Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web



10 Nov 2009

TMQ: 49ers Cursed By Crabtree

Mr. Easterbrook notes in this week's column that the 49ers have seen a downturn in their performance since they signed a certain holdout wide receiver.

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 10 Nov 2009

43 comments, Last at 13 Nov 2009, 12:45pm by jebmak

Comments

1
by narticus :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 3:37pm

Conventional wisdom has always been that defensive players in the NFL are too fast for offenses to be able to run the option. With Chris Johnson involved, the defense might not be fast enough. Easterbrook calls the Titans a high school team for running the option this weekend, but the Titans got two five yard gains a touchdown run against the #5 rush defence (DVOA) using the outside option.

2
by Doug Farrar :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 3:45pm

He went with this same Crabtree schtick last week. Wrong then, wrong now. And the Dolphins ran some pretty spiffy option plays with Pat White last Sunday, too.

4
by ChrisH :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 4:30pm

I saw it last week and thought it was a ridiculous conclusion then. Perhaps if the 49ers had opened with a schedule of Atlanta, Indy, Minnesota, and Houston, then signed Crabtree, then played Arizona, Seattle, and St Louis, Easterbrook would be giving him all the credit for turning their season around? I also find the headline at ESPN right now that the 49ers "haven't won since caving to the me-first Michael Crabtree" a little bizarre, since I believe that the 49ers basically just held firm in what they were offering, and it's Crabtree that caved, correct? Oh well, Easterbrook is never one to let the facts get in the way of his argument.

6
by Tim Gerheim :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 5:11pm

Great point about the schedule.

I also like how he disregards the fact that a player's base salary is paid in seventeenths, so he actually doesn't get paid for the games he wasn't on the roster for. Granted, his signing bonus wasn't similarly prorated, but I'm sure he would have balked at a reduced offer, and it's a small enough amount that I can't fault the 49ers at all for not doing that.

I do think there's something to the prima donna chemistry issue, but that's a scouting/drafting problem, not of making a bad decision to sign him. You just can't relinquish a top-10 draft pick (the player and the pick, even though use of the draft pick is a sunk cost) because he holds out.

13
by Admorish (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 7:22pm

Holy cats! A prima dona WR? Surely you jest! What an utterly commonplace yet somehow insurmountable issue!

18
by Micranot (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 10:58pm

So I am saying this a little sheepishly as I could be complete wrong about this, but I have always read TMQ as purposefully tongue-in-cheek? I am pretty sure he understands that this is correlation and not causation.

19
by buzzorhowl (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 11:31pm

Oh, if ONLY Easterbrook could be explained away as humor. My blood pressure would love for that to be true.

23
by dbostedo :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 10:02am

Easterbrook was on Brian Kenny's radio show last night talking about this...Brian asked him if he thinks this is a real team chemistry effect, or if he was talking more about a "football karmic gods" kind of thing. Easterbrook said really it's a "football karmic gods" issue.

24
by MatMan :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 10:55am

Yeah I always assumed this, too. I never understood the Easterbrook-hate on this site. It's an entertaining weekly football column with a heavy dose of wry humor. Do FO readers really think Easterbrook believes in a mystical yet literal pantheon of football gods who hand out wins and losses based on cheerleader uniforms, too?

25
by Theo :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 11:48am

I agree. It's hard to to see if he's serious or not.
Some things (like your examples) are pretty straight forward nonsense, of course there's no gods watching football matches.
And if he didn't start off with Crabtree, you'd think he was joking on that one too.

26
by Eddo :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 11:54am

See dbodeto's post #31; it may have been that when he started, Easterbrook meant all his criticisms as tongue-in-cheek humor, but he now reads as if he's taken them all to heart.

It's not analysis. It's too nitpicky and mean-spirited to be humor.

5
by SteveNC (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 4:44pm

The 49ers had no chance, but it was clearly because of another curse being lifted.
http://blogs.tennessean.com/titans/2009/10/29/terrible-towel-curse-lifte...

3
by panthersnbraves :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 4:08pm

Is it a bad sign that I said "Game over" when the Panthers had 2nd & 8 and started throwing deep, instead of running or taking a short pass, and then going for it on fourth, if necessary. I agreed with TMQ! (The shame!)

7
by Marko :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 5:53pm

"Kansas City and Chicago both acted surprised when Jax and Arizona had return men in on long field goal attempts on the final play of the first half; in both cases, touchdown returns were nearly allowed. This was especially sour because it was only three years ago when Chicago returned a long field goal attempt for a touchdown on the final play of the first half against the Giants."

There are several factual errors regarding the Bears here.

1. The Arizona return was not on the final play of the half; there were about 40 seconds left in the half. Arizona's long return helped set up a field goal on the last play of the half, after Arizona completed a few passes to get in field goal range.

2. The Bears did not act surprised by the return man for Arizona. Multiple players hustled downfield and almost tackled the return man (Antrel Rolle) inside the 5 yard line.

3. The long field goal attempt returned for a touchdown by the Bears three years ago against the Giants (a then-record tying 108 yard return by Devin Hester) was not on the final play of the first half; it was early in the fourth quarter.

4. The long field goal attempt returned for a touchdown by the Bears on the final play of the first half that TMQ is thinking of was four years ago against the 49ers in the Wind Bowl. That was by Nathan Vasher and also was for 108 yards, setting the record for the longest return in league history that was tied by Hester the following year. (That record was broken in 2007 by Antonio Cromartie's 109 yard missed field goal return for the Chargers against the Vikings.)

8
by BillyB (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 6:06pm

He also talks about the Steelers "Time Square Defense" as if it is the first time they have ever done it. They've been doing this for years, including the 2006 playoff game against Indianapolis.

9
by Spielman :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 6:08pm

I can't even make it through the column anymore. Just can't make myself do it. Stuff that was fresh and interesting 9 years ago is now so hackneyed I can't bear it.

When was the last time anyone was surprised by something Easterbrook wrote? All his opinions are known before he shares them.

10
by B :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 6:22pm

I wasn't surprised by anything he said, but Man that Tampa Bay cheerleader sure is attractive. I am now a fan of orange.

16
by PatsFan :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 10:13pm

Hell, yeah!

29
by The Guy You Don't Want to Hear (not verified) :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 3:01pm

Damn you. You got me to look. I managed to avoid reading much, but I was far more interested in the San Diego cheerleader, in large part because she is a math teacher, and math teachers are pretty much automatically attractive.

And I saw about two sentences of total b.s. and ran away screaming.

11
by Nathan :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 6:35pm

Philly has run the option once or twice too (and several times in the preseason). I actually emailed Peter King before the season started and asked him to react to the statement: "in 2009, the option will be the new Wildcat" but he didn't respond of course. I now feel somewhat vindicated.

12
by Admorish (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 7:20pm

Crabtree did it! He's a witch! BURNNNN HIMMMMM!!!!!

42
by Kevin from Philly :: Thu, 11/12/2009 - 3:13pm

First, check to see if he weighs the same as a swan.

14
by Fan in Exile :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 8:01pm

Could someone please teach him how to not cherry pick stats. The Broncos do not fade down the stretch. If you look at their actual record they for the most part have exactly the same record during the last half of the year as they did in the first. Take last year for example everyone keeps talking about their collapse at the end of the season but they were 4-4 the first half and 4-4 the second half of the year. The problem last year was that the Chargers underperformed the first half and stepped it up the second half.

If you break it down by quarters then the broncos actually seem to struggle in the 2nd and third quarters of the season and then kick it up again in the 4th.

Really this one just drives me insane because you only believe it by cherry picking.

15
by nuk (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 8:42pm

This comment confused me, because a Denver fan I work with told me that they started 8-2 or some such last year. So I just looked it up, and you're right about the 4-4/4-4 split. But last year it was their 1st and 3rd quarters of the season they did well in.

30
by The Guy You Don't Want to Hear (not verified) :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 3:18pm

They were at 8-5 with three weeks to go and lost the last 3 games. Hence many have called this event a "collapse" or some such. Of course they also lost to Carolina (12-4, 19.0% DVOA), Buffalo (7-9, -8.4% DVOA), and San Diego (8-8, 17.5% DVOA) during that time. Losing to Buffalo was a bad loss, but San Diego and Carolina were good teams. I really think the perception of a collapse is mostly caused by the fact that they had a game against San Diego for the division and lost 52-21 (and the game didn't feel anywhere near that close).

35
by commissionerleaf :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 6:45pm

Also, last year Carolina was unstoppable down the stretch; they finaly grooved their running game, D. Williams was scoring up to four times a game, etc. Playing Carolina in Week 15 last year was very, very different from playing Carolina in Week 5.

That said, Denver is not a good team; they're an average team with a good scheme and a good attitude. I'd like to see them keep the Chargers out of the playoffs, but only because I'm a Colts guy and I'd just as soon whip Denver as opposed to watching Cromartie pick passes off every quarter or so again.

17
by PatsFan :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 10:15pm

Someone also needs to tell TMQ that the NE cheerleaders weren't being terribly professional -- it was a very warm November day.

(Speaking of NE cheerleaders, one of Kraft's unsung moves was to significantly upgrade the hotness of the NE squad, both in terms of the women themselves and their uniforms. Having followed the team since 1976, I have perspective on this :)

20
by Mike Y :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 11:40pm

"Note the Cardinals are 4-0 on the road, and performed well on the road during last season's playoffs. Maybe the sunsets-and-tequila atmosphere of Arizona living keeps this team from being serious at home."

I mean, come on, what the hell is that? Does he actually think this?

31
by ammek :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 4:26pm

Last year they were 8-2 at home, weren't they? I remember reading a load of unsubstantiated crap about how they couldn't win away from the sunsets and tequila. Was that TMQ too?

21
by Anonymouse (not verified) :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 5:05am

I live in Arizona, and have for my entire life. Where, praytell, might I find this elusive "sunsets-and-tequila" atmosphere?

It sure ain't in Phoenix.

27
by B :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 12:12pm

Mexico.

41
by DrewTS (not verified) :: Thu, 11/12/2009 - 10:58am

I lived on the far west side of Tucson for a summer a few years back, and spent many evenings getting drunk on my balcony and watching the sun set over the hills. It was Albertson's brand schnapps though, not tequila.

22
by pouringlizards (not verified) :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 8:19am

Thank you, endless stream of commenters, for reminding me why I don't enjoy TMQ. I swear, it's almost getting to the stage where you can see the exact same irritated criticisms of his column week-in, week out, and know that he's written it according to a pre-set template AGAIN. When will ESPN realise just how badly he's mailing it in?

28
by Still Alive (not verified) :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 1:09pm

My guess would be when people stop reading :) They clearly have no problem with people mailing it in, have you watched their coverage?

32
by pouringlizards (not verified) :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 5:00pm

you make a good point sir.

33
by Eddo :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 5:04pm

"Coach Mike Singletary had San Francisco's players buying into the notion that no one's bigger than the team."

I recently read SI's excerpt of Joe Posnanski's new book, The Machine, about the 1975 World Series Champion Cincinnati Reds, and it mentions how, in spring training of that year, manager Sparky Anderson basically told the entire team that there were four guys who would get special treatment: Morgan, Rose, Bench, and Perez. Hardly sounds like a "no one's bigger than the team" philosophy, and that team was pretty damn successful.

Now, in football, you have to rely on your teammates more, but I always get the feeling that the "no one's bigger than the team" issues are drummed up by the media.

34
by The Guy You Don't Want to Hear (not verified) :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 6:43pm

I've heard similar stories about Red Auerbach, and he was extremely successful. I think it probably depends on the team, both in terms of their talents and in terms of everyone's personality, but I think the extreme "No person matters at all. Only the team exists."-type of story is created by the media. It's like "leadership" or "just winning"--it exists to explain why the media was wrong about someone/something.

36
by PatsFan :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 6:55pm

Yeah -- Red was pretty upfront with the team that there was Russell and there was everyone else. I imagine one thing that let him get away with this was that Russell was so god-damned good and everyone on the team knew it. Also, he was an ironman, regularly playing over 40 minutes (out of 48) a night and his teammates knew he wasn't a slacker.

37
by The Guy You Don't Want to Hear (not verified) :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 10:40pm

I would guess that, too, but since I know absolutely nothing about basketball (e.g., I knew it was 48 minutes, but I would have guessed that starters normally played 40 minutes and since you're saying Russell was an iron man for that, I'm guessing they don't.), I don't think it's fair for me to say.

38
by PatsFan :: Thu, 11/12/2009 - 12:09am

Only six players in NBA history averaged over 40 min/game and Chamberlain and Russell were #1 and #2:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mp_per_g_career.html

39
by tuluse :: Thu, 11/12/2009 - 3:00am

A starter in the NBA is going to play 30-35 minutes usually. That might increase in the playoffs, but in the regular season is 82 games long, you need to keep your guys ready.

40
by tuluse :: Thu, 11/12/2009 - 3:01am

I think Phil Jackson made it pretty clear to Rodman he was the 3rd most important player on the team.

43
by jebmak :: Fri, 11/13/2009 - 12:45pm

I think that Parcells did the same thing.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.