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:
* Looks like Rex did his annual O thing... - 7 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/652cc2af656c49a0?hl=en
* Wow you guys are right... - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/750c3707906ace36?hl=en
* Chargers complaining about officiating - 11 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/d9589e69c08ec446?hl=en
* 3 most scrutinized players were Plex, Shonn, Sanchez... - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/c81eff965a17bc32?hl=en
* BTW, nobody's mentioned Bart Scott... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/bf8624176f3973ef?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Looks like Rex did his annual O thing...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/652cc2af656c49a0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 8:34 am
From: "Papa Carl"
"graybeard" <graybeard@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:8jvaa7l5t96asvun6ggm0ito4i1r2mkbjq@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:52:23 -0400, "Papa Carl" <papa.carl@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Do you think only the final score dictates if he hurt them or not? That
>>INT
>>hurt...it could have been a killer. Thank the Chargers for going into the
>>tank late in the game.
>
> Yeah, too bad we don't have a premier QB like, say, Brees, who would
> never throw a dumb pass that got picked off in the end zone with the
> game on the line.
> --
> graybeard
How frequently does Brees do that...and what else does he do? Look at the
whole picture. Did you see Brees last night? If you look at the entire
picture of Sanchez it is sort of OK because of his performance in the
playoffs....but he is not a top level QB any way you look at it at this
point. I'm not ripping him either...it just isn't there. I do think it was
flat out stupid in this stage of his development to change the receivers
around. He had something going with the last group and hopefully he will
get it now with these guys. I do not think they have made it easy on him in
that regard. Plus...he is taking a beating and over time it will show.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 9:16 am
From: John C TX
On Oct 24, 10:26 am, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:759ac2d6-10d6-477f-afb3-69b4627767cd@y35g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 24, 8:52 am, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "JohnC(TX)" <johnctxjetss...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:4ea5637b$1@news.x-privat.org...
>
> > > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > >>>> Together with my earlier post, about Tom Moore, there's this (below
> > >>>> my
> > >>>> post).
>
> > >>>> I noticed immediately, today, that substitution patterns seemed
> > >>>> different.
> > >>>> So, I looked around & found the two articles (Moore & below).
> > >>>> It seems like every season, Rex steps in on O, & things change. This
> > >>>> season he seems to
> > >>>> have stepped in earlier.
> > >>>> We saw more involvement of Greene (some because of LT's illness),
> > >>>> Kerley, Plax, McKnight,
> > >>>> Keller, etc. Moreso, there were less substitutions, more letting
> > >>>> players get their
> > >>>> rhythm.
> > >>>> Yeah, there were some boneheaded plays, but the O had a clearly
> > >>>> different feel today.
>
> > >>>> If we can pull this game out, with the bye coming next week, we may
> > >>>> see
> > >>>> a somewhat more
> > >>>> functional O, after the bye.
> > >>>> For once, I feel a bit hopeful about the rest of the season, although
> > >>>> there were points
> > >>>> the D looked pretty bad.
>
> > >>>> *******************************
>
> > >>>> The Jets offense has been plagued by slow starts for much of the
> > >>>> season.
>
> > >>>> Gang Green began Monday's game with four straight three-and-outs.
> > >>>> They
> > >>>> also went
> > >>>> 0-for-their-first-four the previous Sunday against New England.
>
> > >>>> Rex Ryan met with members of his coaching staff to address the issue
> > >>>> this week.
>
> > >>>> "I've had some meetings, not that I've got all the answers, but I can
> > >>>> listen," Ryan said.
>
> > >>>> Ryan said he met with linebackers coach Bob Sutton, offensive line
> > >>>> coach Bill Callahan and
> > >>>> special teams coach Mike Westhoff. He also huddled with Mark Sanchez.
>
> > >>>> Conspicuously absent from that list was offensive coordinator Brian
> > >>>> Schottenheimer.
>
> > >>>> It certainly could have been a simple oversight by Ryan.
>
> > >>>> But if he indeed met with those staffers and not Schottenheimer to
> > >>>> discuss slow starts,
> > >>>> that could be viewed as a lack of confidence in Schottenheimer.
>
> > >>>> (SEE UPDATE BELOW)
>
> > >>>> Schottenheimer, of course, is a lightning rod for Jets fans. He has
> > >>>> been relentlessly
> > >>>> criticized for his play-calling.
>
> > >>>> Schottenheimer earlier this week acknowledged the offense has been
> > >>>> stagnant early in ball
> > >>>> games.
>
> > >>>> "We're still searching," he said.
>
> > >>>> The veteran play-caller said he's emphasized the need for a fast
> > >>>> start
> > >>>> in practice this
> > >>>> week by preaching execution.
>
> > >>>> "If we can get that solved through focusing on the execution one play
> > >>>> at a time that will
> > >>>> help us really get started and jump off," Schottenheimer.
>
> > >>>> UPDATE: According to a Jets staffer, Ryan later clarified to the
> > >>>> team's
> > >>>> public relations
> > >>>> department that he had also consulted Schottenheimer on the team's
> > >>>> slow
> > >>>> starts on offense
> > >>>> this week. He neglected to mention Schottenheimer by name in the
> > >>>> press
> > >>>> conference.
>
> > >>>You truly must be a spin man to pay your bills.
>
> > >>>:)
>
> > >>>For the record, for the 100th time, I am not sure abaout Schott
> > >>>although I like some of what he does. Today our pain was driven by:
> > >>>- bad luck on the the td on the strip off
> > >>>- a bad defense in the 1st half
> > >>>- sanchez bad throws
> > >>>-bad refereeing -- glad we won
>
> > >>>you may be correct that ryan has no confidence but you didnt cite the
> > >>>authors so you may have one of the writers protectiing his book., i.e.
> > >>>that schottsucks. if ryan doesnt trust him then Ryan is an idiot.
> > >>>If he doesnt trust schott then you also prove my theory that the
> > >>>dysfunction in the offense is an OC trying to be a slave tot wo
> > >>>masters.
>
> > >>>watch the game again there was little difference.
>
> > >>>btw was there anyone who didnt love Revis dropping his shoulder as
> > >>>Rivrs tried to tackle him?
>
> > >> Honestly, JC, there's no point responding, as you wouldn't see it.
> > > You mena I am not going to make you a Republican either?
>
> > > :)
>
> > > Thanks for replying but you are wrong if you point out specifics.
>
> > >> But from the first play from scrimmage, I did.
>
> > > You should be on Wall St. You could watch the first trade & decide how
> > > to
> > > trade that day.
>
> > > Sanchez didn't hurt us which was big. The OL especially from Slasusson
> > > to
> > > Moore opened holes. There were no dropped balls that I remember so yes
> > > the offense & OC looked better.
>
> > Do you think only the final score dictates if he hurt them or not? That
> > INT
> > hurt...it could have been a killer. Thank the Chargers for going into the
> > tank late in the game.
>
> No, I think that the ability to move the ball is what matters and as
> you know have been giving Schott a pass due to his play. Yesterday we
> moved the ball.
>
> I think it is critical that Sanchez doesn't screw up and yesterday he
> didn't. When he had nothing out there he didn't take chances. From
> my limited view on a bar stool he didn't appear to be missing wide
> open guys as often & of more importance was making the correct choice,
> not always, but it was better. I see enough flashes of talent,
> especially moving the ball when needed at critical times, to have
> hope. OK is fine in year three just dont hurt us with our reasonably
> good defense.
>
> That int was a problem & almost buried us but it was also rare errant
> throw leading to a INT. I know he has his errant throws at other time
> but he also had several perfect throws.
>
>
>
> At this point in his career he looks like the guy who is going to make some
> very good plays and then go back to less than average...there are quite a
> few of them....he is not a rookie anymore and he seems to have some things
> he can not get fixed. I hope I'm wrong, he could leave the Jets and be a
> star...who knows...but this is not a really good team despite yesterday's
> win.
Let me throw you a life preserver & you know I have been critical of
him. Most QB's are not Brady & Manning. Even Ryan has stumbled a bit.
Brees has worse stats than Sanchez years 1-3 & that was after starting
3 years at Purdue.
http://www.nfl.com/player/drewbrees/2504775/careerstats
Elway:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/E/ElwaJo00.htm
Aikman
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AikmTr00.htm
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 9:34 am
From: Michael
On Oct 24, 9:16 am, "JohnC\(TX\)" <johnctxjetss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Together with my earlier post, about Tom Moore, there's this (below my
> >>> post).
>
> >>> I noticed immediately, today, that substitution patterns seemed
> >>> different.
> >>> So, I looked around & found the two articles (Moore & below).
> >>> It seems like every season, Rex steps in on O, & things change. This
> >>> season he seems to
> >>> have stepped in earlier.
> >>> We saw more involvement of Greene (some because of LT's illness),
> >>> Kerley, Plax, McKnight,
> >>> Keller, etc. Moreso, there were less substitutions, more letting players
> >>> get their
> >>> rhythm.
> >>> Yeah, there were some boneheaded plays, but the O had a clearly
> >>> different feel today.
>
> >>> If we can pull this game out, with the bye coming next week, we may see
> >>> a somewhat more
> >>> functional O, after the bye.
> >>> For once, I feel a bit hopeful about the rest of the season, although
> >>> there were points
> >>> the D looked pretty bad.
>
> >>> *******************************
>
> >>> The Jets offense has been plagued by slow starts for much of the season.
>
> >>> Gang Green began Monday's game with four straight three-and-outs. They
> >>> also went
> >>> 0-for-their-first-four the previous Sunday against New England.
>
> >>> Rex Ryan met with members of his coaching staff to address the issue
> >>> this week.
>
> >>> "I've had some meetings, not that I've got all the answers, but I can
> >>> listen," Ryan said.
>
> >>> Ryan said he met with linebackers coach Bob Sutton, offensive line coach
> >>> Bill Callahan and
> >>> special teams coach Mike Westhoff. He also huddled with Mark Sanchez.
>
> >>> Conspicuously absent from that list was offensive coordinator Brian
> >>> Schottenheimer.
>
> >>> It certainly could have been a simple oversight by Ryan.
>
> >>> But if he indeed met with those staffers and not Schottenheimer to
> >>> discuss slow starts,
> >>> that could be viewed as a lack of confidence in Schottenheimer.
>
> >>> (SEE UPDATE BELOW)
>
> >>> Schottenheimer, of course, is a lightning rod for Jets fans. He has been
> >>> relentlessly
> >>> criticized for his play-calling.
>
> >>> Schottenheimer earlier this week acknowledged the offense has been
> >>> stagnant early in ball
> >>> games.
>
> >>> "We're still searching," he said.
>
> >>> The veteran play-caller said he's emphasized the need for a fast start
> >>> in practice this
> >>> week by preaching execution.
>
> >>> "If we can get that solved through focusing on the execution one play at
> >>> a time that will
> >>> help us really get started and jump off," Schottenheimer.
>
> >>> UPDATE: According to a Jets staffer, Ryan later clarified to the team's
> >>> public relations
> >>> department that he had also consulted Schottenheimer on the team's slow
> >>> starts on offense
> >>> this week. He neglected to mention Schottenheimer by name in the press
> >>> conference.
>
> >>You truly must be a spin man to pay your bills.
>
> >>:)
>
> >>For the record, for the 100th time, I am not sure abaout Schott
> >>although I like some of what he does. Today our pain was driven by:
> >>- bad luck on the the td on the strip off
> >>- a bad defense in the 1st half
> >>- sanchez bad throws
> >>-bad refereeing -- glad we won
>
> >>you may be correct that ryan has no confidence but you didnt cite the
> >>authors so you may have one of the writers protectiing his book., i.e.
> >>that schottsucks. if ryan doesnt trust him then Ryan is an idiot.
> >>If he doesnt trust schott then you also prove my theory that the
> >>dysfunction in the offense is an OC trying to be a slave tot wo
> >>masters.
>
> >>watch the game again there was little difference.
>
> >>btw was there anyone who didnt love Revis dropping his shoulder as
> >>Rivrs tried to tackle him?
>
> > Honestly, JC, there's no point responding, as you wouldn't see it.
>
> You mena I am not going to make you a Republican either?
>
> :)
>
> Thanks for replying but you are wrong if you point out specifics.
>
> > But from the first play from scrimmage, I did.
>
> You should be on Wall St. You could watch the first trade & decide how to
> trade that day.
>
> Sanchez didn't hurt us which was big. The OL especially from Slasusson to
> Moore opened holes. There were no dropped balls that I remember so yes the
> offense & OC looked better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Slauson is really becoming a decent player. His pass blocking is very
good now and he's a great straight ahead mauler on running plays.
Moore was looking a lot better too. I think he just needed more time
to come back from the hip thing.
HUNTER IS STILL A MESS
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 10:34 am
From: Percy Flage
On 24/10/2011 17:16, John C TX wrote:
> On Oct 24, 10:26 am, "Papa Carl"<papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "John C TX"<johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:759ac2d6-10d6-477f-afb3-69b4627767cd@y35g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 24, 8:52 am, "Papa Carl"<papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "JohnC(TX)"<johnctxjetss...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> news:4ea5637b$1@news.x-privat.org...
>>
>>>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>>>>>> Together with my earlier post, about Tom Moore, there's this (below
>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>> post).
>>
>>>>>>> I noticed immediately, today, that substitution patterns seemed
>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>> So, I looked around& found the two articles (Moore& below).
>>>>>>> It seems like every season, Rex steps in on O,& things change. This
>>>>>>> season he seems to
>>>>>>> have stepped in earlier.
>>>>>>> We saw more involvement of Greene (some because of LT's illness),
>>>>>>> Kerley, Plax, McKnight,
>>>>>>> Keller, etc. Moreso, there were less substitutions, more letting
>>>>>>> players get their
>>>>>>> rhythm.
>>>>>>> Yeah, there were some boneheaded plays, but the O had a clearly
>>>>>>> different feel today.
>>
>>>>>>> If we can pull this game out, with the bye coming next week, we may
>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>> a somewhat more
>>>>>>> functional O, after the bye.
>>>>>>> For once, I feel a bit hopeful about the rest of the season, although
>>>>>>> there were points
>>>>>>> the D looked pretty bad.
>>
>>>>>>> *******************************
>>
>>>>>>> The Jets offense has been plagued by slow starts for much of the
>>>>>>> season.
>>
>>>>>>> Gang Green began Monday's game with four straight three-and-outs.
>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>> also went
>>>>>>> 0-for-their-first-four the previous Sunday against New England.
>>
>>>>>>> Rex Ryan met with members of his coaching staff to address the issue
>>>>>>> this week.
>>
>>>>>>> "I've had some meetings, not that I've got all the answers, but I can
>>>>>>> listen," Ryan said.
>>
>>>>>>> Ryan said he met with linebackers coach Bob Sutton, offensive line
>>>>>>> coach Bill Callahan and
>>>>>>> special teams coach Mike Westhoff. He also huddled with Mark Sanchez.
>>
>>>>>>> Conspicuously absent from that list was offensive coordinator Brian
>>>>>>> Schottenheimer.
>>
>>>>>>> It certainly could have been a simple oversight by Ryan.
>>
>>>>>>> But if he indeed met with those staffers and not Schottenheimer to
>>>>>>> discuss slow starts,
>>>>>>> that could be viewed as a lack of confidence in Schottenheimer.
>>
>>>>>>> (SEE UPDATE BELOW)
>>
>>>>>>> Schottenheimer, of course, is a lightning rod for Jets fans. He has
>>>>>>> been relentlessly
>>>>>>> criticized for his play-calling.
>>
>>>>>>> Schottenheimer earlier this week acknowledged the offense has been
>>>>>>> stagnant early in ball
>>>>>>> games.
>>
>>>>>>> "We're still searching," he said.
>>
>>>>>>> The veteran play-caller said he's emphasized the need for a fast
>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>> in practice this
>>>>>>> week by preaching execution.
>>
>>>>>>> "If we can get that solved through focusing on the execution one play
>>>>>>> at a time that will
>>>>>>> help us really get started and jump off," Schottenheimer.
>>
>>>>>>> UPDATE: According to a Jets staffer, Ryan later clarified to the
>>>>>>> team's
>>>>>>> public relations
>>>>>>> department that he had also consulted Schottenheimer on the team's
>>>>>>> slow
>>>>>>> starts on offense
>>>>>>> this week. He neglected to mention Schottenheimer by name in the
>>>>>>> press
>>>>>>> conference.
>>
>>>>>> You truly must be a spin man to pay your bills.
>>
>>>>>> :)
>>
>>>>>> For the record, for the 100th time, I am not sure abaout Schott
>>>>>> although I like some of what he does. Today our pain was driven by:
>>>>>> - bad luck on the the td on the strip off
>>>>>> - a bad defense in the 1st half
>>>>>> - sanchez bad throws
>>>>>> -bad refereeing -- glad we won
>>
>>>>>> you may be correct that ryan has no confidence but you didnt cite the
>>>>>> authors so you may have one of the writers protectiing his book., i.e.
>>>>>> that schottsucks. if ryan doesnt trust him then Ryan is an idiot.
>>>>>> If he doesnt trust schott then you also prove my theory that the
>>>>>> dysfunction in the offense is an OC trying to be a slave tot wo
>>>>>> masters.
>>
>>>>>> watch the game again there was little difference.
>>
>>>>>> btw was there anyone who didnt love Revis dropping his shoulder as
>>>>>> Rivrs tried to tackle him?
>>
>>>>> Honestly, JC, there's no point responding, as you wouldn't see it.
>>>> You mena I am not going to make you a Republican either?
>>
>>>> :)
>>
>>>> Thanks for replying but you are wrong if you point out specifics.
>>
>>>>> But from the first play from scrimmage, I did.
>>
>>>> You should be on Wall St. You could watch the first trade& decide how
>>>> to
>>>> trade that day.
>>
>>>> Sanchez didn't hurt us which was big. The OL especially from Slasusson
>>>> to
>>>> Moore opened holes. There were no dropped balls that I remember so yes
>>>> the offense& OC looked better.
>>
>>> Do you think only the final score dictates if he hurt them or not? That
>>> INT
>>> hurt...it could have been a killer. Thank the Chargers for going into the
>>> tank late in the game.
>>
>> No, I think that the ability to move the ball is what matters and as
>> you know have been giving Schott a pass due to his play. Yesterday we
>> moved the ball.
>>
>> I think it is critical that Sanchez doesn't screw up and yesterday he
>> didn't. When he had nothing out there he didn't take chances. From
>> my limited view on a bar stool he didn't appear to be missing wide
>> open guys as often& of more importance was making the correct choice,
>> not always, but it was better. I see enough flashes of talent,
>> especially moving the ball when needed at critical times, to have
>> hope. OK is fine in year three just dont hurt us with our reasonably
>> good defense.
>>
>> That int was a problem& almost buried us but it was also rare errant
>> throw leading to a INT. I know he has his errant throws at other time
>> but he also had several perfect throws.
>>
>>
>>
>> At this point in his career he looks like the guy who is going to make some
>> very good plays and then go back to less than average...there are quite a
>> few of them....he is not a rookie anymore and he seems to have some things
>> he can not get fixed. I hope I'm wrong, he could leave the Jets and be a
>> star...who knows...but this is not a really good team despite yesterday's
>> win.
>
> Let me throw you a life preserver& you know I have been critical of
> him. Most QB's are not Brady& Manning. Even Ryan has stumbled a bit.
>
> Brees has worse stats than Sanchez years 1-3& that was after starting
> 3 years at Purdue.
>
> http://www.nfl.com/player/drewbrees/2504775/careerstats
>
> Elway:
>
> http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/E/ElwaJo00.htm
>
> Aikman
>
> http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AikmTr00.htm
Due to Sanchez' 16 game college experience, he should really be compared
to other Sophomore QBs, with the added benefit that he's probably
already had his Sophomore Slump.
I think there's a heck of a lot of upside to come from a good QB who's
still only 24 years old.
--
Percy Flage
"Life is too short to have to explain everyday."
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 11:11 am
From: MZ
On Oct 24, 12:16 pm, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 10:26 am, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:759ac2d6-10d6-477f-afb3-69b4627767cd@y35g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 24, 8:52 am, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > "JohnC(TX)" <johnctxjetss...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:4ea5637b$1@news.x-privat.org...
>
> > > > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > >>>> Together with my earlier post, about Tom Moore, there's this (below
> > > >>>> my
> > > >>>> post).
>
> > > >>>> I noticed immediately, today, that substitution patterns seemed
> > > >>>> different.
> > > >>>> So, I looked around & found the two articles (Moore & below).
> > > >>>> It seems like every season, Rex steps in on O, & things change. This
> > > >>>> season he seems to
> > > >>>> have stepped in earlier.
> > > >>>> We saw more involvement of Greene (some because of LT's illness),
> > > >>>> Kerley, Plax, McKnight,
> > > >>>> Keller, etc. Moreso, there were less substitutions, more letting
> > > >>>> players get their
> > > >>>> rhythm.
> > > >>>> Yeah, there were some boneheaded plays, but the O had a clearly
> > > >>>> different feel today.
>
> > > >>>> If we can pull this game out, with the bye coming next week, we may
> > > >>>> see
> > > >>>> a somewhat more
> > > >>>> functional O, after the bye.
> > > >>>> For once, I feel a bit hopeful about the rest of the season, although
> > > >>>> there were points
> > > >>>> the D looked pretty bad.
>
> > > >>>> *******************************
>
> > > >>>> The Jets offense has been plagued by slow starts for much of the
> > > >>>> season.
>
> > > >>>> Gang Green began Monday's game with four straight three-and-outs.
> > > >>>> They
> > > >>>> also went
> > > >>>> 0-for-their-first-four the previous Sunday against New England.
>
> > > >>>> Rex Ryan met with members of his coaching staff to address the issue
> > > >>>> this week.
>
> > > >>>> "I've had some meetings, not that I've got all the answers, but I can
> > > >>>> listen," Ryan said.
>
> > > >>>> Ryan said he met with linebackers coach Bob Sutton, offensive line
> > > >>>> coach Bill Callahan and
> > > >>>> special teams coach Mike Westhoff. He also huddled with Mark Sanchez.
>
> > > >>>> Conspicuously absent from that list was offensive coordinator Brian
> > > >>>> Schottenheimer.
>
> > > >>>> It certainly could have been a simple oversight by Ryan.
>
> > > >>>> But if he indeed met with those staffers and not Schottenheimer to
> > > >>>> discuss slow starts,
> > > >>>> that could be viewed as a lack of confidence in Schottenheimer.
>
> > > >>>> (SEE UPDATE BELOW)
>
> > > >>>> Schottenheimer, of course, is a lightning rod for Jets fans. He has
> > > >>>> been relentlessly
> > > >>>> criticized for his play-calling.
>
> > > >>>> Schottenheimer earlier this week acknowledged the offense has been
> > > >>>> stagnant early in ball
> > > >>>> games.
>
> > > >>>> "We're still searching," he said.
>
> > > >>>> The veteran play-caller said he's emphasized the need for a fast
> > > >>>> start
> > > >>>> in practice this
> > > >>>> week by preaching execution.
>
> > > >>>> "If we can get that solved through focusing on the execution one play
> > > >>>> at a time that will
> > > >>>> help us really get started and jump off," Schottenheimer.
>
> > > >>>> UPDATE: According to a Jets staffer, Ryan later clarified to the
> > > >>>> team's
> > > >>>> public relations
> > > >>>> department that he had also consulted Schottenheimer on the team's
> > > >>>> slow
> > > >>>> starts on offense
> > > >>>> this week. He neglected to mention Schottenheimer by name in the
> > > >>>> press
> > > >>>> conference.
>
> > > >>>You truly must be a spin man to pay your bills.
>
> > > >>>:)
>
> > > >>>For the record, for the 100th time, I am not sure abaout Schott
> > > >>>although I like some of what he does. Today our pain was driven by:
> > > >>>- bad luck on the the td on the strip off
> > > >>>- a bad defense in the 1st half
> > > >>>- sanchez bad throws
> > > >>>-bad refereeing -- glad we won
>
> > > >>>you may be correct that ryan has no confidence but you didnt cite the
> > > >>>authors so you may have one of the writers protectiing his book., i.e.
> > > >>>that schottsucks. if ryan doesnt trust him then Ryan is an idiot.
> > > >>>If he doesnt trust schott then you also prove my theory that the
> > > >>>dysfunction in the offense is an OC trying to be a slave tot wo
> > > >>>masters.
>
> > > >>>watch the game again there was little difference.
>
> > > >>>btw was there anyone who didnt love Revis dropping his shoulder as
> > > >>>Rivrs tried to tackle him?
>
> > > >> Honestly, JC, there's no point responding, as you wouldn't see it.
> > > > You mena I am not going to make you a Republican either?
>
> > > > :)
>
> > > > Thanks for replying but you are wrong if you point out specifics.
>
> > > >> But from the first play from scrimmage, I did.
>
> > > > You should be on Wall St. You could watch the first trade & decide how
> > > > to
> > > > trade that day.
>
> > > > Sanchez didn't hurt us which was big. The OL especially from Slasusson
> > > > to
> > > > Moore opened holes. There were no dropped balls that I remember so yes
> > > > the offense & OC looked better.
>
> > > Do you think only the final score dictates if he hurt them or not? That
> > > INT
> > > hurt...it could have been a killer. Thank the Chargers for going into the
> > > tank late in the game.
>
> > No, I think that the ability to move the ball is what matters and as
> > you know have been giving Schott a pass due to his play. Yesterday we
> > moved the ball.
>
> > I think it is critical that Sanchez doesn't screw up and yesterday he
> > didn't. When he had nothing out there he didn't take chances. From
> > my limited view on a bar stool he didn't appear to be missing wide
> > open guys as often & of more importance was making the correct choice,
> > not always, but it was better. I see enough flashes of talent,
> > especially moving the ball when needed at critical times, to have
> > hope. OK is fine in year three just dont hurt us with our reasonably
> > good defense.
>
> > That int was a problem & almost buried us but it was also rare errant
> > throw leading to a INT. I know he has his errant throws at other time
> > but he also had several perfect throws.
>
> > At this point in his career he looks like the guy who is going to make some
> > very good plays and then go back to less than average...there are quite a
> > few of them....he is not a rookie anymore and he seems to have some things
> > he can not get fixed. I hope I'm wrong, he could leave the Jets and be a
> > star...who knows...but this is not a really good team despite yesterday's
> > win.
>
> Let me throw you a life preserver & you know I have been critical of
> him. Most QB's are not Brady & Manning. Even Ryan has stumbled a bit.
>
> Brees has worse stats than Sanchez years 1-3 & that was after starting
> 3 years at Purdue.
>
> http://www.nfl.com/player/drewbrees/2504775/careerstats
>
> Elway:
>
> http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/E/ElwaJo00.htm
>
> Aikman
>
> http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AikmTr00.htm
Brees is not the norm. He was considered by many to be a bust until
his final year in SD, and even then a lot of folks were skeptical.
The switch flipped on with him more abruptly than any QB I can think
of.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 12:33 pm
From: John C TX
On Oct 24, 1:11 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 12:16 pm, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 10:26 am, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:759ac2d6-10d6-477f-afb3-69b4627767cd@y35g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Oct 24, 8:52 am, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "JohnC(TX)" <johnctxjetss...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:4ea5637b$1@news.x-privat.org...
>
> > > > > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > > >>>> Together with my earlier post, about Tom Moore, there's this (below
> > > > >>>> my
> > > > >>>> post).
>
> > > > >>>> I noticed immediately, today, that substitution patterns seemed
> > > > >>>> different.
> > > > >>>> So, I looked around & found the two articles (Moore & below).
> > > > >>>> It seems like every season, Rex steps in on O, & things change. This
> > > > >>>> season he seems to
> > > > >>>> have stepped in earlier.
> > > > >>>> We saw more involvement of Greene (some because of LT's illness),
> > > > >>>> Kerley, Plax, McKnight,
> > > > >>>> Keller, etc. Moreso, there were less substitutions, more letting
> > > > >>>> players get their
> > > > >>>> rhythm.
> > > > >>>> Yeah, there were some boneheaded plays, but the O had a clearly
> > > > >>>> different feel today.
>
> > > > >>>> If we can pull this game out, with the bye coming next week, we may
> > > > >>>> see
> > > > >>>> a somewhat more
> > > > >>>> functional O, after the bye.
> > > > >>>> For once, I feel a bit hopeful about the rest of the season, although
> > > > >>>> there were points
> > > > >>>> the D looked pretty bad.
>
> > > > >>>> *******************************
>
> > > > >>>> The Jets offense has been plagued by slow starts for much of the
> > > > >>>> season.
>
> > > > >>>> Gang Green began Monday's game with four straight three-and-outs.
> > > > >>>> They
> > > > >>>> also went
> > > > >>>> 0-for-their-first-four the previous Sunday against New England.
>
> > > > >>>> Rex Ryan met with members of his coaching staff to address the issue
> > > > >>>> this week.
>
> > > > >>>> "I've had some meetings, not that I've got all the answers, but I can
> > > > >>>> listen," Ryan said.
>
> > > > >>>> Ryan said he met with linebackers coach Bob Sutton, offensive line
> > > > >>>> coach Bill Callahan and
> > > > >>>> special teams coach Mike Westhoff. He also huddled with Mark Sanchez.
>
> > > > >>>> Conspicuously absent from that list was offensive coordinator Brian
> > > > >>>> Schottenheimer.
>
> > > > >>>> It certainly could have been a simple oversight by Ryan.
>
> > > > >>>> But if he indeed met with those staffers and not Schottenheimer to
> > > > >>>> discuss slow starts,
> > > > >>>> that could be viewed as a lack of confidence in Schottenheimer.
>
> > > > >>>> (SEE UPDATE BELOW)
>
> > > > >>>> Schottenheimer, of course, is a lightning rod for Jets fans. He has
> > > > >>>> been relentlessly
> > > > >>>> criticized for his play-calling.
>
> > > > >>>> Schottenheimer earlier this week acknowledged the offense has been
> > > > >>>> stagnant early in ball
> > > > >>>> games.
>
> > > > >>>> "We're still searching," he said.
>
> > > > >>>> The veteran play-caller said he's emphasized the need for a fast
> > > > >>>> start
> > > > >>>> in practice this
> > > > >>>> week by preaching execution.
>
> > > > >>>> "If we can get that solved through focusing on the execution one play
> > > > >>>> at a time that will
> > > > >>>> help us really get started and jump off," Schottenheimer.
>
> > > > >>>> UPDATE: According to a Jets staffer, Ryan later clarified to the
> > > > >>>> team's
> > > > >>>> public relations
> > > > >>>> department that he had also consulted Schottenheimer on the team's
> > > > >>>> slow
> > > > >>>> starts on offense
> > > > >>>> this week. He neglected to mention Schottenheimer by name in the
> > > > >>>> press
> > > > >>>> conference.
>
> > > > >>>You truly must be a spin man to pay your bills.
>
> > > > >>>:)
>
> > > > >>>For the record, for the 100th time, I am not sure abaout Schott
> > > > >>>although I like some of what he does. Today our pain was driven by:
> > > > >>>- bad luck on the the td on the strip off
> > > > >>>- a bad defense in the 1st half
> > > > >>>- sanchez bad throws
> > > > >>>-bad refereeing -- glad we won
>
> > > > >>>you may be correct that ryan has no confidence but you didnt cite the
> > > > >>>authors so you may have one of the writers protectiing his book., i.e.
> > > > >>>that schottsucks. if ryan doesnt trust him then Ryan is an idiot.
> > > > >>>If he doesnt trust schott then you also prove my theory that the
> > > > >>>dysfunction in the offense is an OC trying to be a slave tot wo
> > > > >>>masters.
>
> > > > >>>watch the game again there was little difference.
>
> > > > >>>btw was there anyone who didnt love Revis dropping his shoulder as
> > > > >>>Rivrs tried to tackle him?
>
> > > > >> Honestly, JC, there's no point responding, as you wouldn't see it.
> > > > > You mena I am not going to make you a Republican either?
>
> > > > > :)
>
> > > > > Thanks for replying but you are wrong if you point out specifics.
>
> > > > >> But from the first play from scrimmage, I did.
>
> > > > > You should be on Wall St. You could watch the first trade & decide how
> > > > > to
> > > > > trade that day.
>
> > > > > Sanchez didn't hurt us which was big. The OL especially from Slasusson
> > > > > to
> > > > > Moore opened holes. There were no dropped balls that I remember so yes
> > > > > the offense & OC looked better.
>
> > > > Do you think only the final score dictates if he hurt them or not? That
> > > > INT
> > > > hurt...it could have been a killer. Thank the Chargers for going into the
> > > > tank late in the game.
>
> > > No, I think that the ability to move the ball is what matters and as
> > > you know have been giving Schott a pass due to his play. Yesterday we
> > > moved the ball.
>
> > > I think it is critical that Sanchez doesn't screw up and yesterday he
> > > didn't. When he had nothing out there he didn't take chances. From
> > > my limited view on a bar stool he didn't appear to be missing wide
> > > open guys as often & of more importance was making the correct choice,
> > > not always, but it was better. I see enough flashes of talent,
> > > especially moving the ball when needed at critical times, to have
> > > hope. OK is fine in year three just dont hurt us with our reasonably
> > > good defense.
>
> > > That int was a problem & almost buried us but it was also rare errant
> > > throw leading to a INT. I know he has his errant throws at other time
> > > but he also had several perfect throws.
>
> > > At this point in his career he looks like the guy who is going to make some
> > > very good plays and then go back to less than average...there are quite a
> > > few of them....he is not a rookie anymore and he seems to have some things
> > > he can not get fixed. I hope I'm wrong, he could leave the Jets and be a
> > > star...who knows...but this is not a really good team despite yesterday's
> > > win.
>
> > Let me throw you a life preserver & you know I have been critical of
> > him. Most QB's are not Brady & Manning. Even Ryan has stumbled a bit.
>
> > Brees has worse stats than Sanchez years 1-3 & that was after starting
> > 3 years at Purdue.
>
> >http://www.nfl.com/player/drewbrees/2504775/careerstats
>
> > Elway:
>
> >http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/E/ElwaJo00.htm
>
> > Aikman
>
> >http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AikmTr00.htm
>
> Brees is not the norm. He was considered by many to be a bust until
> his final year in SD, and even then a lot of folks were skeptical.
I just checked his numbers again. His 2nd year he showed promise.
His 3rd year he did OK but was hurt and his 4th & 5th year he did very
well.
Maybe I was in the minority as I was hopeful about him after year two.
I remembered him at Purdue and laughed at UT & A&M missing a guy in
their backyard. BTW I credit B. Schotteimer for all his success.
:)
> The switch flipped on with him more abruptly than any QB I can think
> of.
How about Steve Young, Rich Gannon, & Phil Simms?
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 1:14 pm
From: graybeard
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:34:32 -0400, "Papa Carl" <papa.carl@verizon.net>
wrote:
>
>"graybeard" <graybeard@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>news:8jvaa7l5t96asvun6ggm0ito4i1r2mkbjq@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:52:23 -0400, "Papa Carl" <papa.carl@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Do you think only the final score dictates if he hurt them or not? That
>>>INT
>>>hurt...it could have been a killer. Thank the Chargers for going into the
>>>tank late in the game.
>>
>> Yeah, too bad we don't have a premier QB like, say, Brees, who would
>> never throw a dumb pass that got picked off in the end zone with the
>> game on the line.
>> --
>> graybeard
>
>How frequently does Brees do that...and what else does he do? Look at the
>whole picture. Did you see Brees last night? If you look at the entire
>picture of Sanchez it is sort of OK because of his performance in the
>playoffs....but he is not a top level QB any way you look at it at this
>point. I'm not ripping him either...it just isn't there. I do think it was
>flat out stupid in this stage of his development to change the receivers
>around. He had something going with the last group and hopefully he will
>get it now with these guys. I do not think they have made it easy on him in
>that regard. Plus...he is taking a beating and over time it will show.
The point is that Brees is in his 11th year in the NFL and is still
capable of making bonehead decisions like that. What exactly do you want
anyway? If you are waiting for Green Bay to trade Rodgers for Sanchez
even up, then I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. If Mangold hadn't
been hit with a phantom holding call on a previous play, you would be
talking about Sanchez throwing for 4 TD's with no Int's, instead of
"only" 3 TD's with 1 Int. But I suppose that then, instead of
complaining about Sanchez throwing the ball behind Holmes, you would be
griping that he led him too much.
--
graybeard
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wow you guys are right...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/750c3707906ace36?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 8:35 am
From: "Papa Carl"
"MZ" <forums@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:388e56e5-bc9f-493f-bcba-f50ea2cfee70@1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 24, 9:18 am, "JohnC\(TX\)" <johnctxjetss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > Hunter is baaaad. Has anyone ever seen him and Anthony Clement
> > together in the same room?
>
> Funny but what did you see? Was it pass blocking or run blocking? Did he
> give up the one sack?
I only watched the 2nd half. I saw continuous inability to pass
protect on the right side. Sanchez did a pretty decent job of
stepping up in the pocket or shifting out, but the pocket often
collapsed by that point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed...it is hard to get on Sanchez too much with the level of the pass
protection, still....his accuracy is off.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 8:38 am
From: "Papa Carl"
"MZ" <forums@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:46e6c20f-9914-4461-ad4f-1317f2106079@g1g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 24, 10:40 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 9:04 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 24, 9:18 am, "JohnC\(TX\)" <johnctxjetss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > > Hunter is baaaad. Has anyone ever seen him and Anthony Clement
> > > > together in the same room?
>
> > > Funny but what did you see? Was it pass blocking or run blocking? Did
> > > he
> > > give up the one sack?
>
> > I only watched the 2nd half. I saw continuous inability to pass
> > protect on the right side. Sanchez did a pretty decent job of
> > stepping up in the pocket or shifting out, but the pocket often
> > collapsed by that point.
>
> I have to focus on that stuff as I am too busy worrying about the
> outcome of the play. I will watch the replay.
>
> Thanks
In two cases that I remember (there were probably more), they relied
on the backs to solely pick up the OLB/DE on the offensive right
side. Not assist Hunter, but be solely responsible for the incoming
rusher. That, to me, doesn't seem particularly wise, because these
backs aren't very good at it (LT was out by this time). That's on
Schott. :p
On one of those plays, which I remember because they showed the replay
a couple times for whatever reason, it was Conner I think who
whiffed. Where was Hunter? Standing there like a doof not blocking
anybody.
Hunter is not in-tune with Brandon Moore, the other blockers, or his
QB. He sucks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And that is what I see too....Hunter standing around at the end of some
plays.....Conner is not as good as Richardson was and Greene looked better
at blocking, but not up to LT. Still....the backs are compensating for poor
O line play at some spots...the O line is not in synch, esp. when backs have
to deal with DE's as much as they do....that is not a good plan and will
absolutely wear down a RB.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 11:06 am
From: MZ
On Oct 24, 11:38 am, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "MZ" <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote in message
>
> news:46e6c20f-9914-4461-ad4f-1317f2106079@g1g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 24, 10:40 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 9:04 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 24, 9:18 am, "JohnC\(TX\)" <johnctxjetss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > > > Hunter is baaaad. Has anyone ever seen him and Anthony Clement
> > > > > together in the same room?
>
> > > > Funny but what did you see? Was it pass blocking or run blocking? Did
> > > > he
> > > > give up the one sack?
>
> > > I only watched the 2nd half. I saw continuous inability to pass
> > > protect on the right side. Sanchez did a pretty decent job of
> > > stepping up in the pocket or shifting out, but the pocket often
> > > collapsed by that point.
>
> > I have to focus on that stuff as I am too busy worrying about the
> > outcome of the play. I will watch the replay.
>
> > Thanks
>
> In two cases that I remember (there were probably more), they relied
> on the backs to solely pick up the OLB/DE on the offensive right
> side. Not assist Hunter, but be solely responsible for the incoming
> rusher. That, to me, doesn't seem particularly wise, because these
> backs aren't very good at it (LT was out by this time). That's on
> Schott. :p
>
> On one of those plays, which I remember because they showed the replay
> a couple times for whatever reason, it was Conner I think who
> whiffed. Where was Hunter? Standing there like a doof not blocking
> anybody.
>
> Hunter is not in-tune with Brandon Moore, the other blockers, or his
> QB. He sucks.
>
> And that is what I see too....Hunter standing around at the end of some
> plays.....Conner is not as good as Richardson was and Greene looked better
> at blocking, but not up to LT. Still....the backs are compensating for poor
> O line play at some spots...the O line is not in synch, esp. when backs have
> to deal with DE's as much as they do....that is not a good plan and will
> absolutely wear down a RB.
Yeah. Thing is, on this one play I'm thinking of, the back's primary
assignment was to block the rusher. Makes sense, all teams do it.
Here's the problem...
1) the tackle is supposed to start on the inside, and when there is
nobody to block, he is supposed to kick out and help with the edge
rusher. Hunter didn't do that because he took himself out of position
by assisting with the block on a guy that Moore had swallowed up at
the LOS.
2) teams tend to do this a lot on quick drops. That didn't appear to
be the case here. I'm really uncomfortable with that. Most backs
lack the size and blocking prowess to hold these blocks (I've only
seen a handful of HBs do this consistently well, Corey Dillon being
one of them).
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 12:47 pm
From: John C TX
On Oct 24, 10:38 am, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "MZ" <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote in message
>
> news:46e6c20f-9914-4461-ad4f-1317f2106079@g1g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 24, 10:40 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 9:04 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 24, 9:18 am, "JohnC\(TX\)" <johnctxjetss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > > > Hunter is baaaad. Has anyone ever seen him and Anthony Clement
> > > > > together in the same room?
>
> > > > Funny but what did you see? Was it pass blocking or run blocking? Did
> > > > he
> > > > give up the one sack?
>
> > > I only watched the 2nd half. I saw continuous inability to pass
> > > protect on the right side. Sanchez did a pretty decent job of
> > > stepping up in the pocket or shifting out, but the pocket often
> > > collapsed by that point.
>
> > I have to focus on that stuff as I am too busy worrying about the
> > outcome of the play. I will watch the replay.
>
> > Thanks
>
> In two cases that I remember (there were probably more), they relied
> on the backs to solely pick up the OLB/DE on the offensive right
> side. Not assist Hunter, but be solely responsible for the incoming
> rusher. That, to me, doesn't seem particularly wise, because these
> backs aren't very good at it (LT was out by this time). That's on
> Schott. :p
>
> On one of those plays, which I remember because they showed the replay
> a couple times for whatever reason, it was Conner I think who
> whiffed. Where was Hunter? Standing there like a doof not blocking
> anybody.
>
> Hunter is not in-tune with Brandon Moore, the other blockers, or his
> QB. He sucks.
>
> And that is what I see too....Hunter standing around at the end of some
> plays.....Conner is not as good as Richardson was and Greene looked better
> at blocking, but not up to LT. Still....the backs are compensating for poor
> O line play at some spots...the O line is not in synch, esp. when backs have
> to deal with DE's as much as they do....that is not a good plan and will
> absolutely wear down a RB.
How bad is Ducasse if that is the case? What idiot thought Hunter was
a starter?
I guess that I can take comfort in that it took Woody sometime to tun
into a tackle. Who am I kidding?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Chargers complaining about officiating
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/d9589e69c08ec446?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 8:47 am
From: Hammer
On Oct 24, 11:29 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 11:09 am, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 07:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Hammer
>
> > <stuart.feldha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Oct 24, 10:45 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> I heard a few sound bites from Rivers and Jammer. I agree with them
> > >> that the officials did a bad job.
>
> > >> What I dont agree with is that the officials won the game for the Jets
> > >> or that the Chargers "beat themselves"
>
> > >> The Jets were more productive then they were in the first half.
> > >> Sanchez is the one that gave it away. If anything, the Jets were the
> > >> ones that "beat themselves" in the first half.
>
> > >> In the second half, the PI call on Jammer if not called would not have
> > >> made much of a differance. The Jets defense had their number at that
> > >> point.
>
> > >> More on the officiating... I saw a clip of the ruffing call that was
> > >> made against Clay Jr. in the Packers game... How on earth was that
> > >> ruffing ???
>
> > >> Two things about the pro game now are a real downer for me. Lack of
> > >> quality from the officials and game rules that are overwhelmingly in
> > >> favor of promoting a pure passing league. Why not just take off the
> > >> equipment and play catch ???
>
> > >The reason why the PI was called on Jammer was because his back and
> > >head were turned away from the ball the entire time. It was a good
> > >call in my opinion.
>
> > Absolutely the right call. It's called face guarding and will be called
> > every time if the defender doesn't even bother to look for the ball.
>
> This is an old rule that, to my knowledge, has not been reinstated.
> Your post prompted me to look it up again, and I found this
> description in the Tribune from a few years ago:
>
> "Q: Can you call pass interference on a defender if he is turned
> toward the wide receiver, not looking at the ball, waves his arms, but
> doesn't touch the wide receiver at all? Say the ball is in the air and
> hits the defender in the arm because he deflects the pass. Again, he
> doesn't touch the WR, but isn't looking at the ball either. --Dawn
> Polomsky, Phoenix, Ariz.
>
> "A: Many years ago, there was a penalty on pass plays for "face
> guarding." What you describe is face guarding. There is no penalty
> under current NFL rules for this act, unless there is physical
> contact. If the ball hits the defender, as you describe, the play
> would be legal. It is dangerous for a defender to turn his back on the
> direction that the ball is coming from. If he contacts the intended
> receiver, it would be pass interference because the defender is not
> playing the ball. You seldom see what you describe, but it would not
> be a foul."
>
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerry...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you sure there was no contact? It looked like there was definitely
at least some incidental contact to me.
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 9:29 am
From: Michael
On Oct 24, 11:24 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 10:45 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > I heard a few sound bites from Rivers and Jammer. I agree with them
> > that the officials did a bad job.
>
> > What I dont agree with is that the officials won the game for the Jets
> > or that the Chargers "beat themselves"
>
> I think you can rarely say that the officials win a game for a team.
> The officials are a random component (sorry conspiracy theorists...)
> that you have to overcome, just like any number of other things
> (injuries, field condition, etc). The only time I remember ever
> saying in here that an official DIRECTLY cost a team the game was a
> few years ago when Baker got hosed vs. Cleveland. You remember that
> one. This is because it was the end of the game and so the
> opportunity wasn't there for them to overcome.
>
> But that final Jets drive yesterday... damn. There were two bad
> calls on that drive that likely helped win that game for the Jets (the
> PI that wasn't, and Sanchez's spot).
>
> That doesn't absolve the Chargers at all. Clock management on their
> final drive was Norv-esque, Rivers' check-downs were stupid, and the
> playcalls on 3rd and 4th downs were baffling. But I can see why the
> fans are upset. It really ruins the game for the rest of us.
mark... the chargers would not have won even if the jets did not get a
fg on that last drive.. the chargers offense was taken out of the game
the entire second half. the jets beat them. there were also a few
questionable calls that went against the jets. the jets won on the
scoreboard and the jets won on both sides of the ball. if sancez was
a sharp QB, the Jets would have won by 17 points.
on a new note...
i am REALLY wondering what the pats offense and jets defense will do
come nov 13th. the pats had a smart offensive game plan the last time
out. a ballanced offense is the thing to do vs. the jets. if the
pats run their modified shotgun run and shoot i dont think they will
have much luck with it.
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 9:50 am
From: eric
On Oct 24, 11:09 am, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 07:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Hammer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <stuart.feldha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 24, 10:45 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> I heard a few sound bites from Rivers and Jammer. I agree with them
> >> that the officials did a bad job.
>
> >> What I dont agree with is that the officials won the game for the Jets
> >> or that the Chargers "beat themselves"
>
> >> The Jets were more productive then they were in the first half.
> >> Sanchez is the one that gave it away. If anything, the Jets were the
> >> ones that "beat themselves" in the first half.
>
> >> In the second half, the PI call on Jammer if not called would not have
> >> made much of a differance. The Jets defense had their number at that
> >> point.
>
> >> More on the officiating... I saw a clip of the ruffing call that was
> >> made against Clay Jr. in the Packers game... How on earth was that
> >> ruffing ???
>
> >> Two things about the pro game now are a real downer for me. Lack of
> >> quality from the officials and game rules that are overwhelmingly in
> >> favor of promoting a pure passing league. Why not just take off the
> >> equipment and play catch ???
>
> >The reason why the PI was called on Jammer was because his back and
> >head were turned away from the ball the entire time. It was a good
> >call in my opinion.
>
> Absolutely the right call. It's called face guarding and will be called
> every time if the defender doesn't even bother to look for the ball.
Face guarding was removed from the rules as a penalty in 2003. There
is no such penalty any more.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerrymarkbreit,0,67115.story
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 9:51 am
From: eric
On Oct 24, 11:47 am, Hammer <stuart.feldha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 11:29 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 11:09 am, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 07:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Hammer
>
> > > <stuart.feldha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Oct 24, 10:45 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >> I heard a few sound bites from Rivers and Jammer. I agree with them
> > > >> that the officials did a bad job.
>
> > > >> What I dont agree with is that the officials won the game for the Jets
> > > >> or that the Chargers "beat themselves"
>
> > > >> The Jets were more productive then they were in the first half.
> > > >> Sanchez is the one that gave it away. If anything, the Jets were the
> > > >> ones that "beat themselves" in the first half.
>
> > > >> In the second half, the PI call on Jammer if not called would not have
> > > >> made much of a differance. The Jets defense had their number at that
> > > >> point.
>
> > > >> More on the officiating... I saw a clip of the ruffing call that was
> > > >> made against Clay Jr. in the Packers game... How on earth was that
> > > >> ruffing ???
>
> > > >> Two things about the pro game now are a real downer for me. Lack of
> > > >> quality from the officials and game rules that are overwhelmingly in
> > > >> favor of promoting a pure passing league. Why not just take off the
> > > >> equipment and play catch ???
>
> > > >The reason why the PI was called on Jammer was because his back and
> > > >head were turned away from the ball the entire time. It was a good
> > > >call in my opinion.
>
> > > Absolutely the right call. It's called face guarding and will be called
> > > every time if the defender doesn't even bother to look for the ball.
>
> > This is an old rule that, to my knowledge, has not been reinstated.
> > Your post prompted me to look it up again, and I found this
> > description in the Tribune from a few years ago:
>
> > "Q: Can you call pass interference on a defender if he is turned
> > toward the wide receiver, not looking at the ball, waves his arms, but
> > doesn't touch the wide receiver at all? Say the ball is in the air and
> > hits the defender in the arm because he deflects the pass. Again, he
> > doesn't touch the WR, but isn't looking at the ball either. --Dawn
> > Polomsky, Phoenix, Ariz.
>
> > "A: Many years ago, there was a penalty on pass plays for "face
> > guarding." What you describe is face guarding. There is no penalty
> > under current NFL rules for this act, unless there is physical
> > contact. If the ball hits the defender, as you describe, the play
> > would be legal. It is dangerous for a defender to turn his back on the
> > direction that the ball is coming from. If he contacts the intended
> > receiver, it would be pass interference because the defender is not
> > playing the ball. You seldom see what you describe, but it would not
> > be a foul."
>
> >http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerry...Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Are you sure there was no contact? It looked like there was definitely
> at least some incidental contact to me.
Incidental contact is not a penalty either. This was just a bad call.
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 10:42 am
From: John C TX
On Oct 24, 11:51 am, eric <warth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 11:47 am, Hammer <stuart.feldha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 11:29 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 24, 11:09 am, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 07:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Hammer
>
> > > > <stuart.feldha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Oct 24, 10:45 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > >> I heard a few sound bites from Rivers and Jammer. I agree with them
> > > > >> that the officials did a bad job.
>
> > > > >> What I dont agree with is that the officials won the game for the Jets
> > > > >> or that the Chargers "beat themselves"
>
> > > > >> The Jets were more productive then they were in the first half.
> > > > >> Sanchez is the one that gave it away. If anything, the Jets were the
> > > > >> ones that "beat themselves" in the first half.
>
> > > > >> In the second half, the PI call on Jammer if not called would not have
> > > > >> made much of a differance. The Jets defense had their number at that
> > > > >> point.
>
> > > > >> More on the officiating... I saw a clip of the ruffing call that was
> > > > >> made against Clay Jr. in the Packers game... How on earth was that
> > > > >> ruffing ???
>
> > > > >> Two things about the pro game now are a real downer for me. Lack of
> > > > >> quality from the officials and game rules that are overwhelmingly in
> > > > >> favor of promoting a pure passing league. Why not just take off the
> > > > >> equipment and play catch ???
>
> > > > >The reason why the PI was called on Jammer was because his back and
> > > > >head were turned away from the ball the entire time. It was a good
> > > > >call in my opinion.
>
> > > > Absolutely the right call. It's called face guarding and will be called
> > > > every time if the defender doesn't even bother to look for the ball.
>
> > > This is an old rule that, to my knowledge, has not been reinstated.
> > > Your post prompted me to look it up again, and I found this
> > > description in the Tribune from a few years ago:
>
> > > "Q: Can you call pass interference on a defender if he is turned
> > > toward the wide receiver, not looking at the ball, waves his arms, but
> > > doesn't touch the wide receiver at all? Say the ball is in the air and
> > > hits the defender in the arm because he deflects the pass. Again, he
> > > doesn't touch the WR, but isn't looking at the ball either. --Dawn
> > > Polomsky, Phoenix, Ariz.
>
> > > "A: Many years ago, there was a penalty on pass plays for "face
> > > guarding." What you describe is face guarding. There is no penalty
> > > under current NFL rules for this act, unless there is physical
> > > contact. If the ball hits the defender, as you describe, the play
> > > would be legal. It is dangerous for a defender to turn his back on the
> > > direction that the ball is coming from. If he contacts the intended
> > > receiver, it would be pass interference because the defender is not
> > > playing the ball. You seldom see what you describe, but it would not
> > > be a foul."
>
> > >http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerry...quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Are you sure there was no contact? It looked like there was definitely
> > at least some incidental contact to me.
>
> Incidental contact is not a penalty either. This was just a bad call.
That flag came instantly. There is a chance that was a bad decision
but will you accept the fact the side judge was 5 yards away & had a
better view than you?
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 11:13 am
From: MZ
On Oct 24, 11:47 am, Hammer <stuart.feldha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 11:29 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 11:09 am, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 07:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Hammer
>
> > > <stuart.feldha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Oct 24, 10:45 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >> I heard a few sound bites from Rivers and Jammer. I agree with them
> > > >> that the officials did a bad job.
>
> > > >> What I dont agree with is that the officials won the game for the Jets
> > > >> or that the Chargers "beat themselves"
>
> > > >> The Jets were more productive then they were in the first half.
> > > >> Sanchez is the one that gave it away. If anything, the Jets were the
> > > >> ones that "beat themselves" in the first half.
>
> > > >> In the second half, the PI call on Jammer if not called would not have
> > > >> made much of a differance. The Jets defense had their number at that
> > > >> point.
>
> > > >> More on the officiating... I saw a clip of the ruffing call that was
> > > >> made against Clay Jr. in the Packers game... How on earth was that
> > > >> ruffing ???
>
> > > >> Two things about the pro game now are a real downer for me. Lack of
> > > >> quality from the officials and game rules that are overwhelmingly in
> > > >> favor of promoting a pure passing league. Why not just take off the
> > > >> equipment and play catch ???
>
> > > >The reason why the PI was called on Jammer was because his back and
> > > >head were turned away from the ball the entire time. It was a good
> > > >call in my opinion.
>
> > > Absolutely the right call. It's called face guarding and will be called
> > > every time if the defender doesn't even bother to look for the ball.
>
> > This is an old rule that, to my knowledge, has not been reinstated.
> > Your post prompted me to look it up again, and I found this
> > description in the Tribune from a few years ago:
>
> > "Q: Can you call pass interference on a defender if he is turned
> > toward the wide receiver, not looking at the ball, waves his arms, but
> > doesn't touch the wide receiver at all? Say the ball is in the air and
> > hits the defender in the arm because he deflects the pass. Again, he
> > doesn't touch the WR, but isn't looking at the ball either. --Dawn
> > Polomsky, Phoenix, Ariz.
>
> > "A: Many years ago, there was a penalty on pass plays for "face
> > guarding." What you describe is face guarding. There is no penalty
> > under current NFL rules for this act, unless there is physical
> > contact. If the ball hits the defender, as you describe, the play
> > would be legal. It is dangerous for a defender to turn his back on the
> > direction that the ball is coming from. If he contacts the intended
> > receiver, it would be pass interference because the defender is not
> > playing the ball. You seldom see what you describe, but it would not
> > be a foul."
>
> >http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerry...Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Are you sure there was no contact? It looked like there was definitely
> at least some incidental contact to me.
Yeah, incidental. That doesn't count. It didn't change the
receiver's progress, he didn't bar his arm, etc. Just because his
skin touched the other guy's skin doesn't mean there was contact. It
was just about a perfect play by the DB. It couldn't have been
coached any better.
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 11:15 am
From: MZ
On Oct 24, 1:42 pm, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 11:51 am, eric <warth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 11:47 am, Hammer <stuart.feldha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 24, 11:29 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 24, 11:09 am, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 07:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Hammer
>
> > > > > <stuart.feldha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >On Oct 24, 10:45 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > >> I heard a few sound bites from Rivers and Jammer. I agree with them
> > > > > >> that the officials did a bad job.
>
> > > > > >> What I dont agree with is that the officials won the game for the Jets
> > > > > >> or that the Chargers "beat themselves"
>
> > > > > >> The Jets were more productive then they were in the first half.
> > > > > >> Sanchez is the one that gave it away. If anything, the Jets were the
> > > > > >> ones that "beat themselves" in the first half.
>
> > > > > >> In the second half, the PI call on Jammer if not called would not have
> > > > > >> made much of a differance. The Jets defense had their number at that
> > > > > >> point.
>
> > > > > >> More on the officiating... I saw a clip of the ruffing call that was
> > > > > >> made against Clay Jr. in the Packers game... How on earth was that
> > > > > >> ruffing ???
>
> > > > > >> Two things about the pro game now are a real downer for me. Lack of
> > > > > >> quality from the officials and game rules that are overwhelmingly in
> > > > > >> favor of promoting a pure passing league. Why not just take off the
> > > > > >> equipment and play catch ???
>
> > > > > >The reason why the PI was called on Jammer was because his back and
> > > > > >head were turned away from the ball the entire time. It was a good
> > > > > >call in my opinion.
>
> > > > > Absolutely the right call. It's called face guarding and will be called
> > > > > every time if the defender doesn't even bother to look for the ball.
>
> > > > This is an old rule that, to my knowledge, has not been reinstated.
> > > > Your post prompted me to look it up again, and I found this
> > > > description in the Tribune from a few years ago:
>
> > > > "Q: Can you call pass interference on a defender if he is turned
> > > > toward the wide receiver, not looking at the ball, waves his arms, but
> > > > doesn't touch the wide receiver at all? Say the ball is in the air and
> > > > hits the defender in the arm because he deflects the pass. Again, he
> > > > doesn't touch the WR, but isn't looking at the ball either. --Dawn
> > > > Polomsky, Phoenix, Ariz.
>
> > > > "A: Many years ago, there was a penalty on pass plays for "face
> > > > guarding." What you describe is face guarding. There is no penalty
> > > > under current NFL rules for this act, unless there is physical
> > > > contact. If the ball hits the defender, as you describe, the play
> > > > would be legal. It is dangerous for a defender to turn his back on the
> > > > direction that the ball is coming from. If he contacts the intended
> > > > receiver, it would be pass interference because the defender is not
> > > > playing the ball. You seldom see what you describe, but it would not
> > > > be a foul."
>
> > > >http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerry...text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Are you sure there was no contact? It looked like there was definitely
> > > at least some incidental contact to me.
>
> > Incidental contact is not a penalty either. This was just a bad call.
>
> That flag came instantly. There is a chance that was a bad decision
> but will you accept the fact the side judge was 5 yards away & had a
> better view than you?
We were 5 yards away for the replay too. And we had millisecond
resolution. :)
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 12:14 pm
From: John C TX
On Oct 24, 1:15 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 1:42 pm, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 11:51 am, eric <warth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 24, 11:47 am, Hammer <stuart.feldha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 24, 11:29 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 24, 11:09 am, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 07:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Hammer
>
> > > > > > <stuart.feldha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >On Oct 24, 10:45 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >> I heard a few sound bites from Rivers and Jammer. I agree with them
> > > > > > >> that the officials did a bad job.
>
> > > > > > >> What I dont agree with is that the officials won the game for the Jets
> > > > > > >> or that the Chargers "beat themselves"
>
> > > > > > >> The Jets were more productive then they were in the first half.
> > > > > > >> Sanchez is the one that gave it away. If anything, the Jets were the
> > > > > > >> ones that "beat themselves" in the first half.
>
> > > > > > >> In the second half, the PI call on Jammer if not called would not have
> > > > > > >> made much of a differance. The Jets defense had their number at that
> > > > > > >> point.
>
> > > > > > >> More on the officiating... I saw a clip of the ruffing call that was
> > > > > > >> made against Clay Jr. in the Packers game... How on earth was that
> > > > > > >> ruffing ???
>
> > > > > > >> Two things about the pro game now are a real downer for me. Lack of
> > > > > > >> quality from the officials and game rules that are overwhelmingly in
> > > > > > >> favor of promoting a pure passing league. Why not just take off the
> > > > > > >> equipment and play catch ???
>
> > > > > > >The reason why the PI was called on Jammer was because his back and
> > > > > > >head were turned away from the ball the entire time. It was a good
> > > > > > >call in my opinion.
>
> > > > > > Absolutely the right call. It's called face guarding and will be called
> > > > > > every time if the defender doesn't even bother to look for the ball.
>
> > > > > This is an old rule that, to my knowledge, has not been reinstated.
> > > > > Your post prompted me to look it up again, and I found this
> > > > > description in the Tribune from a few years ago:
>
> > > > > "Q: Can you call pass interference on a defender if he is turned
> > > > > toward the wide receiver, not looking at the ball, waves his arms, but
> > > > > doesn't touch the wide receiver at all? Say the ball is in the air and
> > > > > hits the defender in the arm because he deflects the pass. Again, he
> > > > > doesn't touch the WR, but isn't looking at the ball either. --Dawn
> > > > > Polomsky, Phoenix, Ariz.
>
> > > > > "A: Many years ago, there was a penalty on pass plays for "face
> > > > > guarding." What you describe is face guarding. There is no penalty
> > > > > under current NFL rules for this act, unless there is physical
> > > > > contact. If the ball hits the defender, as you describe, the play
> > > > > would be legal. It is dangerous for a defender to turn his back on the
> > > > > direction that the ball is coming from. If he contacts the intended
> > > > > receiver, it would be pass interference because the defender is not
> > > > > playing the ball. You seldom see what you describe, but it would not
> > > > > be a foul."
>
> > > > >http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerry...-
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Are you sure there was no contact? It looked like there was definitely
> > > > at least some incidental contact to me.
>
> > > Incidental contact is not a penalty either. This was just a bad call.
>
> > That flag came instantly. There is a chance that was a bad decision
> > but will you accept the fact the side judge was 5 yards away & had a
> > better view than you?
>
> We were 5 yards away for the replay too. And we had millisecond
> resolution. :)
Good one
I didn't pay attention to the replay. I was probably peeing. Did the
sideline view show no contact?
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 12:30 pm
From: Hammer
On Oct 24, 2:13 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 11:47 am, Hammer <stuart.feldha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 11:29 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 24, 11:09 am, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 07:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Hammer
>
> > > > <stuart.feldha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Oct 24, 10:45 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > >> I heard a few sound bites from Rivers and Jammer. I agree with them
> > > > >> that the officials did a bad job.
>
> > > > >> What I dont agree with is that the officials won the game for the Jets
> > > > >> or that the Chargers "beat themselves"
>
> > > > >> The Jets were more productive then they were in the first half.
> > > > >> Sanchez is the one that gave it away. If anything, the Jets were the
> > > > >> ones that "beat themselves" in the first half.
>
> > > > >> In the second half, the PI call on Jammer if not called would not have
> > > > >> made much of a differance. The Jets defense had their number at that
> > > > >> point.
>
> > > > >> More on the officiating... I saw a clip of the ruffing call that was
> > > > >> made against Clay Jr. in the Packers game... How on earth was that
> > > > >> ruffing ???
>
> > > > >> Two things about the pro game now are a real downer for me. Lack of
> > > > >> quality from the officials and game rules that are overwhelmingly in
> > > > >> favor of promoting a pure passing league. Why not just take off the
> > > > >> equipment and play catch ???
>
> > > > >The reason why the PI was called on Jammer was because his back and
> > > > >head were turned away from the ball the entire time. It was a good
> > > > >call in my opinion.
>
> > > > Absolutely the right call. It's called face guarding and will be called
> > > > every time if the defender doesn't even bother to look for the ball.
>
> > > This is an old rule that, to my knowledge, has not been reinstated.
> > > Your post prompted me to look it up again, and I found this
> > > description in the Tribune from a few years ago:
>
> > > "Q: Can you call pass interference on a defender if he is turned
> > > toward the wide receiver, not looking at the ball, waves his arms, but
> > > doesn't touch the wide receiver at all? Say the ball is in the air and
> > > hits the defender in the arm because he deflects the pass. Again, he
> > > doesn't touch the WR, but isn't looking at the ball either. --Dawn
> > > Polomsky, Phoenix, Ariz.
>
> > > "A: Many years ago, there was a penalty on pass plays for "face
> > > guarding." What you describe is face guarding. There is no penalty
> > > under current NFL rules for this act, unless there is physical
> > > contact. If the ball hits the defender, as you describe, the play
> > > would be legal. It is dangerous for a defender to turn his back on the
> > > direction that the ball is coming from. If he contacts the intended
> > > receiver, it would be pass interference because the defender is not
> > > playing the ball. You seldom see what you describe, but it would not
> > > be a foul."
>
> > >http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerry...quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Are you sure there was no contact? It looked like there was definitely
> > at least some incidental contact to me.
>
> Yeah, incidental. That doesn't count. It didn't change the
> receiver's progress, he didn't bar his arm, etc. Just because his
> skin touched the other guy's skin doesn't mean there was contact. It
> was just about a perfect play by the DB. It couldn't have been
> coached any better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
But the fact that there was contact, and his head was turned, and
Holmes fell over, made it look like a penalty. I guess what I'm saying
is that it may have been the wrong call but was not a bad call. The
referee can't always tell exactly what is going on. Jammer should have
been playing the ball and not just running a foot race and then he
wouldn't have drawn the flag.
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 1:23 pm
From: graybeard
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:29:37 -0700 (PDT), MZ <forums@mdz.no-ip.org>
wrote:
>On Oct 24, 11:09 am, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 07:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Hammer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <stuart.feldha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 24, 10:45 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> I heard a few sound bites from Rivers and Jammer. I agree with them
>> >> that the officials did a bad job.
>>
>> >> What I dont agree with is that the officials won the game for the Jets
>> >> or that the Chargers "beat themselves"
>>
>> >> The Jets were more productive then they were in the first half.
>> >> Sanchez is the one that gave it away. If anything, the Jets were the
>> >> ones that "beat themselves" in the first half.
>>
>> >> In the second half, the PI call on Jammer if not called would not have
>> >> made much of a differance. The Jets defense had their number at that
>> >> point.
>>
>> >> More on the officiating... I saw a clip of the ruffing call that was
>> >> made against Clay Jr. in the Packers game... How on earth was that
>> >> ruffing ???
>>
>> >> Two things about the pro game now are a real downer for me. Lack of
>> >> quality from the officials and game rules that are overwhelmingly in
>> >> favor of promoting a pure passing league. Why not just take off the
>> >> equipment and play catch ???
>>
>> >The reason why the PI was called on Jammer was because his back and
>> >head were turned away from the ball the entire time. It was a good
>> >call in my opinion.
>>
>> Absolutely the right call. It's called face guarding and will be called
>> every time if the defender doesn't even bother to look for the ball.
>
>This is an old rule that, to my knowledge, has not been reinstated.
>Your post prompted me to look it up again, and I found this
>description in the Tribune from a few years ago:
>
>"Q: Can you call pass interference on a defender if he is turned
>toward the wide receiver, not looking at the ball, waves his arms, but
>doesn't touch the wide receiver at all? Say the ball is in the air and
>hits the defender in the arm because he deflects the pass. Again, he
>doesn't touch the WR, but isn't looking at the ball either. --Dawn
>Polomsky, Phoenix, Ariz.
>
>"A: Many years ago, there was a penalty on pass plays for "face
>guarding." What you describe is face guarding. There is no penalty
>under current NFL rules for this act, unless there is physical
>contact. If the ball hits the defender, as you describe, the play
>would be legal. It is dangerous for a defender to turn his back on the
>direction that the ball is coming from. If he contacts the intended
>receiver, it would be pass interference because the defender is not
>playing the ball. You seldom see what you describe, but it would not
>be a foul."
>
>http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerrymarkbreit,0,67115.story
I'm aware that face guarding is not an official penalty, and I didn't
say that it was. In fact, the defender can legally obstruct the
receiver's view with any part of his body. It is one of the few rules
that has been changed to benefit the defense rather than the offense. I
said that it would be called, because it almost always is. If you
haven't seen it called, then you are not watching many NFL games. And I
doubt that incidental contact would be a consideration when the defender
is running straight at the receiver.
--
graybeard
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 1:25 pm
From: "Ray O'Hara"
"Hammer" <stuart.feldhamer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d720d81-173f-47e8-a8e9-df596f6845b1@v15g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 24, 10:45 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I heard a few sound bites from Rivers and Jammer. I agree with them
> that the officials did a bad job.
>
> What I dont agree with is that the officials won the game for the Jets
> or that the Chargers "beat themselves"
>
> The Jets were more productive then they were in the first half.
> Sanchez is the one that gave it away. If anything, the Jets were the
> ones that "beat themselves" in the first half.
>
> In the second half, the PI call on Jammer if not called would not have
> made much of a differance. The Jets defense had their number at that
> point.
>
> More on the officiating... I saw a clip of the ruffing call that was
> made against Clay Jr. in the Packers game... How on earth was that
> ruffing ???
>
> Two things about the pro game now are a real downer for me. Lack of
> quality from the officials and game rules that are overwhelmingly in
> favor of promoting a pure passing league. Why not just take off the
> equipment and play catch ???
The reason why the PI was called on Jammer was because his back and
head were turned away from the ball the entire time. It was a good
call in my opinion.
====================================================================
Jammer made zero contact. so now just facing away from the QB is a penalty?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 3 most scrutinized players were Plex, Shonn, Sanchez...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/c81eff965a17bc32?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 9:17 am
From: Michael
On Oct 24, 11:00 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 9:33 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 10:06 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 24, 9:11 am, "JohnC\(TX\)" <johnctxjetss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Sanchez missed some major plays.
>
> > > > but give credit he threw away quite a few balls when nothing was there. Josh
> > > > Freeman his contemporary at Tampa had 4 int's.
>
> > > Didn't he throw to the TE in the seam when they were double covered?
>
> > > On an unrelated note, why did Rivers throw OOB on 4th down?
>
> > i was at the game... on that 4th down all the receivers were well
> > covered. the way that play was shaping up, i got the idea rivers
> > might have been thinking he could get a PI on that play for a jump
> > ball but he put a bit too much on it.
>
> > that is not what cost them a chance to win the game though... the
> > clock management on that drive was horrible.
>
> > rivers was really messed up by the coverage the jets were calling in
> > the second half. IMHO, since the Colts and Pats playoff wins last
> > season, Rex likes max coverage vs. skilled qb's vs. overload blitzing.
>
> Could it be injuries? We are going through what the Pats have dealt
> with the past few years a plague of injuries at LB & DL. We were
> using Mauga, Bellore & Westerman far more than planned. Our OLB again
> got sucked in on some run plays.
>
> Does the injuries taint Jenkin's credibility regarding Sal Alosi?
>
> :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
i guess, yeah... that makes sense... hard to say... i think may be if
you look at it from a pure manpower standpoint, max coverage makes
sense... revis, cromartie, leonhard, smith, poole, strickland... seems
like it would be sound reasoning to take advantage of nickle and dime
with that pile of dudes instead of hoping pouha, devito, wilkerson and
pace can get to the qb in time to make a blitz work... the jets front
seven even if in good shape is not a good pass rushing line. might as
well leave it up to your db's in max coverage for now, no ???
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 9:19 am
From: Hammer
On Oct 24, 12:17 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 11:00 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 9:33 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 24, 10:06 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 24, 9:11 am, "JohnC\(TX\)" <johnctxjetss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Sanchez missed some major plays.
>
> > > > > but give credit he threw away quite a few balls when nothing was there. Josh
> > > > > Freeman his contemporary at Tampa had 4 int's.
>
> > > > Didn't he throw to the TE in the seam when they were double covered?
>
> > > > On an unrelated note, why did Rivers throw OOB on 4th down?
>
> > > i was at the game... on that 4th down all the receivers were well
> > > covered. the way that play was shaping up, i got the idea rivers
> > > might have been thinking he could get a PI on that play for a jump
> > > ball but he put a bit too much on it.
>
> > > that is not what cost them a chance to win the game though... the
> > > clock management on that drive was horrible.
>
> > > rivers was really messed up by the coverage the jets were calling in
> > > the second half. IMHO, since the Colts and Pats playoff wins last
> > > season, Rex likes max coverage vs. skilled qb's vs. overload blitzing.
>
> > Could it be injuries? We are going through what the Pats have dealt
> > with the past few years a plague of injuries at LB & DL. We were
> > using Mauga, Bellore & Westerman far more than planned. Our OLB again
> > got sucked in on some run plays.
>
> > Does the injuries taint Jenkin's credibility regarding Sal Alosi?
>
> > :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> i guess, yeah... that makes sense... hard to say... i think may be if
> you look at it from a pure manpower standpoint, max coverage makes
> sense... revis, cromartie, leonhard, smith, poole, strickland... seems
> like it would be sound reasoning to take advantage of nickle and dime
> with that pile of dudes instead of hoping pouha, devito, wilkerson and
> pace can get to the qb in time to make a blitz work... the jets front
> seven even if in good shape is not a good pass rushing line. might as
> well leave it up to your db's in max coverage for now, no ???- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
By the way, I saw a number of situations yesterday where it looked
like the Jets were trying to blitz up the middle and were just getting
swallowed up by the OL. They had a free DB but couldn't get through. I
didn't look too closely but I'm pretty sure that's what I saw.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: BTW, nobody's mentioned Bart Scott...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/bf8624176f3973ef?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 1:03 pm
From: "yoyodog"
He was invisible again and beaten badly on a couple of the longer runs. On
SD's goal-line TD he was pushed back like a swatted fly.
What's happened to him this year?
==============================================================================
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
