Monday, October 24, 2011

Re: Medarticles please help me to find important articles

Buzz It
first one not online
2nd enclosed.

anand


On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:19 AM, anisa sakkaf <anisaalsakkaf@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear friends please i need your help to find this important articles for study.
 
Best
Anisa
 
1- Classification of acute non-lymphocytic leukemia according to the distribution picture of peroxidase activity and cell size: correlation between the classification and therapeutic response. Blood Cells. 1983;9(3):501-
2 - Suda T, Onai T, Maekawa T: Studies on abnormal polymorphonuclear neutrophils in acute myelogenous leukemia. Am J Hematol 15:45, 1983.

3- Prognostic significance of cytochemical findings in differentiated myelogenous leukaemias of adults . Wien Klin Wochenschr Suppl. 1977;76:1-26.

4- Rowe JM: Clinical and laboratory features of the myeloid and lymphoid leukemias. Am J Med Technol 49:103, 1983.

 

 

--
You can edit your Group Email settings by visiting the following link.
 
http://groups.google.com/group/medarticles/subscribe
 
You can choose abridged email or digest email so that you will receive only one email per day.

--
You can edit your Group Email settings by visiting the following link.
 
http://groups.google.com/group/medarticles/subscribe
 
You can choose abridged email or digest email so that you will receive only one email per day.

[socialactionfoundationforequity:14411 One Day on Earth - Nov 11

Buzz It
--- On Mon, 24/10/11, Human Rights Watch Film Festival <filmfestival@hrw.org> wrote:

From: Human Rights Watch Film Festival <filmfestival@hrw.org>
Subject: One Day on Earth - Nov 11
To: "Avnish Jolly" <avnishjolly@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, 24 October, 2011, 20:31

Untitled Document
Film Festival
 


What's Your Human Rights Story?
Submit a Short Video About Human Rights in Your Life

 

 


Do you have a video camera and something to say about human rights? If so, this is your chance to show the world how rights affect your life and your community.

On November 11, 2011 (11/11/11), join thousands of other inspired citizens around the world in recording the human experience over a 24-hour period as part of One Day On Earth. Help us show the world why human rights are vital by taking part in this day of filming. All you need is a video camera and an internet connection, and your video can be as short as 1 minute. You could describe rights that are denied or document the rights that you particularly appreciate, such as the right to health, education, or freedom of speech.

The videos will be stored and shared online at One Day on Earth and later turned into a longer film. Click here for more details on how to participate. When people across the Middle East and North Africa used video to document abuses and demand their rights, it inspired the rest of the world. Let's build on their achievements and use video to raise awareness about the importance of human rights.

________________________________________________________________

+ Congratulations to the winners of the
NY HRW Film Festival Drawing:


  • First Prize: Two tickets to the 2012 New York HRW Film Festival Benefit
    Winner: Shannon E, Brooklyn NY
  • Second Prize: A New York Harbor Sail for Two
    Winner: Victoria R, New York NY
  • Third Prize: Five tickets to the 2012 New York HRW Film Festival
    Winner: Catherine G, New York NY

*All winners have been notified previously by phone and email to confirm their prize.
 


Find out more on www.hrw.org/iff

Would you like to receive occasional updates on special film events for the Human Rights Watch Film Festival? Sign up for our e-mailing list
find us on facebook


To prevent mailbox filters from deleting mailings from Human Rights Watch Film Festival, add filmfestival@hrw.org to your address book.

Remove yourself from this mailing.

Remove yourself from all mailings from Human Rights Watch.

--
Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth. - Mohandas Gandhi
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SAFE - Social Action Foundation for Equity" group.
To post to this group, send email to
socialactionfoundationforequity@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
socialactionfoundationforequity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.in/group/socialactionfoundationforequity?hl=en?hl=en-GB

alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets - 23 new messages in 8 topics - digest

Buzz It
alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en

alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Chargers complaining about officiating - 9 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/d9589e69c08ec446?hl=en
* Why I'm A Fan of Rex - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/e71bd68aa1bbf183?hl=en
* BTW, nobody's mentioned Bart Scott... - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/bf8624176f3973ef?hl=en
* Wow you guys are right... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/750c3707906ace36?hl=en
* Looks like Rex did his annual O thing... - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/652cc2af656c49a0?hl=en
* Sign Up Shonn Greene On the Cheap Now - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/a4e1f911e8d9e062?hl=en
* Jags - Ravens - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/842f2b08358d8e26?hl=en
* OT: The Ravens suck Part 2 -- LOL! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/e5d5259ad24b648b?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Chargers complaining about officiating
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/d9589e69c08ec446?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
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?


== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 1:28 pm
From: "Ray O'Hara"

"John C TX" <johnctxjets@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a4031f1-2565-4c25-8f0a-825b11b80da7@v33g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
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?\

=======================================================================

the replays showed no contact.
the thing with that call was it was the decisive play of the game, no call
and SD gets the ball back with time.
instead the Jets got a free first down and a lot of yardage.

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 1:31 pm
From: "Ray O'Hara"

"Hammer" <stuart.feldhamer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:35cefc87-ca54-4aef-a531-75dd902e96c1@w9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
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.


===============================================================

it was a bad wrong call, rationalize it anyway you want but it was a misten
call and the decisive call of the game.


all that can be said for the ref was they called it tight all game.


== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 1:37 pm
From: graybeard


On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:24:58 -0700 (PDT), MZ <forums@mdz.no-ip.org>
wrote:

>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).

Of course, we won't mention the chippy holding call that cost the Jets
the Holmes TD. or the ludicrous illegal man down field on Mangold that
erased the Kerley first down catch. And then there was the PI that
wasn't called on Jammer when he was draped over Holmes shoulders on a
crossing route. The officiating was pretty bad yesterday - for both
teams - but I doubt it actually affected the final outcome.
--
graybeard


== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 1:50 pm
From: John C TX


On Oct 24, 3:28 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:4a4031f1-2565-4c25-8f0a-825b11b80da7@v33g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> 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?\
>
> =======================================================================
>
> the replays showed no contact.
> the thing with that call was it was the decisive play of the game, no call
> and SD gets the ball back with time.
> instead the Jets got a free first down and a lot of yardage.

Ray, I am not sure which Ray is talking, good Ray, or crazy Ray, so I
will wait for another answer.


== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 1:49 pm
From: John C TX

>
> >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).
>
> Of course, we won't mention the chippy holding call that cost the Jets
> the Holmes TD. or the ludicrous illegal man down field on Mangold that
> erased the Kerley first down catch. And then there was the PI that
> wasn't called on Jammer when he was draped over Holmes shoulders on a
> crossing route. The officiating was pretty bad yesterday - for both
> teams - but I doubt it actually affected the final outcome.
> --
> graybeard

or the hold on Mauga on Tolbert's TD, or the hold on Eric Smith on a
long run...two different games Gray

:)


== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 1:58 pm
From: MZ


On Oct 24, 4:37 pm, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:24:58 -0700 (PDT), MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org>
> wrote:
>
> >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).
>
> Of course, we won't mention the chippy holding call that cost the Jets
> the Holmes TD. or the ludicrous illegal man down field on Mangold that
> erased the Kerley first down catch. And then there was the PI that
> wasn't called on Jammer when he was draped over Holmes shoulders on a
> crossing route. The officiating was pretty bad yesterday - for both
> teams - but I doubt it actually affected the final outcome.
> --
> graybeard


I agree with Ray here. There was no contact, and this typically isn't
called. I think it was just a bad call, and precisely what all of us
have been saying is ruining the game.

I didn't see the holding call that you're referring to (I only watched
the 2nd half), and I can see why you're upset about the Jammer non-PI
(although I feel it was the correct call yesterday, it's definitely
called other times). But I think it's unfair to complain about non-
calls unless they're tremendously blatant (think wrestling...steel
chair).

I'm surprised that you don't think the Mangold call was correct. He
looked like he was several yards ahead of the LOS. 3 at least. I
could be wrong on this.

I'm also surprised nobody is bringing up Sanchez's first down spot. I
thought it was obviously short. This is on Norv for not challenging.
Even if he had lost the challenge, he would have stopped the clock.

Either way, I think the Jets received two gifts on that final drive,
and I absolutely think it had an impact on the game. But dem's the
breaks. All we can do as fans is demand a better product, which means
more consistent officiating and transparency.


== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 2:56 pm
From: graybeard


On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:58:19 -0700 (PDT), MZ <forums@mdz.no-ip.org>
wrote:

>On Oct 24, 4:37 pm, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:24:58 -0700 (PDT), MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >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).
>>
>> Of course, we won't mention the chippy holding call that cost the Jets
>> the Holmes TD. or the ludicrous illegal man down field on Mangold that
>> erased the Kerley first down catch. And then there was the PI that
>> wasn't called on Jammer when he was draped over Holmes shoulders on a
>> crossing route. The officiating was pretty bad yesterday - for both
>> teams - but I doubt it actually affected the final outcome.
>> --
>> graybeard
>
>
>I agree with Ray here. There was no contact, and this typically isn't
>called. I think it was just a bad call, and precisely what all of us
>have been saying is ruining the game.
>
>I didn't see the holding call that you're referring to (I only watched
>the 2nd half), and I can see why you're upset about the Jammer non-PI
>(although I feel it was the correct call yesterday, it's definitely
>called other times). But I think it's unfair to complain about non-
>calls unless they're tremendously blatant (think wrestling...steel
>chair).
>
>I'm surprised that you don't think the Mangold call was correct. He
>looked like he was several yards ahead of the LOS. 3 at least. I
>could be wrong on this.
>
>I'm also surprised nobody is bringing up Sanchez's first down spot. I
>thought it was obviously short. This is on Norv for not challenging.
>Even if he had lost the challenge, he would have stopped the clock.
>
>Either way, I think the Jets received two gifts on that final drive,
>and I absolutely think it had an impact on the game. But dem's the
>breaks. All we can do as fans is demand a better product, which means
>more consistent officiating and transparency.

Mark, I almost never complain about calls or non-calls, but I do react
when others do. Oh, I scream and moan about them when I am watching a
game, because I am emotionally involved at the time, but I don't use
them as an excuse for winning or losing later. For one thing, I think
they tend to even out over the course of a season, but most people who
bitch about them usually have an agenda which favors one side or the
other. For another, rules in all sports are not set in concrete like
most fans think they are. The games are in the hands of the officials.
If a baseball umpire calls a strike when the ball is clearly outside and
high, it is still a strike, regardless of the rules about the strike
zone. It is a strike because the umpire called it a strike, and he has
the authority to do that. Same in football. There is a reason they are
called judgment plays, and only the official's judgment counts.
--
graybeard


== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 8:12 pm
From: Harlan Lachman


In article
<0ef27aa1-5db8-41a6-aa91-e5b384543827@g1g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
MZ <forums@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:

> On Oct 24, 4:37�pm, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:24:58 -0700 (PDT), MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >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).
> >
> > Of course, we won't mention the chippy holding call that cost the Jets
> > the Holmes TD. or the ludicrous illegal man down field on Mangold that
> > erased the Kerley first down catch. And then there was the PI that
> > wasn't called on Jammer when he was draped over Holmes shoulders on a
> > crossing route. The officiating was pretty bad yesterday - for both
> > teams - but I doubt it actually affected the final outcome.
> > --
> > graybeard
>
>
> I agree with Ray here. There was no contact, and this typically isn't
> called. I think it was just a bad call, and precisely what all of us
> have been saying is ruining the game.
>
> I didn't see the holding call that you're referring to (I only watched
> the 2nd half), and I can see why you're upset about the Jammer non-PI
> (although I feel it was the correct call yesterday, it's definitely
> called other times). But I think it's unfair to complain about non-
> calls unless they're tremendously blatant (think wrestling...steel
> chair).

Mark, the holding call on Mangold was legit. His arms were fully
extended, to catch the defender and he must be strong as an ox because
he stopped the defender who eventually fell.

>
> I'm surprised that you don't think the Mangold call was correct. He
> looked like he was several yards ahead of the LOS. 3 at least. I
> could be wrong on this.

OTOH, the down field call on Mangold was completely bogus. He took one
step and turned around.


>
> I'm also surprised nobody is bringing up Sanchez's first down spot. I
> thought it was obviously short. This is on Norv for not challenging.
> Even if he had lost the challenge, he would have stopped the clock.

It sure looked that way to me too. Spots are hard to challenge though.
>
> Either way, I think the Jets received two gifts on that final drive,
> and I absolutely think it had an impact on the game. But dem's the
> breaks. All we can do as fans is demand a better product, which means
> more consistent officiating and transparency.

Again, since all points count the same, I think you are unreasonable to
single out the calls on the last drive, one of which you admit is often
called similarly.

And, that ignores the ludicrousness of a Pat or Steeler fan ever
complaining about officials and both teams have Lombardis to show for it.

h

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why I'm A Fan of Rex
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/e71bd68aa1bbf183?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 2:45 pm
From: JetsLife


He doesn't seem to take things too seriously. That is, he pours his
heart and soul in to his work and the team, but regardless of anything
he's always positive and gregarious.

Obviously I'll take the opposite or whatever to win a ring. But I like
our coach. He keeps it light.


== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 4:26 pm
From: oldnasty@mindspring.com


On Monday, October 24, 2011 5:45:59 PM UTC-4, JetsLife wrote:
> He doesn't seem to take things too seriously. That is, he pours his
> heart and soul in to his work and the team, but regardless of anything
> he's always positive and gregarious.
>
> Obviously I'll take the opposite or whatever to win a ring. But I like
> our coach. He keeps it light.

And he's got a foot fetish too!


== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 6:31 pm
From: "mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu"


On Oct 24, 5:45 pm, JetsLife <JetsL...@aol.com> wrote:
> He doesn't seem to take things too seriously. That is, he pours his
> heart and soul in to his work and the team, but regardless of anything
> he's always positive and gregarious.


He's just like Chris Christie!

mr dude


==============================================================================
TOPIC: BTW, nobody's mentioned Bart Scott...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/bf8624176f3973ef?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 4:26 pm
From: "RävNsfän ®"


"yoyodog" <connarchNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:j84ga8$viq$1@news.datemas.de...
: 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?

...a careless and hurried Rex Ryan admitted that he did accidently sit on
Scott in one of the Jets rest room stalls. No one reports having seen him
since Rex did, however, because of his recent lack of play most believe he
relizes that he's in Rex's shit-house.
....
~Drew

"Talk is cheap ...lets just play"
John Unitas - Baltimore Colts


== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 4:36 pm
From: "yoyodog"


"RävNsfän ®" <noemail2u@nospam4me.org> wrote in message
news:4ea5f5df$0$14811$b42602f9@news.qis.net...
> "yoyodog" <connarchNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:j84ga8$viq$1@news.datemas.de...
> : 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?
>
> ...a careless and hurried Rex Ryan admitted that he did accidently sit on
> Scott in one of the Jets rest room stalls. No one reports having seen him
> since Rex did, however, because of his recent lack of play most believe he
> relizes that he's in Rex's shit-house.
> ....
> ~Drew
>
> "Talk is cheap ...lets just play"
> John Unitas - Baltimore Colts
>

YAWN... Anybody have anything substantial to add? Is he dinged up?
Personal problems?

It's alarming...

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 8:13 pm
From: Harlan Lachman


In article <j84ga8$viq$1@news.datemas.de>,
"yoyodog" <connarchNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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?

Yo Yo, you are right about this game. In parts of the other games I have
watched he has blitzed effectively more and continued to blow up
blockers on running plays.

I think I read somewhere he got dinged and slowed a bit (or was that
Harris).

h

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wow you guys are right...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/750c3707906ace36?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 4:33 pm
From: "Papa Carl"

"MZ" <forums@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:9543b7e8-4e96-4ea9-ba12-ae838ef77465@n18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
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).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Great diagnosis...and what is interesting is this is a system that is fairly
universal at other levels too. By pure position what you describe is where
a tackle should be. You saw what I did and saw in other games too...he
looks lost and you can see guys go past him to the outside....he should be
going to that man when the inside is covered. And...you can tell by
position they have the back set up to take the immediate inside rush....some
guys are good at it too....I think it wears a RB down a lot.

==============================================================================
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 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 4:40 pm
From: "Papa Carl"

"John C TX" <johnctxjets@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:60536441-4912-4978-be7c-5b9818ebb3d6@m5g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Do you think Sanchez will turn into one of these guys? Did these guys at
that time in their careers have the level of talent to throw at? I did say
he looks very good sometimes...but goes back to terrible decisions and very
poor throws. I usually try not to do too much comparing....don't think it
works really. If you recall...I was a defender of Sanchez...given all the
time he has had to develop I think he is behind the curve.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 4:44 pm
From: "Papa Carl"

"graybeard" <graybeard@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:e8hba71hnvc9ndo0kejr95droubgko0hcf@4ax.com...
> 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

I'm only making an observation of what I think was / is terrible decisions
at developing a young QB...and possibly making him worse. Why not get a
solid O line and leave it alone...why not get receivers in and leave them so
the kid can get that consistency....They threw him into the fire....and he
has had the weirdest schemes to work with I've ever seen in
football....don't throw, throw, it's nuts.....HE needs to be allowed to find
his identity...not what the HC / OC thought of the day is. I'd love to see
him develop and it would be a lot better with a real O line and consistent
receivers.


== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 8:07 pm
From: graybeard


On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:44:59 -0400, "Papa Carl" <papa.carl@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
>"graybeard" <graybeard@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>news:e8hba71hnvc9ndo0kejr95droubgko0hcf@4ax.com...
>> 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
>
>I'm only making an observation of what I think was / is terrible decisions
>at developing a young QB...and possibly making him worse. Why not get a
>solid O line and leave it alone...why not get receivers in and leave them so
>the kid can get that consistency....They threw him into the fire....and he
>has had the weirdest schemes to work with I've ever seen in
>football....don't throw, throw, it's nuts.....HE needs to be allowed to find
>his identity...not what the HC / OC thought of the day is. I'd love to see
>him develop and it would be a lot better with a real O line and consistent
>receivers.

On all that I heartily agree.
--
graybeard

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sign Up Shonn Greene On the Cheap Now
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/a4e1f911e8d9e062?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 5:56 pm
From: JetsLife


This kid has proven just how he good he is when he has some space.

He's awesome, runs people over, his last name is Greene, he's from
Jersey. Enough said.

Sign him up on the cheap, now, Jets.


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 8:14 pm
From: Harlan Lachman


In article
<65b7c8a8-205b-4d1e-996c-4f869e00a58f@u2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
JetsLife <JetsLife@aol.com> wrote:

> This kid has proven just how he good he is when he has some space.
>
> He's awesome, runs people over, his last name is Greene, he's from
> Jersey. Enough said.
>
> Sign him up on the cheap, now, Jets.

It takes two to contract but not a bad idea if on the cheap.

h

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Jags - Ravens
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/842f2b08358d8e26?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 9:03 pm
From: Michael


Was that the same Jags team that the Jets beat ???

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: The Ravens suck Part 2 -- LOL!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/e5d5259ad24b648b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 24 2011 9:23 pm
From: UnixRules


Loving this, from a NY Jets fan!!!! The Ravens suck moose cock! lol


==============================================================================

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

Welcome to the nsujlu group

Buzz It
Hello,

I've added you to my nsujlu group at Yahoo! Groups, a free,
easy-to-use service. Yahoo! Groups makes it easy to send and receive
group messages, coordinate events, share photos and files, and more.


Description of the group:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b466go5w4482n3g10dl

Complete your Yahoo! Groups account:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your email address has been added to the email list of a Yahoo! Group.
To gain access to all of your group's web features (previous messages,
photos, files, calendar, etc.) and easier control of your message
delivery options, we highly recommend that you complete your account
by connecting your email address to a Yahoo account. It is easy and free.
Please visit:
http://groups.yahoo.com/convacct?email=microvinitster%40gmail.com&list=nsujlu

Important information about the nsujlu group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* To send a message to the members of this group, send an email to:
nsujlu@yahoogroups.com

* To leave the group, you can unsubscribe by replying to this message,
or by sending an email to:
nsujlu-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Regards,

Moderator, nsujlu

Report abuse:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Yahoo! Groups values your privacy, it is a violation of our
service rules for moderators to add subscribers to a group against
their wishes. If you feel this has happened, please notify us:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/abuse.html

You may also change your email preferences to prevent group owners from
adding you to their groups. To do so, please go here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/s?tag=R3EbUvI-aK3jj5j_6I79yb8ilnbkMLuXd8xL2DMkBKcN70E3Bnmae2ihzQedTQfQxwIuH4_05VO-GHOqfOVhF3qQ

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Download *FREE* 500 Pips FX System

Buzz It
Dear Trader,

Learn how to make as much as 500 pips per trade
using an easy and step-by-step underground trading
strategy that 99% of the traders never even heard
about before.

==> http://app.getresponse.com/click.html?x=a62b&lc=Tf1X&mc=BK&s=tsnF1&y=8&

WARNING: The last online seminar this guy hosted was
filled up very quickly, so secure your *free* spot
right NOW to avoid missing out:

==> http://app.getresponse.com/click.html?x=a62b&lc=Tf1X&mc=BK&s=tsnF1&y=8&


Thanks,
Tom Strignano


==============================================

Tom Strignano, Oceans Drive, Miami, FL 33139, United States
To unsubscribe visit:
http://app.getresponse.com/unsubscribe.html?x=a62b&m=HRC6&s=tsnF1&y=s&
To change your contact details visit:
http://app.getresponse.com/change_details.html?x=a62b&s=tsnF1&y=1&

alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets - 25 new messages in 5 topics - digest

Buzz It
alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en

alt.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

gsk

https://secure.shareit.com/shareit/checkout.html?PRODUCT[300429992]=1&languageid=1&stylefrom=300429992&backlink=http%3A%2F%2Fforexguide.blogspot.com&cookies=1¤cies=USD&pts=VISA,MASTERCARD,AMEX,DC