revenue being the NFL average. If $200 million sounds like a lot, it's half the annual revenue of Barney's, the New York department store. There are many enterprises viewed as small businesses whose revenue exceeds the $200 million brought in annually by the typical NFL team; $200 million in revenue just doesn't justify large numbers of grandiose executive titles. If General Electric had the same ratio of titles to revenue as the Patriots, GE would employ 652 presidents, 1,304 executive directors, 1,956 chief officers and 9,780 directors.
As usual, Easterbrook does a good job of oversimplifying things to support his argument. The statement that the revenue number is half the revenue of Barney’s (which is more than 1 store, of course) is meaningless, as they are completely different businesses. It’s also very misleading for a different reason, which I’ll explain later. He ignores the fact that the CEO of a company is almost entirely devoted to that Company. They typically serve on a few charitable boards and may possibly be on the board of other companies, but those are not their jobs by any stretch. Bob Kraft’s role as the CEO of the Patriots is not analogous to that of a CEO of a similarly sized company, for a variety of reasons. His job is to oversee his broad business holdings, of which includes the New England Patriots. Many CEO’s of pro sports teams are just rich guys who manage their investments, one of which is their team. The following is from the Patriots’ website:
Kraft founded The Kraft Group to serve as the holding company for the family's varied business interests, which are concentrated in five specific areas: the distribution of forest products, paper and packaging manufacturing, sports and entertainment, real estate development and private equity investing.
This guy’s role with the Patriots is not analogous to the CEO of Barney’s at all. Not unless that guy/girl is also running a timber operation or something. Also, the Kraft Group’s revenues in total are almost certainly higher than Barney’s, which makes Barney’s as a point of reference even more off-base. Using GE as an example is terrible, as I’m sure they have a startlingly high number of executives anyway given that they have about 320,000 employees. Using Easterbrook’s lame extrapolated supposedly-hyperbolic numbers (based on revenues) to compute that there are 13,692 executives at GE, you’d wind up with executives representing about 4% of their workforce. That’s low. I know my Company has more than 4% of employees classified as Director level or above. If your business has 50 employees, don’t you have more than 2 executives? Unless you are working in an all-manufacturing environment or a larger business with thousands of lower level employees with compartmentalized job skills, I would think this is true.
So Easterbrook has noted that the Patriots have a Chairman/CEO, that’s Robert Kraft (above), as well as a President, Jonathan Kraft. Let’s read what the Patriots website says about Jonathan’s job:
Kraft's NFL obligations are only a small part of his day to- day responsibilities, which are as diversified as the many different companies he oversees. The Kraft Group has a diversity of interests concentrated in five specific areas: the distribution of forest products, paper and packaging manufacturing, sports and entertainment, real estate development and private equity investing and Kraft is responsible for overseeing the operations of each division.
Does it sound like he’s spending the bulk of his time on the Patriots? Do you think the President of Barney’s job description starts with “so and so’s Barney’s obligations are only a small part of his/her day to day responsibilities”. What Easterbrook fails to recognize is that the top 2 executives of the Patriots are tied into to Kraft’s other businesses, and most others also devote a significant amount of time to Gillete Stadium, which the Kraft Group owns. Don’t forget that if the team owns the stadium then that is a year-round business that requires executives (operational, sales, finance, etc.) to oversee to make sure that this asset worth several hundred million dollars is being fully utilized for economic purposes while being maintained. That’s a full-time business. Here, let’s look at a portion of the Patriots’ COO’s job description:
As Chief Operating Officer he oversees the daily business operations of each department in the organization to ensure the efficient achievement of operational and financial objectives. With its active calendar of concerts, trade shows and private events within the Fidelity Investments Clubhouse, the stadium complex is a year-round convention center in addition to being a premier sports and entertainment venue.
Going back to his revenue number, if U2 performs a concert at Gillette Stadium, does it show up in the Patriots’ revenue figure? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t just assume it does.
It’s not entirely uncommon for a company with revenues of a few hundred million (let’s say domestic only, to keep it simple) to have the following executives:
Overall Executives
- CEO/President (could also be two roles)
- CFO
- COO (or some companies just call this type of role the President)
- CIO
- Could have….Chief Marketing Officer, Chief Technology Officer (hi-tech), Chief Accounting Officer, etc.
Functional Executives
- VP, Marketing
- VP, Research & Development
- VP or Director, Human Resources
- VP, Sales
- VP, IT/IS (could be two Director roles)
- VP, Professional Services (or manufacturing, Ops management etc. – industry specific).
- VP, Corporate Controller
- VP or Director of Finance (FP&A, budgeting, finance management of verticals, etc.)
- VP, Corporate/Business Development
- Other potential VPs = Strategy (related), Mergers and Acquisitions, Product Marketing, Customer Service, etc.
Business (verticals) Executives
- GM – Business line 1
- GM – Business line 2
- GM – Business line 3
Industry specifics and company size dictate the org chart of a company, that’s just meant to be a quick overview of what you tend to see.
Now here’s where it gets interesting (or probably really, really, painfully boring), each of the functional executives likely have at least 1 Director level executive reporting to them. In something as important as development for a hi-tech company or a pharmaceutical company (even a small one, pre-revenue), there could be 2-3 VP’s reporting to a Senior VP, and those VP’s could have responsibility for certain product lines possibly (or disciplines – pharmacology, chemistry for a biotech, etc.) with Director level employees under them. For sales, you could have a few Directors managing sales teams by geography or vertical or both and reporting to a VP of Sales. Or you could have a VP of Sales under each vertical. In finance, under the Controller or CFO, you probably have a director (or VP) of tax and Divisional Controllers. Each of the GM’s likely have a “Director of Operations” or something analogous for that line. Also, I’ve ignored legal but a fair number of small/mid-size public companies employ a VP/Director level internal legal resource.
What I’m saying is that you can easily get to 26 executives. While that may be a more robust org chart that he is considering when looking at an NFL franchise (and the 26 execs above), my point is that the number of executives is not surprising to me nor does he have any basis for saying it's extreme in comparison to businesses of similar size/complexity.
So the point of this long, boring post, is to say that Easterbrooks’ long running rant/joke about the number of executives at NFL teams is a stupid waste of time. I’m sure some teams are top-heavy, just like some companies, but this isn’t worth the effort that he (or I) have put into it.
First, a portion of his commentary:
• The Patriots, this year's winner for most top-heavy front office, have a chairman and CEO, a president, a vice president of player personnel, a chief administrative officer, a chief financial officer, a chief operating officer, three other vice presidents, two executive directors, two people who both hold the title director of sales, a director of strategic initiatives, and 12 other directors.
Morons! Easterbrook could run that shit with 5 people and a monkey. He’d of course add an Executive VP, Football God Compliance because he thinks Football Gods are real or something. Anyway, so that’s 26 executives.
Later he says:
When pondering football title inflation, bear in mind that individual NFL franchises are fairly small economic entities. Forbes magazine estimates that the Patriots earn about $255 million in annual revenue, with about $200 million in revenue being the NFL average. If $200 million sounds like a lot, it's half the annual revenue of Barney's, the New York department store. There are many enterprises viewed as small businesses whose revenue exceeds the $200 million brought in annually by the typical NFL team; $200 million in revenue just doesn't justify large numbers of grandiose executive titles. If General Electric had the same ratio of titles to revenue as the Patriots, GE would employ 652 presidents, 1,304 executive directors, 1,956 chief officers and 9,780 directors.
As usual, Easterbrook does a good job of oversimplifying things to support his argument. The statement that the revenue number is half the revenue of Barney’s (which is more than 1 store, of course) is meaningless, as they are completely different businesses. It’s also very misleading for a different reason, which I’ll explain later. He ignores the fact that the CEO of a company is almost entirely devoted to that Company. They typically serve on a few charitable boards and may possibly be on the board of other companies, but those are not their jobs by any stretch. Bob Kraft’s role as the CEO of the Patriots is not analogous to that of a CEO of a similarly sized company, for a variety of reasons. His job is to oversee his broad business holdings, of which includes the New England Patriots. Many CEO’s of pro sports teams are just rich guys who manage their investments, one of which is their team. The following is from the Patriots’ website:
Kraft founded The Kraft Group to serve as the holding company for the family's varied business interests, which are concentrated in five specific areas: the distribution of forest products, paper and packaging manufacturing, sports and entertainment, real estate development and private equity investing.
This guy’s role with the Patriots is not analogous to the CEO of Barney’s at all. Not unless that guy/girl is also running a timber operation or something. Also, the Kraft Group’s revenues in total are almost certainly higher than Barney’s, which makes Barney’s as a point of reference even more off-base. Using GE as an example is terrible, as I’m sure they have a startlingly high number of executives anyway given that they have about 320,000 employees. Using Easterbrook’s lame extrapolated supposedly-hyperbolic numbers (based on revenues) to compute that there are 13,692 executives at GE, you’d wind up with executives representing about 4% of their workforce. That’s low. I know my Company has more than 4% of employees classified as Director level or above. If your business has 50 employees, don’t you have more than 2 executives? Unless you are working in an all-manufacturing environment or a larger business with thousands of lower level employees with compartmentalized job skills, I would think this is true.
So Easterbrook has noted that the Patriots have a Chairman/CEO, that’s Robert Kraft (above), as well as a President, Jonathan Kraft. Let’s read what the Patriots website says about Jonathan’s job:
Kraft's NFL obligations are only a small part of his day to- day responsibilities, which are as diversified as the many different companies he oversees. The Kraft Group has a diversity of interests concentrated in five specific areas: the distribution of forest products, paper and packaging manufacturing, sports and entertainment, real estate development and private equity investing and Kraft is responsible for overseeing the operations of each division.
Does it sound like he’s spending the bulk of his time on the Patriots? Do you think the President of Barney’s job description starts with “so and so’s Barney’s obligations are only a small part of his/her day to day responsibilities”. What Easterbrook fails to recognize is that the top 2 executives of the Patriots are tied into to Kraft’s other businesses, and most others also devote a significant amount of time to Gillete Stadium, which the Kraft Group owns. Don’t forget that if the team owns the stadium then that is a year-round business that requires executives (operational, sales, finance, etc.) to oversee to make sure that this asset worth several hundred million dollars is being fully utilized for economic purposes while being maintained. That’s a full-time business. Here, let’s look at a portion of the Patriots’ COO’s job description:
As Chief Operating Officer he oversees the daily business operations of each department in the organization to ensure the efficient achievement of operational and financial objectives. With its active calendar of concerts, trade shows and private events within the Fidelity Investments Clubhouse, the stadium complex is a year-round convention center in addition to being a premier sports and entertainment venue.
Going back to his revenue number, if U2 performs a concert at Gillette Stadium, does it show up in the Patriots’ revenue figure? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t just assume it does.
It’s not entirely uncommon for a company with revenues of a few hundred million (let’s say domestic only, to keep it simple) to have the following executives:
Overall Executives
- CEO/President (could also be two roles)
- CFO
- COO (or some companies just call this type of role the President)
- CIO
- Could have….Chief Marketing Officer, Chief Technology Officer (hi-tech), Chief Accounting Officer, etc.
Functional Executives
- VP, Marketing
- VP, Research & Development
- VP or Director, Human Resources
- VP, Sales
- VP, IT/IS (could be two Director roles)
- VP, Professional Services (or manufacturing, Ops management etc. – industry specific).
- VP, Corporate Controller
- VP or Director of Finance (FP&A, budgeting, finance management of verticals, etc.)
- VP, Corporate/Business Development
- Other potential VPs = Strategy (related), Mergers and Acquisitions, Product Marketing, Customer Service, etc.
Business (verticals) Executives
- GM – Business line 1
- GM – Business line 2
- GM – Business line 3
Industry specifics and company size dictate the org chart of a company, that’s just meant to be a quick overview of what you tend to see.
Now here’s where it gets interesting (or probably really, really, painfully boring), each of the functional executives likely have at least 1 Director level executive reporting to them. In something as important as development for a hi-tech company or a pharmaceutical company (even a small one, pre-revenue), there could be 2-3 VP’s reporting to a Senior VP, and those VP’s could have responsibility for certain product lines possibly (or disciplines – pharmacology, chemistry for a biotech, etc.) with Director level employees under them. For sales, you could have a few Directors managing sales teams by geography or vertical or both and reporting to a VP of Sales. Or you could have a VP of Sales under each vertical. In finance, under the Controller or CFO, you probably have a director (or VP) of tax and Divisional Controllers. Each of the GM’s likely have a “Director of Operations” or something analogous for that line. Also, I’ve ignored legal but a fair number of small/mid-size public companies employ a VP/Director level internal legal resource.
What I’m saying is that you can easily get to 26 executives. While that may be a more robust org chart that he is considering when looking at an NFL franchise (and the 26 execs above), my point is that the number of executives is not surprising to me nor does he have any basis for saying it's extreme in comparison to businesses of similar size/complexity.
So the point of this long, boring post, is to say that Easterbrooks’ long running rant/joke about the number of executives at NFL teams is a stupid waste of time. I’m sure some teams are top-heavy, just like some companies, but this isn’t worth the effort that he (or I) have put into it.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Does This Mean I’m Smarter than Gregg Easterbrook?
No, it doesn’t. From this week’s TMQ:
Obscure College Score of the Week No. 2: Rhode Island 12, Massachusetts 6 in overtime. As noted by reader Preston Jones of Harrisonburg, Va., UMass scored all its points on safeties. The Minutemen faithful lament: If only we'd gotten four more safeties!
Didn’t UMass just need one more safety, since the game was won in overtime?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Gregg Easterbrook Is Still Very Wordy
In this week's TMQ, Gregg Easterbrook spends 1,800 words on the Patriots being evil. This isn’t written in the guise of comedy or to be witty or something. Since GGAS recently moved our offices to New England, I’ll put this out there in the interest of full disclosure; I root for New England teams. Now I’ll balance that out with this: I’m not really an NFL fan. I enjoy watching the Patriots because they are good, not because they are “my team”, because they are not. Now, much of TMQ is essentially calling Bill Belichick and Tom Brady classless assholes who were running up the score against the Dolphins on Sunday and have been the NFL embodiment (on the field and off) of evil, while the Colts (specifically Dungy and Manning) represent all that is good. I have nothing against Tony Dungy and Peyton Manning, but I just think Easterbrook's entire premise and arguments against the Patriots is silly.
To address the accusation of running up the score in yesterdays win against the Dolphins, he spends a lot of time on the logistics of the plays that were called to support his claims. Personally, I don’t give a shit if they were, but is it really a big issue today? It’s not like it was 63-0 and they continued to try to score. It just seems like a non-issue when you consider it was 42-7 at halftime and the final was 49-28. I mean, I got to think they’d be a little better about running up the score than to be outscored 21-7 in the second half.
It also makes little sense when you consider one of his “stats of the week:”
Stat of the Week No. 2: At one point, Tennessee led Houston 32-7 and held a 311-34 advantage in offensive yards, yet the Titans ended up needing a field goal on the final snap to win.
Look, the Patriots had a massive lead at halftime, and the odds of the Dolphins coming back were slim, but come-backs do happen. I think if Matt Cassel didn't get picked and the Dolphins weren't putting points on the board he would have finished off the game. Get over it. Oh no wait, write 1,800 words about it. Yeah, that makes more sense.
I’ll try to parse out some specific items that I thought were a little over the top/unfair.
Their coach, Tony Dungy, smiles in public and answers honestly whatever he is asked: He never yells at players or grimaces at bad plays and, when defeated, doesn't act as though it's the end of the world.
Okay, so that’s the mark of a “good” coach. So Red Auerbach, who yelled at his players on the court…he’s evil? Bobby Knight? That guy must be the devil. Doesn’t Peyton Manning yell at people from time to time and even (gasp) grimace after a bad play? Is this worth our time? Did Vince Lombardi, the man credited with “winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing” act like it was the end of the world when he lost (sounds like it)? These are rhetorical questions that I realize don’t directly address his point, that Tony Dungy is the embodiment of “good”, but is the antithesis of these acts really the embodiment of “evil”. That’s stupid.
The team has three Super Bowl triumphs, yet its players regularly whine about not being revered enough.
I honestly have to disagree. Other than the standard locker room fare that teams use to search for motivation (‘the other team is favored to win’ kind of stuff), I have never heard the mainstays on these Patriots teams (or the new players, since they joined the Patriots) whining about not being revered enough. If there are examples, then I’ll admit I’m wrong, because I’m not soaking up a ton of NFL media. But don’t say “regularly” without giving me one example.
The team's star, Tom Brady, is a smirking sybarite who dates actresses and supermodels but whose public charity appearances are infrequent. That constant smirk on Brady's face reminds one of Dick Cheney; people who smirk are fairly broadcasting the message, "I'm hiding something."
This is a very petty attack on Tom Brady. Let’s review:
Smirking sybarite:
Okay, I had to look up the word sybarite because I’m not as smart as Gregg Easterbrook, but dictionary.com defines it as the following: a person devoted to luxury and pleasure.
So we’re making an attack on Tom Brady for smirking - which implies that he’s going out of his way to put on a negative vibe - and apparently liking luxury and pleasure. What-fucking-ever man. I recommend you not study Tom Brady’s face so much.
Dates actresses and supermodels
So? Is that evil? What if he dated cheerleaders like the ones you pretend to like and post all over TMQ, to compensate for the fact that you are kind of a dork? Check it out! I like chicks too!
..but whose public charity appearances are infrequent.
True, Brady’s ratio of supermodels dated to charitable donations is pretty low. Evil!
That constant smirk on Brady's face reminds one of Dick Cheney; people who smirk are fairly broadcasting the message, "I'm hiding something."
What the fuck are you talking about? This is very irresponsible ad-hominem attacks in the name of being righteous. You can’t say “he smirks” and then leap to “he’s dishonest”. Gregg, your writing REAKS of pomposity and arrogance. That tells me that you’re an asshole. Is that fair?
The TMQ loves rhetorical questions. Let’s answer a few.
The New England players still might suffer some long-term harm from the cheating, though: Given the image New England is projecting, would you want Patriots' players endorsing your product?
I don’t think Tom Brady will have any trouble getting endorsements because of Belichick’s taping scandal. I see Patriots players advertising all sorts of shit in New England, and there really aren’t that many NFL stars involved in national ads, but Brady is one of them. So that’s bunk.
But if the Patriots are unfairly maligned, why the whole screw-you act they are staging?
If you were unfairly maligned, wouldn’t your mentality be of the “screw-you” variety? Mine would be. I peg you as saying:
Gregg: "I'm being unfairly maligned, but please please see that my heart is pure, and look at the ass on that one!"
Me: Gregg that's a man
Gregg: I like naked women!
Me: Sure.
If the Patriots were unfairly maligned, they'd be trying hard to convince us their hearts are pure, and that distinctly is not what they are doing.
Woah woah woah. Hearts are pure? Man I was kidding about that shit (okay I cheated). No, if a team is accused of cheating, they don’t then go out and play and try to barely win, but in a “our hearts are pure” kind of way. No. They try to win in a way that says, “do you see any cheating now, while I’m kicking your ass?” This is pretty simple.
But if the Patriots are so awesome they don't need to cheat, then why were they cheating in Week 1? The whole situation remains creepy. Should New England continue on and win the Super Bowl without a major attitude shift toward nice-guy behavior -- and should the year end without the NFL's ever explaining what New England evidence it destroyed or why -- there could be a huge amount of cynicism about this NFL season. Cynicism doesn't sell a sports product, nor is it what the NFL should be marketing to the young.
This is a great example of how Easterbrook can, in a passive way, make incredible leaps in logic that just make little sense. It’s a pretty innocent little set of sentences, but the statement that he’s making is pretty grandiose. I’ll just chime in and say that there won’t be a huge amount of cynicism if things play out with the Patriots winning the Super Bowl, for precisely the reason why you are wrote those 1,800 words. They are kicking everyone’s ass, and letting it be known that they are the better team, regardless of what your opinions of them and the taping scandal are. I’m not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
This entire post is less than 1,400 words - he wrote 1,800 about the Patriots being evil. That's a little obsessive.
To address the accusation of running up the score in yesterdays win against the Dolphins, he spends a lot of time on the logistics of the plays that were called to support his claims. Personally, I don’t give a shit if they were, but is it really a big issue today? It’s not like it was 63-0 and they continued to try to score. It just seems like a non-issue when you consider it was 42-7 at halftime and the final was 49-28. I mean, I got to think they’d be a little better about running up the score than to be outscored 21-7 in the second half.
It also makes little sense when you consider one of his “stats of the week:”
Stat of the Week No. 2: At one point, Tennessee led Houston 32-7 and held a 311-34 advantage in offensive yards, yet the Titans ended up needing a field goal on the final snap to win.
Look, the Patriots had a massive lead at halftime, and the odds of the Dolphins coming back were slim, but come-backs do happen. I think if Matt Cassel didn't get picked and the Dolphins weren't putting points on the board he would have finished off the game. Get over it. Oh no wait, write 1,800 words about it. Yeah, that makes more sense.
I’ll try to parse out some specific items that I thought were a little over the top/unfair.
Their coach, Tony Dungy, smiles in public and answers honestly whatever he is asked: He never yells at players or grimaces at bad plays and, when defeated, doesn't act as though it's the end of the world.
Okay, so that’s the mark of a “good” coach. So Red Auerbach, who yelled at his players on the court…he’s evil? Bobby Knight? That guy must be the devil. Doesn’t Peyton Manning yell at people from time to time and even (gasp) grimace after a bad play? Is this worth our time? Did Vince Lombardi, the man credited with “winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing” act like it was the end of the world when he lost (sounds like it)? These are rhetorical questions that I realize don’t directly address his point, that Tony Dungy is the embodiment of “good”, but is the antithesis of these acts really the embodiment of “evil”. That’s stupid.
The team has three Super Bowl triumphs, yet its players regularly whine about not being revered enough.
I honestly have to disagree. Other than the standard locker room fare that teams use to search for motivation (‘the other team is favored to win’ kind of stuff), I have never heard the mainstays on these Patriots teams (or the new players, since they joined the Patriots) whining about not being revered enough. If there are examples, then I’ll admit I’m wrong, because I’m not soaking up a ton of NFL media. But don’t say “regularly” without giving me one example.
The team's star, Tom Brady, is a smirking sybarite who dates actresses and supermodels but whose public charity appearances are infrequent. That constant smirk on Brady's face reminds one of Dick Cheney; people who smirk are fairly broadcasting the message, "I'm hiding something."
This is a very petty attack on Tom Brady. Let’s review:
Smirking sybarite:
Okay, I had to look up the word sybarite because I’m not as smart as Gregg Easterbrook, but dictionary.com defines it as the following: a person devoted to luxury and pleasure.
So we’re making an attack on Tom Brady for smirking - which implies that he’s going out of his way to put on a negative vibe - and apparently liking luxury and pleasure. What-fucking-ever man. I recommend you not study Tom Brady’s face so much.
Dates actresses and supermodels
So? Is that evil? What if he dated cheerleaders like the ones you pretend to like and post all over TMQ, to compensate for the fact that you are kind of a dork? Check it out! I like chicks too!
..but whose public charity appearances are infrequent.
True, Brady’s ratio of supermodels dated to charitable donations is pretty low. Evil!
That constant smirk on Brady's face reminds one of Dick Cheney; people who smirk are fairly broadcasting the message, "I'm hiding something."
What the fuck are you talking about? This is very irresponsible ad-hominem attacks in the name of being righteous. You can’t say “he smirks” and then leap to “he’s dishonest”. Gregg, your writing REAKS of pomposity and arrogance. That tells me that you’re an asshole. Is that fair?
The TMQ loves rhetorical questions. Let’s answer a few.
The New England players still might suffer some long-term harm from the cheating, though: Given the image New England is projecting, would you want Patriots' players endorsing your product?
I don’t think Tom Brady will have any trouble getting endorsements because of Belichick’s taping scandal. I see Patriots players advertising all sorts of shit in New England, and there really aren’t that many NFL stars involved in national ads, but Brady is one of them. So that’s bunk.
But if the Patriots are unfairly maligned, why the whole screw-you act they are staging?
If you were unfairly maligned, wouldn’t your mentality be of the “screw-you” variety? Mine would be. I peg you as saying:
Gregg: "I'm being unfairly maligned, but please please see that my heart is pure, and look at the ass on that one!"
Me: Gregg that's a man
Gregg: I like naked women!
Me: Sure.
If the Patriots were unfairly maligned, they'd be trying hard to convince us their hearts are pure, and that distinctly is not what they are doing.
Woah woah woah. Hearts are pure? Man I was kidding about that shit (okay I cheated). No, if a team is accused of cheating, they don’t then go out and play and try to barely win, but in a “our hearts are pure” kind of way. No. They try to win in a way that says, “do you see any cheating now, while I’m kicking your ass?” This is pretty simple.
But if the Patriots are so awesome they don't need to cheat, then why were they cheating in Week 1? The whole situation remains creepy. Should New England continue on and win the Super Bowl without a major attitude shift toward nice-guy behavior -- and should the year end without the NFL's ever explaining what New England evidence it destroyed or why -- there could be a huge amount of cynicism about this NFL season. Cynicism doesn't sell a sports product, nor is it what the NFL should be marketing to the young.
This is a great example of how Easterbrook can, in a passive way, make incredible leaps in logic that just make little sense. It’s a pretty innocent little set of sentences, but the statement that he’s making is pretty grandiose. I’ll just chime in and say that there won’t be a huge amount of cynicism if things play out with the Patriots winning the Super Bowl, for precisely the reason why you are wrote those 1,800 words. They are kicking everyone’s ass, and letting it be known that they are the better team, regardless of what your opinions of them and the taping scandal are. I’m not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
This entire post is less than 1,400 words - he wrote 1,800 about the Patriots being evil. That's a little obsessive.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Gregg Easterbrook Writes a Long-Ass Column
So I'm really tired and this post may be very sloppy and non-sensical.... but what the hell, right?
Gregg Easterbrook writes an incredibly long-winded column on ESPN page 2 called “Tuesday Morning Quarterback” where he explains why he’s so much smarter than you and everyone else. I just finished reading this week's edition and I’m too tired to type a better intro. For the record I don't hate the guy or think he's unintelligent. He often has many good points, particularly about NFL strategy. But he can get a little too righteous for my liking.
On the NBA point below, I’m not really saying he’s wrong, just responding. I don’t know. I’m really tired, just read it. I’m not even going to address his hyperbole when talking about the impact of the camera issue on the NFL - but feel free to check out his column for his (long) take on it (hint: it's catastrophic). Also, if you want a lot of comparisons of Bill Belichick and Richard Nixon, that link will suit you well.
Think the NFL can't decline? Fifteen years ago, the National Basketball Association was going up, up, up by every measure and was widely considered the gold-plated can't-miss "sport of the next century." Since then, NBA popularity and ratings have plummeted while NBA-based teams have floundered in international competition.
No, actually NBA popularity and ratings plummeted when Michael Jordan retired, which coincided with a lockout. There are dozens of other reasons, but I’d point to those two first. Also, losing in international competition is largely the result of much improved international competition.
I believe it was 1994 when Sports Illustrated had a cover story called something like “Why the NHL is hot, and the NBA is not”. Just saying.
Fifteen years ago, sports-marketing types would have said "impossible!" to the notion that only 11 percent of American households would watch the NBA Finals, which is what happened this June.
Look at the chart midway down on the left of this page. Notice anything? The ratings were high with Jordan or Los Angeles in the Finals, and pretty much lower any time the Spurs were involved. Also, this is a long time to be reviewing ratings. I think if you told the sports-marketing types about the rise in video games, and explained to them “the Internet”, TIVO/DVR, and cable packages with hundreds of channels and then told them the finals would be played between San Antonio and Cleveland, they would have thought of that notion as being very possible.
I also couldn’t quite follow Easterbrook’s train of thought when talking about the possibility of the Patriots cheating on Sunday night against the Chargers. Namely if they had used illegally obtained video from the January AFC playoff game (which he acknowledges had different coaching) to their advantage on Sunday night.
Was New England cheating again Sunday night, when the Patriots advanced the ball with such ease it seemed they knew what defense San Diego would be in?
He's asking that question for real. It's at the tail end of a paragraph where he explains exactly how the Patriots could have been cheating. Now let’s read some snippets of his analysis of the game from a different section of his column.
What in blazes was the story with the Chargers? Rarely has a quality team seemed so ill-prepared for a monster game, and rarely has a quality team seemed to give up the moment the going got tough.
He then goes through several plays where the Chargers should have known what was coming, but were ill-prepared. Based on AccuScore and (he seems to imply) common sense, the Chargers were not playing smart.
He concludes just by saying, “That's awful defense” after both long-winded detailed paragraphs explaining how the Chargers sucked.
But what was really awful about San Diego's performance was the coaching timidity.
He then goes into detail about how San Diego should have gone for it fourth-and-1 near midfield in the second quarter when they were already down 17 points and later in the quarter they punted again on 4th and 2.
When the coach quits on the game in the second quarter, it should come as no surprise that the players quit.
So first he questions if they were cheating because they advanced the ball easily and seemed to know what defense was coming.
Then we get:
- “ill-prepared”
- “awful defense”
- “awful defense”
- “coaching timidity”
- “coach quits”
- “players quit”
…to describe the Chargers.
Hmm, well….. I realize that those statements and the Patriots cheating aren’t mutually exclusive, but why would anyone who watched the game waste time putting a lot of thought into crediting their offensive output to the Patriots cheating, especially when that person has such disdain for the Chargers’ defensive execution, strategy, and effort?
Gregg Easterbrook writes an incredibly long-winded column on ESPN page 2 called “Tuesday Morning Quarterback” where he explains why he’s so much smarter than you and everyone else. I just finished reading this week's edition and I’m too tired to type a better intro. For the record I don't hate the guy or think he's unintelligent. He often has many good points, particularly about NFL strategy. But he can get a little too righteous for my liking.
On the NBA point below, I’m not really saying he’s wrong, just responding. I don’t know. I’m really tired, just read it. I’m not even going to address his hyperbole when talking about the impact of the camera issue on the NFL - but feel free to check out his column for his (long) take on it (hint: it's catastrophic). Also, if you want a lot of comparisons of Bill Belichick and Richard Nixon, that link will suit you well.
Think the NFL can't decline? Fifteen years ago, the National Basketball Association was going up, up, up by every measure and was widely considered the gold-plated can't-miss "sport of the next century." Since then, NBA popularity and ratings have plummeted while NBA-based teams have floundered in international competition.
No, actually NBA popularity and ratings plummeted when Michael Jordan retired, which coincided with a lockout. There are dozens of other reasons, but I’d point to those two first. Also, losing in international competition is largely the result of much improved international competition.
I believe it was 1994 when Sports Illustrated had a cover story called something like “Why the NHL is hot, and the NBA is not”. Just saying.
Fifteen years ago, sports-marketing types would have said "impossible!" to the notion that only 11 percent of American households would watch the NBA Finals, which is what happened this June.
Look at the chart midway down on the left of this page. Notice anything? The ratings were high with Jordan or Los Angeles in the Finals, and pretty much lower any time the Spurs were involved. Also, this is a long time to be reviewing ratings. I think if you told the sports-marketing types about the rise in video games, and explained to them “the Internet”, TIVO/DVR, and cable packages with hundreds of channels and then told them the finals would be played between San Antonio and Cleveland, they would have thought of that notion as being very possible.
I also couldn’t quite follow Easterbrook’s train of thought when talking about the possibility of the Patriots cheating on Sunday night against the Chargers. Namely if they had used illegally obtained video from the January AFC playoff game (which he acknowledges had different coaching) to their advantage on Sunday night.
Was New England cheating again Sunday night, when the Patriots advanced the ball with such ease it seemed they knew what defense San Diego would be in?
He's asking that question for real. It's at the tail end of a paragraph where he explains exactly how the Patriots could have been cheating. Now let’s read some snippets of his analysis of the game from a different section of his column.
What in blazes was the story with the Chargers? Rarely has a quality team seemed so ill-prepared for a monster game, and rarely has a quality team seemed to give up the moment the going got tough.
He then goes through several plays where the Chargers should have known what was coming, but were ill-prepared. Based on AccuScore and (he seems to imply) common sense, the Chargers were not playing smart.
He concludes just by saying, “That's awful defense” after both long-winded detailed paragraphs explaining how the Chargers sucked.
But what was really awful about San Diego's performance was the coaching timidity.
He then goes into detail about how San Diego should have gone for it fourth-and-1 near midfield in the second quarter when they were already down 17 points and later in the quarter they punted again on 4th and 2.
When the coach quits on the game in the second quarter, it should come as no surprise that the players quit.
So first he questions if they were cheating because they advanced the ball easily and seemed to know what defense was coming.
Then we get:
- “ill-prepared”
- “awful defense”
- “awful defense”
- “coaching timidity”
- “coach quits”
- “players quit”
…to describe the Chargers.
Hmm, well….. I realize that those statements and the Patriots cheating aren’t mutually exclusive, but why would anyone who watched the game waste time putting a lot of thought into crediting their offensive output to the Patriots cheating, especially when that person has such disdain for the Chargers’ defensive execution, strategy, and effort?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)