alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=enalt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Edwards/Holmes/Cotchery/Keller - How do they rate? - 7 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/86c046b32d365e8e?hl=en
* Ok, let's give it a shot - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/3ade27b4eb81e1d7?hl=en
* League will start suspending players for.... - 9 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/56a34289385ca32b?hl=en
* Cimini calling out Schott... - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/8a00fcc1c9584bba?hl=en
* What If We Go To The Super Bowl In Dallas And Sanchez Gets Homesick???? - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/373c06f700c90507?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Edwards/Holmes/Cotchery/Keller - How do they rate?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/86c046b32d365e8e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 1:52 pm
From: Keith Keller
On 2010-10-19, Harlan Lachman <harlan@eeivt.com> wrote:
>
> Imagine how old someone must be who watched Dick Wood QB the team in the
> Polo Grounds.
Triple digits? ;-O
--keith
--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 3:17 pm
From: buRford
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:23:30 -0400, "yoyodog" <connarchNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"buRford" <buRford@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
>news:78rrb69nld8mdj94d0fjtbbcv29q6uhoh8@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:59:28 -0400, "yoyodog" <connarchNOSPAM@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"buRford" <buRford@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
>>>news:isorb6hsj4jdf0lpq9btdbrc657pb01ne5@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:08:01 -0400, "yoyodog" <connarchNOSPAM@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Vous etes Quebecois?
>>>>
>>>> That's a cool story... I woulda said Range, as in I'd be getting a new
>>>> stove, especially
>>>> if I had just woken up ;)
>>>
>>>Oui, Tabarnak! But growing up 100% bilingual in the West Island of
>>>Montreal
>>>requires to also say "Fuck, yeah!"
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I used to go up there a lot (& Quebec City), in my late teens & early 20s.
>> Loved the local stock of femmes... was easy to delude myself that I was
>> actually a
>> sophisticated world traveller, meeting Renaissance women ;)
>
>... and drinkin' lots of Brador I bet ;-)
>
I think it was regular Molson that was buzzing my veins, eh ;)
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 3:17 pm
From: graybeard
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:48:45 -0400 buRford <buRford@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:38:16 -0400, graybeard <graybeard@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 07:16:17 -0400 buRford <buRford@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:32:28 -0400, graybeard <graybeard@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Reel-to-reel tape? You're not old - you're antediluvian! If you can't
>>>>put it on an iPod, some of the guys here probably have no idea what you
>>>>are talking about ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>What's an iPod ;)
>>>
>>>If I recall, I also have the Supe year "highlights" broadcast with Merle Harmon, on r-t-r
>>>tape. Got some priceless stuff... like evidence that I've never grown up, was a wiseass
>>>my whole life... some phoney phonecalls I made, &, the night we landed on the Moon,
>>>afterwards, I called a radio talkshow (Leon Lewis or Alex Bennett?).
>>>Something like:
>>>"To add a little levity to the night, what do you call a Moon Monster?"
>>>"I don't know, what?"
>>>"A Moonster."
>>>Promptly cut off the air ;)
>>
>>And rightly so ;-) I recall fondly my own long gone Tanberg deck. No
>>digital editing software, just a trimmer and a box of splices. I used to
>>buy vinyl LP's and play them only once while taping them in real time,
>>then put the LP's away and listen to the tapes. Never got into 8-track
>>cartridges, but I did migrate to cassettes for my car. Nowadays I just
>>buy CD's. I have converted a lot of my 300+ old vinyl LP's to MP3 to
>>carry around on my laptop. I know it's a lossy format, but I figure I
>>can't hear anything below 50Hz or above 12KHz any more anyway.
>
>
>Always enjoyed splicing.
>It's funny, when I was in the film biz, and things were transitioning to editing in video
>vs film, the real old-school editors, were dropping like flies. They didn't like the
>new-fangled electronic editing. They missed the tactile feel of actually cutting
>film/negative. Then when things transitioned from analog video tape to digital, I lost
>interest. I missed all my toys, hundreds of thousands of dollars of electronic gadgets to
>manipulate everything... instead of one desktop computer, with software to do the
>manipulations... and having to transfer the source video onto digital storage arrays.
>Hated it, even though I had assistants to do all the transfers. Even liked the super fast
>scanning through tape, as opposed to instant access. An obsolete rebel was I ;)
>
>Mp3s certainly save space... I always do everything in flac, being the anal former editor,
>where everything had to be perfect. I still can't really enjoy a film, etc, because I see
>& hear every flaw ;)
Speaking of advances in technology in the entertainment business, I have
a close friend, and I love him like a brother, but he's a bit of a
trendoid. Recently he acquired an iPhone, and he was telling me how
great it was to be able to watch a movie whenever he had some time to
kill and could get a signal. Bear in mind that this is the same guy who
last year, after getting a 50" plasma high definition TV and hooking it
up to his 7 channel surround sound system, was squealing about how he
could never watch a movie on a regular sized TV set again. Now he's all
gaga over watching one on a screen the size of a pack of playing cards
with a tiny monaural speaker.
--
graybeard
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 3:20 pm
From: buRford
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:44:28 -0400, graybeard <graybeard@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:03:26 -0400 Harlan Lachman <harlan@eeivt.com>
>wrote:
>
>>And Sauer played only one dominating year.
>
>Not sure what your definition of dominating is.
>
>1966: 63 receptions (2nd in AFL) / 1079 yds
>1967: 75 receptions (1st in AFL) / 1189 yds
>1968: 66 receptions (2nd in AFL) / 1141 yds
>
>Pro Bowls: 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969
>
>For a guy who only played for 6 six years, those aren't bad credentials.
Interesting that with all the Supe III reunions over the years, I can't remember Sauer
ever showing up. I know he was born in Sheboygen, Wi (a town I still use in jokes)...
maybe living there, he has no use for the big city anymore ;)
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 3:28 pm
From: buRford
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:17:44 -0400, graybeard <graybeard@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:48:45 -0400 buRford <buRford@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:38:16 -0400, graybeard <graybeard@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 07:16:17 -0400 buRford <buRford@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:32:28 -0400, graybeard <graybeard@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Reel-to-reel tape? You're not old - you're antediluvian! If you can't
>>>>>put it on an iPod, some of the guys here probably have no idea what you
>>>>>are talking about ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What's an iPod ;)
>>>>
>>>>If I recall, I also have the Supe year "highlights" broadcast with Merle Harmon, on r-t-r
>>>>tape. Got some priceless stuff... like evidence that I've never grown up, was a wiseass
>>>>my whole life... some phoney phonecalls I made, &, the night we landed on the Moon,
>>>>afterwards, I called a radio talkshow (Leon Lewis or Alex Bennett?).
>>>>Something like:
>>>>"To add a little levity to the night, what do you call a Moon Monster?"
>>>>"I don't know, what?"
>>>>"A Moonster."
>>>>Promptly cut off the air ;)
>>>
>>>And rightly so ;-) I recall fondly my own long gone Tanberg deck. No
>>>digital editing software, just a trimmer and a box of splices. I used to
>>>buy vinyl LP's and play them only once while taping them in real time,
>>>then put the LP's away and listen to the tapes. Never got into 8-track
>>>cartridges, but I did migrate to cassettes for my car. Nowadays I just
>>>buy CD's. I have converted a lot of my 300+ old vinyl LP's to MP3 to
>>>carry around on my laptop. I know it's a lossy format, but I figure I
>>>can't hear anything below 50Hz or above 12KHz any more anyway.
>>
>>
>>Always enjoyed splicing.
>>It's funny, when I was in the film biz, and things were transitioning to editing in video
>>vs film, the real old-school editors, were dropping like flies. They didn't like the
>>new-fangled electronic editing. They missed the tactile feel of actually cutting
>>film/negative. Then when things transitioned from analog video tape to digital, I lost
>>interest. I missed all my toys, hundreds of thousands of dollars of electronic gadgets to
>>manipulate everything... instead of one desktop computer, with software to do the
>>manipulations... and having to transfer the source video onto digital storage arrays.
>>Hated it, even though I had assistants to do all the transfers. Even liked the super fast
>>scanning through tape, as opposed to instant access. An obsolete rebel was I ;)
>>
>>Mp3s certainly save space... I always do everything in flac, being the anal former editor,
>>where everything had to be perfect. I still can't really enjoy a film, etc, because I see
>>& hear every flaw ;)
>
>Speaking of advances in technology in the entertainment business, I have
>a close friend, and I love him like a brother, but he's a bit of a
>trendoid. Recently he acquired an iPhone, and he was telling me how
>great it was to be able to watch a movie whenever he had some time to
>kill and could get a signal. Bear in mind that this is the same guy who
>last year, after getting a 50" plasma high definition TV and hooking it
>up to his 7 channel surround sound system, was squealing about how he
>could never watch a movie on a regular sized TV set again. Now he's all
>gaga over watching one on a screen the size of a pack of playing cards
>with a tiny monaural speaker.
People like their toys, especially ones they can put in their pocket, I guess.
I love tech, and learn new ones easily, but I always rebel against new ones, as I hate
being told I have to *retire* something useful.
Even working with CDs when they first came out, I stayed with cassettes & didn't buy a CD
player, until my cassette players died. Same with DVDs, etc.
I don't watch much telly, so I still don't have an HD, even though they'd be easier on my
anal eyes ;)
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 5:19 pm
From: BicketyBam
buRford <buRford@buR.ford.com> wrote in
news:is1qb6lvstsm0kc7sae4ek6jc8hlnr2jvp@4ax.com:
> On 19 Oct 2010 00:32:28 GMT, BicketyBam <Blowme@joemama.net> wrote:
>
>>"JKConey" <jkconey@verizon.net> wrote in
>>news:i9iokl$86h$1@news.eternal- september.org:
>>
>>>
>>> "BicketyBam" <Blowme@joemama.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9E15C8CAA4047Blowmejoemammanet@209.197.15.254...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>> Maynard-Sauer-Lammons.... best of all time!
>>>
>>
>>That was long before my time, but I will take your word for it :)
>
>
> Long before your time... hey, I take offense to that... you callin' me
> old??
>
> Those guys were great, but it was such a different era.
> Maynard would probably be broken into numerous parts, if he was hit by
> some of the defenders these days.
> Then again, with the advances in training... who knows.
> I do know Namath would've had a longer, & more productive career...
> but I digress ;)
>
I was bor born in 1967, so technically I was around :)
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 5:22 pm
From: BicketyBam
Harlan Lachman <harlan@eeivt.com> wrote in
news:harlan-BC9CF0.15014519102010@news60.forteinc.com:
> In article <Xns9E15C8CAA4047Blowmejoemammanet@209.197.15.254>,
> BicketyBam <Blowme@joemama.net> wrote:
>
>> I started watching the Jets in 1986. I know may of you go back long
>> before that. I was thinking about the current Jets receivers
>> (including the TE) and trying to figure out if the Jets have had a
>> better group since I've been a fan. In 1986 they had Toon, Walker and
>> Shuler. How do you think the current group compares to them? Toon had
>> some of the best hands I have ever seen, and Walker was a tremendous
>> deep threat. Shuler was a very good pass catching TE back when TE's
>> usually were known for their blocking. But I think as an overall
>> group, Edwards, Holmes, Cotchery and Keller are more explosive...if
>> not for the fact that Keller is more dangerous than Shuler and we
>> have one extra wideout. That '86 team team did use McNeil as Hector
>> as receivers, but Tomlinson is more than capable.
>>
>> The only other team that I could think of that might be on par was
>> the '98 team with Keyshawn, Cherbet, Ward and Kyle Brady. But I think
>> both the '86 group and the current group were/are better.
>>
>> So unless I missed something, I'd say this is the most explosive set
>> of receivers since the mid 80's. I can't speak for any team before
>> that.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Older Fans would remember that Maynard, Sauer and Lammons were were OK
> but that only that Sauer was a short route runner and Maynard for the
> most part like Moss, a go guy.
>
> This group has not proven itself to me yet. I agree they are better
> run blockers than any group of WR that I remember but Braylon had the
> droppsies and still does not come back for the ball strong, Dustin
> does not consistently beat other teams, and Holmes is too new.
>
> Keysawn Q, Ward and Brady were the most over hyped and over paid
> group. Key was never the elite receiver he thought he was or we
> thought when we wasted the high pick on him. He is not in the same
> league as a Andre Johnson, Fitzgerald, and even Detroit's C Johnson. Q
> was not as dangerous or problematic as Welker and Brady was a wasted
> pick.
>
> I think the best WR this team has had since Dick Wood was the Toon,
> Walker and Shuler group. Albeit, this was in the days where teams only
> needed two WR, but I think Walker was the best WR I remember and Toon
> ran over the middle routes until he got woozy that were the best I
> remember. And, I remember Shuler with the fondness Jint fans remember
> Bavaro but we didn't win the big ones so none of these guys got the
> props (or QB for that matter) that they deserved.
>
> h
I agree that MeShawn was severly overrated. I was happy to see him go.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ok, let's give it a shot
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/3ade27b4eb81e1d7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 2:16 pm
From: John C TX
X-No-Archive: Yes
> And seriously, finding Holmes down there, and throwing it, was about as brilliant a
> decision as he could of made, at that moment. Last season, he probably wouldn't have seen
> Holmes, let alone decide to pass it.
b, the poise was incredible. It would have been nice to have someone
open for a 1st down.
yes, that is a criticism of the play calling.
--
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 3:07 pm
From: buRford
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:14:59 -0400, Harlan Lachman <harlan@eeivt.com> wrote:
>In article <ehkpb6p1km8ergsn1aqudhda32dosm8anp@4ax.com>,
> buRford <buRford@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>
>> As far as whatever else I said, I am speaking only of the Jets, & what I want
>> to see from
>> them. No other team is part of the equation. If we're taking care of our
>> own business, I
>> could care less about what other teams, can or can't do.
>
>At this point, if we win all the rest of our games, you'd be right.
>
That's my plan.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 3:13 pm
From: buRford
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:16:08 -0700 (PDT), John C TX <johnctxjets@gmail.com> wrote:
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>> And seriously, finding Holmes down there, and throwing it, was about as brilliant a
>> decision as he could of made, at that moment. Last season, he probably wouldn't have seen
>> Holmes, let alone decide to pass it.
>
>
>b, the poise was incredible. It would have been nice to have someone
>open for a 1st down.
>
>yes, that is a criticism of the play calling.
From what Cimini is now saying, a first down play was never called.
It was an all hail-mary, all the time playcall, with no outlet or other options.
Just for that alone, our beloved OC should be sent packin', especially since Sanchez has
very little accuracy on long passes. That pass to Holmes, though, was probably his nicest
long one of the season, although it was a tad underthrown (worked out well for the Jets).
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 4:36 pm
From: Tutor
On Oct 19, 6:13 pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:16:08 -0700 (PDT), John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> >> And seriously, finding Holmes down there, and throwing it, was about as brilliant a
> >> decision as he could of made, at that moment. Last season, he probably wouldn't have seen
> >> Holmes, let alone decide to pass it.
>
> >b, the poise was incredible. It would have been nice to have someone
> >open for a 1st down.
>
> >yes, that is a criticism of the play calling.
>
> From what Cimini is now saying, a first down play was never called.
> It was an all hail-mary, all the time playcall, with no outlet or other options.
> Just for that alone, our beloved OC should be sent packin', especially since Sanchez has
> very little accuracy on long passes. That pass to Holmes, though, was probably his nicest
> long one of the season, although it was a tad underthrown (worked out well for the Jets).
THat's not what Rex said at the presser. Go back and listen. Either
Cimini's full of it or Rex was dishonest or ignorant of what Schott
called.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: League will start suspending players for....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/56a34289385ca32b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 2:40 pm
From: MZ
On 10/19/2010 4:26 PM, Michael wrote:
> On Oct 19, 3:51 pm, MZ<m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> On 10/19/2010 3:24 PM, Harlan Lachman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article<6tednR8ox7y_NyDRnZ2dnUVZ_oidn...@giganews.com>,
>>> "papa.carl44"<papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> "Michael"<mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:dc12b00b-19c7-4d1b-8c55-5308cbfb2e94@t8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> devastating hits ??? Are you kidding me ???
>>
>>>>> It will be a foul to light another guy up ???
>>
>>>>> What exactly is wrong with a devastating hit ??? This is not "helmet
>>>>> to helmet". This is a new item that they are introducing. Are you
>>>>> not supposed to lay devastating hits on the other players ??? They are
>>>>> talking about changing the game. Why not just put a red shirt and
>>>>> flags on the players ???
>>
>>>> There is only one rational answer. Over the last couple of decades, maybe
>>>> even less than that, the size and speed of the players has gotten way out of
>>>> hand. You simply can not play the game as we know and understand it with
>>>> guys this big and not have "devastating" results. If they had ever done
>>>> anything about steroids in the beginning some of this would not be
>>>> happening. We could have a lot of taller players who did not approcach 400
>>>> pounds. The "bigger, faster, stronger revolution" seemed like a great idea
>>>> and it was not thought out very well, now they are reaping the results of
>>>> those decisions. I don't see any way around this at all. Either they will
>>>> change the game, or someone will get killed. This is very interesting if
>>>> you view it from a perspective of social change. Again, I suggest a good
>>>> read, "How Football Explains America" by Sal Palantonio.
>>
>>> I urge you both to listen to the Mike and Mike in the morning highlights.
>>
>>> The league is out of its mind. There are no plans to distinguish between
>>> intent and an offensive player repositioning himself (e.g., ducking).
>>> There is no distinction between a helmet to helmet launching by the Pats
>>> Brandon M, and the shoulder of Leonhard.
>>
>>> Worse, officials are encouraged to throw players out of the game at the
>>> time of infringement. Can you imagine Leonhard taken out of the game for
>>> a bad call.
>>
>>> Golic was not a happy camper and if you listen to the sections by M Hoge
>>> and Carter and then listen to the section with the league's Anderson you
>>> will get a sense of how deeply out of touch the NFL is and how (bad)
>>> officiating will become even more likely to determine winners and losers
>>> and playoff teams.
>>
>>> harlan
>>
>> Sometimes the difference between a clean shoulder and a dirty helmet is
>> bad aim. Or geometry.
>>
>> I'm in the minority that thinks players already avoid leading with the
>> crown of their helmets, generally. Paralysis is worse than suspensions,
>> so there's already a good reason for them not to do it. I don't buy
>> that players are going out there trying to injure fellow players.
>
> WTF ??? please go watch some highlights of Chuck Ceicel, Tatum,
> Atwater, Concrete Charlie, Night Train, etc and tell me that are not
> interested in causing injury
Never heard of 'em. :p Welcome to this century, Michael. Or, as I
call it, the "it's just business, man" era of the NFL.
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 2:47 pm
From: MZ
On 10/19/2010 4:30 PM, John C TX wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>> How, exactly, does one define "blatant" and "egregious"? Even the best
>> officials couldn't be able to pick those out.
>
> If the refs catch it they flag him. That is what happened, correct?
>
> That video is tough to find online but I saw it on TV.
>>
>> Was Meriweather trying to intentionally hurt (his friend) Todd Heap? Or
>> was he just trying to make a big hit (like the one Chung made earlier
>> which directly caused an incompletion on a key 3rd down)?
>
> I didn't see the game. I saw the clip once so I didn't see what Chung
> did.
>
> It doesn't matter if intentions were not to hurt him his actions did
> and did it illegally. What I saw from Merriwaether was foul play. He
> he could have hit him with his shoulder. He could have avoided the
> head.
>
>> I'm with Michael on this. No matter how you slice it, it's bad for
>> football. Good for player safety? Maybe. But I think at some point,
>> we all have to sit down and come to grips with the fact that football is
>> a violent sport and lots of these guys are going to have long lasting
>> effects and there's very little that can be done about it without
>> destroying the game.
>
> How are they destroying the game by enforcing the current rules? Both
> Robinson& Merriweather's hit were dirty.
Dirty? Give me a break. Careless, possibly. It hasn't seemed to occur
to anyone here that Meriweather just isn't a very good player, and he's
a notoriously shitty tackler who's been benched and is trying to add a
physical dimension to his game but doesn't know how. But "dirty"
implies that you're trying to do harm. I don't buy it. Especially when
you consider that the two guys in question are friends and hang out off
the field.
Fans are drama queens. Everybody watches too much WWF. They think guys
are going to hit other guys with steel chairs when the ref turns his
back. Players will make mistakes...all the time, and hopefully
tightening up certain rules can help keep them from making some
mistakes. But the problem I see is that the NFL thinks that they can
eradicate something, and they can't. And the game will suffer in their
quest to do so.
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 2:59 pm
From: Ron
On Oct 19, 5:40 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 4:26 PM, Michael wrote:
>
> > WTF ??? please go watch some highlights of Chuck Ceicel, Tatum,
> > Atwater, Concrete Charlie, Night Train, etc and tell me that are not
> > interested in causing injury
>
> Never heard of 'em. :p Welcome to this century, Michael. Or, as I
> call it, the "it's just business, man" era of the NFL.
You've never of Steve Atwater or Jack Tatum? What about Lester Haynes,
Ronnie Lott or John Lynch? All big hitters that played in the
secondary.
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 3:22 pm
From: Michael
On Oct 19, 5:40 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 4:26 PM, Michael wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 3:51 pm, MZ<m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >> On 10/19/2010 3:24 PM, Harlan Lachman wrote:
>
> >>> In article<6tednR8ox7y_NyDRnZ2dnUVZ_oidn...@giganews.com>,
> >>> "papa.carl44"<papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Michael"<mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:dc12b00b-19c7-4d1b-8c55-5308cbfb2e94@t8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> devastating hits ??? Are you kidding me ???
>
> >>>>> It will be a foul to light another guy up ???
>
> >>>>> What exactly is wrong with a devastating hit ??? This is not "helmet
> >>>>> to helmet". This is a new item that they are introducing. Are you
> >>>>> not supposed to lay devastating hits on the other players ??? They are
> >>>>> talking about changing the game. Why not just put a red shirt and
> >>>>> flags on the players ???
>
> >>>> There is only one rational answer. Over the last couple of decades, maybe
> >>>> even less than that, the size and speed of the players has gotten way out of
> >>>> hand. You simply can not play the game as we know and understand it with
> >>>> guys this big and not have "devastating" results. If they had ever done
> >>>> anything about steroids in the beginning some of this would not be
> >>>> happening. We could have a lot of taller players who did not approcach 400
> >>>> pounds. The "bigger, faster, stronger revolution" seemed like a great idea
> >>>> and it was not thought out very well, now they are reaping the results of
> >>>> those decisions. I don't see any way around this at all. Either they will
> >>>> change the game, or someone will get killed. This is very interesting if
> >>>> you view it from a perspective of social change. Again, I suggest a good
> >>>> read, "How Football Explains America" by Sal Palantonio.
>
> >>> I urge you both to listen to the Mike and Mike in the morning highlights.
>
> >>> The league is out of its mind. There are no plans to distinguish between
> >>> intent and an offensive player repositioning himself (e.g., ducking).
> >>> There is no distinction between a helmet to helmet launching by the Pats
> >>> Brandon M, and the shoulder of Leonhard.
>
> >>> Worse, officials are encouraged to throw players out of the game at the
> >>> time of infringement. Can you imagine Leonhard taken out of the game for
> >>> a bad call.
>
> >>> Golic was not a happy camper and if you listen to the sections by M Hoge
> >>> and Carter and then listen to the section with the league's Anderson you
> >>> will get a sense of how deeply out of touch the NFL is and how (bad)
> >>> officiating will become even more likely to determine winners and losers
> >>> and playoff teams.
>
> >>> harlan
>
> >> Sometimes the difference between a clean shoulder and a dirty helmet is
> >> bad aim. Or geometry.
>
> >> I'm in the minority that thinks players already avoid leading with the
> >> crown of their helmets, generally. Paralysis is worse than suspensions,
> >> so there's already a good reason for them not to do it. I don't buy
> >> that players are going out there trying to injure fellow players.
>
> > WTF ??? please go watch some highlights of Chuck Ceicel, Tatum,
> > Atwater, Concrete Charlie, Night Train, etc and tell me that are not
> > interested in causing injury
>
> Never heard of 'em. :p Welcome to this century, Michael. Or, as I
> call it, the "it's just business, man" era of the NFL.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ray lewis ??? he's not trying to ko people ??? dunta robinson ??? no
intent there ???
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 3:27 pm
From: Michael
On Oct 19, 5:47 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 4:30 PM, John C TX wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> >> How, exactly, does one define "blatant" and "egregious"? Even the best
> >> officials couldn't be able to pick those out.
>
> > If the refs catch it they flag him. That is what happened, correct?
>
> > That video is tough to find online but I saw it on TV.
>
> >> Was Meriweather trying to intentionally hurt (his friend) Todd Heap? Or
> >> was he just trying to make a big hit (like the one Chung made earlier
> >> which directly caused an incompletion on a key 3rd down)?
>
> > I didn't see the game. I saw the clip once so I didn't see what Chung
> > did.
>
> > It doesn't matter if intentions were not to hurt him his actions did
> > and did it illegally. What I saw from Merriwaether was foul play. He
> > he could have hit him with his shoulder. He could have avoided the
> > head.
>
> >> I'm with Michael on this. No matter how you slice it, it's bad for
> >> football. Good for player safety? Maybe. But I think at some point,
> >> we all have to sit down and come to grips with the fact that football is
> >> a violent sport and lots of these guys are going to have long lasting
> >> effects and there's very little that can be done about it without
> >> destroying the game.
>
> > How are they destroying the game by enforcing the current rules? Both
> > Robinson& Merriweather's hit were dirty.
>
> Dirty? Give me a break. Careless, possibly. It hasn't seemed to occur
> to anyone here that Meriweather just isn't a very good player, and he's
> a notoriously shitty tackler who's been benched and is trying to add a
> physical dimension to his game but doesn't know how. But "dirty"
> implies that you're trying to do harm. I don't buy it. Especially when
> you consider that the two guys in question are friends and hang out off
> the field.
>
> Fans are drama queens. Everybody watches too much WWF. They think guys
> are going to hit other guys with steel chairs when the ref turns his
> back. Players will make mistakes...all the time, and hopefully
> tightening up certain rules can help keep them from making some
> mistakes. But the problem I see is that the NFL thinks that they can
> eradicate something, and they can't. And the game will suffer in their
> quest to do so.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
i still think they should let players use metal pipes...
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 3:30 pm
From: MZ
On 10/19/2010 5:59 PM, Ron wrote:
> On Oct 19, 5:40 pm, MZ<m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> On 10/19/2010 4:26 PM, Michael wrote:
>>
>>> WTF ??? please go watch some highlights of Chuck Ceicel, Tatum,
>>> Atwater, Concrete Charlie, Night Train, etc and tell me that are not
>>> interested in causing injury
>>
>> Never heard of 'em. :p Welcome to this century, Michael. Or, as I
>> call it, the "it's just business, man" era of the NFL.
>
> You've never of Steve Atwater or Jack Tatum? What about Lester Haynes,
> Ronnie Lott or John Lynch? All big hitters that played in the
> secondary.
>
You didn't see the emoticon?
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 3:31 pm
From: MZ
On 10/19/2010 6:22 PM, Michael wrote:
> On Oct 19, 5:40 pm, MZ<m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> On 10/19/2010 4:26 PM, Michael wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 19, 3:51 pm, MZ<m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>> On 10/19/2010 3:24 PM, Harlan Lachman wrote:
>>
>>>>> In article<6tednR8ox7y_NyDRnZ2dnUVZ_oidn...@giganews.com>,
>>>>> "papa.carl44"<papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> "Michael"<mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:dc12b00b-19c7-4d1b-8c55-5308cbfb2e94@t8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> devastating hits ??? Are you kidding me ???
>>
>>>>>>> It will be a foul to light another guy up ???
>>
>>>>>>> What exactly is wrong with a devastating hit ??? This is not "helmet
>>>>>>> to helmet". This is a new item that they are introducing. Are you
>>>>>>> not supposed to lay devastating hits on the other players ??? They are
>>>>>>> talking about changing the game. Why not just put a red shirt and
>>>>>>> flags on the players ???
>>
>>>>>> There is only one rational answer. Over the last couple of decades, maybe
>>>>>> even less than that, the size and speed of the players has gotten way out of
>>>>>> hand. You simply can not play the game as we know and understand it with
>>>>>> guys this big and not have "devastating" results. If they had ever done
>>>>>> anything about steroids in the beginning some of this would not be
>>>>>> happening. We could have a lot of taller players who did not approcach 400
>>>>>> pounds. The "bigger, faster, stronger revolution" seemed like a great idea
>>>>>> and it was not thought out very well, now they are reaping the results of
>>>>>> those decisions. I don't see any way around this at all. Either they will
>>>>>> change the game, or someone will get killed. This is very interesting if
>>>>>> you view it from a perspective of social change. Again, I suggest a good
>>>>>> read, "How Football Explains America" by Sal Palantonio.
>>
>>>>> I urge you both to listen to the Mike and Mike in the morning highlights.
>>
>>>>> The league is out of its mind. There are no plans to distinguish between
>>>>> intent and an offensive player repositioning himself (e.g., ducking).
>>>>> There is no distinction between a helmet to helmet launching by the Pats
>>>>> Brandon M, and the shoulder of Leonhard.
>>
>>>>> Worse, officials are encouraged to throw players out of the game at the
>>>>> time of infringement. Can you imagine Leonhard taken out of the game for
>>>>> a bad call.
>>
>>>>> Golic was not a happy camper and if you listen to the sections by M Hoge
>>>>> and Carter and then listen to the section with the league's Anderson you
>>>>> will get a sense of how deeply out of touch the NFL is and how (bad)
>>>>> officiating will become even more likely to determine winners and losers
>>>>> and playoff teams.
>>
>>>>> harlan
>>
>>>> Sometimes the difference between a clean shoulder and a dirty helmet is
>>>> bad aim. Or geometry.
>>
>>>> I'm in the minority that thinks players already avoid leading with the
>>>> crown of their helmets, generally. Paralysis is worse than suspensions,
>>>> so there's already a good reason for them not to do it. I don't buy
>>>> that players are going out there trying to injure fellow players.
>>
>>> WTF ??? please go watch some highlights of Chuck Ceicel, Tatum,
>>> Atwater, Concrete Charlie, Night Train, etc and tell me that are not
>>> interested in causing injury
>>
>> Never heard of 'em. :p Welcome to this century, Michael. Or, as I
>> call it, the "it's just business, man" era of the NFL.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ray lewis ??? he's not trying to ko people ??? dunta robinson ??? no
> intent there ???
KO people, or injure them?
It's one thing to deliver a crushing blow (which every single player on
the field should be trying to do, btw). It's another thing to deliver a
cheap shot.
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 3:35 pm
From: Michael
On Oct 19, 6:31 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 6:22 PM, Michael wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 5:40 pm, MZ<m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >> On 10/19/2010 4:26 PM, Michael wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 19, 3:51 pm, MZ<m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/19/2010 3:24 PM, Harlan Lachman wrote:
>
> >>>>> In article<6tednR8ox7y_NyDRnZ2dnUVZ_oidn...@giganews.com>,
> >>>>> "papa.carl44"<papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "Michael"<mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:dc12b00b-19c7-4d1b-8c55-5308cbfb2e94@t8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>> devastating hits ??? Are you kidding me ???
>
> >>>>>>> It will be a foul to light another guy up ???
>
> >>>>>>> What exactly is wrong with a devastating hit ??? This is not "helmet
> >>>>>>> to helmet". This is a new item that they are introducing. Are you
> >>>>>>> not supposed to lay devastating hits on the other players ??? They are
> >>>>>>> talking about changing the game. Why not just put a red shirt and
> >>>>>>> flags on the players ???
>
> >>>>>> There is only one rational answer. Over the last couple of decades, maybe
> >>>>>> even less than that, the size and speed of the players has gotten way out of
> >>>>>> hand. You simply can not play the game as we know and understand it with
> >>>>>> guys this big and not have "devastating" results. If they had ever done
> >>>>>> anything about steroids in the beginning some of this would not be
> >>>>>> happening. We could have a lot of taller players who did not approcach 400
> >>>>>> pounds. The "bigger, faster, stronger revolution" seemed like a great idea
> >>>>>> and it was not thought out very well, now they are reaping the results of
> >>>>>> those decisions. I don't see any way around this at all. Either they will
> >>>>>> change the game, or someone will get killed. This is very interesting if
> >>>>>> you view it from a perspective of social change. Again, I suggest a good
> >>>>>> read, "How Football Explains America" by Sal Palantonio.
>
> >>>>> I urge you both to listen to the Mike and Mike in the morning highlights.
>
> >>>>> The league is out of its mind. There are no plans to distinguish between
> >>>>> intent and an offensive player repositioning himself (e.g., ducking).
> >>>>> There is no distinction between a helmet to helmet launching by the Pats
> >>>>> Brandon M, and the shoulder of Leonhard.
>
> >>>>> Worse, officials are encouraged to throw players out of the game at the
> >>>>> time of infringement. Can you imagine Leonhard taken out of the game for
> >>>>> a bad call.
>
> >>>>> Golic was not a happy camper and if you listen to the sections by M Hoge
> >>>>> and Carter and then listen to the section with the league's Anderson you
> >>>>> will get a sense of how deeply out of touch the NFL is and how (bad)
> >>>>> officiating will become even more likely to determine winners and losers
> >>>>> and playoff teams.
>
> >>>>> harlan
>
> >>>> Sometimes the difference between a clean shoulder and a dirty helmet is
> >>>> bad aim. Or geometry.
>
> >>>> I'm in the minority that thinks players already avoid leading with the
> >>>> crown of their helmets, generally. Paralysis is worse than suspensions,
> >>>> so there's already a good reason for them not to do it. I don't buy
> >>>> that players are going out there trying to injure fellow players.
>
> >>> WTF ??? please go watch some highlights of Chuck Ceicel, Tatum,
> >>> Atwater, Concrete Charlie, Night Train, etc and tell me that are not
> >>> interested in causing injury
>
> >> Never heard of 'em. :p Welcome to this century, Michael. Or, as I
> >> call it, the "it's just business, man" era of the NFL.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > ray lewis ??? he's not trying to ko people ??? dunta robinson ??? no
> > intent there ???
>
> KO people, or injure them?
>
> It's one thing to deliver a crushing blow (which every single player on
> the field should be trying to do, btw). It's another thing to deliver a
> cheap shot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
a good solid club or metal pipe would really add some spice to the
game...
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 3:46 pm
From: "papa.carl44"
"MZ" <mark@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:4uednYPQWfuXjyPRnZ2dnUVZ5hadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 10/19/2010 4:30 PM, John C TX wrote:
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>> How, exactly, does one define "blatant" and "egregious"? Even the best
>>> officials couldn't be able to pick those out.
>>
>> If the refs catch it they flag him. That is what happened, correct?
>>
>> That video is tough to find online but I saw it on TV.
>>>
>>> Was Meriweather trying to intentionally hurt (his friend) Todd Heap? Or
>>> was he just trying to make a big hit (like the one Chung made earlier
>>> which directly caused an incompletion on a key 3rd down)?
>>
>> I didn't see the game. I saw the clip once so I didn't see what Chung
>> did.
>>
>> It doesn't matter if intentions were not to hurt him his actions did
>> and did it illegally. What I saw from Merriwaether was foul play. He
>> he could have hit him with his shoulder. He could have avoided the
>> head.
>>
>>> I'm with Michael on this. No matter how you slice it, it's bad for
>>> football. Good for player safety? Maybe. But I think at some point,
>>> we all have to sit down and come to grips with the fact that football is
>>> a violent sport and lots of these guys are going to have long lasting
>>> effects and there's very little that can be done about it without
>>> destroying the game.
>>
>> How are they destroying the game by enforcing the current rules? Both
>> Robinson& Merriweather's hit were dirty.
>
> Dirty? Give me a break. Careless, possibly. It hasn't seemed to occur
> to anyone here that Meriweather just isn't a very good player, and he's a
> notoriously shitty tackler who's been benched and is trying to add a
> physical dimension to his game but doesn't know how. But "dirty" implies
> that you're trying to do harm. I don't buy it. Especially when you
> consider that the two guys in question are friends and hang out off the
> field.
>
> Fans are drama queens. Everybody watches too much WWF. They think guys
> are going to hit other guys with steel chairs when the ref turns his back.
> Players will make mistakes...all the time, and hopefully tightening up
> certain rules can help keep them from making some mistakes. But the
> problem I see is that the NFL thinks that they can eradicate something,
> and they can't. And the game will suffer in their quest to do so.
Well said...and the League is pandering to people who do not remotely
understand the game. Anybody who thinks you can control these hits
completely has NEVER played the game to any extent.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cimini calling out Schott...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/8a00fcc1c9584bba?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 3:07 pm
From: buRford
Cimini's always covering Schott's derriere, & has never said a bad word about him, so this
is kind of interesting coming from him.
I haven't watched the game again... I thought someone had posted that the original
playcall, was a short pass to the first down marker, or something similar. Cimini's an
ass, but even so, if what he's saying is true, my great esteem for Schott has really taken
a hit. Someone who recorded the game... please tell me Cimini is wrong!
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Jets win on ill-conceived play
By Rich Cimini
If you're a New York Jets fan, it's a case of, "All's well that ends well." But take a
closer look at the Mile High Miracle --Renaldo Hill's 46-yard pass-interference penalty on
Santonio Holmes -- and you will see it wasn't a well-designed play by the Jets.
On a fourth-and-6 from the Denver Broncos' 48, the Jets sent four receivers on vertical
routes -- Holmes on the backside, with Braylon Edwards, Jerricho Cotchery and Dustin
Keller in "trips" to the right. After studying the replay, a revelation: There was no
safety valve because LaDainian Tomlinson stayed in to block.
As it turned out, Tomlinson probably didn't have to stay in to block because the Broncos
rushed only four, with a fifth coming on a delayed blitz. That left six blocking five.
With four receivers downfield, and no check-down options, Mark Sanchez had no choice but
to heave it. There was no escape route. If he had tried to run, he would've been dropped
immediately. It was nice of Rex Ryan to praise Sanchez for having the presence of mind to
throw it deep, but, really, what else was there to do?
The officials made the right call -- it was pass interference -- an utterly dumb play by
Hill. If the pass had fallen incomplete, fans would be complaining about Brian
Schottenheimer's play call in that situation. The Jets should've had a receiver in the
short to intermediate range -- a "sticks" option -- but they took the all-or-nothing
approach. Afterward, Sanchez said it best: "We stole a win."
Other thoughts and observations after breaking down the tape:
HAVING A BLAST: On Tomlinson's game-winning TD run, moments after the pass interference,
he received nice blocks from FB Tony Richardson and LG Matt Slauson. It was the Jets'
"Blast" running play, their bread-and-butter in short yardage. Slauson blew open a huge
hole, a nice way to end a play that almost started with disaster. He got his feet tangled
with Sanchez, who stumbled as he pulled away from center. Some Denver defenders appeared
to let Tomlinson score on purpose, but coach Josh McDaniels said that wasn't the case.
Just soft defense, I suppose.
STRETCH MARKS: On Tomlinson's 20-yard TD, the key blocks were thrown by rookie FB John
Conner and LT D'Brickashaw Ferguson. This was a vintage "stretch" play to the left.
Conner, in an off-set I, took out Mr. Interference, Hill. (Not a wonderful couple of plays
there for Hill.) Ferguson got to the second level and did a nice job of walling off LB
Mario Haggan. Ferguson, in case you haven't noticed, has been outstanding over the last
four games.
NOT USING YOUR HEAD: That was a terrible personal-foul call on S Jim Leonhard, who was
flagged for a helmet-to-helmet hit on WR Brandon Lloyd. He led with his right shoulder,
not his head. His helmet may have grazed Lloyd's helmet in an incidental manner, but it's
clear that Leonhard's shoulder delivered the brunt of the hit. As everybody knows, the
league is cracking down on shots to the head. Leonhard said he would appeal a fine.
PACKING A WALLOP: CB Darrelle Revis didn't look like a guy with a cranky hamstring when he
blew up WR Eddie Royal in the third quarter, exploding into Royal to break up a short
pass. Fans have been getting on Revis for his performance -- he allowed four completions
for 66 yards, including a TD -- but he really didn't play that badly. With an extra week
to rest during the bye, he should, in theory, be 100% for the Green Bay Packers.
OOPS: By the way, the touchdown he allowed -- 17 yards to Demaryius Thomas -- should've
been challenged by the Jets. He bobbled and didn't get both feet down.
TWIN PICKS: Sanchez' two interceptions had a common denominator: He didn't see the
underneath coverage.
Pick No. 1 -- Sanchez followed Cotchery on an in-cut, seeing CB Champ Bailey on Cotchery
the whole way. Sanchez thought it was man-to-man coverage, but it was a combination
coverage. LB Jason Hunter was sitting in a "hook" zone and made the interception.
Pick No. 2 -- Sanchez was looking for Keller, who was covered by CB Nate Jones. It seemed
to be man-to-man, as Jones was running with Keller, but it actually was a bracket
coverage. Jones fell off, passing him off to CB Syd'Quan Thompson, who was in a zone.
Interception. Sanchez seems to have a blind spot when it comes to those kind of passes.
CAUGHT SLEEPING: On the Broncos' surprise onsides kick, the Jets got caught cheating, big
time. At first glance, it looks like Kenwin Cummings was the guy who bailed out too soon,
but it was actually Brodney Pool. He had retreated 12 yards by the time the ball was
kicked.
WHERE'S VERNON?: After showing some early promise, DE/OLB Vernon Gholston has all but
disappeared -- again. He barely got on the field in Denver. Recently-signed Trevor Pryce
has taken over Gholston's spot in the D-line rotation and, now that Calvin Pace is
healthy, Gholston really isn't needed at outside linebacker.
NO DEALS: As expected, the Jets didn't make any trades before Tuesday's trading deadline.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 3:34 pm
From: Keith Keller
Disclaimer: I haven't watched the play either.
On 2010-10-19, buRford <buRford@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> Cimini's always covering Schott's derriere, & has never said a bad word about him, so this
> is kind of interesting coming from him.
> I haven't watched the game again... I thought someone had posted that the original
> playcall, was a short pass to the first down marker, or something similar. Cimini's an
> ass, but even so, if what he's saying is true, my great esteem for Schott has really taken
> a hit. Someone who recorded the game... please tell me Cimini is wrong!
>
>
> Tuesday, October 19, 2010
> Jets win on ill-conceived play
> By Rich Cimini
[snip]
> On a fourth-and-6 from the Denver Broncos' 48, the Jets sent four receivers on vertical
> routes -- Holmes on the backside, with Braylon Edwards, Jerricho Cotchery and Dustin
> Keller in "trips" to the right. After studying the replay, a revelation: There was no
> safety valve because LaDainian Tomlinson stayed in to block.
>
> As it turned out, Tomlinson probably didn't have to stay in to block because the Broncos
> rushed only four, with a fifth coming on a delayed blitz. That left six blocking five.
> With four receivers downfield, and no check-down options, Mark Sanchez had no choice but
> to heave it.
Cimini is complaining about the play call, but how was he supposed to
know how many men Denver would rush? If you'd fault the play call for
anything, it'd be that either a) Sanchez didn't have an audible option
to send Tomlinson out, or b) Sanchez had an audible option but wasn't
able to read the defense to guess how many they would rush.
But it's also fourth and six--if Sanchez uses a check-down option, and
it comes up short, it's just as useless as no check-down. Also, if a
lineman is beat, Tomlinson is available to pick him up and give Sanchez
more time. So I really don't have any problem with LT staying back to
block.
If Cimini's description of the play is accurate, then I might have a
problem with sending all four receivers deep. At least one of them
could try a medium route, say 8-10 yards.
It's hard to tell from nfl.com's highlights, but one thing you can see
is that the defensive player who almost got to Sanchez right before he
threw the ball was being blocked by Tomlinson. (He may have been ready
to release for a check-down option if he hadn't run into the defensive
lineman right away; perhaps LT decided it was too dangerous to release
with both offensive linemen on either side of him occupied.)
--keith
--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 4:34 pm
From: Tutor
On Oct 19, 6:07 pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> Cimini's always covering Schott's derriere, & has never said a bad word about him, so this
> is kind of interesting coming from him.
> I haven't watched the game again... I thought someone had posted that the original
> playcall, was a short pass to the first down marker, or something similar. Cimini's an
> ass, but even so, if what he's saying is true, my great esteem for Schott has really taken
> a hit. Someone who recorded the game... please tell me Cimini is wrong!
>
> Tuesday, October 19, 2010
> Jets win on ill-conceived play
> By Rich Cimini
>
> If you're a New York Jets fan, it's a case of, "All's well that ends well." But take a
> closer look at the Mile High Miracle --Renaldo Hill's 46-yard pass-interference penalty on
> Santonio Holmes -- and you will see it wasn't a well-designed play by the Jets.
>
> On a fourth-and-6 from the Denver Broncos' 48, the Jets sent four receivers on vertical
> routes -- Holmes on the backside, with Braylon Edwards, Jerricho Cotchery and Dustin
> Keller in "trips" to the right. After studying the replay, a revelation: There was no
> safety valve because LaDainian Tomlinson stayed in to block.
>
> As it turned out, Tomlinson probably didn't have to stay in to block because the Broncos
> rushed only four, with a fifth coming on a delayed blitz. That left six blocking five.
> With four receivers downfield, and no check-down options, Mark Sanchez had no choice but
> to heave it. There was no escape route. If he had tried to run, he would've been dropped
> immediately. It was nice of Rex Ryan to praise Sanchez for having the presence of mind to
> throw it deep, but, really, what else was there to do?
>
> The officials made the right call -- it was pass interference -- an utterly dumb play by
> Hill. If the pass had fallen incomplete, fans would be complaining about Brian
> Schottenheimer's play call in that situation. The Jets should've had a receiver in the
> short to intermediate range -- a "sticks" option -- but they took the all-or-nothing
> approach. Afterward, Sanchez said it best: "We stole a win."
>
> Other thoughts and observations after breaking down the tape:
>
> HAVING A BLAST: On Tomlinson's game-winning TD run, moments after the pass interference,
> he received nice blocks from FB Tony Richardson and LG Matt Slauson. It was the Jets'
> "Blast" running play, their bread-and-butter in short yardage. Slauson blew open a huge
> hole, a nice way to end a play that almost started with disaster. He got his feet tangled
> with Sanchez, who stumbled as he pulled away from center. Some Denver defenders appeared
> to let Tomlinson score on purpose, but coach Josh McDaniels said that wasn't the case.
> Just soft defense, I suppose.
>
> STRETCH MARKS: On Tomlinson's 20-yard TD, the key blocks were thrown by rookie FB John
> Conner and LT D'Brickashaw Ferguson. This was a vintage "stretch" play to the left.
> Conner, in an off-set I, took out Mr. Interference, Hill. (Not a wonderful couple of plays
> there for Hill.) Ferguson got to the second level and did a nice job of walling off LB
> Mario Haggan. Ferguson, in case you haven't noticed, has been outstanding over the last
> four games.
>
> NOT USING YOUR HEAD: That was a terrible personal-foul call on S Jim Leonhard, who was
> flagged for a helmet-to-helmet hit on WR Brandon Lloyd. He led with his right shoulder,
> not his head. His helmet may have grazed Lloyd's helmet in an incidental manner, but it's
> clear that Leonhard's shoulder delivered the brunt of the hit. As everybody knows, the
> league is cracking down on shots to the head. Leonhard said he would appeal a fine.
>
> PACKING A WALLOP: CB Darrelle Revis didn't look like a guy with a cranky hamstring when he
> blew up WR Eddie Royal in the third quarter, exploding into Royal to break up a short
> pass. Fans have been getting on Revis for his performance -- he allowed four completions
> for 66 yards, including a TD -- but he really didn't play that badly. With an extra week
> to rest during the bye, he should, in theory, be 100% for the Green Bay Packers.
>
> OOPS: By the way, the touchdown he allowed -- 17 yards to Demaryius Thomas -- should've
> been challenged by the Jets. He bobbled and didn't get both feet down.
>
> TWIN PICKS: Sanchez' two interceptions had a common denominator: He didn't see the
> underneath coverage.
>
> Pick No. 1 -- Sanchez followed Cotchery on an in-cut, seeing CB Champ Bailey on Cotchery
> the whole way. Sanchez thought it was man-to-man coverage, but it was a combination
> coverage. LB Jason Hunter was sitting in a "hook" zone and made the interception.
>
> Pick No. 2 -- Sanchez was looking for Keller, who was covered by CB Nate Jones. It seemed
> to be man-to-man, as Jones was running with Keller, but it actually was a bracket
> coverage. Jones fell off, passing him off to CB Syd'Quan Thompson, who was in a zone.
> Interception. Sanchez seems to have a blind spot when it comes to those kind of passes.
>
> CAUGHT SLEEPING: On the Broncos' surprise onsides kick, the Jets got caught cheating, big
> time. At first glance, it looks like Kenwin Cummings was the guy who bailed out too soon,
> but it was actually Brodney Pool. He had retreated 12 yards by the time the ball was
> kicked.
>
> WHERE'S VERNON?: After showing some early promise, DE/OLB Vernon Gholston has all but
> disappeared -- again. He barely got on the field in Denver. Recently-signed Trevor Pryce
> has taken over Gholston's spot in the D-line rotation and, now that Calvin Pace is
> healthy, Gholston really isn't needed at outside linebacker.
>
> NO DEALS: As expected, the Jets didn't make any trades before Tuesday's trading deadline.
In the presser, Rex explicitly said it was supposed to be a "to the
sticks" play, which means that there weren't supposed to have everyone
deep. Either Rex is covering Schott's ass or Cimini has it wrong or a
player or two ran the wrong route. Of course there was supposed to be
a safety valve at or a bot beyong the 1st down marker. Cimini is an
idiot.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 4:55 pm
From: "papa.carl44"
"Tutor" <dcat4434@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54424e71-09a7-4233-b201-d69f39e28ef1@w19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 19, 6:07 pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> Cimini's always covering Schott's derriere, & has never said a bad word
> about him, so this
> is kind of interesting coming from him.
> I haven't watched the game again... I thought someone had posted that the
> original
> playcall, was a short pass to the first down marker, or something similar.
> Cimini's an
> ass, but even so, if what he's saying is true, my great esteem for Schott
> has really taken
> a hit. Someone who recorded the game... please tell me Cimini is wrong!
>
> Tuesday, October 19, 2010
> Jets win on ill-conceived play
> By Rich Cimini
>
> If you're a New York Jets fan, it's a case of, "All's well that ends
> well." But take a
> closer look at the Mile High Miracle --Renaldo Hill's 46-yard
> pass-interference penalty on
> Santonio Holmes -- and you will see it wasn't a well-designed play by the
> Jets.
>
> On a fourth-and-6 from the Denver Broncos' 48, the Jets sent four
> receivers on vertical
> routes -- Holmes on the backside, with Braylon Edwards, Jerricho Cotchery
> and Dustin
> Keller in "trips" to the right. After studying the replay, a revelation:
> There was no
> safety valve because LaDainian Tomlinson stayed in to block.
>
> As it turned out, Tomlinson probably didn't have to stay in to block
> because the Broncos
> rushed only four, with a fifth coming on a delayed blitz. That left six
> blocking five.
> With four receivers downfield, and no check-down options, Mark Sanchez had
> no choice but
> to heave it. There was no escape route. If he had tried to run, he
> would've been dropped
> immediately. It was nice of Rex Ryan to praise Sanchez for having the
> presence of mind to
> throw it deep, but, really, what else was there to do?
>
> The officials made the right call -- it was pass interference -- an
> utterly dumb play by
> Hill. If the pass had fallen incomplete, fans would be complaining about
> Brian
> Schottenheimer's play call in that situation. The Jets should've had a
> receiver in the
> short to intermediate range -- a "sticks" option -- but they took the
> all-or-nothing
> approach. Afterward, Sanchez said it best: "We stole a win."
>
> Other thoughts and observations after breaking down the tape:
>
> HAVING A BLAST: On Tomlinson's game-winning TD run, moments after the pass
> interference,
> he received nice blocks from FB Tony Richardson and LG Matt Slauson. It
> was the Jets'
> "Blast" running play, their bread-and-butter in short yardage. Slauson
> blew open a huge
> hole, a nice way to end a play that almost started with disaster. He got
> his feet tangled
> with Sanchez, who stumbled as he pulled away from center. Some Denver
> defenders appeared
> to let Tomlinson score on purpose, but coach Josh McDaniels said that
> wasn't the case.
> Just soft defense, I suppose.
>
> STRETCH MARKS: On Tomlinson's 20-yard TD, the key blocks were thrown by
> rookie FB John
> Conner and LT D'Brickashaw Ferguson. This was a vintage "stretch" play to
> the left.
> Conner, in an off-set I, took out Mr. Interference, Hill. (Not a wonderful
> couple of plays
> there for Hill.) Ferguson got to the second level and did a nice job of
> walling off LB
> Mario Haggan. Ferguson, in case you haven't noticed, has been outstanding
> over the last
> four games.
>
> NOT USING YOUR HEAD: That was a terrible personal-foul call on S Jim
> Leonhard, who was
> flagged for a helmet-to-helmet hit on WR Brandon Lloyd. He led with his
> right shoulder,
> not his head. His helmet may have grazed Lloyd's helmet in an incidental
> manner, but it's
> clear that Leonhard's shoulder delivered the brunt of the hit. As
> everybody knows, the
> league is cracking down on shots to the head. Leonhard said he would
> appeal a fine.
>
> PACKING A WALLOP: CB Darrelle Revis didn't look like a guy with a cranky
> hamstring when he
> blew up WR Eddie Royal in the third quarter, exploding into Royal to break
> up a short
> pass. Fans have been getting on Revis for his performance -- he allowed
> four completions
> for 66 yards, including a TD -- but he really didn't play that badly. With
> an extra week
> to rest during the bye, he should, in theory, be 100% for the Green Bay
> Packers.
>
> OOPS: By the way, the touchdown he allowed -- 17 yards to Demaryius
> Thomas -- should've
> been challenged by the Jets. He bobbled and didn't get both feet down.
>
> TWIN PICKS: Sanchez' two interceptions had a common denominator: He didn't
> see the
> underneath coverage.
>
> Pick No. 1 -- Sanchez followed Cotchery on an in-cut, seeing CB Champ
> Bailey on Cotchery
> the whole way. Sanchez thought it was man-to-man coverage, but it was a
> combination
> coverage. LB Jason Hunter was sitting in a "hook" zone and made the
> interception.
>
> Pick No. 2 -- Sanchez was looking for Keller, who was covered by CB Nate
> Jones. It seemed
> to be man-to-man, as Jones was running with Keller, but it actually was a
> bracket
> coverage. Jones fell off, passing him off to CB Syd'Quan Thompson, who was
> in a zone.
> Interception. Sanchez seems to have a blind spot when it comes to those
> kind of passes.
>
> CAUGHT SLEEPING: On the Broncos' surprise onsides kick, the Jets got
> caught cheating, big
> time. At first glance, it looks like Kenwin Cummings was the guy who
> bailed out too soon,
> but it was actually Brodney Pool. He had retreated 12 yards by the time
> the ball was
> kicked.
>
> WHERE'S VERNON?: After showing some early promise, DE/OLB Vernon Gholston
> has all but
> disappeared -- again. He barely got on the field in Denver.
> Recently-signed Trevor Pryce
> has taken over Gholston's spot in the D-line rotation and, now that Calvin
> Pace is
> healthy, Gholston really isn't needed at outside linebacker.
>
> NO DEALS: As expected, the Jets didn't make any trades before Tuesday's
> trading deadline.
In the presser, Rex explicitly said it was supposed to be a "to the
sticks" play, which means that there weren't supposed to have everyone
deep. Either Rex is covering Schott's ass or Cimini has it wrong or a
player or two ran the wrong route. Of course there was supposed to be
a safety valve at or a bot beyong the 1st down marker. Cimini is an
idiot.
Cimini will still be a buffoon...but there was a receiver just shallow of
the PI call that should not have been in the same area. I think it looks
sometimes like there are too many people in the same place at times...OMHO.
I'd like to see it over again.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What If We Go To The Super Bowl In Dallas And Sanchez Gets Homesick????
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/373c06f700c90507?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 19 2010 4:35 pm
From: Tutor
On Oct 19, 8:55 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu" <foster...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > He'd be mere minutes from Mexico!
>
> > He could easily slip across the border!!!!
>
> > We need better border enforcement to stop Sanchez from visiting his
> > Poppy !!!!
>
> > mr dude
>
> We have hit the big time when I see your posts regularly.
at leas he is creative. I like Mr. Dude. You can have the drummer
dreg. What a colossal bore.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Posts
