Johnson fits into that mold Under former coach Br

first_imgJohnson fits into that mold. Under former coach Bruce Arians, he caught balls out of the backfield but also lined up like a slot receiver, using his skillet and familiarity with route-running to challenge defenses.In limited preseason action this past month under first-year coach Steve Wilks and new offensive coordinator Mike McCoy, Johnson wasn’t used much in the passing game. The Cardinals’ first team unit didn’t show much as it was.Johnson, however, promised he’d be used in the passing game.“He’s such a threat in everything that he does, and he can make people miss and he’s so versatile that, quite frankly, (opponents) have to guess right sometimes in order to stop him,” Centers said. “I think he’ll be probably one of the top backs in the league, no doubt, this season, in terms of yards from scrimmage.” The 5: Takeaways from the Coyotes’ introduction of Alex Meruelo 2 Comments   Share   Former Cardinals kicker Phil Dawson retires “David Johnson is going to be — as history will prove — he’ll be before his time as a player in this league,” Centers said Wednesday while joining Doug & Wolf on 98.7 FM Arizona’s Sports Station.Related LinksESPN: Cardinals’ David Johnson a fascinating player to watch in 2018Cardinals’ Larry Fitzgerald, David Johnson sit out of Sunday’s gameEarly as it is, Cardinals feel good about offense built around David JohnsonJohnson, who missed all but a part of one game last year due to a wrist injury, challenged the traditional role as a running back in 2016. The former receiver, who blossomed as a running back in college at Northern Iowa, rushed for 1,239 yards and caught 80 passes for 879 more yards in his second NFL season.Entering 2017, Johnson set a personal goal to eclipse 1,000 yards rushing and 1,000 more receiving during his third season, but a wrist injury suffered in the first game of the year doused that possibility.Healthy leading into this season but under a new coaching staff, it’s back to the drawing board.“I think it’s an achievable goal for David Johnson given his talent level, there’s no doubt in my mind about that,” Centers said of Johnson chasing the 1,000/1,000 club, which has only been reached by former Ram Marshall Faulk (1999) and former 49er Roger Craig (1985).“I think in today’s game, there’s so much of a committee — offense by committee setup with, you know, you have to spread the ball around in order to be effective in today’s league. I predict in the future that the league will be comprised by guys that have a home position but they’ll be required to play multiple spaces in the offense. It’s inevitable, in my opinion.” Top Stories center_img Larry Centers knows what it’s like to be ahead of his time. Arguably, nobody has replicated the type of production by the former Phoenix and Arizona Cardinals fullback.Centers, who played for the Cardinals from 1990-98, still leads all NFL running backs in career receptions (827). Some may have more yards and touchdowns on those touches. Most have more rushing yards than Centers’ 2,188 for his career.Yet few have the perspective of a player whose talents and roles challenged the definition of his respective position on the field, and Centers sees current Cardinals running back David Johnson in a similar fashion. Derrick Hall satisfied with D-backs’ buying and selling Grace expects Greinke trade to have emotional impact (AP Photo/Rick Scuteri, File)last_img read more

Details

What Was It Like to Consult for Breaking Bad

Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country It ended more than 6 months ago, but the ridiculously successful AMC drama, Breaking Bad, has been hard to replace. This year it appears in the Guinness World Records as the most lauded TV series, receiving an impressive 99 out of 100 average rating from television show critics worldwide, where 100 is considered flawless. And it’s no wonder; the gripping five-season series follows a simple high school chemistry teacher’s evolution into a blood-thirsty drug lord.Science sat down with Breaking Bad science consultant Donna Nelson while she was taking a break from the USA Science & Engineering Festival this past weekend. An organic chemist at the University of Oklahoma, Norman, Nelson was one of several expert advisers for the show who began consulting several episodes in on multiple topics, including how to make Walt a realistic chemist.Q: What was it that first made you interested in advising TV shows about science? Email Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) D.N.: For decades, scientists have worried about inaccurate science in the movies. Anyone who’s a scientist who sees some inaccuracy presented in their field will groan. It’s sort of like fingernails on a blackboard. Many of us have wanted to build a bridge to Hollywood to get the science right. Suddenly, in Chemical & Engineering News there was an article on Vince Gilligan and his new show. I thought it sounded really interesting and there was one part that caught my eye: He really wanted to get the science right and welcomed constructive comments from a chemically inclined audience. And I thought, “This is it.” I called the editor up and told him that I would like to volunteer. About a year later I told Vince, “That magazine went out to 167,000 people. How many volunteers did you get?” And he said, “One.”Q: How important was accuracy on the show?D.N.: People have to remember that this is fiction. You have to realize that the producer and the writers and actors all need to be granted this artistic creative license to not necessarily be 100% accurate all the time. The number one goal is to have a hit show, not a science documentary. If that means they have to exaggerate things, then they have to be given that freedom. One time I was out on a set visit and Vince said, “What do you think about making the meth blue?” I advised him not to do it. He said, “Is there not some way it could be blue?” And I said again, “No, don’t do it.” But, if you watch the show, you know he did it. I wouldn’t fault him there. He was doing that to give Walt a trademark.Q: Is making meth as straightforward as it seems in the series? D.N.: The procedures for making a lot of these drugs are really simple. I myself know I can make it because it’s a very simple procedure, but I’ve never tried. After I became interested in the show, I had to go away and look up the synthesis.Now, I have to say I didn’t help Vince with that part. He had Drug Enforcement Administration agents advise him. They helped so that we wouldn’t be presenting a cookbook on how to make meth and told him what steps to leave out so that anyone mimicking the procedures would fail. They are also the ones who really know what an illegal meth lab looks like because they’ve busted them. [So scenes in] the Winnebago, the superlab, and the Vamonos Pest lab—they helped arrange them.  Q: Why do you think it’s important to portray the science behind methamphetamine accurately?D.N.: Well, there are some scientific steps in the process. There was a lot of other science in the show, too, like high school organic chemistry scenes that I helped with. They put in scientific terminology that made the show cool.There were scenes in which the chemistry was so spectacular that it outshined the actors. Here’s an example. The episode in which Walt and Jesse broke into the storage shed in search of a 1-gallon bottle of methylamine, and all they could find were 30 gallon drums. Think about when they were breaking in and what they were wearing: black. They faded away against the background so you couldn’t see the actors, but they broke in using thermite. Do you remember what the thermite looked like? It shined. It was sparks across the set. The star was the chemistry. So in this show, the science really took front stage sometimes.Q: What tips would you give scientists who are interested in consulting?D.N.: You have to watch for the opportunities; there haven’t been many of them. I’ve watched for years and years, and saw this one and pounced on it. There are opportunities through the Science & Entertainment Exchange, but usually they just have one question for a scientist. They’re not interested in developing a relationship, and I’m not interested in those because it’s not an opportunity to learn. I was interested in this because it was an opportunity to learn about another community.One thing you always have to remember is if the show contacts you and needs information, they’re usually on a time deadline. So they need it then. You can’t say, “Well, I’ll get back to you next week.” Whenever they would contact me, I would try to get it back to them by the next morning. So sometimes I’d stay up all night looking stuff up or making calculations. I was always afraid that if I didn’t get it back to them as quickly as possible, it would just be written out, and I didn’t want them to throw away the science. I wanted there to be as much science in the show as possible.Q: What work did you do on the side of this? D.N.: My appointment at the university is 60% research, 30% teaching, and 10% service. Breaking Bad advising would fall into the 10%. I didn’t cut back one bit on research or teaching. Anyone who has a regular day job should expect to just go on as if nothing changed. For me, this was a hobby.Q: Any favorite scenes?D.N.: My favorite scene out of the entire series is in season four, episode one. Walt is talking to Gus in the superlab, reminding him how vital he and Jesse are [to the operation.] Without them, Gus would lose the good science. Then Walt proceeds to ask him, “Now is catalytic hydrogenation, I forget, is that protic or aprotic? If our reaction isn’t stereospecific, how can our product be enantiomerically pure?” So he’s showing Gus he knows chemistry, and that only he can bring him these quality products. I thought that was such a terrific message for the public to understand the necessity of science. read more

Details