Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Truncated: length

WARC-Type: response

text:
Bermuda,2008-09-21:/community//1177 2017-01-16T20:06:25Z Bermuda
Bermuda
,2017:/community//1.1183466 2017-01-16T15:06:25Z 2017-01-16T20:06:25Z
Hi, I would like to take my mother to Bermuda to celebrate her 50th birthday in April. I know weather is iffy, but with Zika on the rise everywhere, I am very limited to semi warm weather. It is just the

Bermuda Questions... Visit in Dec 2016...
,2016:/community//1.1151503 2016-11-14T14:57:50Z 2016-11-14T19:57:50Z
hi all, before i book my tickets to bermuda, I had a few questions. Will appreciate your inputs/ feedback. I am planning my visit first week of december 2016.. (2-5th mostly) a. How is the sea water temperature?

Cruise from NYC to Bermuda
,2016:/community//1.1127294 2016-08-28T11:42:04Z 2016-08-28T16:42:04Z
We are cruising from NYC to Bermuda this mid Sept. I am at a complete loss as to what to pack for our days at sea. Will it be warm, will it be chilly, I just don't know. Has anyone else out there done this

Bermuda in February or March
,2016:/community//1.1120698 2016-07-23T11:55:57Z 2016-07-23T16:55:57Z
Hello, Planning a trip with 2 kids (5 years and 1 1/2 years old) to Bermuda. We have never been but heard and seen good things. We are from Southern California. Has anyone been and give you can give me

Narrowing it down
,2016:/community//1.1119861 2016-07-19T10:05:15Z 2016-07-19T15:05:15Z
I have read every post I could see going back a very long time but would really appreciate some guidance on how to narrow things down. We are in the early stages of planning our holiday and want to include

all inclusive advice
,2016:/community//1.1112502 2016-06-13T20:48:12Z 2016-06-14T01:48:12Z
Hi and thank you in advance. My girlfriend and I are looking to go somewhere other than Mexico in the middle of July and are looking for an all inclusive beach resort. We've never done an all inclusive

which island is best for fam vaca in july with teens
,2016:/community//1.1112500 2016-06-13T20:23:06Z 2016-06-14T01:23:06Z
I originally posted questions about where to stay in jamaica with teen girls and 9 year old bold. We really aren't the all inclusive resort type of vacationers. The more I read about Jamaica the more I'm

Gluten free restaurants in Bermuda
,2016:/community//1.1112084 2016-06-10T22:45:15Z 2016-06-11T03:45:15Z
Any suggestions for the best restaurants with gluten-free options in Bermuda?

Choosing the Right Island
,2016:/community//1.1107824 2016-05-17T14:15:06Z 2016-05-17T19:15:06Z
Hi Everyone! My husband and I are looking to plan our next 5-6 night vacation and I was hoping to get some advice on which island would best suit us. We don't have any set dates yet - these are flexible

Best restaurants in Bermuda
,2016:/community//1.1106720 2016-05-12T09:58:34Z 2016-05-12T14:58:34Z
My husband and i are going to bermuda at the end of may (i will be 5 1/2 months pergnant) and we're staying at elbow beach. what are some of the best restaurants on the island? we eat all cuisines and love

Need Trip Ideas For Late July
,2016:/community//1.1098839 2016-04-27T15:44:18Z 2016-04-27T20:44:18Z
I've been diving through forum posts trying to find an existing post with similar wants and haven't been able to find anything yet. Wife and I are looking to take a trip/break in late July. We love the

Virgin Gorda? 5-Year Anniversary Trip
,2016:/community//1.1092568 2016-04-05T13:46:07Z 2016-04-05T18:46:07Z
Hi, everyone! My husband and I are planning a trip for our 5-year wedding anniversary (anniversary is in April but we are willing to travel during another month if it's better for whichever island we choose).

July 4th weekend – have you been to Bermuda, Islamorada, or St. Simons?
,2016:/community//1.1088994 2016-03-07T10:36:29Z 2016-03-07T15:36:29Z
**(Also posting this on United States forum for Islamorada and St. Simons) Due to working different shifts, etc. my BF and I have not had a July 4th weekend off together in years, until this year, so we’re

Bermuda
,2016:/community//1.1087060 2016-02-18T22:03:47Z 2016-02-19T03:03:47Z
Two questions regarding Bermuda: 1. I am looking for a luxury hotel in Bermuda on a calm beach. I have a 6-year old and don't want a beach with strong waves. Any hotels with bathwater beaches? 2. I checked

Possible to renew H1B visa in a Caribbean country?
,2016:/community//1.1087037 2016-02-18T16:58:07Z 2016-02-18T21:58:07Z
I need to renew my H1B visa, and while it is suggested I do this in the US consulate in the country where my passport was issued (New Zealand), I have heard of other types of visas (Eg E3) being renewed,

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-171-10-70.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-04
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
Europe Forums

Post New Topic

Recent Activity

View all Europe activity »
  1. 1 How many nights to spend in Granada and Malaga & a few other questions
  2. 2 Swiss Alps in the Spring-Some Questions
  3. 3 Towersey, London
  4. 4 Italy and Switzerlan Travel Advice
  5. 5 Seville/Granada or Porto/Guim/Braga/Evora to impress 9 year old?
  6. 6 Rome, Florence and Venice for each city 2 days
  7. 7 Paris to Nice - 4x 50 somethings and 5 nights - what to do!
  8. 8 Single mom w/ 8 mo baby traveling to Paris and London
  9. 9 Biarritz family holiday
  10. 10 Ireland Trip Planning Advice
  11. 11 With Locals dinner- anyone done one?
  12. 12 Trip Report January Sicily and exploding cornetto al cioccolato
  13. 13 3-4 days Netherland trip
  14. 14 Any recent stays at either the Plaka or Attalos hotels in Athens
  15. 15 Bern to Munich, BlaBla Car & Dresden
  16. 16 Stop between Umbria and Firenze
  17. 17 Ireland in April
  18. 18 Amsterdam and Beyond - 7 Days
  19. 19 Need itinerary help! Dolomites to Austria through Hallstat to Venice
  20. 20 Planning to visit Barcelona and Paris
  21. 21 please help me plan first trip to europe
  22. 22 Initial itinerary - 1 month in Greece
  23. 23 Figueres: trains and timing from Barcelona
  24. 24 If you had to choose one......
  25. 25 getting to CDG
View next 25 » Back to the top

Daily Rome Budget and Tour question

Jump to last reply

Hey y'all.
Question: our accommodations are paid for as well as our plane tickets so how much should we budget for food, gelato, transportation, major sightseeing, and purchasing a few souvenirs daily in Rome? We are renting an apartment and are not food snobs. We don't want to fall into tourist trap type restaurants but we don't mind tasty street food. We want to give the most money to dinner naturally. We will be in Rome 7 days.
Should we prearranged tours to the Vatican? Our AAA agent is trying to sell us on a $80 per person small group tour. Is this a good value? Is an organized tour the best way to see the Vatican?
Should we do the same for the Coliseum? We're young and reasonably well traveled but this is our first trip to Europe and I'm (irrationally) anxious. Thanks in advance for the help.

9 Replies |Back to top

Sign in to comment.


text:
Europe Forums

Post New Topic

Recent Activity

View all Europe activity »
  1. 1 Paris to Nice - 4x 50 somethings and 5 nights - what to do!
  2. 2 getting to CDG
  3. 3 Trip Report January Sicily and exploding cornetto al cioccolato
  4. 4 Planning to visit Barcelona and Paris
  5. 5 Stop between Umbria and Firenze
  6. 6 How many nights to spend in Granada and Malaga & a few other questions
  7. 7 Swiss Alps in the Spring-Some Questions
  8. 8 Towersey, London
  9. 9 Italy and Switzerlan Travel Advice
  10. 10 Seville/Granada or Porto/Guim/Braga/Evora to impress 9 year old?
  11. 11 Rome, Florence and Venice for each city 2 days
  12. 12 Single mom w/ 8 mo baby traveling to Paris and London
  13. 13 Biarritz family holiday
  14. 14 Ireland Trip Planning Advice
  15. 15 With Locals dinner- anyone done one?
  16. 16 3-4 days Netherland trip
  17. 17 Any recent stays at either the Plaka or Attalos hotels in Athens
  18. 18 Bern to Munich, BlaBla Car & Dresden
  19. 19 Ireland in April
  20. 20 Amsterdam and Beyond - 7 Days
  21. 21 Need itinerary help! Dolomites to Austria through Hallstat to Venice
  22. 22 please help me plan first trip to europe
  23. 23 Initial itinerary - 1 month in Greece
  24. 24 Figueres: trains and timing from Barcelona
  25. 25 If you had to choose one......
View next 25 » Back to the top

I have about 20 hours to spend in paris,what can i do?

Jump to last reply

I have about 20 hours to spend in paris ... i want to go Eiffel tower.. can I rent a car from the airport in Paris , and drive it with a Canadian driver licence also,, what other sightseeing places can I pass by or can do from the airport to the Eiffel tower.. also we are going with 2 kids so we can looking for a family restaurant ... that's kids would be about to eat from...

plus we do want to settle in a hotel beside the airport for a few hours at night before we take out next flight to out other destination

12 Replies |Back to top

Sign in to comment.


text:
Make Ahead Potatoes

Total Time
1hr 10mins
Prep 30 mins
Cook 40 mins

This is easy to make & all you have to do is throw them in the oven for 1/2hr before it is time to eat good for company

Ingredients Nutrition

  1. Boil potatoes, mash.
  2. Add sour cream& cream cheese, onion& 4T.
  3. of butter.
  4. Stir till the cream cheese is melted into the potatoes& is smoothe.
  5. Spread into a greased 9x13 pan.
  6. Drizzle the last 2T of melted butter over top, sprinkle with paprika.
  7. You can now bake it 20 minute or put it in the fridge till everything else you are having for dinner is made.
  8. Bake 20 min@350 covered then 20 minute uncovered.
  9. It is up to you weather you sprinkle cheese on top.

Most Helpful

Made Exactly as directed with great results! Everyone loved them!!

Munchkin Mama January 08, 2009

Join the Conversation

  • all
  • reviews
  • tweaks
  • q & a


text:
Recipes >

Easy Shrimp Scampi and Spinach Fettuccine

  • 1 pound fettuccini pasta
  • 1 pound large peeled and deveined shrimp (20 to 25 shrimp per pound)
  • 4 cups fresh baby spinach
  • 1/4 cup butter, divided
  • 2 tablespoons olive oil
  • 1/4 cup fine diced shallot
  • 3 tablespoons minced garlic (5 cloves)
  • 1/8 teaspoon crushed red pepper flakes
  • 1 teaspoon salt
  • 1/2 teaspoon black pepper
  • 1/4 cup lemon juice
  • 1/2 cup dry white wine
  • Salt and black pepper, to taste

Prep Time:

8 minutes

Cook Time:

12 minutes

This fabulous fresh version of shrimp scampi pasta is fancy enough to impress your guests and simple enough to serve on a hectic weeknight.

Why Try? Many shrimp scampi recipes are overloaded with butter; this recipe is balanced with a blend of butter and monounsaturated olive oil and tossed with fresh baby spinach. It’s rich in B vitamins, omega-3 fatty acids, beta-carotene, calcium and important phytochemicals. Long story short, it’s better for you than most scampi recipes.

Foodie Byte: Be sure to have your ingredients measured and prepared prior to beginning the sauté procedure in this recipe; everything cooks very quickly!

  1. Add pasta to a large pot of boiling salted water. Cook 6 to 7 minutes or until cooked al dente; stirring to ensure pasta separates. Drain pasta reserving 1/2 cup cooking liquid.
  2. In large non-stick skillet, heat 2 tablespoons butter and olive oil over medium heat. Add shallots, garlic, and red pepper flakes; sauté 3 minutes.
  3. Season shrimp with salt and pepper; add to skillet and cook 3 minutes or until shrimp turn pink and are cooked through. Remove shrimp from skillet; keep warm.
  4. Add lemon juice and wine; as mixture comes to a boil, add 2 tablespoons butter and stir until melted.
  5. Return shrimp to skillet along with spinach, cooked fettuccini, and reserved cooking liquid as needed to keep pasta moist. Stir well and season with salt and pepper as needed.

Nutritional Information

Calories 470, Carbohydrates 62g, Cholesterol 116mg, Fat 14g, Fat Calories 125, Fiber 3g, Protein 21g, Saturated Fat 6g, Sodium 780mg. Daily Values: Calcium 76.67mg 8%, Phos 302.3mg 30%, Copper 0.35mg 18%, Zinc 1.68mg 11%, Panto 0.3mg 3%, Biotin 0.03mcg 10%, Magnesium 60.47mg 15%, Iron 3.28mg 18%, Vitamin B6 9%, Vitamin C 13%, Vitamin B12 14%, Vitamin D 2%, Vit E-a-Toco 6%, Vitamin A 21%. Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet.


text:
Mystic Pizza

56 W. Main St., Mystic, CT 6355 | Get Directions
Phone: 860-536-3700

On Food Network's FoodNation with Bobby Flay, Bobby stops by Mystic Pizza, made famous by the 1988 movie starring Julia Roberts and still serving a slice to hungry locals and tourists, in Mystic, CT.

See an error? Report This Listing

As Seen On


text:
Krohne, Inc.

"Configure It," a new e-commerce portal from Krohne, Inc., offers step-by-step guidance in the selection and purchase of levels and flow instruments. Through a needs analysis, the definition of measuring technology, and product configuration, "Configure It" recommends the best instrument suited for the user’s specific application and demands.

"Configure It" also provides the ability to purchase spare parts. Equipment can be found using a preferred measuring principle, existing product data, or by using electronic schematic drawings to select specific parts. Product prices and delivery times are generated online, and purchase orders can be placed. Available worldwide 24 hours, 7 days a week, "Configure It" is accessible via
Product Type:


text:
Logo (since 1999)
Food Articles, News & Features Section

Chef working

  You are here >

HomeFood ArticlesOrganic, Local & Ethical Foods >  Bulk Foods Are Green

Culinary Schools & Cooking Classes
From Amateur & Basic Cooking Classes to Professional Chef Training & Degrees -  Associates, Bachelors & Masters.  More than 1,000 schools & classes listed for all 50 States, Online and Worldwide

FREE Food & Beverage Publications
An extensive selection of free magazines and other publications for qualified Food, Beverage & Hospitality professionals

Sustainable cost savings suggest continued growth in the bulk foods industry

March 2010
Shoppers are looking for easy and affordable ways to go green as we approach the 40th anniversary of Earth Day in April, and are turning the bulk foods aisle in record numbers. Using minimal packaging and offering a cost savings of 30 – 96 percent over packaged products, bulk foods fit the bill for the budding chef or the environmentally concerned penny-pincher in 2010.

With the influx of new retailers offering bulk foods and double-digit sales growth in 2009, buying food in bulk is slated to be one of the biggest money-saving trends of 2010, according to the Bulk is Green Council.

Dedicated to helping consumers, food manufacturers and grocers learn about the environmental and economic benefits of bulk foods, the Bulk is Green Council recently reported that 2009 bulk food sales increased an estimated 15 percent over the previous year, with more than 1,000 retailers adding bulk food offerings nationwide.

Bulk Foods

“People are paying closer attention to the food they purchase,” said Mark Devencenzi, a founding member of the Bulk is Green Council from SunRidge Farms. “They’re shopping smarter and turning to bulk food for budget and eco-friendly alternatives that don’t lack in quality.”

Several consumer trends studies related to increased interest in cooking at home are driving the council’s positive outlook. A 2009 survey by the Nielson Company found that 46 percent of Americans are going out to eat less often, 76 percent of whom don’t want to sacrifice quality in the food they purchase.

“Bulk foods are ideal for use in home cooking, offering everything from rice to spices at a cost savings of anywhere from 30 to 96 percent over packaged products,” said BIG council member Clair Sidman from the Hain Celestial Group. “And, with more than 6,000 retail outlets in America offering bulk foods, these goods are widely accessible.”

Supporting the council’s assertion that interest in sustainable products is also on the rise, Reuters reported that “four out of five people say they are still buying green products and services today – which sometimes cost more – even in the midst of a US recession.”

“Bulk shopping makes it easy for consumers to go green in an affordable fashion,” said council member Clint Landis of Frontier Natural Products Co-Op. “It’s smart, sustainable shopping that uses minimal packaging and allows the customer to reduce waste by purchasing as little or as much as they need.”

Founded in 2008, the Bulk is Green Council is made up of eco-entrepreneurs and bulk food leaders including the Hain Celestial Group, SunRidge Farms, Frontier Natural Products Co-Op, Trade Fixtures, and Lundberg Family Farms.

For more information on the sustainable cost savings realized by buying in bulk, visit

Bulk is Green Council is an organization dedicated to increasing consumer, retailer and grocer awareness of the environmental and economic benefits of buying in bulk. Founded in 2008, the council serves as a research and advocacy group, conducting and publishing studies on industry trends and offering educational tools and resources online. The board includes industry leaders Hain Celestial, SunRidge Farms, Frontier Natural Products Co-Op, Trade Fixtures, and Lundberg Family Farms. Additional information is available at

  Meatless Alternatives   |   U.S. Consumption Habits   |   A Better Food System   |   Is Organic Healthier?   |   Growing Green Awards  |   Sustainable & Organic Farming   |   Ag Report Highlights Organic   |   Bananas & Rainforests   |   Bulk Foods Are Green   |   Canada’s Organic Rules   |   Chicken, Organic Pasture Raised   |   Cow Pies to Clear Skies   |   Local Food & the Environment   |   Eco Friendly Dinnerware   |   Fast Food Recycling   |   Fish, What to Avoid   |   Garlic: California or China?   |   Generation Organic   |   Genetically Engineered Alfalfa   |   Good Food Awards Entries   |   Organic Food Health & Safety   |   Labeling GM Foods: Prop 37 Defeat   |   Local Food & Supermarkets   |   Local or Organic? pg 1   |   Local or Organic? pg 2   |   Location, Location, Location   |   Cow Pea Storage Bags   |   Drip Irrigation   |   Toilet Compost Fertilizer   |   Organic Farming   |   Organic Foods   |   Organic Foods Guide   |   Organic Reduces Cancer Risk   |   Organic Sales Increase   |   Organic Food Health Research   |   Labeling & Cloned Animals   |   Pros & Cons of Biofuels   |   Protein Source Impacts   |   Reverse Trick or Treating   |   Flying Fish Restaurant   |   Slow Food   |   Sustainable Sugars   |   Sustainability Award Winners 2012   |   Sustainable: What is it?   |   Think Globally, Act Locally pg 1   |   Think Globally, Act Locally pg 2

Go to Top of page

  Home   |   About & Contact Us   |   Chef James Bio   |   Website Bibliography   |   Recipe Contests   |   Food Links

Please feel free to link to any pages of from your website.  For permission to use any of this content please E-mail:  All contents are copyright © 1990 - 2017 James T. Ehler and unless otherwise noted.  All rights reserved.  You may copy and use portions of this website for non-commercial, personal use only.  Any other use of these materials without prior written authorization is not very nice and violates the copyright.  Please take the time to request permission.


text:
the appetizer:

Some Western culinary influences in Japan, including Portugal (tempura) and the Americas (teppanyaki), have been so integrated into Japanese cooking, it is difficult to differentiate them from more traditional Japanese cuisine like sushi and kaiseki. Standard Japanese meals usually include rice, soup, pickles and an entree, like fish or vegetables.

Destinations Japanese beer

Alcoholic Beverages

Drinking in groups at bars, clubs and other nightspots after office hours is a popular Japanese pastime. Every city, town and village has an abundant number of drinking places that can be very crowded in evening hours. The biggest cities have sprawling entertainment districts crammed with bars, pubs, discos and nightclubs. At Japanese-style bars, a modest snack is often served with the first drink.

If you need to be budget-minded, avoid the very expensive hostess clubs unless someone else who is a regular customer is picking up the bill. You can also ask the concierge at your hotel to suggest nearby nightspots where prices are reasonable.

Beer: The most popular drink in Japan, beer is served draft from the tap or in bottles of lager. Bottles come in small (330ml), medium (500ml) and large (633ml) sizes. The bottles served at most pubs or bars are either small or medium. Draft beer comes in jugs or mugs at beer halls. During the summer season, open-air beer halls, some on the roofs of department stores, draw large numbers of beer lovers. The price for a bottle or mug of beer can vary somewhat by type of drinking spot, but is within a range of 400 to 900 Yen from small to large. This does not apply to the hostess clubs, where prices can be astronomical.

Sake: Japan's own native rice wine is the national drink. Sold in large bottles at liquor shops, it is not served by the bottle but in small ceramic flasks, from which it is poured into a small drinking cup. You can ask to have it served warm or cold. You can also state a preference for dry or sweet taste. Whichever type you like, sake's smooth and mellow taste makes it the ideal companion to Japanese cuisine. Sake can be deceptive, so drink it quite moderately in order to avoid a hangover.

Whiskey: Prices of domestic and imported whiskies tend to vary by type of drinking spot, but a single shot is usually 500-700 Yen for a domestic brand and 600-800 Yen for an import. Most Japanese people drink it mizuwari—with ice and mineral water. Expensive glacier ice, said to lend the most delicious taste to whiskey, is a current fad in Japan.

Wine: Both domestic and imported wines are served in restaurants that serve Occidental cuisines. A Chinese variant, lao chu, is served in Chinese restaurants. Upscale wine bars that feature good wines (and appropriate snack foods) have gained in popularity over the past few years.

Shochu: This distilled spirit made from sweet potatoes, wheat, sugar cane or other bases is similar to vodka. It can be drunk straight, on the rocks, or in cocktails. Once held in low esteem, it is now quite fashionable among young people. The most popular brands do not have the strong flavor that most people disliked. It's served at most Japanese-style bars at a reasonable price.

Japanese Recipes

from Kate's Global Kitchen:

Japanese Cookbooks with Recipes

Back to the main Japan page

Japan on Wikipedia

More country Destinations

This page modified January 2007

cat toysCatnip Toys

Gourmet Food, Cookbooks
Kitchen Gadgets & Gifts

Kitchen & Home


text:
Comcast, Viacom, Disney, and Lions Gate compete for the box office crown

I, Frankenstein flopped at this weekend's box office. Image source: Lions Gate

To the disappointment of dozens of people hoping Frankenstein's monster could thrive as an action hero, it looks like he might never get another chance.

Despite both enjoying a massive marketing push from distributor Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. (NYSE:LGF.A), and also standing as the only film entering wide release this weekend, I, Frankenstein simply couldn't conquer critics' horrible reviews. When all was said and done, the action-horror flick scored just 5% approval on Rotten Tomatoes en route to a sixth place finish and a shockingly low $8.275 million debut.

Then again, that's not exactly a big shocker given I, Frankenstein's sub-$3 million start Friday. Lions Gate will obviously continue working to prop up the film, but note this is particularly bad news for the folks at Lakeshore Entertainment, who financed the bulk of I, Frankenstein's $65 million production budget.

But that's also not to say viewers completely loathed Lakeshore's rebooted take on the iconic character. In fact, exiting audiences granted it a reasonable "B" CinemaScore, or in-line with the scores assigned to Open Road Films' The Nut Job and Viacom (NASDAQ:VIA) Paramount's Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit. However, both The Nut Job and Jack Ryan still managed to beat I, Frankenstein in their own second weekends, earning $12.3 million and $8.8 million for third and fifth place, respectively.

Meanwhile, wedged firmly in fourth was The Walt Disney Company's (NYSE:DIS) "A+" rated blockbuster, Frozen, which tacked on another $9 million in its ninth weekend and brought its domestic total to $347.8 million. Including international sales, Frozen has accumulated an amazing $810.3 million to date, or more than five times Disney's huge $150 million budget.

And the winners are...

That brings us to this weekend's repeat champions from Comcast (NASDAQ:CMCSA) Universal in Ride Along and Lone Survivor.

Lone Survivor came out narrowly ahead of The Nut Job after falling 42.9% to $12.6 million, bringing its domestic-only total after four weeks to $93.6 million. To The Nut Job's credit, however, keep in mind Comcast expanded Lone Survivor's theater count this weekend by nearly 200 to meet demand.

But no other film came close to Ride Along, which dropped 49% to gross another $21.2 million over the past three days. This brings its total to $75 million, which is great for Comcast considering it only forked out $25 million to produce the new buddy comedy. Assuming Ride Along follows a similar downward trajectory as 2012's Think Like a Man -- which marked the last time comedian Kevin Hart and Director Tim Story teamed up -- there's no reason it shouldn't easily eclipse the $100 million mark by the time it exits theaters.

Fool contributor Steve Symington has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Walt Disney. The Motley Fool owns shares of Walt Disney. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


text:
Last week, the Indonesian Ministry of Finance announced a punitive tax on the export of ore concentrate mined within its country. Considering Freeport-McMoRan (NYSE:FCX) operates a massive mining facility in the country that produces substantial copper and gold ore, the impact is very concerning to the bottom line for shareholders. The decree also impacts mining operations of Newmont Mining (NYSE:NEM) so Freeport-McMoRan will have some extra help in lobbying for a reprisal of the proposed new law.

For numerous reasons highlighted in the recent earnings conference call, investors shouldn't be so quick to dump the stock. Jefferies recently named Freeport-McMoRan a top franchise pick, and this the type of scenario where investors can pick up long-term winners at bargain prices.

Already 40% compliant
The purpose of the new law is to require more valued added work be completed in Indonesia, instead of shipping the work to other parts of Asia. In the case of Freeport-McMoRan, it already processes 40% of the copper concentrates at a Mitsubishi joint venture smelter in the country. The ruling would only impact up to 60% of the copper produced in Indonesia.

The joint venture smelter built back in the 1990s only costs $750 million to build and would cost up to three times the amount at this time. Not to mention, the fees received for processing the copper ore haven't changed much over the years. This unattractive cost-benefit ratio provides Freeport-McMoRan with some leverage in negotiating with the government.

Focused on mining in the Americas
While the Grasberg mine is one of the largest in the world, Freeport-McMoRan produces more copper in both North America and South America than it does in Indonesia. In fact, the 2013 sales in North America equaled 1,422 million pounds and South America sold 1,325 million pounds. Combined, the two regions produced triple the copper mined in Indonesia at 888 million pounds.

The biggest wildcard is that Indonesia is the only major source of gold production, having produced 1.1 million ounces in 2013. Of more concern is the 1.6 million ounces expected for production in 2014.

The Tenke mine in Africa provides another source of copper that helps reduce any impact from Indonesia. In addition, Freeport-McMoRan has three brownfield projects outside of Indonesia that should add roughly 1 billion pounds per annum in increased production by 2016.

Newmont Mining is less affected with roughly 7% of the company's revenue coming from the Batu Hijau mine in Indonesia. The company doesn't plan to export copper concentrate until later this quarter after having already completed the a scheduled shipment in early January.

History with government
Before investors get too scared by the new decree that would add a 25% export tax in 2014 that expands to 60% in 2016, one needs to remember that Freeport-McMoRan has a long history of working with the government in that country. Similar to the U.S., members of parliament and high-ranking government officials can make statements in order to win political favor. These officials may have no intention in following through with the suggested punitive tax.

Freeport-McMoRan already has a working contract that specifically stipulates no export tax. With the company estimating that it already pays over $1 billion annually in the various taxes including a 30% income tax, it appears unlikely that the government would continue to push a tax that would shut down operations at the massive Grasberg mine.

Since operations at the Batu Hijau mine began in 2000, Newmont estimates it has spent more than $3 billion in taxes and royalties.

Bottom line
Improving copper demand in the U.S. combined with a recovering Europe could provide a strong backdrop for copper demand, especially if the Chinese economy holds on to current demand. The large drop in shares of Freeport-McMoRan appears irrational considering the likelihood that a reasonable compromise will be reached in Indonesia. The lack of available smelter capacity in the country makes it impossible to meet the government targets or continue production at the proposed export duty. Both parties have every reason to reach a compromise that limits the impact to Freeport-McMoRan and Newmont Mining.

Mark Holder and Stone Fox Capital clients own shares in Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold. The Motley Fool owns shares of Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


text:
All White Trainers

Create major shoe envy with our selection of white sneakers: dazzle passers-by with brilliant white Nike Air Force Ones, stun friends with white hot Adidas Superstars and keep it classically chic with Adidas Stan Smiths. White trainers never go out of style - get your fix with Footasylum's range of white trainers. Keep it retro with Converse Chuck Taylor All Stars or keep it box-fresh in white Nike Air Max 90s. Whatever your sneaker style Footasylum has a pair to match your taste. View our white sneakers to keep your feet looking cool this summer.


text:
Dundee held by Ross County

Date published: Monday 24th August 2015 1:38

Dundee held by Ross County

Paul Hartley’s men looked on course to rebound from last week’s 6-2 thrashing to city rivals Dundee United when the bottom-of-the-league Staggies had Terry Dunfield sent off early on.

Jim McAlister put the Dees in front just after half-time but Curran equalised to earn the visitors an unlikely point.

The home side started brightly when Paul McGowan ran onto David Clarkson’s pass and chipped Ross County goalkeeper Antonio Reguero but the ball sailed just over.

Disaster struck for Jim McIntyre’s men in just the ninth minute when midfielder Dunfield received his marching orders for serious foul play following a bad tackle on Paul McGowan.

Gary Irvine almost made County play soon after when he latched onto the ball in the visitors’ box but his shot found the side netting.

Filip Kiss came close for the Staggies on 20 minutes when his right-footed shot from the edge of the box was deflected inches wide of the Dundee goal.

The Dees should have been in front just before the half-hour mark when Greg Stewart rolled the ball to Clarkson but the striker somehow miscued his left-footed strike from a few yards out.

The hosts took the lead soon after the break when McAlister ran on to Gary Irvine’s pass and lashed the ball past Reguero with his left foot.

Dundee almost doubled their advantage minutes later when James McPake forced Reguero into a smart save and Luka Tankulic hit the post from the rebound.

The Dark Blues were left to rue that miss when new Staggies signing Curran, who only joined the club this week, smashed Kiss’ cross into the bottom-left corner on 65 minutes to level the game.

Ross County were forced to hang on in the final minutes as Dundee frantically pressed for a winner.

McAlister forced a good save from Reguero after getting on the end of Mark Stewart’s knockdown before Kevin Thomson shot narrowly wide from the edge of the box.

Irvine came close for Dundee again at the death but Reguero produced an excellent save to deny him and earn his side a valuable point which lifts them level with St Mirren at the bottom the Scottish Premiership on 11 points while Dundee remain eighth with 22 points.

More Related Articles


text:
 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

The 3-4, Debunking the Myths
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message

Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 22594
Location: The ATL
PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:16 pm    Post subject: The 3-4, Debunking the Myths Reply with quote

So.....an unbiased review of all the teams that I could come up with that have switched from pure 4-3 to either a hybrid or 3-4 base in the last 10 years. I compare their season prior to the switch to the season they made the switch, in an effort to study many of the truths, half truths, and myths about converting from one defense or the other. The raw data used is the performance stats of the defense. The first post goes team by team to examine each situation and look at the stats. The second post is a roll up analysis comparing all situations to each other, looking at the change, positive or negative, from one year to another. My thinking has been greatly altered by undertaking this exercise, I learned many things that I did not expect to discover.

Raw Data and Commentary of the individual situations:

There were 10 teams running 3-4 or hybrid defenses in the 2008 season. How they changed:

(Pittsburgh is excluded as they have been running the defense for decades, making data difficult to find, and it was done prior to the current era of free agency):

Abbreviations used: PPG = Points per game (scoring defense), YPC = Yards per carry (run defense), YPP = Yards per pass (pass defense), PRA = Passer rating against (Pass defense), 3D = 3rd down % (sub package defense), Sk = Sacks, Int = Interceptions, Pen = Penalties

(fumbles were ignored due to random nature of recoveries)

San Fransisco 49ers:
The 49ers began the change to a 3-4 defense in 2005 when Mike Nolan took over, primarily a 2 gap 3-4 base. The defense never really took and yearly the team would waiver between a 3-4, 4-3, and Big Nickel as the base defense, until Singletary took over full time in 2008 and fully committed to a 1 gap 3-4 front.

2004 performance (2-14): 28.2 PPG (32nd), 4.0 YPC (12th), 7.5 YPP (25th), 96.5 PRA (29th), 40% 3D (23rd), 29 sk (29th), 9 int (29th), 107 pen (10th)

2005 performance (4-12): 26.8 PPG (29th), 3.8 YPC (11th), 8.0 YPP (32nd), 94.2 PRA (29th), 38% 3D (18th), 28 sk (28th), 16 int (14th), 120 pen (20th)

San Francisco's defense showed slight improvement overall despite a very poor offensive showing. The biggest improvement came in turnovers, where the defense noticeably improved. There were slight improvements to the overall scoring defense, run defense, and 3rd down defense, however the defense yielded a lot of big plays and was penalized more. There was no improvement to the pressure applied by the defense.

San Diego Chargers:
Martyball came to San Diego in 2002. After two dreadful years running a 4-3 defense, he fired his DC and hired the head honcho of the 1 gap 3-4 in the NFL, Wade Phillips, to transition the defense to a 3-4. Unlike the situation in San Francisco, the team already had a young NT entering his prime that toiled in obscurity in the 4-3 alignment, and heavy draft resources were dedicated to the effort.

2003 Performance (4-12): 26.7 PPG (31st), 4.3 YPC (20th), 6.8 YPP (18th), 94.3 PRA (32nd), 42% 3D (29th), 30 sk (24th), 13 int (23rd), 110 pen (21st)

2004 Performance (12-4): 19.6 PPG (11th), 3.7 YPC (6th), 6.9 YPP (14th), 76.6 PRA (9th), 35% 3D (10th), 29 sk (29th), 23 int (3rd), 109 pen (12th)

The returns from the switch in San Diego was immediate drastic improvement, improving from one of the leagues worst squads to a solidly above average squad. The most notable areas of improvement were huge improvements to the run defense, interceptions, and 3rd down efficiency. The one area that notably did not improve was the defenses ability to apply pressure, however their star pass rusher was not added until the following season.

Dallas Cowboys:
The Big Tuna was brought to Dallas in 2003 by Jerry Jones to turn the sinking franchise around. Unlike the previous two examples, Parcells slow played the transition and didn't make the switch until he had acquired many of the pieces. The year the switch was made (2005), heavy resources were dedicated to the effort, including a FA NT, 2 DE's via the draft and 2 OLB's via the draft. Bill Parcells is the standard bearer in the NFL of the old style Fairbanks 2 gap 3-4 prevalent in the NFL in the 1980's.

2004 Performance (6-10): 25.3 PPG (27th), 4.2 YPC (17th), 7.4 YPP (23rd), 94.2 PRA (27th), 39% 3D (22nd), 33 sk (26th), 13 int (24th), 104 pen (7th)

2005 Performance (9-7): 19.2 PPG (12th), 4.2 YPC (22nd), 6.7 YPP (13th), 75.1 PRA (9th), 35% 3d (6th), 37 sk (14th), 15 int (19th), 142 pen (32nd)

The Cowboys defense overall saw marked improvement after making the switch, moving from an overall poor unit to an above average unit the first year. Unlike SD and SF, the biggest gains were to the pass defense, where the unit improved across the board, with a very good showing on 3rd downs. The run defense changed little in the first year. The squad did see an increase in pressure, somewhat bucking the trend. One thing that stands out is that the unit was heavily penalized in the first year.

Miami Dolphins:
I'm actually going to consider a 3 year period for the Dolphins, due in part to the relevance to the Packers of today. Prior to 2005, the Dolphins had been running a Jim Bates 4-3, which he brought to Green Bay and installed after the hiring of Nick Saban. When Saban was hired, he began to transition the defense towards a 3-4 defense, and for a few years the team ran a complex 4-3/3-4 hybrid, at first primarily coached by Saban, but after the firing of Dom Capers from Houston he was brought on board to coordinate the defense full time in 2006.

2004 Performance (9-7): 22.1 PPG (20th), 4.3 YPC (18th), 6.5 YPP (5th), 76.9 PRA (10th), 32% 3D (5th), 36 sk (21st), 15 int (19th), 107 pen (10th)

2005 Performance (9-7): 19.8 PPG (15th), 3.7 YPC (7th), 6.7 YPP (13th), 82.4 PRA (22nd), 40% 3D (23rd), 49 sk (2nd), 14 int (23rd), 105 pen (7th)

2006 Performance (6-10): 17.7 PPG (5th), 3.5 YPC (3rd), 6.6 YPP (9th), 84.4 PRA (21st), 38% 3D (17th), 47 sk (3rd), 8 int (31st), 91 pen (13th)

Over the course of the hybrid period, the defense improved from a below average unit to an elite unit over the course of two seasons, being an average unit in the first hybrid year. During this period the run defense continually improved, whereas the pass defense slightly declined. Notable, the 3rd down performance drastically declined after Bates' departure, and the interception totals slumped, however the pressure drastically improved. There were no effects on the penalties called against the team.

New York Jets:
The New York Jets is one example of a 4-3 to 3-4 switch done while doing little to alter the personnel immediately, especially odd considering the previous defense, a 4-3 Tampa-2 incarnation led by Herm Edwards, had personnel fairly poorly suited to running a 3-4. But that didn't stop Eric Mangini from making the change, opting to quickly make the switch in lieu of slow playing it or a hybrid period. Mangini's version is straight from the Parcells/Bellicheck tree and is a modern incarnation of an old style Fairbanks 2 gap 3-4.

2005 Performance (4-12): 22.2 PPG (23rd), 3.9 YPC (12th), 6.5 YPP (7th), 73.1 PRA (6th), 42% 3D (28th), 30 sk (25th), 21 int (5th), 115 pen (16th)

2006 Performance (10-6): 18.4 PPG (6th), 4.6 YPC (26th), 6.5 YPP (6th), 78.0 PRA (12th), 36% 3D (10th), 35 sk (15th), 16 int (17th), 105 pen (29th)

Though the defense struggled with run defense in the first year, slumping from an above average unit to a bottom dweller, overall the defense improved from a well below average unit to a borderline elite unit in the first season. The really notable area of improvement is the 3rd down performance of the squad, which drastically improved. The pass defense declined a little, especially in the turnovers, but he was able to create more pressure in the first year in the defense. The defense however was highly penalized, slumping from an average unit to a bottom dweller. There are similarities in how this switch went and how the switch went in Dallas, notable due to the similarities of the scheme (fairly dissimilar from Dom's concepts).

New England Patriots:
Bill Belichick was hired in 2000 to return the Pats to glory. He followed the Parcells model to transition to the 3-4, acquiring the pieces over a few years (and playing the occasional 3-4 look) before fully making the switch in 2003 (though they waiver between 3-4 looks and 4-3 looks even today). The year of the switch they dedicated draft resources to the change, and acquired several pieces in FA, including experienced NT Ted Washington. Notably they won the super bowl the year they made the switch.

2002 Performance (9-7): 21.6 PPG (17th), 4.7 YPC (29th), 6.4 YPP (8th), 78.2 PRA (15th), 43% 3D (26th), 34 sk (20th), 18 int (12th), 99 pen (7th)

2003 Performance (14-2*): 14.9 PPG (1st), 3.6 YPC (6th), 5.6 YPP (1st), 56.2 PRA (1st), 34% 3D (7th), 41 sk (6th), 29 int (1st), 107 pen (19th)

This was another soft change, time was taken to build the pieces, and the team had occasionally run 3-4 concepts even predating Bill, but they changed to a 3-4 base in 2003 in a dramatic fashion. The unit shot from average to elite overnight, placing first in many categories. It has the hallmarks of the Fairbanks 2 gap 3-4 switch however, drastic improvement in 3rd down performance, increased pressure, and an increase in flags. However unlike Mangini and Parcells, Belichick's change was accompanied by drastic run defense improvement, which propelled the unit to the very top and won a Lombardi trophy.

Cleveland Browns:
When Romeo Crennel was hired in Cleveland off of New England's staff, the first thing he set out to do was sweep away Butch Davis' 4-3 defense and install his own brand of a Fairbanks 2 gap 3-4. Again like Mangini in NY, little effort was paid to actually acquire new players prior to making the switch or running a hybrid period.

2004 Performance (4-12): 24.4 PPG (24th), 4.3 YPC (18th), 6.7 YPP (9th), 79.0 PRA (16th), 36% 3D (15th), 32 sk (27th), 15 int (19th), 109 pen (12th)

2005 Performance (6-10): 18.8 PPG (11th), 4.2 YPC (22nd), 6.7 YPP (7th), 78.2 PRA (16th), 40% 3D (20th), 23 sk (32nd), 15 in (19th), 97 pen (3rd)

Romeo's defense didn't follow the typical Fairbanks 3-4 transition, the 3rd down performance declined and the penalties declined. In fact very little improved aside from the defense's ability to prevent scoring. But that most important aspect did improve, again following the trend of improvement shown by teams switching to a 3-4 or hybrid.

Baltimore Ravens:

The Ravens have been a hybrid defense for some time, switching back and forth between the defenses almost at will for many years. The start of that defensive style began when coordinator Marvin Lewis was hired to coach the Bengals and Mike Nolan took over as defensive coordinator, prior to the 2002 season. The Ravens are a little different case, there was a large exodus of retirements and players leaving after the 2001 season, the switch was based as much on necessity (an excess of linebackers and lack of bodies on the DL) as it was a purposeful change to go in a new direction.

2001 Performance (10-6): 16.6 PPG (4th), 3.4 YPC (2nd), 6.0 YPP (1st), 72.8 PRA (12th), 31% 3D (3rd), 45 sk (7th), 16 int (17th), 105 pen (30th)

2002 Performance (7-9): 22.1 PPG (19th), 3.7 YPC (1st), 6.7 YPP (16th), 73.4 PRA (5th), 40% 3D (21st), 33 sk (22nd), 25 int (2nd), 104 pen (20th)

The Ravens are an interesting case, simply because the initial motivation was a little different than most. Following the 2001 season they lost several players, notably Tony Siragusa; Mike Nolan took the defense in a different direction and fielded what worked well for his personnel. Also notable is they are the only elite squad to switch away from a pure 4-3. They did struggle a good deal preventing scoring (relative to the previous season), the main problems stemmed from a decrease in pressure and poor 3rd down performance. However the run defense did not significantly decline, nor did the pass defense, and penalties were largely unchanged.

Arizona Cardinals:
When Ken Wisenhunt was hired to coach the Cardinals in 2007, one of his goals was to move the team away from the pure 4-3 defense they had been running, eventually reaching a 3-4 defense. They have largely been using the Miami model, taking their time running a hybrid scheme and acquiring personnel prior to fully transitioning to a 3-4 scheme, which has not yet occurred.

2006 Performance (5-11): 24.3 PPG (29th), 4.1 YPC (14th), 7.5 YPP (31st), 85.4 PRA (24th), 41% 3D (21st), 38 sk (12th), 16 int (17th), 95 pen (17th)

2007 Performance (8-8): 24.9 PPG (27th), 3.9 YPC (10th), 6.9 YPP (14th), 85.8 PRA (22nd), 40% 3D (17th), 36 sk (13th), 18 int (10th), 118 pen (30th)

The Cardinals are almost the exact opposite of the Browns. When looking at the Browns individual stats for the parts of the defense, there was little to suggest large improvements in the scoring defense; the Cardinals however did improve slightly in a number of categories without any improvement to the bottom line.

Some now defunct attempts at a switch to a 3-4:

Minnesota Vikings:
In the final year of the Mike Tice era, Minnesota flirted with the idea of running a 3-4 defense, though they never really committed to it 100%. The biggest positive still remaining from the attempt is NT Pat Williams, who was brought in via FA to hold down the nose. When Brad Childress was hired, that idea was all but abandoned. But, they did occasionally use a 3-4 alignment in 2005.

2004 Performance (8-8): 24.7 PPG (26th), 4.6 YPC (26th), 7.6 YPP (27th), 95.5 PRA (28th), 46% 3D (30th), 39 sk (12th), 11 int (28th), 110 pen (15th)

2005 Performance (9-7): 21.5 PPG (19th), 4.0 YPC (15th), 6.6 YPP (10th), 75.2 PRA (10th), 43% 3D (31st), 34 sk (22nd), 24 int (2nd), 137 pen (30th)

The pressure went down a bit, and the flags were flying, but overall there was improvement across the board, with a drastic increase in the number of interceptions (no doubt TT letting Sharper go played a big role). 1 or 2 more wins that season and a playoff appearance, there is a decent chance Tice wouldn't have been fired and that the 3-4 would have stuck in Mn, at least for a little bit.

Atlanta Falcons:
The Falcons had a short lived flirtation with a 3-4 defense in the earlier part of this decade while Wade was defensive coordinator, prior to his transition of the Chargers defense. Unlike the Vikings, Atlanta fully committed to a switch and ran a 3-4 for 2 years, prior to the hiring of Jim Mora and his subsequent transition back to a 4-3. Notable is that it was the Falcons first year running a 3-4 defense under Phillips that handed Green Bay their first ever playoff loss at Lambeau Field. :cry:

2001 Performance (7-9): 23.6 PPG (24th), 4.8 YPC (30th), 8.0 YPP (30th), 93.3 PRA (30th), 46% 3D (31st), 37 sk (19th), 18 int (13th), 97 pen (20th)

2002 Performance (9-6-1): 19.6 PPG (8th), 4.6 YPC (27th), 7.0 YPP (25th), 72.8 PRA (4th), 40% 3D (20th), 47 sk (4th), 24 int (3rd), 112 pen (25th)

The 2002 Falcons were playmakers, sacks and ints galore. The fundamental defense, run, pass, and 3rd down, all improved, however the flags flew. The improvement towards the bottom line, preventing scoring, was dramatic.

Jacksonville Jaguars:
Jacksonville was one of two new expansion teams in the mid 1990's. Both teams found almost immediate success, being playoff powerhouses by their second year. After many of the initial wave of players moved on due to roster turnover, Jacksonville saw a decline in the performance of their defense in the late 1990's, Dom Capers was brought in to revive the unit by Tom Coughlin. He immediately set about to transform the defense to his preferred 3-4 base from the 4-3 that they had been running under Jaron. This is perhaps the most relevant case study as it relates to the Packers 0f 2009. In Miami the team had already begun transforming into a hybrid prior to his arrival, and Head Coach Nick Saban was a defensive minded coach that surely had a hand in the defense along with Dom, Saban also being a 3-4 proponent. Coughlin on the other hand ceded near complete control of the defense to Dom. This team also dedicated heavy draft resources to the defense, spending all but 2 picks on on the defense. They also added a defensive end and safety via free agency. Notable is that there was no prototypical giant NT on the roster, nor was one acquired, they used a rotation of starter Seth Payne (6'4", 300 lb) and rookie Larry Smith (6'5", 295 lb).

1998 Performance (11-5): 21.1 PPG (17th), 4.4 YPC (26th), 6.5 YPP (8th), 80.1 PRA (19th), 36% 3D (11th), 30 sk (27th), 13 int (21st), 109 pen (13th)

1999 Performance (14-2): 13.6 PPG (1st), 3.9 YPC (13th), 6.3 YPP (4th), 71.0 PRA (11th), 34% 3D (9th), 57 sk (1st), 19 int (12th), 93 pen (8th)

Another instance of dramatic improvement. Dom turned a slightly below average unit into an elite unit overnight. The only primary indicator where the team was elite was in pass defense, which improved, but the team saw a dramatic improvement in pressure, with almost every starting defender notching at least 1, both OLB's and a DE managed more than 10. Just like in Miami, the squad had a better pass defense than run defense, though the run defense moderately improved, the pressure went way up and the penalties went down, and just like Miami the 3rd down performance was not commensurate with the overall quality of the defense, lagging behind the scoring performance.

....these are all the pure 4-3 to 3-4 or hybrid transformations that I am aware of in the last 10 years. If anybody is aware of any more, let me know and I'll post the results.

There is only 1 example that I am aware of where where a previously hybrid team finished the deal and became a full blown 3-4, however the San Francisco 49ers will probably be added to that category this season.

Miami Dolphins:
It seems that Miami lost their way after Saban's departure. Saban initially set out to transform into a 3-4 over time, however the defense found success as a hybrid and never really finished the transformation until Bill Parcells was brought in to complete what was begun 3 years prior.

2007 Performance (1-15): 27.3 PPG (30th), 4.5 YPC (29th), 7.8 YPP (31st), 92.4 PRA (29th), 47% 3D (32nd), 30 sk (24th), 14 int (23rd), 73 pen (1st)

2008 Performance (11-5): 19.8 PPG (9th), 4.2 YPC (16th), 7.0 YPP (17th), 77.0 PRA (9th), 38% 3D (10th), 40 sk (8th), 18 int (8th), 86 pen (14th)

Bill drafted and brought in via FA a number of players for the defense, including NT Jason Ferguson. The defense dramatically improved across the board, in all areas but penalties, sticking with a typical Parcells tree switch. The run defense improved a little. The biggest gains were on 3rd down performance (another Parcells hallmark) and in pass defense.

Title Town USA wrote:
Waldo was right!

Last edited by Waldo on Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:15 pm; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 22594
Location: The ATL
PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now, some analysis.

(Hybrids are noted with a (H). Elite squads (top 5) are noted with a *, very good squads (top 10) are noted with a ^. Only the initial year when the team moved away from a pure 4-3 is considered in this list.)

Overall Defense:
In nearly every case you can point to improvement in the defense's bottom line, though it seems the various systems and coaches each seem to improve in different ways. All extremes of switching are represented, from a hard switch with little personnel effort on a ill suited team, to a soft
switch done over the course of a few years. One thing however has stood out, hybrid defenses don't seem to improve as much as the full blown switch, and Baltimore is the only team to sustain any success using a hybrid. It seems that a team should move on quickly to finishing the
switch instead of lingering long term as a hybrid, spending no more than a season as a hybrid.

Drastic Improvement (>6 PPG)
1999 Jacksonville Jaguars (7.5 PPG)*
2004 San Diego Chargers (7.1 PPG)
2003 New England Patriots (6.7 PPG)*
2005 Dallas Cowboys (6.1 PPG)

Good Improvement (5.99 - 3 PPG)
2005 Cleveland Browns (5.6 PPG)
2006 New York Jets (3.8 PPG)^
2002 Atlanta Falcons (3.7 PPG)^
2005 Minnesota Vikings (3.2 PPG)(H)

Slight Improvement (2.99 - 1 PPG)
2005 Miami Dolphins (2.3 PPG) (H)
2005 San Francisco 49ers (1.4 PPG)(H)

No Improvement (.99 - -.99 PPG)
2007 Arizona Cardinals (-0.6 PPG)(H)

Decline (<-1 PPG)
2002 Baltimore Ravens (-5.5 PPG)(H)

Dissecting this further. Just do it. Unless the personnel is totally ill suited to using a 3-4, there is little reason to use a hybrid period, as the transition tends to bog down, chances are the coordinator won't have the time to see through the change, Miami being the only team to actually complete the transition.

Of the 7 teams that skipped the hybrid period, 2 turned in 1st place performances, 2 more turned in top 10 performances, the 3 remaining were knocking on the door of the top 10, 2 of them were bottom 5 performers the previous year. Truthfully I was not expecting these results, at all.

One thing though is that many of these teams were not able to sustain their first year success. Though the team may "struggle" to adapt to the new defense, there is a flipside that I think isn't talked about enough, that opponents struggle to counter the stuff thrown at them. After all, immediately after a switch, opponents have virtually no game tape on performances, and have no idea of any play calling tendencies of the coordinator. By the time the tape book begins to be written and opponents get a bead on the defense, the defense has already come through the initial error filled period (~3-6 games). I think this also explains how teams like the Pats and Steelers that will run a lot of 4-3 stuff and frequently vary what they do, can sustain success over the long haul. Opponents simply have no idea of what they are in for each week.

Run Defense:
One of the things that I expected to see as I went into this was an improvement in the run defense of a team, as I believe that the 3-4 formation is a schematically superior run defense than a typical 4-3 defense (46 variations excluded). While the results were not as dramatic as I thought I would find, they were telling nonetheless.

Drastic Improvement (>0.61 YPC)
2003 New England Patriots (1.1 YPC)^

Good Improvement (0.60-0.31 YPC)
2005 Miami Dolphins (0.6 YPC)(H)^
2005 San Diego Chargers (0.6 YPC)^
2005 Minnesota Vikings (0.6 YPC)(H)
1999 Jacksonville Jaguars (0.5 YPC)

Slight Improvement (0.30 - 0.11 YPC)
2007 Arizona Cardinals (0.2 YPC)(H)^
2005 San Francisco 49ers (0.2 YPC)(H)
2002 Atlanta Falcons (0.2 YPC)

No Change (0.10 - -0.10 YPC)
2005 Cleveland Browns (0.1 YPC)
2006 Dallas Cowboys (0.0 YPC)

Decline (<-0.11 YPC)
2002 Baltimore Ravens (-0.3 YPC)(H)*
2006 New York Jets (-0.7 YPC)

Of the 12 teams under consideration, only two saw their run defense decline, and one of those two has a caveat, the Ravens run defense did decline, but they were still the best run defense in the NFL the season they switched. The only team to significantly decline were the Jets, and they are notable as a cold turkey switch on a ill suited team with little personnel turnover. They didn't have even a serviceable NT when the switch was made. There is no pattern to the hybrid defenses here.

It is also notable that though some of the teams were very good defenses overall, only the Ravens fielded an elite run defense the first year, though more than a third of the others were able to muster a top 10 performance the first year. The bulk of the defenses saw slight to good improvement in their run defense the first year. 8 of the 12 teams under consideration were in the top half of the league in run defense the first year.

Struggling against the run the first year is frequently cited as a drawback to switching to a 3-4, but I think this data shows quite the opposite, that some improvement to the run defense should be expected, especially if the team has at least a serviceable NT. But with the caveat that it is doubtful that the team will field an elite run defense during the first year, even if the overall defense is elite.

Pass Defense:
Pass defense is a little more difficult to quantify, as there are different indicators that mean different things. The relationship of yards per pass (YPP), passer rating (PRA), and ints give us an idea of what is happening. If all show good improvement, obviously the pass defense overall improved. However you also see a declining performance in the YPP stat, an increased (or roughly even) performance in the PRA stat, and an increase in interceptions, it suggests that the defense is making more big plays in the passing game, but likewise is getting burned more as well (suggesting a lot of blitzing and gambling). On the flipside is an increasing performance in the YPP stat and declining or even performance in the PRA stat, and little change to the ints, suggesting that the defense is giving up more underneath stuff but getting burned less (a la the linebackers struggling with zone drops).

As the pass defense is a little more independent and varies widely in implementation from defense to defense, I didn't expect to really see any notable trends.

Overall Improvement
2005 Minnesota Vikings (1.0 YPP, 20.3 PRA, 13 int)(H)^
2002 New England Patriots (0.8 YPP, 22.0 PRA, 11 int)*
2002 Atlanta Falcons (1.0 YPP, 20.5 PRA, 6 int)
2005 Dallas Cowboys (0.7 YPP, 19.1 PRA, 2 int)
1999 Jacksonville Jaguars (0.2 YPP, 9.1 PRA, 6 int)^

Playmaking Improvement, Average Effectiveness Decline
2004 San Diego Chargers (-0.1 YPP, 17.7 PRA, 10 int)^
2005 49ers (-0.5 YPP, 2.3 PRA, 7 int)(H)
2002 Baltimore Ravens (-0.7 YPP, -0.6 PRA, 9 int)(H)^

Give Up More Short Stuff
2007 Arizona Cardinals (0.6 YPP, -0.4 PRA, 2 int)(H)

Very Little Change
2005 Cleveland Browns (0.0 YPP, 0.8 PRA, 0 int)
2006 New York Jets (0.0 YPP, -4.9 PRA, -5 int)^

2005 Miami Dolphins (-0.2 YPP, -5.5 PRA, -1 int)(H)

Again here I was surprised by the results. Almost every hybrid improved their playmaking at least somewhat, and overall there is very little decline in anything.

I expected more in the "Give up more short stuff" category, with the results that I found, I am inclined to say, that whole "struggling in coverage" thing attached to some OLB's really doesn't matter much at all in the grand scheme of things, after all, you'd expect to at least see some signs of that, which really don't exist. Perhaps the white elephant aspect of it is a much bigger overall help than commonly thought. It isn't really discussed much at all, but every short play given up is a long play not given up, if the defense can consistently swarm (to be expected with zone coverage) and prevent the short pass from turning into much (especially first downs), why not give the QB and easy outlet underneath that in reality gains him very little, but helps to cut down on potential big plays.

What really surprises is that all but 1 full change either improved or had no change, only the Chargers fell into a sub category, and overall they sharply improved even though their YPP slightly dipped. I think one thing that can be read into this is perhaps that most of the DC's that are doing the switch, have extensive secondary experience and view it as more of the starting point than the front line.

Also surprising is that 10 of the 12 teams increased their number of interceptions, only the Jets saw significant decline, and they were coming off of a very good year the prior year, decline was almost expected.

Pressure is a frequently cited positive of the 3-4 alignment, the common thought is that it is better to "bring the heat". Lets see if that is true, after all, if it is the defense and not the talent, you would expect positive results right away out of most defenses making the switch.

Drastic Improvement (>9.9 sk)
1999 Jacksonville Jaguars (27 sk)*
2005 Miami Dolphins (13 sk)(H)*
2002 Atlanta Falcons (10 sk)*

Good Improvement (>4.9 sk)
2002 New England Patriots (7 sk)^
2006 New York Jets (5 sk)

Slight Improvement (>1.1 sk)
2005 Dallas Cowboys (4 sk)

No Change (1.1 > sk > -1.1)
2004 San Diego Chargers (-1 sk)
2005 San Francisco 49ers (-1 sk)(H)

Decline (<-1.1 sk)
2007 Arizona Cardinals (-2 sk)(H)
2005 Minnesota Vikings (-5 sk)(H)
2005 Cleveland Browns (-9 sk)
2002 Baltimore Ravens (-12 sk)(H)

Here again we have strong delineation between the hybrid teams, and the teams that fully switched. 4 of the 6 teams that showed no change or decline were hybrid teams, whereas 5 of the 6 teams that showed at least some improvement were teams that fully switched. There was an overall fairly even spread to the data, though the teams that improved tended to improve more than the teams that declined.

I don't really think that there is a really strong trend here with a superiority of scheme for pressure. However it is true that many of the best pass rushing teams in the league are 3-4 defenses. I think that the best explanation for this is that a good % of the athlete types that make the best pass rushers in the NFL aren't much more than situational players in a 4-3 defense, and few 4-3 teams carry many, if any, of them. The 3-4 scheme allows the elite pass rushers to have a place on the field every play without "wearing down" trying to hold the point against the run. However most 4-3 teams do not have these guys, and the good ones aren't typically available as free agents; it is a position that a 3-4 team usually must draft and develop, hence the lack of much first year impact.

I think that the data shows that it is the players that get the pressure, not the scheme, though the scheme allows certain players to explode in sacks, however typically teams in transition don't have those types of players (at their peak) yet.

3rd Down Defense:
While it is nice to have a great base defense that shuts down offenses on first and second down, games are won and lost on 3rd down; the ability to convert, and the defenses ability to prevent the opponent from converting. One would expect little difference in the pass coverage between the 3rd down pass defense of a 4-3 team and the 3rd down pass defense of a 4-3 team, however differences in the number of and type of bodies that the defense keeps may have a profound impact on the front line performance of the primary 3rd down sub packages (pin the ears back rush pass D (3rd and long) and a big line of heavies for short yardage). Honestly I had no idea of what to expect.

One key point to remember is that 3rd down performance and it's relationship to overall defensive scoring performance is a good identifier for under and over performing units on the scoreboard, speaking as much to the overall talent level of the defense as the points allowed does. A defense bleeding points that is good on 3rd down are a bunch of underachievers (also suggesting an inordinate amount of negative flukes), likewise a team shutting opponents down on the scoreboard that is struggling on 3rd down are a bunch of overachievers and that success may be fleeting for the group (suggesting an inordinate amount of positive flukes).

Significant Improvement (>6.9% 3D)
2002 New England Patriots (9% 3D)^
2004 San Diego Chargers (7% 3D)^

Good Improvement (>3.9% 3D)
2006 New York Jets (6% 3D)^
2002 Atlanta Falcons (6% 3D)
2005 Dallas Cowboys (4% 3D)^

Slight Improvement (>1.9% 3D)
2005 Minnesota Vikings (3% 3D)(H)
1999 Jacksonville Jaguars (2% 3D)^
2005 San Francisco 49ers (2% 3D)(H)

No Change (1.9% > 3D > -1.9%)
2007 Arizona Cardinals (1% 3D)(H)

Decline (<-1.9% 3D)
2005 Cleveland Browns (-4% 3D)
2005 Miami Dolphins (-8% 3D)(H)
2002 Baltimore Ravens (-9% 3D)(H)

Here is another place where the full switch teams drastically outperformed their hybrid counterparts. No hybrid team showed any more than a 3% improvement, and only 2 of the 7 full switch teams failed to at least improve by 4%, one of them (1999 Jaguars) was a borderline top 10 team on 3rd downs prior to the change, and they did improve. The Browns were the only team that fully switched year 1 that showed any decline in year 1.

I think that this shows that running a 3-4 defense does leave the team with a better assortment of body types for the 3rd down sub packages, whereas hybrid teams are still generally keeping the same numbers of player types as 4-3 teams on the roster, making their 3rd down performance at best slightly better than the previous year.

There are benefits to having several OLB's (4-3 situational pass rushers), several big huge ends (4-3 pass rushing UT's), and a backup big man (2 giant NT's) on the roster, which come in handy on 3rd and long and 3rd and short. The player types of front line players that typically aren't the best for 3rd downs, run stopping UT's (a la Cole) and run stopping left ends (a la Montgomery), aren't generally kept by 3-4 teams. I think this data clearly shows the benefits of the player types and numbers that a 3-4 team keeps vs a 4-3 team on the performance of the 3rd down defense.

Also noticeable is that no team making the switch, either full blown or hybrid, produced an elite performer on 3rd down, despite an overall elite defense on the scoreboard. This suggests at least enough mental errors on any team associated with a switch to prevent the team from becoming an elite 3rd down performer in the first season, though 5 of the 12 teams, all 5 being teams that fully switched year 1, produced top 10 performers on 3r down. Something that is very telling IMO.

Title Town USA wrote:
Waldo was right!

Last edited by Waldo on Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:20 pm; edited 9 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 11095
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just finished it all, quality stuff as always Waldo. Applause

I'd like to add to the conversation a bit, but not even sure where to start an argument in this case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 May 2009
Posts: 573
PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShimSham wrote:
Just finished it all, quality stuff as always Waldo. Applause

I'd like to add to the conversation a bit, but not even sure where to start an argument in this case.

Ya ya yah, good stuff Waldo, again, but here's what I want now: predictions, for this year and going forward. But this year. Crunch the numbers and our personnel. What have we got?

^^ epack
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
I Am Rodgers

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 7545
Location: New Jersey
PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great post waldo. I like how scoring went down in each and every case. Very good sign for us. I don't care how we get it done, but we have to drop Opp PPG. Our offense is high powered enough to put the points up. The D just has to hold em.

Pugger wrote:
We all love Janis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 May 2009
Posts: 573
PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The things about our defense last year that I remember killing us were the occasional breakdowns where we'd be hit with a long run. Felix Jones and LenWhale White come to mind. For the most part, our defense did a good job in those 2 games against the run. But somehow they allowed White to break the long one, at the wrong time too.

And Felix took advantage of pourous tackling (Chuck Peprah) for his long one.

I also remember Roddy White beating us deep on a key play that can't happen (Tramon I think).

And Miles Austin's only 2 big catches of his career came against us as well (Tramon again I think).

We have to cut out the killer big plays.

^^ epack
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 786
Location: AZ
PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Waldo--Nice job--I can appreciate the amount of time you must have put into this to pull all the information together. When I think of the teams that run the 3-4, regardless of the type of 3-4, I see no nonsense, no BS, no compromises. That seems to be the common thread. And while the improvements in the first year of moving to the 3-4 are evident in most cases in your post, it's also fair to say they are not huge in most cases. So I began to think about what makes the 3-4 roll--I think it's a strong 2-gap Nose-Tackle. The teams that had that did the best.

The second observation I have is the degree to which coaches were able to adapt their scheme to the personnel. This is where I think we have a clear advantage over any "new" 3-4 team in the past 7 years. Capers will put guys in the best position to be the most productive. He's been successful in doing so everywhere he has gone. This cannot be understated, but it is often overlooked. We have a real gem in Dom Capers. Kudos to MM for bringing him on.

Special Thanks To Jordyzzz for the awesome sig!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 8732
Location: Atlanta GA
PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am cracking a beer for this thread right now even though its 2 in the morning. Part of me thinks this will be a magical transition, and part of me thinks this will take some time like the ZB's did. Nice research to say the least.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Dec 2008
Posts: 456
PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i would attempt to carry waldo's child if it were possible. if arnold can do it in junior, then im damn well gonna try. excellent post, you can't argue with cold hard facts
"mybed.com is reporting that im trying to sleep"
-aaron rodgers

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 1140
PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wonderful thread, Waldo.

What popped out at me is that only the Ravens and Browns had an appreciable decrease in sacks. That also tends to defy conventional wisdom.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 11200
Location: South Jersey
PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great read Waldo, good work. Our 3-4 transition struggles is similar to our apparent "QB transition" struggles from last offseason, nothing but a myth and if you actually took the time to stop and think about it, it was easy to see how our transition to Rodgers would be successful, just like it's easy to see how our Defense will be much improved this year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mr. soprano

Joined: 08 Jan 2006
Posts: 584
Location: University of Georgia
PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

this is an excellent thread.

you should work for some sports website man. Im impressed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address

Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 40661
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

and this is the guy you all voted MVP???

One trend I was trying to identify - but did not - was keying in on early success. That is, did teams that switched longer ago obtain more success since fewer teams employed the scheme and offenses had little prep against them. Versus the teams that switched more recently now play against offenses that might have seen more 3-4 thrown at them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 22594
Location: The ATL
PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All right. Done.

I'm finished with raw data collection, individual team analysis, and overall analysis.

I thought I noticed some trends when going through collecting data and writing it out, but going through each of indicators and charting them individually was at times shocking IMO, and led to a number of conclusions that I think are overlooked.

1) There is very little point to fielding a hybrid team. Teams that fully switch, with or without the necessary pieces, tend to outperform the hybrids.

2) Teams switching to a full 3-4 will almost surely at least improve a little, some drastically. The myth of "struggling" the first year has been debunked.

3) It is entirely possible to field an elite team the first year of the switch. 12 teams have switched to a 3-4 or hybrid in the last 10 years, 2 of them fielded the best defense in the NFL that season on their first try (both fully switched). More than half the teams that fully switched (4 of 7) fielded a top 10 unit on the first try.

4) The struggles of the scheme change for the team making the change seem to be lesser struggles than the struggles of their opponents trying to game plan against them (with almost zero game tape and no idea of what the DC is going to call). An oft overlooked aspect of the scheme change but apparently very important.

5) The run defense does not struggle and should in fact improve, possibly significantly, for teams making the switch that at least have a serviceable nose tackle. In conflict with popular opinion.

6) The fact that the OLB's suck in pass coverage may in fact have the opposite effect than thought, that the plays they give up are more than offset by the fact that the QB isn't trying to throw one deeper and is taking the easy underneath play, one that a good swarming defense can prevent form doing much damage.

7) Almost every team that made the switch saw their ballhawking improve.

8) Apparently it isn't the scheme that creates the sacks. It seems that it is the fact that the scheme allows an elite pass rusher body type to be on the field every play as opposed to the situational use that they receive on a 4-3 team, however the team still needs the elite players to get the pressure, which often are not in place (or are rookies) at the time the switch is made.

9) The body types and numbers that a 3-4 team keeps on the roster apparently are better 3rd down situational performers (3rd and long / 3rd and short) than their 4-3 or hybrid counterparts, and often games are won and lost on 3rd down.

Title Town USA wrote:
Waldo was right!

Last edited by Waldo on Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 8118
Location: Titletown, USA
PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow.... Youre flat out crazy man.

Now is when you go into the NFL General and make everybody saying "the 3-4 transition is not a 1 year fix. Your defense will not show improvements year 1. blah blah blah" look foolish Laughing

palmy50 wrote:
The fact it's so tight is just a plus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 1 of 8

Jump to:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


text:
José Mourinho portrayed Diego Costa as a persecuted innocent. Roberto Martínez settled for childish. Polarising opinion comes as naturally to the naturalised Spaniard as upsetting, unsettling and punishing defences, although there is no disputing the reason Chelsea have their menace back. In one chaotic, unforgettable encounter, he also demonstrated why Fernando Torres, Romelu Lukaku and Samuel Eto’o have taken their leave from Stamford Bridge.

Costa, 25, started and finished the nine-goal spectacle that ended with the look of a rout but was an enthralling, end-to-end and error-strewn contest until the 90th minute. Only when the £32m striker profited from Muhamed Besic’s dreadful first touch as an Everton player, sold Sylvain Distin and Tim Howard a glorious dummy and scored Chelsea’s sixth did Mourinho relax.

As the late as the 81st minute, when Thibaut Courtois produced a stunning save to tip Kevin Mirallas’s volley on to a post after another incisive Everton attack, there were no guarantees. That would have made it 4-5 and turned Goodison Park into a bear pit. Chelsea, however, always found a quick, emphatic way to put Everton back in their box. The corresponding fixture last season produced a 1-0 win for Martínez’s team and an early but ultimately familiar lament about profligacy from Mourinho. Now, with the creativity of Cesc Fábregas, Nemanja Matic’s authority in midfield and Costa’s threat, there is a more complete look to Chelsea. Mourinho condemned his team’s defending but thanks to Costa’s acquisition from Atlético Madrid, Martínez was left with graver concerns on that score.

It was not only Costa’s third and fourth goals in three Premier League appearances that impressed. His movement broke Everton as a defensive unit from the off, his touch brought Ramires and Fábregas into the attack and in clearing several corners, plus a perfectly timed challenge on Seamus Coleman in the Chelsea penalty area, he showed defending is not beneath him. The duel with Coleman spilled over into handbags and a booking for the Chelsea striker after he failed to heed a warning from the referee, Jon Moss.

Moments later Costa goaded Coleman after the Everton right-back deflected Eden Hazard’s cross into his own net, prompting a furious reaction from Howard, who grabbed the striker, placed his head into César Azpilicueta but received only a yellow card. The USA international could have seen red for handling outside his area in the 10th minute, with Chelsea two goals ahead, only for the assistant referee Ron Ganfield to inexplicably miss that indiscretion. And the fact that Branislav Ivanovic was offside when he scored Chelsea’s second goal. And that Costa was onside when he raced clear after another error by Phil Jagielka shortly before half-time.

“Diego is a mature guy,” claimed Mourinho. “He has played in some very big matches and comes from a situation where this is no pressure for him. Diego is enjoying the nature of this competition. What he is not enjoying is the fact that he comes clean and comes to play football.

“He comes to give a spectacle in these three matches but people have been chasing cards for him like they did in this match and, in fact, the referees are moving in this direction too because he has had two yellow cards in three matches, which is hard to understand. He was chased, chased. He is one of, if not the best, player in the Premier League. Normally he would be the player of the month but he has two yellow cards and won’t get it.”

Martínez viewed Costa’s behaviour quite differently. “I know players take time to adapt from Spain and South America but he needs to understand that we are quite unique in our league; we are very honest and quite respectful with each other. He made fun of a disappointing action [Coleman’s own goal]. That’s not a reflection of the class that he has. He’s a top player and has had to fight a lot for what he’s got. I think his career deserves a lot of credit so it’s a real shame when you’ve got a childish reaction like that.”

Aside from the accusations (Costa and Howard continued to shout insults at each other for the rest of the game before embracing on the final whistle) the pandemonium caused by the Chelsea forward, Everton’s dreadful defending but vibrant attacking play, poor refereeing and the visitors’ swagger yielded a contender for game of the season. Costa converted Fábregas’s fifth assist of the season after only 35 seconds and Ivanovic buried a dubious second before Everton’s impressive response was rewarded when Mirallas headed home Coleman’s cross.

The second half was simply ridiculous. Five goals arrived in 10 minutes, with Coleman restoring Chelsea’s two-goal advantage, Steven Naismith reducing it within 60 seconds, Matic restoring it four minutes later from 20 yards, the impressive Eto’o steering a fine header into the bottom corner on his debut and Ramires prodding Matic’s through ball into the far corner. Fittingly, the finale came from Costa. “Diego has started very well,” said Didier Drogba. “He looks special, he’s scoring goals and helping the team. He’s settled right in. He’s started much better than I did.”

Man of the match Diego Costa (Chelsea)


text:
#23 Energy Future Holdings
11.08.07, 6:00 PM ET

Energy Future Holdings is new to the list this year.
Industry: Electric Utilities (electric utility in Texas)
1601 Bryan St
Dallas TX 75201
Phone: 214-812-4600

CEO: Donald Evans ,

CFO: David Campbell

Change %
Assets Net Profits Operating Income Employees Fiscal Year End
$10.86 bil 1.8 $2.84 bil $2.47 bil $5.45 bil 7,262 Dec
Energy Future Holdings (formerly TXU) generates and distributes electricity to over 2 million customers in Texas. It went private in October 2007, through a consortium led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., Texas Pacific Group, and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners.

< Previous: JM Family Enterprises Next: Reyes Holdings >

Rank | Company | State | Industry | Revenue | Employees

Revenues exclude excise taxes where applicable, public subsidiaries and sales from discontinued operations. Revenues are worldwide figures.
eForbes estimate.
1Pro forma figure.
2Company provided estimate.
3Announced plans to go public.
4Agreed to be acquired.
NA: Not applicable.


text:
In brief: Apple CEO Tim Cook, called to testify before a Senate subcommittee that charges it with dodging U.S. taxes, says its paid 'every single dollar' of the taxes it owes and that it supports 'dramatic' changes to the tax system that will likely mean Apple will pay more in taxes.

A U.S. Senate subcommittee today questioned CEO Tim Cook about the company’s offshore cash, charging the company with exploiting tax loopholes and setting up offshore subsidiaries to shift “large potions” of its profits offshore as part of a plan to “dodge" paying billions of dollars in U.S. taxes.

Cook disputed those claims, saying instead that Apple is handicapped by antiquated tax laws that leave U.S. multinationals at a disadvantage when it comes to moving cash held overseas back home.

“We pay all the taxes we owe, every single dollar,” Cook told the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, noting that Apple may now be the largest U.S. corporate taxpayer. "We not only comply with the laws, but we comply with the spirit of the laws. We don't depend on tax gimmicks. We don't move intellectual property offshore and use it to sell our products back to the United States to avoid taxes. We don't stash money on some Caribbean island. We don't move our money from our foreign subsidiaries to fund our U.S. business in order to skirt the repatriation tax."

Apple, one of the world’s most valuable companies, was asked to testify about its tax programs as part of the subcommittee’s ongoing look into corporate tax loopholes. In September, it questioned and about how profit is handled by their international holdings. The bi-partisan committee, headed by Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), said its investigation found that Apple has shifted billions of dollars in profits away from the U.S. and into Ireland, where the maker of iPhones and iPads has negotiated a special corporate tax rate of 2 percent or less. The subcomittee said yesterday that Apple has avoided paying taxes on $44 billion in overseas earnings that should have been taxed in the U.S. over the past four years.

While Apple paid almost $6 billion in taxes last year, the company also shifted $36 billion in taxable earnings away from the U.S. in 2012 and avoided a payment of $9 billion, Levin said. That translates into avoiding $1 million an hour in taxes, or $25 million a day, he said. “Apple wants to focus on the billions in taxes it has paid. But the real issue is the billions in taxes it has not paid.”

Tax Code Not Digitally Savvy

For the record, the committee and the experts called to testify about the tax loopholes acknowledged that Apple has done nothing illegal and that it is utilizing the current tax code to its advantage, just as many other U.S. multinationals do.  Apple, in a 17-page recap of its testimony released yesterday, said the U.S. corporate tax system has not "kept pace with the advent of the digital age and the rapidly changing global economy." Cook repeated those comments today, and defended the company's operations. Apple holds about $102 billion of its more than $145 billion in cash overseas.

"Apple has real operations in real places with Apple employees selling real products to real customers," Cook said in opening remarks that lasted about 10 minutes. "Our foreign subsidiaries hold 70 percent of our cash because of the very rapid growth of our international business. We use these earnings to fund our foreign operations, such as spending billions of dollars to acquire equipment to make Apple products and to finance construction of Apple retail stores around the world. Under the current U.S. corporate tax system, it would be very expensive to bring that cash back to the United States. Unfortunately, the tax code has not kept up with the digital age. The tax systems handicaps American corporations in relation to our foreign competitors who don't have such constraints on the free movement of capital."

"Although the U.S. Tax Code is written by Congress, we found the complete lack of understanding and inability to grasp simple concepts around how the tax code works as it relates to Apple (and the remainder of corporate America), nothing short of astonishing (and sad)," Brian White, an analyst at Topeka Capital Markets who covers Apple, said in an investor note today. He said the committee's "focus" on  Apple's international affiliates such as AOI and other subsidiaries in Ireland that employ 4,000 people was misguided.

"What really astounded us was the inability of Senators such as John McCain and Carl Levin to grasp the concept that Irish subsidiaries such as AOI are responsible for managing Apple's cash as a holding company but the profits have already been taxed in other countries," White said. "Created over 30 years ago, the subsidiaries in Ireland are responsible for distributing "foreign, post-tax income as dividends within Apple's corporate structure" and "under U.S. tax law, these foreign intercompany payments are not taxable." Tim Cook described AOI as a holding company that is treated as a CFC under U.S. law that "performs centralized cash and investment management of Apple's foreign, post-tax income".

'A Bizarre and Byzantine Tax Code'

Apple had at least one defender on the committee: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky), who accused his colleagues of trying to "vilify" Apple. Paul said the committee should “apologize” for forcing Apple to sit through a “show trial” and for having to cope with “a bizarre and Byzantine tax code.” “Money goes where it’s welcome,” Paul said, calling for comprehensive U.S. tax reform. “Frankly, I’m offended by the tone and tenor of this hearing…I’m offended by a $4 trillion government bullying, berating and badgering one of America’s greatest success stories.”

That set off a testy exchange with Levin, who said Paul was missing the purpose of the subcommittee, which is to look at the current practices of the government and how they work. McCain also dismissed Paul's commentary, saying that accusations that Levin and the committee were trying to bully or vilify the company were "offensive." McCain said that while he admired Apple, the company’s “pernicious and convoluted strategies” for reducing its taxes “shows the flawed corporate tax system” in the U.S.

But McCain did ask Cook if he felt bullied, vilified or if he felt that Apple had been 'dragged' before the committee. "I feel very good to be participating in this and I hope to help the process," Cook said. "I think it's important to tell our story and I think it's important for people to hear it from me."

Cook was joined by Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer and Apple's tax chief Phillip Bullock in addressing the senator's questions. He used his opening remarks to discuss Apple's contribution to the U.S. economy, saying the company has created or supported 600,000 domestic jobs thanks to new products like the iPhone and iPad and services including its App Store. Apple, he added, plans on spending $100 million later this year to begin assembling some of its Macintosh computers in Texas, with components created in Illinois and Florida and on equipment produced in Kentucky and Michigan.

Apple CEO Tim Cook told a Senate subcommittee that U.S. tax laws need to be dramatically simplified. (Credit: C-Span)

He also said Apple supports a "dramatic" simplification of U.S. tax law that would be revenue neutral; eliminate all corporate tax expenditures; lower corporate income tax rates, and offer a 'reasonable tax' on foreign earnings that allow the free movement of capital back to the U.S. Such changes, Cook said, would likely increase Apple's taxes but would help promote economic growth in the U.S. "We've chosen to keep the design and development of those revolutionary products in the United States," he said.

Here are the high-level findings of the subcommittee’s investigation, which are included in the report here. Apple yesterday released its 17-page testimony, with some talking points noted below.

1. Shifting Profits Offshore. Apple has $145 billion in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, of which $102 billion is “offshore.” Apple has used offshore entities, arrangements, and transactions to transfer its assets and profits offshore and minimize its corporate tax liabilities.

2. Offshore Entities With No Declared Tax Jurisdiction. Apple has established and directed tens of billions of dollars to at least two Irish affiliates, while claiming neither is a tax resident of any jurisdiction, including its primary offshore holding company, Apple Operations International (AOI), and its primary intellectual property rights recipient, Apple Sales International (ASI). AOI, which has no employees, has no physical presence, is managed and controlled in the United States, and received $30 billion of income between 2009 and 2012, has paid no corporate income tax to any national government for the past five years.

3. Cost Sharing Agreement. Apple’s cost sharing agreement (CSA) with its offshore affiliates in Ireland is primarily a conduit for shifting billions of dollars in income from the United States to a low tax jurisdiction. From 2009 to 2012, the CSA facilitated the shift of $74 billion in worldwide sales income away from the United States to Ireland where Apple has negotiated a tax rate of less than 2%.

4. Circumventing Subpart F. The intent of Subpart F of the U.S. tax code is to prevent multinational corporations from shifting profits to tax havens to avoid U.S. tax. Apple has exploited weaknesses and loopholes in U.S. tax laws and regulations, particularly the “check-the-box” and “look-through” rules, to circumvent Subpart F taxation, and from 2009 to 2012, avoid $44 billion in taxes on otherwise taxable offshore income.

And here are the key bullet points from Apple's statement:

• Apple has been a powerful engine of job creation in the US. Apple estimates it has  created or supported approximately 600,000 jobs in the US, including nearly 50,000 jobs  for Apple employees and approximately 550,000 jobs at other companies in fields such as 2 engineering, manufacturing, logistics and software development. Approximately 290,000  of these American jobs are related to the new “App Economy” launched by Apple’s App  Store. In less than five years, Apple has paid third-party app developers worldwide over  $9 billion in connection with sales of their software to Apple customers.

• Apple pays an extraordinary amount in US taxes. Apple is likely the largest corporate  income tax payer in the US, having paid nearly $6 billion in taxes to the US Treasury in  FY2012. These payments account for $1 in every $40 in corporate income tax the US Treasury collected last year. The Company’s FY2012 total US federal cash effective tax  rate was approximately 30.5%.1 The Company expects to pay over $7 billion in taxes to  the US Treasury in its current fiscal year. In accordance with US law, Apple pays US  corporate income taxes on the profits earned from its sales in the US and on the  investment income of its Controlled Foreign Corporations (“CFCs”), including the  investment earnings of its Irish subsidiary, Apple Operations International (“AOI”).

• Apple does not use tax gimmicks. Apple does not move its intellectual property into  offshore tax havens and use it to sell products back into the US in order to avoid US tax;  it does not use revolving loans from foreign subsidiaries to fund its domestic operations;  it does not hold money on a Caribbean island; and it does not have a bank account in the  Cayman Islands. Apple has substantial foreign cash because it sells the majority of its products outside the US. International operations accounted for 61% of Apple’s revenue last year and two-thirds of its revenue last quarter. These foreign earnings are taxed in  the jurisdiction where they are earned (“foreign, post-tax income”).


text:
Part of the fun of this job is that sometimes, we get to disagree with our fellow writers. One of my compatriots recently composed a piece titled "Sony PlayStation 4 Riding Wave Of Twice The Social Media Buzz Of New Microsoft Xbox." In it, he speaks to social media tracking expert Jen Handley of Fizziology, who says that across sites from Twitter to Tumblr to , it's the Playstation 4 that has a two to one buzz advantage over the next Xbox.

The piece goes on to say that social buzz is important, because it demonstrably has translated into increased sales in the past. The title, by implication, then suggests that is poised to dominate the next Xbox in the future having "twice the buzz." To me, it's hyperbole, and I'm unclear as to why it's news.

My first thought when reading the piece was "Of course the Playstation 4 has more buzz." In fact, I'm shocked it only has twice as much. Let's think about this.

For one, the Playstation 4 has been premiered. It had a big press conference dedicated to its debut, and the day of, I actually captured a screenshot (seen above) where five out of the five most popular stories on were all Playstation 4 related, including my own liveblog. If that was happening on our site, imagine on what scale that was being replicated across the internet. Talk about social buzz.

The announcement brought loads of actual facts  to talk about concerning the Playstation 4. A whole host of games were announced and Sony premiered new technology like instant booting up of the system or livestreaming games easily. There were endless aspects of the story to discuss, even if they weren't showing the console or revealing the price.

Secondly, perhaps the most important social media-themed aspect of the system was announced, the name: Playstation 4. For years now, many have already been calling the system the Playstation 4. When it was announced that yes, it would officially be called that, it created a singular term that could easily be used across all social media sites, making buzz incredibly easy to track.

But for 's new Xbox. I'm sure Ms. Handley is very good at her job, but when people across social media sites are referring to the next Xbox as the Xbox Durango, Xbox 720, Xbox Infinity, Xbox Fusion, Xbox, New Xbox, Nextbox or even just "Microsoft's new console," there's bound to be some buzz that gets lost in translation.

I suppose the argument could be made that getting a jump start on buzz could work to Sony's advantage, but you might just as easily say that Microsoft announcing later could take the wind out of their sails and put them in a better position heading into E3.

To me, I don't see the point of tracking the buzz of two consoles when one has been announced and the other is still a  loose collection of rumors which doesn't even have a name yet. Once both consoles are on equal footing after Microsoft's May 21st event, or better yet, after E3, then it will be interesting to see which one generates more chatter, but suggesting Sony has some sort of advantage now is just fanboy baiting to me.

Follow me on Twitter here and subscribe to my Forbes blog here.