Here's the video
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Video: Dennis Green Goes Off After Monday Night Choke v. Chicago Bears
After the Cardinals lost in shocking fashion to the Chicago Bears on ESPN's Monday Night Football, Cards Head Coach Dennis Green came to the press conference and lost his composure. It was an unfortunate display, but also one that was appropriate for the situation. The Cardinals had a 20-point lead and simply blew it.
Here's the video
Here's the video
Oakland Raiders WR Jerry Porter Challenges Suspension - AP and CNNSI
The silly way the Raiders treat star Wide Receiver Jerry Porter goes on.
ALAMEDA, Calif. (AP) -- The NFL Players Association on Monday appealed Oakland receiver Jerry Porter's four-game suspension by the team for insubordination, calling the punishment "excessive."
Porter, who has been inactive all season, was suspended by the Raiders on Saturday, a day after being kicked out of practice by coach Art Shell.
"We believe that a four-game suspension is far too excessive at this point," NFLPA spokesman Carl Francis said.
The appeal would be heard by an independent arbitrator. Porter, in the second year of a five-year contract worth $20 million, will be docked about $235,000 in pay if the suspension is upheld.
Shell said Monday he had bigger concerns than whether the suspension would be upheld on appeal, mostly turning the season around for the NFL's only winless team.
"I'm not worried about that right now," Shell said. "That will take care of itself in due time. The only thing I'm concerned about right now is with our football team here."
Shell said last week that Porter was working and "doing what he's asked to do" but admitted Sunday that he wasn't being truthful, saying you don't tell people "everything that's going on in your house."
"So when I said everything, it wasn't necessarily everything," Shell said. "He was doing some things. There were some things he wasn't doing."
Shell and Porter clashed almost immediately after the coach was hired in February over Porter's offseason workout plans. Porter made public a trade demand at the start of training camp and was inactive for the four games before the suspension.
Porter, the team's leading receiver a year ago, has been working with the scout team in practice as Alvis Whitted took his starting job.
The Raiders have struggled mightily without Porter, scoring just 50 points in losing their first five games. Even though Whitted has just eight catches for 96 yards, Shell has said the receivers aren't the problem with the offense.
Shell kicked Porter out of practice Friday, the final straw before the suspension, which Shell said was for being disruptive and insubordinate. Shell said he consulted with receivers coach Fred Biletnikoff, the front office and owner Al Davis before making the decision.
"It was a culmination of things," Shell said. "There was a couple of things that happened during the course of the week, and some things that happened through time."
Defensive tackle Warren Sapp said the four-game suspension was "overboard."
A phone message left with Porter's agent, Joel Segal, was not returned.
Porter led the Raiders with 76 catches last season and had 942 yards receiving and five touchdown receptions in 2005.
Porter, a second-round pick out of West Virginia in 2000, has 239 catches for 3,215 yards and 24 touchdowns in six seasons with the Raiders. He has never reached 1,000 yards receiving in a season, missing the mark narrowly last season and with 998 yards in 2004.
The Raiders do not expect to trade Porter or their other disgruntled receiver, Randy Moss, before Tuesday's deadline.
"There's always talk, whether a move is being made or will be made," Shell said. "That remains to be seen. It takes two parties to make it happen, but right now I don't know of any movement coming about."
ALAMEDA, Calif. (AP) -- The NFL Players Association on Monday appealed Oakland receiver Jerry Porter's four-game suspension by the team for insubordination, calling the punishment "excessive."
Porter, who has been inactive all season, was suspended by the Raiders on Saturday, a day after being kicked out of practice by coach Art Shell.
"We believe that a four-game suspension is far too excessive at this point," NFLPA spokesman Carl Francis said.
The appeal would be heard by an independent arbitrator. Porter, in the second year of a five-year contract worth $20 million, will be docked about $235,000 in pay if the suspension is upheld.
Shell said Monday he had bigger concerns than whether the suspension would be upheld on appeal, mostly turning the season around for the NFL's only winless team.
"I'm not worried about that right now," Shell said. "That will take care of itself in due time. The only thing I'm concerned about right now is with our football team here."
Shell said last week that Porter was working and "doing what he's asked to do" but admitted Sunday that he wasn't being truthful, saying you don't tell people "everything that's going on in your house."
"So when I said everything, it wasn't necessarily everything," Shell said. "He was doing some things. There were some things he wasn't doing."
Shell and Porter clashed almost immediately after the coach was hired in February over Porter's offseason workout plans. Porter made public a trade demand at the start of training camp and was inactive for the four games before the suspension.
Porter, the team's leading receiver a year ago, has been working with the scout team in practice as Alvis Whitted took his starting job.
The Raiders have struggled mightily without Porter, scoring just 50 points in losing their first five games. Even though Whitted has just eight catches for 96 yards, Shell has said the receivers aren't the problem with the offense.
Shell kicked Porter out of practice Friday, the final straw before the suspension, which Shell said was for being disruptive and insubordinate. Shell said he consulted with receivers coach Fred Biletnikoff, the front office and owner Al Davis before making the decision.
"It was a culmination of things," Shell said. "There was a couple of things that happened during the course of the week, and some things that happened through time."
Defensive tackle Warren Sapp said the four-game suspension was "overboard."
A phone message left with Porter's agent, Joel Segal, was not returned.
Porter led the Raiders with 76 catches last season and had 942 yards receiving and five touchdown receptions in 2005.
Porter, a second-round pick out of West Virginia in 2000, has 239 catches for 3,215 yards and 24 touchdowns in six seasons with the Raiders. He has never reached 1,000 yards receiving in a season, missing the mark narrowly last season and with 998 yards in 2004.
The Raiders do not expect to trade Porter or their other disgruntled receiver, Randy Moss, before Tuesday's deadline.
"There's always talk, whether a move is being made or will be made," Shell said. "That remains to be seen. It takes two parties to make it happen, but right now I don't know of any movement coming about."
Profootballtalk.com Reporting Argument Between Falcons Coaches Ed Donatell and Greg Knapp
Given Profootballtalk.com's habit of trying to call out African American players and coaches, I wonder how much of this matter regarding Greg Knapp's alledged comments about "Michael Vick's limited passing skills" is true. Any observer of the Falcons must note that their receivers don't catch the ball in critical situations.
When Vick puts the ball where it should be, it's not caught, and this was glaringly obvious in the game against the New York Giants. Even Atlanta's star receiver, Tight End Algie Crumpler, is not always reliable. For example he had four dropped passes in the Monday night game marking the reopened Superdome, against the Saints. That's not Vick's fault, yet some unintelligent "experts" seem bent on ignoring this fact.
Moreover, any failure of Vick must fall squarely on Knapp, who's supposed to be a teacher of the passing game to Vick and his receivers. But I don;t think any of this is Vick's fault; the Falcons need to install incentives to make their receivers playmakers. Rewards for catching the ball in important scenarios should be established and right now.
Read on:
FRACAS AT FLOWERY BRANCH
We're hearing that there was a huge blowup in Falcon-land after Sunday's loss to the Giants, and that the problems spilled over into Monday.
The issue arose shortly after the 27-14 loss to the Giants, when defensive coordinator Ed Donatell got in offensive coordinator Greg Knapp's face regarding the inability of the offense to sustain drives, which resulted in the defense being on the field for too long.
Word is that Donatell blamed several injuries sustained by his troops on the poor play of the offense, because the defensive players were exhausted late in the game.
We're also told that, on Monday, owner Arthur Blank summoned Donatell and Knapp to his office, and that Blank wouldn't allow head coach Jim Mora inside the room until Blank had a chance to talk with them. After the four men met, Knapp was angry -- and word is that Knapp is openly blaming the performance of the offense on the limited passing skills of quarterback Michael Vick.
Stay tuned, folks. This one could get very ugly, and the Falcons have a big decision to make, especially since backup Matt Schaub will be eligible for restricted free agency after the season.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Google - Eric Schmidt On The YouTube Deal - Ft.com
This Financial Times article really sheds good light on Google's thinking behind the acquisition of YouTube.
View from the top: Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google
Published: October 12 2006 23:47 | Last updated: October 13 2006 02:25
CEOs review the news on video on FT.com
This week: Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google.
ADVERTISEMENT
FINANCIAL TIMES: Clearly, the dominant business news event this week is your own acquisition of YouTube. Why is user-generated video worth $1.65bn to Google?
ERIC SCHMIDT: Well, on the money side, it’s easy because we have what we think is the world’s best advertising system and we can take that advertising and use that over time to build quite a business off all of the things the users are doing on YouTube. The real reason, however, was not the money, and not even the advertising, it was because we believe that video is going to be, and is sort of already, one of the most important new media types on the internet.
More and more people are going to be doing videos of one kind or another to communicate ideas, sell their product, record their memories, and ultimately a lot of the existing broadcast world that we’re so used to will become available on the internet.
FT: Since doing that deal, you’ve been quite assiduous in going and visiting some of your other big media partners and talked to them about the significance. Has it made them again ask this question that we’ve heard a lot about Google ‘friend or foe?’ and worry about Google moving into content creation.
SCHMIDT: We, of course, want to be their friend. We don’t want it to be Google foe. We see ourselves as a technology provider and a distribution network. We’re not in the content business. And the partnerships that we’ve constructed over the last few years, and especially the ones over the summer, really show the application of our advertising network to the content and media capabilities of our partners. So we want those media partners to put their media content, literally their content, into this emergent new and much larger system as a result of the YouTube acquisition.
FT: You’ve met with some of them already. You’ve met with News Corp executives, you’re in New York, meeting maybe with people maybe from Time Warner. Are they comfortable with that explanation?
SCHMIDT: All of the media companies are dealing with dramatic changes in their business. All of them are looking for a partner. All of them are looking for a way to make money. One of the great news, from our perspective, is people are using this content on the internet. The bad news is it doesn’t make as much money for the businesses. And ultimately the businesses need to make money in order to produce the new content. So what we’re trying to do with all of these partners is to say, ‘if you work with us we can combine our advertising platform and your content with a much larger audience.’ So far people like that message, they are now trying to figure out what to do about it – should they, should they not, under what terms, and those sort of things.
FT: Another new generation internet property which has generated a lot of interest recently is Facebook. Are you thinking about acquiring Facebook? Do you think Yahoo might acquire them?
SCHMIDT: I shouldn’t speculate on mergers and acquisitions either our own possibilities, or competitors’. It’s clear to me that social networks are going to grow and grow quickly. We did a very, very significant deal with MySpace, which we’re very proud of. We think it’s the defining economic deal in that space.
FT: Your acquisition speaks to the tremendous technological change which we’re still really at the beginning of. Are there going to be victims? And which companies might be those victims.
SCHMIDT: You know, every technology dislocation has winners and losers. And the winners are the companies that can adopt these technologies more quickly and the losers are the ones that are stuck, unable to make the transition, unable to take advantage of new technologies. It is clear that the internet and the web and what is generally known as a marketing term of web 2.0 are the defining new technologies. I think that race is underfoot. It’s too early to say who the losers will be. Clearly the winners will include companies like Google and all the other companies that have made their bets on web 2.0.
FT: More broadly, Silicon Valley has been roiled by corporate governance controversies recently. There have been the pre-texting issues at Hewlett-Packard, the backdated stock options issues which have claimed some very senior, long-standing leaders in the technology industry. What kind of an impact is that having on innovation, on people running public companies like yourselves now?
SCHMIDT: It makes people be more careful and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. Certainly, some of the standards in the past may not have been as tight. Some of this may be revisionist looking back. Certainly the pre-texting was not appropriate because it was a violation of privacy. I think all of that is a sideshow relative to the innovation in the Valley, which is fundamentally created by small teams of people who see the world in a different way. And I don’t see these crisises, these scandals and so forth, as fundamentally changing that.
The story of the Valley is still the same. It’s about small teams doing amazing things with limited resources, often with venture capitalists, creating great companies.
FT: You talk about the innovative tradition of the Valley. More generally there has been a lot of questioning in America right now, about this country’s ability to maintain its competitive advantage in a globalised world with lots of cheap programming talent in other developing countries. Is the Valley still competitive?
SCHMIDT: The Valley is certainly competitive. It would be a lot more competitive if our government would start doing rational things like letting the smartest people in the world come into the United States on H1 visas rather than preventing them from doing so. So a small number of changes from the government, including increasing the funding in basic research and development around computer science and science in general and also trying to make sure the United States remains an attractive place for the best and the brightest. The compound value of that, the innovations and the companies that these, essentially, immigrants create, is a part of the American story.
FT: You made a big impact in Europe recently addressing the Tory party conference. Why did you choose to do that and what kind of a message do you think an innovative American company, like Google, has for Europe? For Britain?
SCHMIDT: It’s interesting that in Britain, of all the European countries, the United Kingdom is one of the best examples of innovation. If you look at the creation of the Cambridge technology centres, all around the research centres that were formed there, the transformation that’s gone on in British society over the last 10-15 years, encouraging innovation, encouraging new capital formation, it’s really an icon for the rest of Europe. And I think that’s wonderful.
My message was a message of optimism. My message was that technology, we’re just at the beginning, and I was not particularly trying to make a partisan comment. Google is certainly not political. And the messages that I gave, and I happened to be invited to [I guess] the conservatives’ party, but I would have given the same speech to any of the other parties and, in fact in any of the other European countries.
The important message is a message of innovation - that if you unleash the human capital that is present in Europe you will get tremendous economic returns for those countries. And that’s the story of America. It’s a story that’s well replicable in Europe.
FT: Thank you very much.
SCHMIDT: Thanks.
FT: And now the prediction.
SCHMIDT: You know there’s a whole new phenomenon. Young people online all the time, communicating in new ways and building new social environments. New enviroments, new friends, new ways in which they interact. All of us will be affected by this in ways I could not possibly predict. Political. Social. Community. New businesses. It’s amazing to watch this next generation spend their time online and change the world.
View from the top: Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google
Published: October 12 2006 23:47 | Last updated: October 13 2006 02:25
CEOs review the news on video on FT.com
This week: Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google.
ADVERTISEMENT
FINANCIAL TIMES: Clearly, the dominant business news event this week is your own acquisition of YouTube. Why is user-generated video worth $1.65bn to Google?
ERIC SCHMIDT: Well, on the money side, it’s easy because we have what we think is the world’s best advertising system and we can take that advertising and use that over time to build quite a business off all of the things the users are doing on YouTube. The real reason, however, was not the money, and not even the advertising, it was because we believe that video is going to be, and is sort of already, one of the most important new media types on the internet.
More and more people are going to be doing videos of one kind or another to communicate ideas, sell their product, record their memories, and ultimately a lot of the existing broadcast world that we’re so used to will become available on the internet.
FT: Since doing that deal, you’ve been quite assiduous in going and visiting some of your other big media partners and talked to them about the significance. Has it made them again ask this question that we’ve heard a lot about Google ‘friend or foe?’ and worry about Google moving into content creation.
SCHMIDT: We, of course, want to be their friend. We don’t want it to be Google foe. We see ourselves as a technology provider and a distribution network. We’re not in the content business. And the partnerships that we’ve constructed over the last few years, and especially the ones over the summer, really show the application of our advertising network to the content and media capabilities of our partners. So we want those media partners to put their media content, literally their content, into this emergent new and much larger system as a result of the YouTube acquisition.
FT: You’ve met with some of them already. You’ve met with News Corp executives, you’re in New York, meeting maybe with people maybe from Time Warner. Are they comfortable with that explanation?
SCHMIDT: All of the media companies are dealing with dramatic changes in their business. All of them are looking for a partner. All of them are looking for a way to make money. One of the great news, from our perspective, is people are using this content on the internet. The bad news is it doesn’t make as much money for the businesses. And ultimately the businesses need to make money in order to produce the new content. So what we’re trying to do with all of these partners is to say, ‘if you work with us we can combine our advertising platform and your content with a much larger audience.’ So far people like that message, they are now trying to figure out what to do about it – should they, should they not, under what terms, and those sort of things.
FT: Another new generation internet property which has generated a lot of interest recently is Facebook. Are you thinking about acquiring Facebook? Do you think Yahoo might acquire them?
SCHMIDT: I shouldn’t speculate on mergers and acquisitions either our own possibilities, or competitors’. It’s clear to me that social networks are going to grow and grow quickly. We did a very, very significant deal with MySpace, which we’re very proud of. We think it’s the defining economic deal in that space.
FT: Your acquisition speaks to the tremendous technological change which we’re still really at the beginning of. Are there going to be victims? And which companies might be those victims.
SCHMIDT: You know, every technology dislocation has winners and losers. And the winners are the companies that can adopt these technologies more quickly and the losers are the ones that are stuck, unable to make the transition, unable to take advantage of new technologies. It is clear that the internet and the web and what is generally known as a marketing term of web 2.0 are the defining new technologies. I think that race is underfoot. It’s too early to say who the losers will be. Clearly the winners will include companies like Google and all the other companies that have made their bets on web 2.0.
FT: More broadly, Silicon Valley has been roiled by corporate governance controversies recently. There have been the pre-texting issues at Hewlett-Packard, the backdated stock options issues which have claimed some very senior, long-standing leaders in the technology industry. What kind of an impact is that having on innovation, on people running public companies like yourselves now?
SCHMIDT: It makes people be more careful and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. Certainly, some of the standards in the past may not have been as tight. Some of this may be revisionist looking back. Certainly the pre-texting was not appropriate because it was a violation of privacy. I think all of that is a sideshow relative to the innovation in the Valley, which is fundamentally created by small teams of people who see the world in a different way. And I don’t see these crisises, these scandals and so forth, as fundamentally changing that.
The story of the Valley is still the same. It’s about small teams doing amazing things with limited resources, often with venture capitalists, creating great companies.
FT: You talk about the innovative tradition of the Valley. More generally there has been a lot of questioning in America right now, about this country’s ability to maintain its competitive advantage in a globalised world with lots of cheap programming talent in other developing countries. Is the Valley still competitive?
SCHMIDT: The Valley is certainly competitive. It would be a lot more competitive if our government would start doing rational things like letting the smartest people in the world come into the United States on H1 visas rather than preventing them from doing so. So a small number of changes from the government, including increasing the funding in basic research and development around computer science and science in general and also trying to make sure the United States remains an attractive place for the best and the brightest. The compound value of that, the innovations and the companies that these, essentially, immigrants create, is a part of the American story.
FT: You made a big impact in Europe recently addressing the Tory party conference. Why did you choose to do that and what kind of a message do you think an innovative American company, like Google, has for Europe? For Britain?
SCHMIDT: It’s interesting that in Britain, of all the European countries, the United Kingdom is one of the best examples of innovation. If you look at the creation of the Cambridge technology centres, all around the research centres that were formed there, the transformation that’s gone on in British society over the last 10-15 years, encouraging innovation, encouraging new capital formation, it’s really an icon for the rest of Europe. And I think that’s wonderful.
My message was a message of optimism. My message was that technology, we’re just at the beginning, and I was not particularly trying to make a partisan comment. Google is certainly not political. And the messages that I gave, and I happened to be invited to [I guess] the conservatives’ party, but I would have given the same speech to any of the other parties and, in fact in any of the other European countries.
The important message is a message of innovation - that if you unleash the human capital that is present in Europe you will get tremendous economic returns for those countries. And that’s the story of America. It’s a story that’s well replicable in Europe.
FT: Thank you very much.
SCHMIDT: Thanks.
FT: And now the prediction.
SCHMIDT: You know there’s a whole new phenomenon. Young people online all the time, communicating in new ways and building new social environments. New enviroments, new friends, new ways in which they interact. All of us will be affected by this in ways I could not possibly predict. Political. Social. Community. New businesses. It’s amazing to watch this next generation spend their time online and change the world.
Oakland Tribune's Monte Poole Calls For 49ers Defensive Coordinator Billy Davis To Be Fired
Monte's column also reveals how terrible Head Coach Mike Nolan's management style is, where the players -- who have to execute the schemes -- are not consulted.
49ers coach Davis has to go
Column by Monte Poole - OAKLAND TRIBUNE
Article Last Updated:10/16/2006 05:17:26 AM PDT
SAN FRANCISCO — If Mike Nolan is as perceptive as he would like us to believe, he will begin his team's bye week by at least considering waving bye-bye to one of his assistants.
Otherwise, the next team the 49ers see might run up 50. Before halftime.
As it was, the San Diego Chargers marched into Candlestick Point on Sunday afternoon and scored 35 points in the first half en route to a 48-19 spanking of the 49ers.
Though it was accepted that the Chargers were the vastly superior team, the 49ers filed out of the stadium acutely aware of their most visible weakness.
Their defense is a mess. Preparation seems to be poor. Assignments often are blown. Problems exist from top to bottom, in all the margins and creases. The pass rush is inconsistent, the linebackers are a step slow, and the cornerbacks can't cover a turtle with a tarp.
More to the point, the defensive coordinator Billy Davis — who drifts between the 4-3 scheme and the 3-4 scheme — not only has been incapable of masking these deficiencies but also seems to find ways to accentuate them.
Consider, please, San Diego's sixth offensive play. Tight end Antonio Gates, arguably the best in the NFL, left the huddle and split wide left. Across from Gates was a man named T. J. Slaughter, listed as a linebacker but more accurately described as a special teams player.
This is what one might call a mismatch.
"I saw that they had a linebacker out there on him, and I thought to myself, 'Could that be?'" Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers said, resisting the urge to giggle.
Rivers' reaction was echoed by educated observers throughout the stadium. Yet this was the hand Davis played.
The hand got burned. Rivers, in the early stages of his first 300-yard game, fired a dart to Gates, who shrugged off Slaughter and chugged in for a 57-yard touchdown, giving San Diego a 7-0 lead three minutes into the game.
It was at that point the 49ers defensive unit began its regression in earnest. The Chargers' next drive went 91 yards for a touchdown. The third ended when Rivers exploited the matchup between massive wideout Vincent Jackson (6-foot-5, 241) and rookie safety Marcus Hudson for a 33-yard touchdown pass.
"(Rivers') offensive coordinator told him to come after me," said Hudson, who attended North Carolina State with Rivers and spoke to the quarterback after the game.
While San Francisco's playing personnel leaves a lot to be desired, with an urgent need for upgrades in the secondary, Davis also is proving himself profoundly replaceable.
One alternative to be considered should be current assistant head coach Mike Singletary.
Asked if the upcoming bye week might be a good time to destroy and rebuilt his defense, Nolan paused a few moments.
"That's a good way to put it," the coach conceded. "All I can say is, maybe, yeah. We will see.
"The guys are busting their tails. They are working hard. As much as I know some of our shortcomings going into it, I know that when you play well as a unit you can play better than we have a couple times. And that's the disappointing thing."
What Nolan, himself a former defensive coordinator, did not express was the tiniest bit of confidence in Davis.
Then again, how could he? The 49ers have allowed 34 points to Arizona, 38 to Philadelphia, 41 to Kansas City and, now, 48 to San Diego. Moreover, the Niners have allowed a league-high 130 first-half points, indicating they don't exactly leave the locker room as a single-file line of well-prepared predators.
"We're about where we were last year at this time," Nolan said.
It was only two weeks ago, after the 41-0 mashing in Kansas City, that Nolan brushed off an Internet report saying he would fire Davis — if not immediately, at the end of the season.
I gave several 49ers defensive veterans an opportunity to defend their embattled leader. None did.
"They don't ask for players' input," said tackle Bryant Young, the most tenured member of the team. "Until they do, I don't want to say anything. I'd rather not get myself in trouble with anybody."
In other words, the 13-year vet chose to let the results linger like a cloud of sulfur.
The Chargers had 11 possessions, only one of which ended with a punt. They controlled the clock and took cheerful advantage of the charity offered by San Francisco's defense.
Nolan heard the tone of the postgame questions. He read the room. He searched for something positive to say about his team.
"Our offense ... is making a lot of progress," he said. "And we need to make that same progress on the other side of the ball."
Said Young: "Whatever we have to do, we have to do it fast."
San Francisco has two weeks to retool. Then comes a trip to Chicago, where the shockingly impressive Bears await. If the 49ers hit Soldier Field with the same cast of characters wearing helmets and headsets, cover your eyes.
49ers coach Davis has to go
Column by Monte Poole - OAKLAND TRIBUNE
Article Last Updated:10/16/2006 05:17:26 AM PDT
SAN FRANCISCO — If Mike Nolan is as perceptive as he would like us to believe, he will begin his team's bye week by at least considering waving bye-bye to one of his assistants.
Otherwise, the next team the 49ers see might run up 50. Before halftime.
As it was, the San Diego Chargers marched into Candlestick Point on Sunday afternoon and scored 35 points in the first half en route to a 48-19 spanking of the 49ers.
Though it was accepted that the Chargers were the vastly superior team, the 49ers filed out of the stadium acutely aware of their most visible weakness.
Their defense is a mess. Preparation seems to be poor. Assignments often are blown. Problems exist from top to bottom, in all the margins and creases. The pass rush is inconsistent, the linebackers are a step slow, and the cornerbacks can't cover a turtle with a tarp.
More to the point, the defensive coordinator Billy Davis — who drifts between the 4-3 scheme and the 3-4 scheme — not only has been incapable of masking these deficiencies but also seems to find ways to accentuate them.
Consider, please, San Diego's sixth offensive play. Tight end Antonio Gates, arguably the best in the NFL, left the huddle and split wide left. Across from Gates was a man named T. J. Slaughter, listed as a linebacker but more accurately described as a special teams player.
This is what one might call a mismatch.
"I saw that they had a linebacker out there on him, and I thought to myself, 'Could that be?'" Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers said, resisting the urge to giggle.
Rivers' reaction was echoed by educated observers throughout the stadium. Yet this was the hand Davis played.
The hand got burned. Rivers, in the early stages of his first 300-yard game, fired a dart to Gates, who shrugged off Slaughter and chugged in for a 57-yard touchdown, giving San Diego a 7-0 lead three minutes into the game.
It was at that point the 49ers defensive unit began its regression in earnest. The Chargers' next drive went 91 yards for a touchdown. The third ended when Rivers exploited the matchup between massive wideout Vincent Jackson (6-foot-5, 241) and rookie safety Marcus Hudson for a 33-yard touchdown pass.
"(Rivers') offensive coordinator told him to come after me," said Hudson, who attended North Carolina State with Rivers and spoke to the quarterback after the game.
While San Francisco's playing personnel leaves a lot to be desired, with an urgent need for upgrades in the secondary, Davis also is proving himself profoundly replaceable.
One alternative to be considered should be current assistant head coach Mike Singletary.
Asked if the upcoming bye week might be a good time to destroy and rebuilt his defense, Nolan paused a few moments.
"That's a good way to put it," the coach conceded. "All I can say is, maybe, yeah. We will see.
"The guys are busting their tails. They are working hard. As much as I know some of our shortcomings going into it, I know that when you play well as a unit you can play better than we have a couple times. And that's the disappointing thing."
What Nolan, himself a former defensive coordinator, did not express was the tiniest bit of confidence in Davis.
Then again, how could he? The 49ers have allowed 34 points to Arizona, 38 to Philadelphia, 41 to Kansas City and, now, 48 to San Diego. Moreover, the Niners have allowed a league-high 130 first-half points, indicating they don't exactly leave the locker room as a single-file line of well-prepared predators.
"We're about where we were last year at this time," Nolan said.
It was only two weeks ago, after the 41-0 mashing in Kansas City, that Nolan brushed off an Internet report saying he would fire Davis — if not immediately, at the end of the season.
I gave several 49ers defensive veterans an opportunity to defend their embattled leader. None did.
"They don't ask for players' input," said tackle Bryant Young, the most tenured member of the team. "Until they do, I don't want to say anything. I'd rather not get myself in trouble with anybody."
In other words, the 13-year vet chose to let the results linger like a cloud of sulfur.
The Chargers had 11 possessions, only one of which ended with a punt. They controlled the clock and took cheerful advantage of the charity offered by San Francisco's defense.
Nolan heard the tone of the postgame questions. He read the room. He searched for something positive to say about his team.
"Our offense ... is making a lot of progress," he said. "And we need to make that same progress on the other side of the ball."
Said Young: "Whatever we have to do, we have to do it fast."
San Francisco has two weeks to retool. Then comes a trip to Chicago, where the shockingly impressive Bears await. If the 49ers hit Soldier Field with the same cast of characters wearing helmets and headsets, cover your eyes.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Oakland Raiders Suspend WR Jerry Porter For Four Games - ESPN
This isn't an Art Shell move, it's an Al Davis move and it stinks. More on this later.
Raiders' Porter suspended four games
ESPN.com news services
ALAMEDA, Calif. -- The Oakland Raiders suspended disgruntled wide receiver Jerry Porter for four games without pay Saturday for conduct detrimental to the team.
Porter, when contacted by ESPN for a response, offered a "no comment."
The suspension, which will likely be appealed by the union, would cost Porter slightly over $235,000 in salary. Sources said Porter was informed of the decision on Friday.
Porter, Oakland's leading receiver a year ago, was inactive for the first four games of the season after clashing with new coach Art Shell and making public a trade demand at the start of training camp. The Raiders granted Porter and his agent, Joel Segal, permission to seek a trade.
"It's crazy," Porter said of his situation earlier this week. "I pretty much stay quiet and do what I'm asked. What am I supposed to do? I'm playing the cards the way they're dealt to me."
The Raiders were traveling to Denver on Saturday for Sunday night's game against the Broncos and unavailable for comment on the decision to suspend Porter.
Porter has been working with the scout team in practice, falling behind unheralded receivers Alvis Whitted and Johnnie Morant on the depth chart as Oakland opened the season 0-4. Whitted, who took Porter's spot in the starting lineup, has six catches for 70 yards, while Morant has no catches as the team's fourth receiver.
Porter has been on the sideline during the four losses to open the season, often seen joking around while the Raiders have struggled on offense without him.
Some players have questioned the decision to sit Porter while the team has struggled mightily on offense, but Shell has stuck to the decision. Shell has refused to elaborate on why Porter has been inactive.
"He's working. It's not that he's not working," Shell said earlier this week. "I've never said he hasn't worked. He's doing what he's asked to do and you can't ask for anything more than that."
Porter, in the second year of a five-year contract worth $20 million, had been hoping to be dealt before Tuesday's trade deadline.
Porter led the Raiders with 76 catches last season and had 942 yards receiving and five touchdown receptions in 2005.
Porter, a second-round pick out of West Virginia in 2000, has 239 catches for 3,215 yards and 24 touchdowns in six seasons with the Raiders. He has never reached 1,000 yards receiving in a season, missing the mark narrowly with 998 yards in 2004 and 942 last season.
Porter will be eligible to return from the suspension Nov. 12 when the Raiders host the Broncos.
Information from The Associated Press was used in this repo
Michelle Malkin's YouTube Video Banned By Community; She Cries About It
Michelle Malkin's a conservative columnist who I've always believed just became Republican to snag a white guy, and turned her initially personal scheme into this rather intense effort to make herself into a celebrity. She's succeeded.
(Now before you get after me, I'm going to explain that in my experience most of the time a woman said they're "Republican" it was followed by the person's expressed interest in someone white and male. Now there are exceptions to this, and I a good woman friend of mine is one of them, but she's almost the exception to the rule. I'm not writing that people who make the choice of party always do so for romantic reasons, but it's a factor. Now if you're a black single guy and Republican, does it mean you want to meet white chicks? I would say so, because you're certainly going to meet a lot of them. Plus, since being a minority of any kind hasn't been attractive to Republicans, why would anyone black, Asian or any other minority be so interested in the G.O.P. except... In Michelle's case, she's married, so I'll bet her choice of party came before her selection of mate.)
Now, she's gone a bit too far with her move into the vlogsphere using YouTube. A recent video she posted was banned. Now poor Michelle Malkin's pissed because she thinks the YouTube exec did it, when the community of users was responsible.
I think what Michelle Malkin's missing is that YouTubers generally don't like videos that express hate for a group of people, even if it's under the heading of "anti-terrorism." It's why this video Michelle Malkin hosts below wasn't flagged; it doesn't go as far as the first one.
Michelle Malkin, you're learning. It will take time, but you'll get the message.
Here's her rant:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)