Gregg Easterbrook and my family jewels

by BigBlueShoe on Aug 15, 2007 10:46 AM EDT in Bad Journalism Comment 7 comments

As much as I dislike hacks like ESPN's Ed Werder or Tom Brady's fluffer, Peter King, none annoy me the way Gregg Easterbrook annoys me. Easterbrook is even worse than Bill Simmons. At least with Bill I can call him a moron homer and dismiss his opinion outright because it is clouded by the disease known as Newenglandis Dumbassitis. With Easterbrook, he isn't a homer, a hack, or a fat grown man in love with Tom Brady.

Easterbrook is a complete moron who knows absolutely nothing about football and to this day I don't know why anyone employs him to write about the subject.

Kissing Suzy Kolber did a hilarious spoof on Easterbrook last year, and I encourage you re-reading it (because I know you loved it the first time). Easterbrook is funny when he's writing about cheerleaders he'd like to bang and TV shows he'd like to see canceled. It's my humble suggestion that Gregg avoid offering his opinions on TV shows and movies seeing as doing so got his ass fired from ESPN a few years ago. Of course, ESPN re-hired him recently, proving once again ESPN is a network of soul-less pigs... but I digress.

Easterbrook's most recent ESPN article on football talks about the Colts, focusing specifically on Bill Polian's draft genius and Dwight Freeney. While Easterbrook does give Polian his props for his drafting (a no-brainer in the same realm as saying Michelangelo was good with paint), good ole Gregg couldn't help but sound like a schmuck when discussing how he would coach an NFL team:

What I don't understand is the way opponents game plan for Freeney. Football lore says of defensive ends: Run away from an end with strength and toward an end with speed. When Reggie White was in his prime, smart offenses ran away from him. When Bruce Smith was in his prime, smart offenses ran straight at him. Yet offenses don't run straight at Freeney. According to "Pro Football Prospectus 2007" -- and the Pro Football Prospectus series is, hands down, consistently the best independent football analysis available anywhere -- last year, Indianapolis opponents called only 18 running back rushes toward Freeney, the lowest number of running back rushes toward the right defensive end faced by any defense in the league. If I were concocting a game plan against the Colts, I'd run straight at Freeney to neutralize his recovery speed on plays the other way, and to make him stop thinking about the quarterback and start thinking about the run.

Yes, thank you Gregg. This from the guy who once said teams should "move around" in the secondary in order to fool Peyton Manning. He suggested this before Baltimore's trip to Indy in 2005.

The Ravens were crushed in that game, and Manning played like his usual brilliant self.

Now, Gregg is suggesting teams run at Freeney. Why? Because it will stop him from rushing the QB. Lost from Gregg's logic is the fact that Freeney is good against the run, and the reason teams don't run at him is because he stops them. Just ask Kansas City, Baltimore, and New England, who tried to run at Freeney in thep layoffs only to get stoned.

Please Gregg, do us a favor: Return to whatever dumbass think tank you take money from and write some more useless political papers that will stroke the johnson of America's intelligencia. While you're at it, masterbate to some photos of the Eagles cheerleaders. Do that and stay away from our football, because you are quite possibly the dumbest pundit writing about football today.

0 recs | Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

PFP/FO

I think he means run at where Freeney use to be when he does his upfield sprints. Freeney is a great run defender when the run crosses his path to the QB.

a run listed as LEFT TACKLE is actually at the RIGHT defensive end. FO's stats say running directly at Freeney (whether he's still there or not) works. Runing directly at 245lb Robert Mathis would be an even more obvious idea that is better supported by FO's numbers.

AdjLine yards/rank/% of carries
outside left
1.86 1 4%
behind LT
4.94 26 14%
up the middle
4.99 32 61%
behind RT
5.71 32 12%
outside right
3.24 8 9%

by shake n bake on Aug 15, 2007 11:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Easterbrook is good

Mostly, but I do have a few problems with him. I agree with him that coaches should go on 4th down more, especially near mid-field.

I watched the '05 Ravens game, and their defense was awesome. They overcame 3 picks and 3 missed field goals to hold Manning to 17 points and about 3 whole minutes of offensive success. They did get tired, though. They may have been "crushed" in the box score, but that's not how the game played at all.

I would run at Freeney too. The idea is to keep him involved and get him tired. It's like defending Kobe, but also putting a good offensive guy on him so he never gets rest. If you let Freeney simply play in his comfort zone he will eat you alive. Run right at him with your backup for the first half, and then break out your #1 guy in the second half and pound him when he's tired.

by SteveW on Aug 15, 2007 3:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

if faced with the options of running at Freeney or away from him, it obviously makes the most sense to run at him because running away from him plays into his strength which is speed and quickness which he can't use if the play is run right at him.

by Terry on Aug 15, 2007 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And while Freeney...

tackles your running back throughout the first half, Peyton Manning Touchdown Inc. has hung 35 points on you so you are going to be passing anyway. Nobody can afford to try a grind them down stratedgy on the Colts.

They put the big DT next to Freeney. If they run that way inside, the big DT gets him, if they run outside Freeney gets him on his way in. That's most likely the reason it's best to go the other way--it's just Brock and Mathis.

by will on Aug 15, 2007 4:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

But at least

when you have to start chucking the ball Freeney is tired. They've got to run out of oxygen on the sideline at some point.

by SteveW on Aug 15, 2007 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Have you ever seen Freeny look tired?

For the life of me, I can't remember a time when I have. He's probably the best conditioned DE in the league, and flies off the ball as fast in the 4th Quarter as he does in the 1st. You'd be more likely to wear out your LT who is trying to chase him around the field. They can rarely even engage Freeney in a block. Their best hope is to be able to usher him around the play, which is no tdifferent than if he were to rush the passer.

It's really a crap shot running at Freeney anyway. Since he has hat spin move back to the inside, if he pulls it, he spins right into the hole and you're gonna get a 3 yard loss and be forced to pass on the next down. Mathis on the other hand, is pretty much a straight upfield rusher and leaves a gaping hole on that side of the field almost every time. It's a no brainer running his way.

by rudy0498 on Aug 16, 2007 8:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Keep in mind...

Freeney's success at knocking the ball loose. I don't have any way to look at tape of him tackling people, but it's possible there is too much risk of a fumble to bother.

The people that study him the most--the opposing teams, have decided it's not worth running at him. Maybe it's because they did't want to risk hurting him and screwing up his impending $72M contract. Now that he has it, they can pound him flat.

Seriously, I think he reads the play too well and has too much speed. Your aren't going to drive him back with your 320# blob of fat lineman. You can control him better by trying to move with him and letting him try to go where he wants. You have to muscle him out of the way to run at him and he's in better shape than a OL-man. You get him more tired by blocking his rush than by trying to push him out of the way. You get your fat OL-man tired trying to run at him.

by will on Aug 15, 2007 8:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs