Monday, November 30, 2009

Saints v Patriots - Saints destroy Patriots 3-4 with textbook approach

For me watching the ESPN Monday Night Football Saints v Patriots game was a trip back in time to all of the textbook methods I learned how to attack a 3-4 defense. What was so surprising to me was to see the New England Patriots play little variation in the basic "Oklahoma Defense" alignment, with a nosetackle and two inside linebackers over the guards. The New Orleans Saints tore apart the Pats defense using a basic rule: keep the linebackers moving and guessing.


  3-4 defense

The strength of any 3-4 defense is its linebacker play. One of the best ever teams at playing the defense was the 1977 Denver Broncos. The "Orange Crush" Defense was known for its exotic blitzes and rapid linebacker pursuit. The Dallas Cowboys approach against the Broncos in Super Bowl XII was to use two-tight-end sets, screens, draws, and misdirection to keep the linebackers always guessing regarding where the offense was going - called "the point of attack" - and gaining yardage in the process. The result was a 27-10 win for the Cowboys.

The Saints Offensive game plan had all of that, and more. A signature play was the fake screen left, screen right to Robert Meachem, who ran 38 yards to score.

In Super Bowl XIX in 1984, San Francisco 49ers Head Coach Bill Walsh designed a play that caused the Miami Dolphins 3-4 inside linebackers to "split": one to the left to cover one running back on a screen and the other to the right to do the same. Meanwhile, Tight End Russ Francis faked a block, fell down, then got up quickly and ran downfield wide open. He picked up 35 yards on that play as I recall from memory, and the Niners won 38-14.

The Saints ran the exact play tonight, Monday night, and with similar results, decades later. That play only works against a base 3-4 defense and man-for-man coverage, which is what both the 1984 Dolphins and the 2009 Patriots presented.

But what I can't figure out is why the Patriots would go into such an important game with so terrible a defensive game plan? To say that New England Head Coach Bill Belichick was outcoached is an understatement. But to his credit, he admitted it.

Somewhere along in the fourth quarter, Coach Belichick knew he had the wrong game plan. But I'm still massively shocked he allowed Head Coach Sean Payton and Quaterback Drew Breeze to beat them in such a textbook fashion. Brees' perfect 158.3 passer rating was a child of a great game plan. I'm not taking anything away from Drew Brees, who was magnificent, but watching that approach unfold was a thing of beauty and I'm not a Saints fan.

Still, one weakness is there to be exploited: the nature of the Saints passing approach by coaching is ripe for a hard-blitzing team to exploit. Why? Well, the Saints have really gotten by on the "look-off" pass, having Brees turn his entire body away from the intended receiver before turning and throwing. I first noticed this during the preseason when the Raiders played the Saints, and they did it in that blow out game. I took note of it as the "secret sauce" in their attack. I figured a blitzing team like the New York Jets might get to them.

The New York Jets held them to 24 points, the Saints lowest total this season so far, but the Jets' offense generated three interceptions from Quaterback Mark Sanchez,and so they lost 24 to 10. But the blueprint is set. Just which team - that has a good offense to help out - will use it is anyone's guess.

Stay tuned.

Oakland Raiders 10 percent share worth $60 million

Oakland Raiders Manager of The General Partner Al Davis recently announced that 10 percent of the organization was for sale. That news started a small set of media speculation web posts on the value of the organization based on Forbes annual blast about NFL team values. From Forbes, the Oakland Raiders are worth $797 million, which would put the 10 percent chunk at $79.7 million.




Mr. Davis, I'll give you $35 million for that 10 percent

But the Forbes estimate is wrong. Way wrong.

It's wrong because the number's based on 2008 information, yet presented in this year: 2009. Moreover, media discussion on the Raiders value mentions the credit crunch, and the national economy, but fails to include the local employment situation.

People need income to buy tickets and that money comes from jobs. In September 2008, California's unemployment was just 7.7 percent, and we thought that was terrible at the time. Now the rate is at 9.6 percent as of October, and in Oakland it's over 17 percent.

So let's do some quick figuring. If jobs are needed to buy Raiders tickets, then its reasonable to say that Raider ticket purchases are attached to the unemployment rate. It's fair to use the statewide unemployment data because the Raiders are a statewide draw - sports is Oakland's true export industry.

So we take 7.7 in 2008 and subtract it from 9.6 in 2009. That's 1.9, which when divided by 7.7 (the previous year's rate) gives us 24.67 percent. Or, the magnitude of the total increase of unemployed Californians over the previous year is 24.6 percent.

So we have to subtract that from the Oakland Raiders total value since it was based on 2008 information. That leaves us with $797 million minus $196.67 million, or $600.33 million.

So the Oakland Raiders 10 percent stake is valued at $60.33 million. Or, $60 million.

It is worth it? Well. Let's just say this: I would not buy it for more than $35 million if I could and here's why.

While my estimate's based on an adjustment to reflect current state economic conditions, it does not include what may happen in 2010.

The UCLA Anderson school projects that state unemployment will rise to 11 percent by mid-2010. So if you bought the Raiders 10 percent stake at $60 million, you'd have taken about a $20 million bath in less than one year. Since there's no guarantee things will get better by 2011 absent a massive second economic stimulus, why even spend $40 million for the team? 

New stadium for the Raiders? Okay... With what money and who's political will? I don't care what Oakland City Councilman and Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Authority Chairman Ignacio De La Fuente says, justifying building a new baseball or football stadium in this economic climate is pure folly, and this comes from a person who's a big advocate of stadiums as economic development.

This is one time I'd agree with California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who I know would make the same statement. In the past, I'd argue with him; not today.

I'm an idealistic realist. We're in bad times and it's going to take massive levels government spending to right this national economic ship. Preesident Obama should have pushed for $2.4 trillion, not $787 billion.

And justifying stimulus spending on a football stadium alone, as opposed to part of a larger complex, is a losing political fight because for the first time such costs compete with money for basic services. I've never seen an economic climate like this before.

Folks, we're experiencing the result of 30 years of job loss to foreign economies that I estimate has cost us $976 billion in revenue wealth, over $400 billion during the last eight years alone. I don't know if the collective American population is too slow to catch on, but all of this talk of too much government spending is the mouthing of idiots.

Sorry to be so honest and to a degree sharp, but I'm trying to convey in an effective way just how much trouble we're in. We've lived off a credit system that absorbed our nations economy from these Worldwide economic structural changes until the overall increase in weight of consumer debt over the past five years was just too great for the system to bear. The result is where we are and are going to be for a few years.

So spending even $60 million for 10 percent of the Oakland Raiders is just not a good idea. Yes, by advocating one purchase it for $35 million I'm stating the organization's value will fall to just about $400 million by 2011.

And if you're saying I'm just a blogger, I will tell you this is the same report I'd write to the Mayor of Oakland if I was his economic adviser, which I was from 1995 to 1999 and all the additional institutional models and data I use only point to the same conclusion. So slam my blog post you may, but let's talk in 2011 and see where we are. I'd look forward to that conversation.

Oakland Raiders and Al Davis 10 percent share worth $60 million

Oakland Raiders Manager of The General Partner Al Davis recently announced that 10 percent of the organization was for sale. That news started a small set of media speculation web posts on the value of the organization based on Forbes annual blast about NFL team values. From Forbes, the Oakland Raiders are worth $797 million, which would put the 10 percent chunk at $79.7 million.




Mr. Davis, I'll give you $35 million for that 10 percent

But the Forbes estimate is wrong. Way wrong.

It's wrong because the number's based on 2008 information, yet presented in this year: 2009. Moreover, media discussion on the Raiders value mentions the credit crunch, and the national economy, but fails to include the local employment situation.

People need income to buy tickets and that money comes from jobs. In September 2008, California's unemployment was just 7.7 percent, and we thought that was terrible at the time. Now the rate is at 9.6 percent as of October, and in Oakland it's over 17 percent.

So let's do some quick figuring. If jobs are needed to buy Raiders tickets, then its reasonable to say that Raider ticket purchases are attached to the unemployment rate. It's fair to use the statewide unemployment data because the Raiders are a statewide draw - sports is Oakland's true export industry.

So we take 7.7 in 2008 and subtract it from 9.6 in 2009. That's 1.9, which when divided by 7.7 (the previous year's rate) gives us 24.67 percent. Or, the magnitude of the total increase of unemployed Californians over the previous year is 24.6 percent.

So we have to subtract that from the Oakland Raiders total value since it was based on 2008 information. That leaves us with $797 million minus $196.67 million, or $600.33 million.

So the Oakland Raiders 10 percent stake is valued at $60.33 million. Or, $60 million.

It is worth it? Well. Let's just say this: I would not buy it for more than $35 million if I could and here's why.

While my estimate's based on an adjustment to reflect current state economic conditions, it does not include what may happen in 2010.

The UCLA Anderson school projects that state unemployment will rise to 11 percent by mid-2010. So if you bought the Raiders 10 percent stake at $60 million, you'd have taken about a $20 million bath in less than one year. Since there's no guarantee things will get better by 2011 absent a massive second economic stimulus, why even spend $40 million for the team? 

New stadium for the Raiders? Okay... With what money and who's political will? I don't care what Oakland City Councilman and Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Authority Chairman Ignacio De La Fuente says, justifying building a new baseball or football stadium in this economic climate is pure folly, and this comes from a person who's a big advocate of stadiums as economic development.

This is one time I'd agree with California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who I know would make the same statement. In the past, I'd argue with him; not today.

I'm an idealistic realist. We're in bad times and it's going to take massive levels government spending to right this national economic ship. Preesident Obama should have pushed for $2.4 trillion, not $787 billion.

And justifying stimulus spending on a football stadium alone, as opposed to part of a larger complex, is a losing political fight because for the first time such costs compete with money for basic services. I've never seen an economic climate like this before.

Folks, we're experiencing the result of 30 years of job loss to foreign economies that I estimate has cost us $976 billion in revenue wealth, over $400 billion during the last eight years alone. I don't know if the collective American population is too slow to catch on, but all of this talk of too much government spending is the mouthing of idiots.

Sorry to be so honest and to a degree sharp, but I'm trying to convey in an effective way just how much trouble we're in. We've lived off a credit system that absorbed our nations economy from these Worldwide economic structural changes until the overall increase in weight of consumer debt over the past five years was just too great for the system to bear. The result is where we are and are going to be for a few years.

So spending even $60 million for 10 percent of the Oakland Raiders is just not a good idea. Yes, by advocating one purchase it for $35 million I'm stating the organization's value will fall to just about $400 million by 2011.

And if you're saying I'm just a blogger, I will tell you this is the same report I'd write to the Mayor of Oakland if I was his economic adviser, which I was from 1995 to 1999 and all the additional institutional models and data I use only point to the same conclusion. So slam my blog post you may, but let's talk in 2011 and see where we are. I'd look forward to that conversation.

Tiger Woods update - police search warrant request is legal stalking



OK, this to me is now beyond silly at this point. According to TMZ.com, the Florida Highway Patrol is seeking a search warrant so that they can enter Tiger Woods home and investigate his wounds to determine if they were the result of an auto accident or a butt whoppin given to Woods by his wife Elin Nordegren.



TMZ explains:

One big piece of evidence showing probable cause ... sources tell us Tiger's wife, Elin Nordegren told FHP troopers she went looking for Tiger in a golf cart, came upon the accident and then used a golf club to break the window to gain entry. That's a very different story from what she first told Windemere cops shortly after the accident -- she never mentioned a golf cart. Nordegren told Windemere police she had walked out of her house, saw the crash, went back inside to get a golf club and returned to the vehicle.

Yeah, her story doesn't add up. OK she kicked his butt for the whole alleged affair talk. But I think both Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren have learned valuable lessons and this matter should be put to rest.

The Florida Highway Patrol should not be granted a search warrant. To me, it reads like the  FHP are staging an attempt at legal stalking into the private lives of a celebrity interracial couple. Hell, why bother? The speculation's enough punishment and far more media fun anyway. The Florida Highway Patrol should be out busting drug dealers, not screwing around with this matter.

This has gone too far.

What if they find that Elin Nordegren hit Tiger Woods? Are the FHP going to arrest her?  I'm just afraid they will take this whole deal too far.   I do not subscribe to "the book" and think its used all too often as a reason to pry into the private lives of the rich and famous. Can't the FHP just give this a rest?

Moreover, isn't this out of their bounds? As I read what the FHP can and can't do, they're charged with maintaining the safety of the highway and state roads. They're not the Florida State Police, and as such don't have the powers of what the Florida Constitution says is the job of the chief law enforcement officer - the sheriff.

So what the hell is the Florida Highway Patrol doing? Why are they sticking their collective nose so far into this matter? And if the FHP staff involved are Civilian Community Service Officers, which are unarmed and without arrest authority , they have no business trying to get a search warrant for a minor traffic crash. And if they're not Civilian Community Service Officers, why not?

Something's fishy here.

OK, you may be saying that Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren should be treated like any other couple. I cry foul on that. The simple fact you say that means they aren't like any other couple. Most couples don't get their private lives speculated on by the public let alone have to deal with the emotional pain that results from it - that should be considered as punishment by law enforcement. In fact, it's a more lasting sentence than jail time as it carries on through the rest of their lives.

They're not a normal couple, so the book does not apply to them. Sorry, but that's a fact. Save the search warrant for a drug arrest, not for this. Otherwise it looks like legal stalking into much ado about nothing.

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Oakland video Oakland b Mine a nice slice of life



I happened to make a cyber trip over to the Oakland blog 38thNotes.com, where the posts are always interesting, if off-beat. This one on a video called "Oakland b Mine" is certainly that.

Reportedly the video was created to be shown at the baggage claim at Oakland Airport. It's in the perfect place for out-of-town visitors to get an immediate idea of what Oakland's all about: diversity.

The video features a man who appears to be Latino chasing after an attractive African American woman he sees in Oakland's airport. While he goes through lengths that are extraordinary to say the least, it's a cute video. I would classify it of the "don't try this at home" variety. You know?

The camera takes us through many familiar spots in Oakland, including the Lake Merritt Farmer's Market, which means it was created on a Saturday.

The video is cool for the cinematography and the music. Check it out, and pass it on!

Lakewood Police Shooting - Four police officers shot in coffee shop



This report of the Lakewood Police Shooting where four officers - Sergeant Mark Renninger and officers Tina Griswold, Greg Richards, and Ronald Owens - were shot as they were working in a coffee shop is just shocking. The "person of interest" - but not a suspect as of this writing - is Maurice Clemmons. Clemmons was known for run-ins with law enforcement in the past.

The shooting is somewhat like the murder of four Oakland offices by Lovell Mixon earlier this year and the ambush murder of two officers in Pittsburgh in April. But in total view, I can't recall a more dangerous year for police officers around the country than 2009.

Tiger Woods mistress not Rachel Uchitel hires Feminist Lawyer Gloria Allred



In the latest news, Tiger Woods mistress not Rachel Uchitel hires Gloria Alred and leaves New York City. Just who Gloria Allred is deserves this special blog post but first the details.


Gloria Allred

Embattled nightclub executive Rachel Uchitel left her home in New York City' Meatpacking District (which strangely and I kid-you-not was the home of Alex, the character played by Glen Close in Fatal Attraction) at 5:45 AM only to be greeted by media representing TMZ.com and the New York Daily News.   They peppered her with questions from "So you're seeing Gloria Allred", to "How do you feel about Tiger Wood's wife", and also "You know, you're pretty."

I'm serious.  

Here's TMZ's video:



Then she boarded a plane bound for LAX where she was greeted by famed lawyer Gloria Alred. This meeting, too, was captured by TMZ:



But who is Gloria Allred?

Allred's is a founding partner of Allred, Maroko & Goldberg, and a self-described "Feminist Lawyer" who built her career by taking up legal cases for seemingly defenseless women against male-dominated organizations. The legal battle that made her name was a lawsuit agaist the then-all-male Friars Club in Beverly Hills, where she became its first female member. Later she represented Paula Jones in the sexual harassment case she lost to Bill Clinton.

Allred is known as a very outspoken, combative, liberal counselor, who's a much sought-after media pundit, appearing regularly on shows like Larry King Live. In short, Allred's someone you hire when you feel you're rights as a woman or minority have been violated at a high-profile level.

By hiring Allred, Rachel Uchitel is sending a powerful message that she means business in defending her name in the Tiger Woods scandal. I can't help but think her ultimate target is The National Enquirer, but given that publications love for big spotlight battles to protect its stories, this could be a heck of a war.

I can clearly see Rachel Uchitel's concern because she works with a large number of high-profile high rollers and does not want her professional reputation compromised. Now regardless of what's written about her, only Rachel can really explain what's going on and in the process possibly eliminate any inaccuracies about her life. My bet is that's where Gloria Allred comes in.

Stay tuned.