Showing posts with label Sports Illustrated. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sports Illustrated. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

S.I.'s Michael Silver On Bill Walsh's Genius - The Passing Of Bill Walsh



Early in his coaching tenure with the San Francisco 49ers, before he turned a long-suffering franchise into the greatest organization in professional sports, Bill Walsh once cut a player on the practice field.

Enraged by a cheap shot, Walsh fired the player -- who, to be fair, was not one of the team's major contributors -- right there on the spot, ordering a member of the security staff to escort him out of the building. To underscore his point, Walsh trailed behind as the two men trudged toward the locker room, screaming, "Don't even let him f----- shower!"

This was Walsh, who died today at 75 after a long bout with leukemia, at his most ruthless. Yet there was a calculated brilliance behind his brashness: After he took over in 1979, no Niner dared cross the new man in charge.

Nearly a decade later, as he was losing his grip after having completed the most impressive NFL coaching run since Vince Lombardi's in Green Bay, Walsh sometimes directed his enmity toward members of the local media. He was equal parts paranoid and condescending, and when he stepped down following his third Super Bowl title in January 1989, there wasn't a whole lot of sentimental sadness in either the press room or the locker room.

A few months later, I began covering the team as a beat writer for a Northern California paper, and the horror stories about Walsh's final days circulated with abandon. But he and I hit it off from the start, and over the next 17-plus years, whether I sought his opinion as a television analyst, as the progenitor of an offensive philosophy and unmatched tree of executive and coaching excellence, as a reinstalled Stanford mentor who'd just toyed with Joe Paterno, or a personnel guru who temporarily brought the 49ers back to prominence, he was invariably wise, witty and kind.

When people would ask about my relationship with the white-haired legend, I used to respond jokingly -- well, maybe half-jokingly -- that he and I bonded based on our shared belief of an unassailable tenet: Bill Walsh was a genius.

It wasn't that far from the truth. Growing up in L.A. as an oft-humiliated fan of the hometown Rams' chief rivals, I spent my high-school years watching in awe as Walsh transformed a 49ers team that went 2-14 his first year and 6-10 his second into a first-time champion in his third.

Because of Walsh, the franchise of a thousand choke jobs was now led by a cool, magical quarterback named Joe Montana, whose passes were as picturesque as the Golden Gate Bridge in heavy fog.

Because of Walsh, a group of young hellions led by Ronnie Lott took over a malleable defense that suddenly played with dash and defiance.

Because of Walsh and his innovative offensive schemes, receivers were five yards open, a 10th-round draft pick named Dwight Clark would become an All-Pro and Bay Area legend, and a washed-up running back named Lenvil Elliott would gain many of the key yards on the dramatic drive that produced The Catch.

On a more personal level, because of Walsh, I could wear my ratty, way-too-small 49ers jersey to school on Jan. 11, 1982, and for the first time in my life no one would dare laugh.

So, yes, after I started covering the Niners and thus stopped loving them like a gushy teenager, I was predisposed to think pretty highly of Walsh. But the more I learned of him -- and from him -- the greater my appreciation became.

In an era in which many head coaches callously prohibit their assistants from talking to the media (and, by extension, hurt their profiles and potential for attracting the interests of other employers), Walsh did the opposite, vigorously promoting the virtues of the coaches who worked under him through the press and back-channel diplomacy. This was especially true when it came to minority coaching candidates. Indeed, undoing racial injustices when it came to such hires remained one of Walsh's primary causes long after he stepped away.

Remember that in early January 1989, shortly before Walsh resigned as the Niners' coach, his receivers coach, Denny Green, got the Stanford job -- largely on the strength of his boss's recommendation. Walsh's reaction in the midst of a tense playoff drive? He essentially allowed Green to become the Cardinal's fulltime coach while filling in with the Niners whenever time allowed.

It's not surprising that, unlike Jimmy Johnson and other successful NFL head coaches whose assistants turned out to be substandard bosses, Walsh saw his legacy carried on directly (George Seifert, Mike Holmgren, Ray Rhodes, Green) and indirectly (Mike Shanahan, Jeff Fisher, Jon Gruden). It was Walsh, after all, who not only revolutionized football strategy with the West Coast Offense, but who also created the organizational blueprint for the modern franchise, from the down-to-the-precise-minute daily schedule to the filming of practices and play-installation meetings.

Give me an hour, and I can go on and on about the other areas in which Walsh made a lasting impact, including his insistence on cutting prominent players a year before their decline, rather than after it, all things being equal. Critics might call this another example of his ruthlessness, and some victims of the policy, such as Clark, would hold a longtime grudge.

But if you paid attention to the 49ers, you eventually understood that Walsh knew best, for he -- more than even Lott or Montana or Jerry Rice or owner Eddie DeBartolo -- was the man most responsible for the franchise's unprecedented run of excellence that included five Super Bowl championships in 14 years.

Manipulative as he might have been -- like all great coaches, really -- Walsh boldly strove for excellence and wasn't averse to risking everything while doing so. Every move he made was meant to create or sustain a dynasty, from the 1987 trade for Steve Young, that triggered a years-long quarterback controversy, to his persuading of Montana, Clark and other veterans not to cross the picket line during the '87 players' strike for fear of the damage to team chemistry it might cause (they nonetheless returned the following week).

As that strike reminded us, Walsh was a tactician whose brilliance shone behind-the-scenes and, most glaringly, on Sundays in front of a rapt, football-watching nation.

Playing his first game with replacement players against the Bill Parcells-coached Giants on Monday Night Football, Walsh, during interviews with the New York media, made a big deal about the presence on the roster of backup quarterback Mark Stevens, who'd run the option in college. Stevens, Walsh suggested, might be inserted in specific situations in which the Phony Niners could utilize his speed and running ability.

Sure enough, before a short-yardage play near midfield, Stevens came sprinting into the huddle, and everyone waited to see Walsh unveil his new toy. The bait successfully lowered, Stevens took the snap, faked a handoff, dropped back in the pocket and calmly delivered a touchdown pass to a wide-open receiver.

On one level, the whole thing was kind of coldblooded. It was also funny and sublime and, yes, genius. That was Bill Walsh, and those of us who got to observe him up close will remember him that way until we, too, are told to disappear without showering.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Michael Vick's In Big Trouble But Not Convicted

As you may know, Michael Vick's been convicted of running a dogfighting ring, a felony offense. I'll write more about this soon, but here's the details from George Dormann of Sports Illustrated:

Shocking charges
Indictment against Vick describes unfathomable acts
Posted: Tuesday July 17, 2007 11:42PM; Updated: Wednesday July 18, 2007 2:39PM

During an April raid of Vick's property in Virginia, authorities seized 66 dogs and equipment commonly used in dog fighting.
AP

By George Dohrmann, SI.com
The indictment handed down Tuesday against Falcons quarterback Michael Vick and three others describes in detail how they procured a property in Virginia for the purpose of staging dogfights, bought dogs and then fought them there, and in several other states, over a 6-year period. With at least three cooperating witnesses providing the details, federal authorities compiled a detailed case that traces the birth and rise of Bad Newz Kennels.

But not a single line in the 18-page indictment will generate more rage toward Vick and the others charged -- Purnell A. Peace, Quanis L. Phillips and Tony Taylor -- than a sentence near the end. It reads: "In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground."

In interviews I conducted for an earlier story on the subculture of dogfighting and Vick's involvement, several experts described to me the process of "rolling" dogs. Owners take young dogs, usually puppies, and put them in an enclosed area and see how they react. They prod the dogs and urge them to get angry. If a dog shows aggression toward another dog, that's a positive. If a dog is timid, it is useless. Some fighters give away puppies that don't show the required "gameness." Other owners don't bother with the trouble of finding them a home and simply kill them.

Vick and his three associates, according to the indictment, fall in the latter category. Federal investigators allege Vick is a murderer of dogs who weren't willing to fight for his enjoyment. Even worse, his actions appear more sinister than most professional dogfighters.

"If you want to kill a dog, why exert the energy to slam him into the ground or drown him? Why not just shoot him, which is the most common method?" says John Goodwin, dogfighting expert for the Humane Society of the United States. "That is insane. These guys, if they did that, have serious problems."

Vick's problems would seem to be plentiful now that he has gone from a person of interest in local and federal investigations to one of four men charged in U.S. District Court in Richmond, Va., with conspiracy to commit interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and to sponsor a dog in an animal-fighting venture. On the Travel Act portion of the conspiracy charges, he faces a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The dogfighting charges carry a possible sentence of one year in prison, a $100,000 fine or both.

Still, even with the gravity of the crimes alleged, Vick's most serious problem would seem to be one of perception. If one believes the allegations against him, Vick is neither a novice dogfighter nor or a hobbyist who dipped his toe into the sport briefly. The indictment alleges Vick is a professional dogfighter who"sponsored" more than two dozen dogfights. He is not, as he previously said, someone who merely trusted the wrong people. Rather, he is the face of a bloodsport that the majority of NFL fans probably didn't know existed until the property he owned on Moonlight Road was raided in late April. And, now, he becomes the ultimate test for NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and his new discipline policy.

Read the rest at S.I.:

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Hooter Girls Are Coming To Bauer's Pure Rush Super Bowl Miami!



Yep. You saw it here! The Hooter Girls are coming to the Bauer's Pure Rush Super Bowl Party in Miami.

You can enjoy them, er, their look...Ah, the fact that they're around. If you come to Miami for the party. Makes logic to me!

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Indianapolis Colts Answer Enough New England Patriots Riddles To Win 38-34

My good friend Mike Silver over at Sports Illustrated has observed that the New England Patriots focus and preparation is better than most teams. That the New England Patriots are a well-coached team and that they do this is is true but not well defined and doesn't adress why they lost to the Indianapolis Colts in one of the best games in NFL History. But few have deconstructed their game planning pattern and apparent philosphy which in my view led to their loss. I did that while watching the AFC Championship Game and came away with this observation.

Very simple, the Pats entire approach -- their strength -- is to focus relentlessly on your weakness. Or to put it another way, their strength is to focus on your weakness, but the very process causes their weaknesses to be exposed.

Pay attention to that.

Some teams emphasize their strength; not the Pats. Again, their advantage is only -- only to concentrate on your weakness. In the case of the Colts, the Pats game plan detail was obvious to me.

1) The Colts main weakness is in difficulty blocking blitzes out of Oklahoma - 3-4 style -- defenses. The Colts are known for throwing on first down out of play action. So, what does New England do? Use a PURE 3-4 set on first down.

2) The Colts weakness is an inability to recognize a coverage where two midle-linebackers exchange zone assignments with linemen on second down. (A specific type of zone blitz.) What do the Pats give the Colts, a rather exotic two-down lineman, five-LB, and five-DB defense, first created by the late Fritz Shurmer with the LA Rams over 25 years ago. Then they line up in a variation of this inside the 15 yard line.

3) The Colts defense has been "gashed" by the following kinds of run plays:

A) Weakside "slide" cutbacks off the tackle -- this is a seldom-used but effective approach. I remember seeing Dick Vemeil's Philadelphia Eagles use this against the Tom Landry-coached Dallas Cowboys. See, the Cowboys ran the Flex Defense, which is such that not only is each lineman assignd a gap -- a zone defense against the run -- but because of the design of the defense, the entire front essentially moves as one with the offensive line (thus no hole to run through). The weakside slide calls for the offensive line to (for example) block right, and the running back takes a step in that direction, but then gets the ball and waits for the line and defense to slide to the right, and just runs outside the tackle on the left side. Both Corey Dillon and Lawrence Mulroney got fair gains from this manuever.

B) Draw plays from 4-wide formations.

C) "Bounce" running plays -- this technique was created by Bill Walsh first with the Bengals in the 70s. It calls for the running back to first approach the off-tackle area as if a direct dive play, but then push off the inside foot and litterally "bounce" to the outside. Lawrence Mulroney did this five times in the first half.

D) Defensive End or Tackle "ISO Block" with the Tight End. -- What's refered to as "WHAM" blocking. This is where Dillon took off for a 41-yard gain.

What's the answer to these? Just have Colts Safety Bob Sanders watch the weakside, and keep the defensive ends outside for station-keeping (and altering this assigment with the outside linebackers), and not inside -- thus diminishing the effectiveness of the bounce run. For the draw plays, the old fashioned way of tightening the tackles in closer to the ball works, and having one defensive end between tackle and guard -- not outside -- to "catch" the running back. You have to vary this.

On defense, going without a huddle -- which the Colts did in the second half -- makes it harder to play the more exotic defenses as the Patriots have to get the right personel group in to do it.

I could go on in detail, but the bottom line is that once you've determined the answer to this approach, the Pats have no advantage to fall back on. It's not like playing the Seattle Seahawks where you know that they're going to run left with RB Shawn Alexader behind Offensive Tackle Walter Jones -- that's a strength and they've done it almost regardless of the situation. By contrast, the Pats specialize in being a kind of chameleon and that's their strength. But it's their only one. It's not that they don't have personel strengths, but they don't emphasize them. It's not their style. They'd rather throw a set of riddles at you.

Once you've figured out their riddles, they don't think "We'll just pound the hell out of the ball" or "We'll throw deep" which is what the Oakland Raiders teams do -- when Jon Gruden's not coaching them.

And that's why the game came out the way it did. The Colts found answers to enough Pats riddles to launch a comeback and eventually win. It also should put to rest those people who don't think Indy Coach Tony Dungy can match wits with New England Patriots Coach Bill Belichek. It's more to the pont to say that Dungy took Belichek's wits away from him.