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:
* I just found two *IDENTICAL* snowflakes!!!! - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/176544b865c60654?hl=en
* Bullshit call - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/077f35d7f3ca3aa1?hl=en
* Perspective: This is Jags JV - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/cbb80b4175d8df8d?hl=en
* OT: The Ravens suck - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/abdd8d59d07c40ad?hl=en
* Sacks: the fault of the OL or QB? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/5bb8c30243b5725e?hl=en
* I really hate this offense... - 6 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/e85f65bbb211f58b?hl=en
* Heinz Ward ...meet Jarret Johnson - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/542778e0569890c0?hl=en
* IOW Burf: The Jets Offense Isn't Good - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/93ebdbcb5de15d6c?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I just found two *IDENTICAL* snowflakes!!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/176544b865c60654?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 12:15 pm
From: oldnasty@mindspring.com
On Sunday, September 18, 2011 1:10:03 PM UTC-4, Percy Flage wrote:
> ;)
>
> --
> Percy Flage
> "Life is too short to have to explain everyday."
Sanchez and Clemens? :-)
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 3:38 pm
From: buRford
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 18:10:03 +0100, Percy Flage <percy.flage_REM@OVE_ianwhitephoto.co.uk>
wrote:
>;)
I knew when I mentioned the snowflakes, and our 0-16, that we'd score on our first drive
;)
Nice that we won.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 3:51 pm
From: Tutor
On Sep 18, 6:38 pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 18:10:03 +0100, Percy Flage <percy.flage_REM@OVE_ianwhitephoto.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >;)
>
> I knew when I mentioned the snowflakes, and our 0-16, that we'd score on our first drive
> ;)
> Nice that we won.
And Rex got a derisive cheer from many at the stadium when he did the
right thing for a change and elected to get the ball when we won the
coin toss. So sick of deferring. Hate that sheet. Hurts the offense.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 4:22 pm
From: buRford
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 15:51:00 -0700 (PDT), Tutor <dcat4434@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 18, 6:38�pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 18:10:03 +0100, Percy Flage <percy.flage_REM@OVE_ianwhitephoto.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >;)
>>
>> I knew when I mentioned the snowflakes, and our 0-16, that we'd score on our first drive
>> ;)
>> Nice that we won.
>
>And Rex got a derisive cheer from many at the stadium when he did the
>right thing for a change and elected to get the ball when we won the
>coin toss. So sick of deferring. Hate that sheet. Hurts the offense.
My problem with it, is that if he does it all the time, the opponents are prepared for it.
By not deferring today, Rex probably caught the Jags off-guard.
He should do it in some games, and let the O start in others... to really gain any
advantage, if there really is any.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bullshit call
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/077f35d7f3ca3aa1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 12:13 pm
From: MuahMan
On Sep 18, 3:05 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sanchez was still in field of play.
> if that play was a Jest pushing a Jag or called if it was Tom Brady you'd
> all be screaming bloody murder.
Most of the Jets yards have been via penalty. Sanchez is terrible,
even his completions are miracle catches that should be intercepted.
The Jets running game actually looks worse than the Patriots running
game.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 12:33 pm
From: JetsLife
On Sep 18, 3:05 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sanchez was still in field of play.
> if that play was a Jest pushing a Jag or called if it was Tom Brady you'd
> all be screaming bloody murder.
Couldn't agree more. It sickens me the way they over-protect QBs.
As for the Pats, we're gonna eat you for breakfast. We got your number
now.
Bring on the Raiders I am officially flying west for it so long as one
of my dimes is still down with it.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 3:47 pm
From: Tutor
On Sep 18, 3:13 pm, MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 3:05 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sanchez was still in field of play.
> > if that play was a Jest pushing a Jag or called if it was Tom Brady you'd
> > all be screaming bloody murder.
>
> Most of the Jets yards have been via penalty. Sanchez is terrible,
> even his completions are miracle catches that should be intercepted.
> The Jets running game actually looks worse than the Patriots running
> game.
waaaaaaahhh! haha
You have turnbed into a total cry baby. Pussified with age... Brian
you so funny.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 3:53 pm
From: Tutor
On Sep 18, 3:05 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sanchez was still in field of play.
> if that play was a Jest pushing a Jag or called if it was Tom Brady you'd
> all be screaming bloody murder.
wow. Pats fans should not be commenting on gift calls, after all you
guys get every freaking call your way almost to the point of Steeler
horseshit. Know when to hold your tongue. Refs favor Patriots
practically 24/7.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 3:55 pm
From: Tutor
On Sep 18, 3:05 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sanchez was still in field of play.
> if that play was a Jest pushing a Jag or called if it was Tom Brady you'd
> all be screaming bloody murder.
And as I speak with 7 minutes left, McCourty clearly interferes..
blatantly and of course no call. So really. Shhhhh.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 4:15 pm
From: "WaterBoy"
"Ray O'Hara" <raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j55fde$qp1$1@dont-email.me...
> Sanchez was still in field of play.
> if that play was a Jest pushing a Jag or called if it was Tom Brady you'd
> all be screaming bloody murder.
>
Are you kidding me? If you so much as look at Brady the wrong way there is a
flag thrown. I don't know which team is worse with gift calls, Squeelers or
Patsies???
WaterBoy
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Perspective: This is Jags JV
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/cbb80b4175d8df8d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 12:35 pm
From: JetsLife
That's not a Jags team of yore. I don't want to discount the result
but this is a JV Jags team.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 12:37 pm
From: MuahMan
On Sep 18, 3:35 pm, JetsLife <JetsL...@aol.com> wrote:
> That's not a Jags team of yore. I don't want to discount the result
> but this is a JV Jags team.
I hope the Jags are on the Patriots schedule. I'm quite sure the
Patriots may score 90 points on this team.
The Jags QB may actually be worse than Sanchez.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: The Ravens suck
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/abdd8d59d07c40ad?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 1:34 pm
From: MacUser
Ha Ha Ha!
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 3:08 pm
From: Percy Flage
On Sep 18, 9:34 pm, MacUser <nospam1...@invalid.com> wrote:
> Ha Ha Ha!
Where the hell is that dickhead ravensfan when you need him? ;)
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 3:51 pm
From: MacUser
On 9/18/11 3:08 PM, Percy Flage wrote:
> On Sep 18, 9:34 pm, MacUser<nospam1...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Ha Ha Ha!
>
> Where the hell is that dickhead ravensfan when you need him? ;)
Agreed..Ravensfan is a pain in the neck and I hope he finally leaves us
Jets fans alone! -- Go Jets !
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sacks: the fault of the OL or QB?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/5bb8c30243b5725e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 1:49 pm
From: "Papa Carl"
<oldnasty@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3463027.535.1316373085757.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqih9...
On Sunday, September 18, 2011 11:50:47 AM UTC-4, Harlan Lachman wrote:
> In article <nqmb771pk4720lbhd...@4ax.com>,
> buRford <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:07:04 -0700 (PDT), oldn...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > >This article says the QB holding the ball over three seconds determines
> > >the
> > >difference.
> > >
> > >~~
> > >... The median sack time has hovered between 2.7 and 2.8 seconds
> > >throughout
> > >the two years of the tracking...
> > >
> > >Roethlisberger, Michael Vick, Colt McCoy and Joe Flacco join Cutler in
> > >picking up plenty of sacks that really shouldn't be blamed on the
> > >offensive
> > >line...
> > >
> > >Over the past offseason we logged the time of pass for all Steelers
> > >pass
> > >attempts in 2010. Since Roethlisberger is considered to be prime
> > >example of
> > >a quarterback who creates big plays by holding the ball and escaping
> > >sacks,
> > >his statistics are useful.
> > >
> > >In Roethlisberger's case, his sack percentage (the percentage of pass
> > >plays
> > >that results in sacks) doubled when he held the ball for longer than
> > >three
> > >seconds -- seven percent for passes of 2.1 to 3.0 seconds, 14 percent
> > >for
> > >passes that took between 3.1 and 4.0 seconds.
> > >
> > >Interestingly, his quarterback rating, yards per attempt and first down
> > >percentage all dipped when he held the ball for more than three
> > >seconds, so
> > >it's difficult to say that holding the ball longer really pays off for
> > >Roethlisberger.
> > >
> > >On the other end of the spectrum, when the Colts lost Peyton Manning to
> > >a
> > >neck injury, they not only lost one of the best quarterbacks in the
> > >league,
> > >but they also lost a quarterback who could make their offensive line's
> > >potential weaknesses seem to disappear.
> > >
> > >Over the past two years, Manning has been sacked only 26 times. When
> > >you
> > >look at sacks that are created by a quarterback holding the ball too
> > >long,
> > >however, Manning is even more exceptional. No other quarterback can top
> > >Manning's four sacks of three-plus seconds in 1,250 pass attempts (0.32
> > >percent of attempts).
> > >
> > >[Table for all QBs for 2009 and 2010 -- Sanchez is near the exact
> > >middle of
> > >them all]
> > >
> > >LONGEST SACK OF THE WEEK
> > >
> > >There were four sacks which took six seconds or longer ...
> > >
> > >Tony Romo's 6.0-second sack is the one that may be most remembered: it
> > >came
> > >on the play where he attempted to dive for the end zone from the Jets
> > >3-yard
> > >line. He lost the ball before he landed, didn't make it to the end zone
> > >and
> > >gave the Jets a second chance...
> > >
> > >http://footballoutsiders.com/under-pressure/2011/under-pressure
> > >~~~~~
> > >
> > >"One potato, two potato, three potato, **throw the damn ball, Tony!**",
> > >...
> > >starting week #2. :-)
> >
> >
> > More stats that mean nothing.
> > Every drive, every set of downs, every play... is like a snowflake ;)
> >
> > Each is a unique set of circumstances.
> > Last Sunday, in a certain situation, "A" happened.
> > Today, in the exact same situation, there will be different factors at
> > play.
> >
> > In the 1st quarter today, it's possible the Jets could score a TD, even
> > with
> > Schott
> > designing the script, & calling the plays. Statistically, based on 16
> > straight games,
> > that would be impossible.
> > But because of the snowflake factor, we'll all be watchin' & hopin' for
> > a
> > different
> > outcome.
> >
> > Sacks are sometimes the fault of the QB... sometimes the fault of OL...
> > sometimes both...
> > sometimes because the D-coach, just happened to luck out & call the
> > right
> > alignment...
> > sometimes because a WR slipped... sometimes, sometimes, sometimes...
>
> Great post. While stats can be a guide for looking at snowflake
> tendencies, until proven otherwise (and probably even it is), snowflakes
> are just different.
>
> harlan
So you guys really believe that QBs who hang around and are slow to get rid
of the ball *don't* get sacked more often? Really??
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
NO...never said that. However, you can not measure any of this based on
that simple statistic. You could have 25 plays where the ball is released
well under three seconds. Perhaps they could be quick outs to a wide
receiver, or a split screen or pop screen, the ball goes out quickly and the
result is a two yard gain or even no gain to a loss. It will still "pad"
the statistic in favor of a completion, no sack alligned with a quick
release. Now, the next thing that needs to be observed is exactly where the
pressure comes from, under blitzes, what was the breakdown in protection and
exactly how quickly did the pressure occur...THAT fact can influence how
long the QB holds the ball and has NOTHING to do with the QB's abilities.
If immediate pressure presents on a play that was supposed to be a quick
throw or a three step drop, and doing anything other than aborting the play
and scrambling would result in an interception or some other unwanted
action...then you can not measure that without creating a separate category
for it. On top of that there is an even more important factor and that is
how quick is the QB's release. He may need to hold the ball for two seconds
to allow a GOOD play to develop, but then when it does his release is quick
and accurate...that factor is way more important than the total time he held
the ball. There are 22 players on the field at any given time...so to not
take into account what is happening and create a meaningful stat without
knowing WHAT was going on in that situation makes no sense. Now...if you
want to break it all down to all the possible situations that could occur
post snap...go ahead, it may mean something then.PC
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
And during all these years I'd heard so often that quick releases -- from
Namath's to Marino's to Peyton's -- were great assets to a QB, for all the
sacks it let them avoid. Go figure.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
I've always looked at quick RELEASE as how the ball is delivered once the
target is selected...not how long they held on to the ball...the QB may have
had to scramble, move around but when the receiver broke open the release is
QUICK...and delivered at the right time.PC
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Another word for "stat" is "fact".
The fact that QBs who hold on to the ball longest get sacked the most
doesn't indicate that QBs who hold on to the ball longest get sacked the
most because of it, because all butterflies are different. I guess meaning
QBs are butterflies.
By the same logic I'd take it that the fact that drunk drivers crash their
cars the most doesn't indicate that being a drunk driver increases the risk
of crashing a car, because all drunks are butterflies. Each drunk is
different.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bad analogy....try this model to look at this...Driver is a "host"...alcohol
is a "substance"...and H + S = measurable and predictable result. So drunk
driver's are impaired and it can be measured. To make the analogy fit you'd
have to start rating QB's who all have the same shoulder injury that makes
then slower. Look, the facts are some of the greatest plays in football
have been when a QB can elude the attack and use his skills and a "quick
release" to deliver a ball to the intended target...it may happen when he is
scrambling and when he has held the ball way too long. To create any
statistic you can not simply look at the QB...you must create a level and
type of QB, type of play and then level of the O line also. Everybody knows
that if you hold the ball too long something bad will happen..but to try and
place the blame simply on the QB doesn't work when there are significant
outliers to that premise. Still....I'd love the QB to get rid of the
ball...and in the game today it becomes even more important because of the
rules and the speed of the game.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 3:50 pm
From: buRford
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 12:11:25 -0700 (PDT), oldnasty@mindspring.com wrote:
>On Sunday, September 18, 2011 11:50:47 AM UTC-4, Harlan Lachman wrote:
>> In article <nqmb771pk4720lbhd...@4ax.com>,
>> buRford <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:07:04 -0700 (PDT), oldn...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> >
>> > >This article says the QB holding the ball over three seconds determines the
>> > >difference.
>> > >
>> > >~~
>> > >... The median sack time has hovered between 2.7 and 2.8 seconds throughout
>> > >the two years of the tracking...
>> > >
>> > >Roethlisberger, Michael Vick, Colt McCoy and Joe Flacco join Cutler in
>> > >picking up plenty of sacks that really shouldn't be blamed on the offensive
>> > >line...
>> > >
>> > >Over the past offseason we logged the time of pass for all Steelers pass
>> > >attempts in 2010. Since Roethlisberger is considered to be prime example of
>> > >a quarterback who creates big plays by holding the ball and escaping sacks,
>> > >his statistics are useful.
>> > >
>> > >In Roethlisberger�s case, his sack percentage (the percentage of pass plays
>> > >that results in sacks) doubled when he held the ball for longer than three
>> > >seconds -- seven percent for passes of 2.1 to 3.0 seconds, 14 percent for
>> > >passes that took between 3.1 and 4.0 seconds.
>> > >
>> > >Interestingly, his quarterback rating, yards per attempt and first down
>> > >percentage all dipped when he held the ball for more than three seconds, so
>> > >it�s difficult to say that holding the ball longer really pays off for
>> > >Roethlisberger.
>> > >
>> > >On the other end of the spectrum, when the Colts lost Peyton Manning to a
>> > >neck injury, they not only lost one of the best quarterbacks in the league,
>> > >but they also lost a quarterback who could make their offensive line's
>> > >potential weaknesses seem to disappear.
>> > >
>> > >Over the past two years, Manning has been sacked only 26 times. When you
>> > >look at sacks that are created by a quarterback holding the ball too long,
>> > >however, Manning is even more exceptional. No other quarterback can top
>> > >Manning�s four sacks of three-plus seconds in 1,250 pass attempts (0.32
>> > >percent of attempts).
>> > >
>> > >[Table for all QBs for 2009 and 2010 -- Sanchez is near the exact middle of
>> > >them all]
>> > >
>> > >LONGEST SACK OF THE WEEK
>> > >
>> > >There were four sacks which took six seconds or longer ...
>> > >
>> > >Tony Romo's 6.0-second sack is the one that may be most remembered: it came
>> > >on the play where he attempted to dive for the end zone from the Jets 3-yard
>> > >line. He lost the ball before he landed, didn't make it to the end zone and
>> > >gave the Jets a second chance...
>> > >
>> > >http://footballoutsiders.com/under-pressure/2011/under-pressure
>> > >~~~~~
>> > >
>> > >"One potato, two potato, three potato, **throw the damn ball, Tony!**", ...
>> > >starting week #2. :-)
>> >
>> >
>> > More stats that mean nothing.
>> > Every drive, every set of downs, every play... is like a snowflake ;)
>> >
>> > Each is a unique set of circumstances.
>> > Last Sunday, in a certain situation, "A" happened.
>> > Today, in the exact same situation, there will be different factors at play.
>> >
>> > In the 1st quarter today, it's possible the Jets could score a TD, even with
>> > Schott
>> > designing the script, & calling the plays. Statistically, based on 16
>> > straight games,
>> > that would be impossible.
>> > But because of the snowflake factor, we'll all be watchin' & hopin' for a
>> > different
>> > outcome.
>> >
>> > Sacks are sometimes the fault of the QB... sometimes the fault of OL...
>> > sometimes both...
>> > sometimes because the D-coach, just happened to luck out & call the right
>> > alignment...
>> > sometimes because a WR slipped... sometimes, sometimes, sometimes...
>>
>> Great post. While stats can be a guide for looking at snowflake
>> tendencies, until proven otherwise (and probably even it is), snowflakes
>> are just different.
>>
>> harlan
>
>So you guys really believe that QBs who hang around and are slow to get rid of the ball *don't* get sacked more often? Really??
Did you see anyone say that?
And stats have nothing to do with that... it's just obvious, just as a running back that's
slow to a hole, will be stopped.
>
>And during all these years I'd heard so often that quick releases -- from Namath's to Marino's to Peyton's -- were great assets to a QB, for all the sacks it let them avoid. Go figure.
I've never thought much about sacks, as related to quick release. To me, it's always been
about coverage, and being able to hit a player as soon as he is open.
>
>Another word for "stat" is "fact".
In your mind.
To me, a stat is a statistic... an isolated number, which doesn't take into account many
factors instrumental in producing an outcome.
>
>The fact that QBs who hold on to the ball longest get sacked the most doesn't indicate that QBs who hold on to the ball longest get sacked the most because of it, because all butterflies are different. I guess meaning QBs are butterflies.
>
>By the same logic I'd take it that the fact that drunk drivers crash their cars the most doesn't indicate that being a drunk driver increases the risk of crashing a car, because all drunks are butterflies. Each drunk is different.
>
Again, you don't need a stat to tell you that if you dull your senses, it will have an
effect on your relexes & judgment.
Of course, if you like stats... I've had two car accidents in my life.
Both times I was totally sober.
The times I've driven stoned, or drunk, I've arrived at my destinations safely.
Thus, if I drive drunk, statistically speaking, I have a better chance of getting where I
want to go safely.
I prefer to go against the stats, & drive sober... go figure.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I really hate this offense...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/e85f65bbb211f58b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 1:55 pm
From: "Papa Carl"
"buRford" <buRford@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
news:ecdc77pusvtkbci892i4gkdk986ama3p6d@4ax.com...
> It's so frustrating... there's no point to it.
> It's just like whatever play he wants to run, he runs, no matter the
> situation.
>
> Shonn Greene runs for 10 yards on 1st down, so next play he has LT run,
> for a 3-yd loss.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
I've gone to more coaching clinics than I can possibly remember..and one
thing I do remember hearing from so many of them was.."Make them stop
you...do it untill they stop it !" Why can't they do that?????? Why when
something has great success does it get put away...I would imagine the OC or
whoever does call the plays is thinking they will "save" it for a tough
time...but that only gives the opponent time to analyze it and figure out
what happened...RUN THE DAMN THING WHILE IT IS WORKING.
________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Funny about Sanchez... he's thrown 2 bad INTs, but he looks so much more
> mature out there,
> & in-control of things. Hunter's really having trouble. And Sanchez just
> aint getting
> much time to throw. Of course, Mangold's injury doesn't help.
> They really have to do more play-action... and more rushing Shonn.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
And do something with this O line...if Mangold is out...they are
screwed...saw a lot of good things, but the O line sacres me a lot...and
Sanchez will not develop the right way if he is getting hit this much and
this hard.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 1:58 pm
From: "Papa Carl"
"WaterBoy" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:KdmdnQZM6cb4ouvTnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "buRford" <buRford@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
> news:ecdc77pusvtkbci892i4gkdk986ama3p6d@4ax.com...
>> It's so frustrating... there's no point to it.
>> It's just like whatever play he wants to run, he runs, no matter the
>> situation.
>>
>> Shonn Greene runs for 10 yards on 1st down, so next play he has LT run,
>> for a 3-yd loss.
>>
>> Funny about Sanchez... he's thrown 2 bad INTs, but he looks so much more
>> mature out there,
>> & in-control of things. Hunter's really having trouble. And Sanchez
>> just aint getting
>> much time to throw. Of course, Mangold's injury doesn't help.
>> They really have to do more play-action... and more rushing Shonn.
>
> Exactly! There is no rhythm, no continuity to this offense. I just keep
> scratching my head saying what the hell was that... 2nd &21, and they
> don't even try to get a first down, two stupid runs for little gain. I
> just don't get what they see in this guy. Can Tom Moore put a headset on
> and start calling some plays and just let Schott call them on a blow out
> in the 4th quarter? This is really boring!
> When do you see teams like the Sqeelers, Pats, Saints or any decent
> football team not try for a first down on 2nd and 21? Thank god for a good
> defense or both games would have been out of reach...
>
> WaterBoy
It's Schott pulling random plays out of a shoebox...of course, that is my
assumption and imagination..but to me, it is what it looks like and I see
that after coaching for many years in high school and scratching my head at
teams we would routinely beat...and teams that had good players but coaches
who had no clue what a SYSTEM was. I can remember watching film of a game
we had won and seeing things the opponent obviously never saw that would
have hurt us. When I watch other teams, even college teams...I see a
system...continuity...a plan...some reason why one play leads to the
next...I simply do not ever see that with the Jets.
>
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 3:45 pm
From: Tutor
On Sep 18, 2:23 pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> It's so frustrating... there's no point to it.
> It's just like whatever play he wants to run, he runs, no matter the situation.
>
> Shonn Greene runs for 10 yards on 1st down, so next play he has LT run, for a 3-yd loss.
>
> Funny about Sanchez... he's thrown 2 bad INTs, but he looks so much more mature out there,
> & in-control of things. Hunter's really having trouble. And Sanchez just aint getting
> much time to throw. Of course, Mangold's injury doesn't help.
> They really have to do more play-action... and more rushing Shonn.
agreed. But the first drive was outstanding. Now, that said, let'd
enjoy this win and enjoy what looks to be a real nice season ahead.
Would hate this forum to become *exclusively* a bitching and moaning
horror show again. TOday was a convincing and dominating win. Far
short of perfection which will NEVER happen.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 3:58 pm
From: buRford
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:38:02 -0700 (PDT), JetsLife <JetsLife@aol.com> wrote:
>On Sep 18, 2:23�pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>> It's so frustrating... there's no point to it.
>> It's just like whatever play he wants to run, he runs, no matter the situation.
>>
>> Shonn Greene runs for 10 yards on 1st down, so next play he has LT run, for a 3-yd loss.
>>
>> Funny about Sanchez... he's thrown 2 bad INTs, but he looks so much more mature out there,
>> & in-control of things. �Hunter's really having trouble. �And Sanchez just aint getting
>> much time to throw. �Of course, Mangold's injury doesn't help.
>> They really have to do more play-action... and more rushing Shonn.
>
>Also remember Burf - only thing beautiful in today's NFL is the final
>score. I think I may do the Oakland game, visit wine country and SF
>and all that. Greatest region in the world btw.
Sounds like a plan.
Yup, it's a great area, also going up into Oregon & Wash... and Vancouver... and up into
the Artic.
As for the O, the way they started the game attacking... that's what I want to see.
Why they stopped attacking, I suspect that others had some input into the first series
script. Thereafter, it was the same ol' same ol'.
My one big problem with Keller, has always been that he seemed to go down, as soon as he
was hit. He's really starting to show some nice moves, & desire, after the catch.
Also, Shonn Greene made some nice blocks, in protection, today. So, he's learning too.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 4:02 pm
From: buRford
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:55:06 -0400, "Papa Carl" <papa.carl@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"buRford" <buRford@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
>news:ecdc77pusvtkbci892i4gkdk986ama3p6d@4ax.com...
>> It's so frustrating... there's no point to it.
>> It's just like whatever play he wants to run, he runs, no matter the
>> situation.
>>
>> Shonn Greene runs for 10 yards on 1st down, so next play he has LT run,
>> for a 3-yd loss.
>_______________________________________________________________________________________
>I've gone to more coaching clinics than I can possibly remember..and one
>thing I do remember hearing from so many of them was.."Make them stop
>you...do it untill they stop it !" Why can't they do that?????? Why when
>something has great success does it get put away...I would imagine the OC or
>whoever does call the plays is thinking they will "save" it for a tough
>time...but that only gives the opponent time to analyze it and figure out
>what happened...RUN THE DAMN THING WHILE IT IS WORKING.
>________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Funny about Sanchez... he's thrown 2 bad INTs, but he looks so much more
>> mature out there,
>> & in-control of things. Hunter's really having trouble. And Sanchez just
>> aint getting
>> much time to throw. Of course, Mangold's injury doesn't help.
>> They really have to do more play-action... and more rushing Shonn.
>_________________________________________________________________________________________
>And do something with this O line...if Mangold is out...they are
>screwed...saw a lot of good things, but the O line sacres me a lot...and
>Sanchez will not develop the right way if he is getting hit this much and
>this hard.
>
I'll tell ya, they should give a game-ball to that Bradford kid.
He's new to the team, & probably doesn't even know all assignments yet.
All-in-all, I think he did a pretty good job, under those circumstances.
So far so good with Mangold... X-Rays were negative.
Tomorrow the MRI... hopefully negative too, & it's just a twisted ankle.
While nothing major, still could be tough for Mangold... those ankles take so long to
heal.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 4:12 pm
From: buRford
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 15:45:53 -0700 (PDT), Tutor <dcat4434@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 18, 2:23�pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>> It's so frustrating... there's no point to it.
>> It's just like whatever play he wants to run, he runs, no matter the situation.
>>
>> Shonn Greene runs for 10 yards on 1st down, so next play he has LT run, for a 3-yd loss.
>>
>> Funny about Sanchez... he's thrown 2 bad INTs, but he looks so much more mature out there,
>> & in-control of things. �Hunter's really having trouble. �And Sanchez just aint getting
>> much time to throw. �Of course, Mangold's injury doesn't help.
>> They really have to do more play-action... and more rushing Shonn.
>
>agreed. But the first drive was outstanding. Now, that said, let'd
>enjoy this win and enjoy what looks to be a real nice season ahead.
>Would hate this forum to become *exclusively* a bitching and moaning
>horror show again. TOday was a convincing and dominating win. Far
>short of perfection which will NEVER happen.
That first drive was aggressive, which is the way it's done.
There was a sense of direction in that drive... and the players were focused.
Then back to the aimless offense, which is difficult to get a sense of, and the players
show a tendency to lose focus as a result.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Heinz Ward ...meet Jarret Johnson
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/542778e0569890c0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 3:08 pm
From: "P-DUB"
YAWN.......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
"RävNsfän ®" <noemail2u@nospam4me.org> wrote in message
news:4e73d9ad$0$20778$b42602f9@news.qis.net...
> "Señor Patriots" <paul.leblanc@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
> news:12478a0e-e5dd-485f-97ec-704275e6f954@l4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 16, 1:30 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 10:50 pm, "R vNsf n " <noemai...@nospam4me.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Ravens "Jarret Johnson" Lays Out Steelers "Hines Ward"
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj0hcW29Pyg
>>
>> > A minute representative of the overall vicious beat-down dealt to the
>> > Pittsburgh Steelers by the AFCN leading Baltimore Ravens on Sunday
>> > afternoon
>> > (all afternoon).
>>
>> > --
>> > ~Drew
>>
>> > "Talk is cheap, ...lets just play"
>> > Johnny Unitas - Baltimore Colts
>>
>> hines he didnt have that idiotic smile on his face that time... sure
>> enough
>
>> Are all Ravens fans WWF loving teenagers with anger management
>> issues?
>
> Mike happens to be a Jets fan genius but you new that right? It is
> perfectly
> obvious that your switch from "Ricky Bobby" didn't increase your
> intellectual capabilities. Next time look for a clue, ...like something in
> a
> poster's nick, ...say... "RavNsfan" for example. That name would probably
> indicate an actual "Ravens fan", whom could better attempt to decode any
> lame-assed Holier Than Thou questions you can come up with, ...just
> saying.
>
>> Not too impressive. I sincerely hope there are some actual fans out
>> there from Baltimore who have this GAME in perspective.
>
> Señor Patriots? You of course would be the best representative of an
> "actual
> fan". ehhh... personally I liked you better in your Ricky Bobby costume.
> You would at least be wrong without the superiority complex. Be careful
> Señor Bobby ... that pedastal you climbed up on has sharp corners, ...you
> may well put an eye out when you eventually fall off.
>
> Just so we are clear hombre', the storyline here was that of a cheap-shot
> artist that got his own clock cleaned in response. Also remember... NFL
> football is "sports entertainment". It in no way reflects the genuine game
> played prior to the institution of Super Bowl Sundays, league parody, free
> agency, the tuck rule and fans allowed to referee their own home team's
> games. I believe the emphasis to staying on the posted topic and not
> reading
> something else into something intended is called maintaining the
> perspective, ...that falls upon you Señor Snooty-pants.
>
> ~Drew
>
> "Talk is cheap, ...lets just play"
> Johnny Unitas - Baltimore Colts
>
>
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: IOW Burf: The Jets Offense Isn't Good
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/93ebdbcb5de15d6c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 18 2011 4:03 pm
From: buRford
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:52:38 -0700 (PDT), JetsLife <JetsLife@aol.com> wrote:
>thus far in 2011. Some spurts but overall pedestrian to below
>pedesrtian. Well each passing minute is another chance to turn it all
>around.
At least we know that when the rush-game isn't working, the Jets can make a go of it in
the air.
==============================================================================
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
