Comments on: Smart Notes 9/1/09

By: Nate

Nate — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:28:02 +0000

“I like Jon Chait a lot, but it must be noted that he is a graduate of U of M. But his attack on the Free Press’s reporting on the practice-time fiasco is, well, intense…”

I’m not sure why Chait’s status as a U of M alum is being treated as a dirty secret (Deadspin also “outed” Chait)…he’s a well-known Michigan grad…no one, Chait included, was trying to obscure that. In any case he makes a straightforward case that I find pretty persuasive.

By: Techie

Techie — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:56:25 +0000

The “Three Martini” lunch did exist, but with a key difference.

The martinis were about 1 to 1.5 oz. of booze, compared to the 3+ oz. you’ll get poured in a single one today. So, three 1950′s lunch martinis = about 1.5 of today’s. Or so I’ve been led to believe.

By: Seth C

Seth C — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:20:04 +0000

How about 4 packs of cigarettes in a day? That’s 4 or 5 an hour, depending on how long you’re awake.

Re. drinks: It sounds like being productive was part of being drunk, but I think that the distinction here is that these guys were genius and if Don Draper is anything like some real person, he could sell me just about anything (the Kodak Carousel scene still resonates in my brain).

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:40:16 +0000

Seth: I saw that, and the NYT had a similar bit. I cannot imagine having three martinis at lunch and then somehow being productive in the afternoon.

By: Seth C

Seth C — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:55:42 +0000

Chris, thought you would enjoy this bit from USA Today about the fact that Mad Men is as real-life as it gets for the era (http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/adtrack/2009-08-30-real-life-mad-men-were-about-sex-and-booze_N.htm).

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:16:11 +0000

Stan, I agree. Bobby Bowden said it well when he said, “When you try to stop everything, you stop nothing.”

By: stan

stan — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:58:05 +0000

Chait has let his bias turn his brain to mush on this one. It appears to be a bad habit ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46805-2003Oct18?language=printer ). Welcome to journalism Jon.

Chris,

At the end of your piece on blitzing, you write “Blitzing, like much else on defense stems from some rather basic principles but, in practice, has to account for everything the offense could do on a given play.” I think that a lot of coaches go way too far down this road, way too often. It can hamstring a defensive coordinator. [I've seen a head coach drive a DC insane with "but what if the offense does this ...."]

Yes, you need to think about how the offense might respond and what the consequences might be if they happen to have certain plays called against your blitz. This helps in gaining a better understanding of the real risk/reward parameters. But if you choose to roll the dice, you have to be prepared to lose on the gamble sometimes. If you try to hedge all your bets, you end up not gambling at all. You end up like the coach who yells out to his defense to watch out for the pass, … and the trap … and the draw … and the sweep … and bootleg … and throwback … and reverse ….