Tweet
Just two Monday morning grumblings.
First, in the thread on the loss of Al Harris, a couple of posters implied that Thompson has failed to stock the roster well enough with corners, and now the team is screwed. They point to the drafting of Pat Lee and the playing of Bush as examples in support.
First, there's no way to tell how Lee would be playing had he not been put on IR. Maybe he'd be the dime back - it's impossible to say, really. Secondly, the team has lost Lee and Blackmon, so instead of having a 6th round rook out there, it might have been one or the other. Harris is not the first corner to go down; he's the third.
It's as if people are blaming Thompson for not having pro-bowlers on the fourth string. Tramon Williams - the nickel now stepping in - is a high quality replacement for Harris. How many teams would have a nickel back as good as Williams to step in?
My other issue has to do with Mike Vandermause's column, which severely tramples cause-and-effect with this passage:
"One play after Kampman was carted to the locker room in the third quarter, the 49ers scored their first touchdown. Two plays after Harris went down in a heap early in the fourth quarter, the 49ers scored their second touchdown. On the next series, the 49ers scored another touchdown to turn what had been a 30-10 rout into a nail-biter.
It was no coincidence the wheels came off the defensive wagon once Kampman and Harris departed."
WTF? Uh, Mike - that play right after Kampman was carted off, the one you cite as an example of how "the wheels came off"? - you know, the touchdown? Uh, who was covering Crabtree on that route? Oh - Al Harris - the guy whose absence you cite as reason the Packers fell apart, along with Kampman's absence. What sloppy writing.
If Vandermause had broken the play down and showed that the Niners picked specifically on Kampman's replacement for a t.d., you could say his absence caused a touchdown. Sure. But could you say much more than that without a deep analysis of how the Niners took advantage over the course of the rest of the game? No.
What an easy, sloppy article - no real thought, no analysis, just some vague and general claims that abuse any real notion of cause and effect.
There. I feel better now.
First, in the thread on the loss of Al Harris, a couple of posters implied that Thompson has failed to stock the roster well enough with corners, and now the team is screwed. They point to the drafting of Pat Lee and the playing of Bush as examples in support.
First, there's no way to tell how Lee would be playing had he not been put on IR. Maybe he'd be the dime back - it's impossible to say, really. Secondly, the team has lost Lee and Blackmon, so instead of having a 6th round rook out there, it might have been one or the other. Harris is not the first corner to go down; he's the third.
It's as if people are blaming Thompson for not having pro-bowlers on the fourth string. Tramon Williams - the nickel now stepping in - is a high quality replacement for Harris. How many teams would have a nickel back as good as Williams to step in?
My other issue has to do with Mike Vandermause's column, which severely tramples cause-and-effect with this passage:
"One play after Kampman was carted to the locker room in the third quarter, the 49ers scored their first touchdown. Two plays after Harris went down in a heap early in the fourth quarter, the 49ers scored their second touchdown. On the next series, the 49ers scored another touchdown to turn what had been a 30-10 rout into a nail-biter.
It was no coincidence the wheels came off the defensive wagon once Kampman and Harris departed."
WTF? Uh, Mike - that play right after Kampman was carted off, the one you cite as an example of how "the wheels came off"? - you know, the touchdown? Uh, who was covering Crabtree on that route? Oh - Al Harris - the guy whose absence you cite as reason the Packers fell apart, along with Kampman's absence. What sloppy writing.
If Vandermause had broken the play down and showed that the Niners picked specifically on Kampman's replacement for a t.d., you could say his absence caused a touchdown. Sure. But could you say much more than that without a deep analysis of how the Niners took advantage over the course of the rest of the game? No.
What an easy, sloppy article - no real thought, no analysis, just some vague and general claims that abuse any real notion of cause and effect.
There. I feel better now.
Comment