eSJayDee

re:5a Chandler was his fav target during the 70s (I see you have him listed below). He wasn't much of an athlete, but he had awesome hands & was very productive. One of my all-time fav players. RIP. Also, Jerry Butler. He was amazingly gifted. Unfortunately, a couple of serious injuries limited him.

I just noticed that I could almost count Moorman's eyelashes. They just switched to HD broadcast (channel 6, WRGB I think? in Albany). I can only assume it was a local station problem.

I'm viewing it via 'digital' cable (TW) & the game isn't wide screen. (I also tried it OTA to no avail). The pic isn't the typically awesome clear pic that one normally gets w/ HD either. Anyone else getting it okay?

LOL. My personal opinion, some of the greatest comedy ever. I think the scene trying to cross the moat is the probably the best physical comedy ever.

As opposed to wrecked on reefer?

Isn't that supposed to be the other way around?

I saw a factoid from years ago which, from what I understand is no longer true, but it gives you an idea of how this arises. An average NFL team has about 10 full time college scouts. At the time, the Bills had 13. The Bungles had 3! Their scouting was done primarily by the asst. coaches. Don't they have other duties that keep them kinda busy? On the opposite side of the coin, 1st I'd like to point out that 'never heard of' might not truly be literal. Even if it is, imagine that a 3rd string QB on a team such as USC is what like maybe their 60th most likely player to make it in the NFL. I think in most cases, it's more beneficial to scout say the 5 most likely players from places such as East Polukaville. Scouts only have so many days to visit campuses and a very limited amount of time at each visit. I could see that in the midst of so many other potential draftees, a guy like this could get overlooked.

FYI : re: Potter & Mitra, looks like they are gone soon. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=584221

Actually, if you attempt to drill an equally hard surface, you'll generate a lot of friction, which of course is dissipated as heat, which will cook the eggs. (You might end up w/ a few metal flakes in yout eggs.) Also, you should never tell a guy his tool is worthless.

In the Rams case, players scores aren't really that relevant 'cuz any correlation between intelligence & performance on the field has to start w/ the Head Coach.

I recall seeing her in the background during a meeting, but don't recall any speaking by her. (But she easily could've; I just don't recall off the top of my head.)

She was a senior 'ASSOCIATE', which is considerably different. Probably like VPs at many banking type institutions. Also, I noticed that Monica Potter & Rhonda Mitra were listed as like 'special guests'. Does that mean they are writing them out? Bummer.

I don't think it does (assuming that he kicks it w/ normal hang time). What I think it does do, is cause more dispersion as to where the ball ends up. W/ a pooch, you're pretty assured that it'll end up betwwen the 20 & the goal line (usually inside the 15). As I haven't seen many coffin corner punts in a long time (& as I mentioned elsewhere, I seem to recall them mostly being softer kicks 'back in the day') but I do know it's difficult to be consistently more accurate than 10 yards. Depending on at what yardage marker you aim, determine your anticipated dispersion from there. As I mentioned, I don't whole-heartedly agree w/ the philosophy either. If you've got an accurate punter, why not take advantage of it, at least occasionally.

I agree w/ you to some extent on this. However, bear in mind, like other things, ST have evolved/improved as well. Back then, there wasn't the emphasis placed on ST that they expend now. Back then, punters were able to 'soft foot' the ball & get away w/ it.

I've explained the rationale for this b4, although I don't entirely advocate it myself, I'll do it again. There's 2 basic reasons: 1) it's 'safer'. Assuming that the punter puts his whole leg into it (it's even more of a gamble if he doesn't), an accurate punt is w/in 10 yards of where he aims it. Ignoring the 'Pythagrean effect', that equates to roughly his target +/- 10 yards (You're not concerned w/ the distance lost by kicking to the sideline in this case.) Much worse than that & you can actually have worse results than a touchback. Of course if he doesn't hit it full hang time, if he fails to get the ball OB, you've given the returners an opportunity to return it w/o your coverage guys in proper positions. That's potentially real bad. 2) You're removing the onus of doing something good away from the punter & giving multiple people the opportunity. W/ a 'pooch' punt, there are several cover men potentially able to get in position to make a good play on the ball provided the punter only does an 'adequate' job. And w/ the 'pooch' punt, the %age of times they'll get the ball outside the 20 is very small (15 yard punts that get caught at the 25 withstanding ).

That was the 1st entire game that I've seen in HD & it was awesome. Beyond that, I think you hit the nail on the head that Fox does a far better job than CBS. (Being basically a Bills fan only, I seldom watch NFC games.) More cameras, better graphics, quicker on the replays (& of course from multiple angles.) I'm pretty sure that wasn't too high up on their menu of games either. As for Maas I believe his name was, he said some pretty dumb & annoying things (bear in mind, he's not familiar w/ the Bills) but then again, he also provided more insight than you typically get w/ the CBS announcers we're stuck w/.

My reply to the 'Roughing the Passer' thread below (or is it above?)

I feel that the 2nd one we got, which was against Crowell, was legit. It was a very 'ticky-tack' (to quote Tasker) call, but he did hit him in the head/face, which is a penalty, regardless of how hard. I'll also concede that it's one of those plays that's hard to avoid as he's reaching to tackle & perhaps trying to block the pass & Vick is falling. Sorta like drawing a foul, but it's the rules. I think the call on Vincent was wrong. Hit wasn't late & didn't look high, either. I'll also add that the roughing called on Losman's hit was kinda dubious, too. So it appears that the refs were fair in that they were calling RTP very close. Personally, I really don't like this, particularly w/ 2 mobile QBs like Losman & Vick. Might as well make QBs play w/ redshirts (or skirts) & not allow them to be touched.

No need for concern. Coach Seifert will be able to come up w/ something to compensate.

Yeah, he's an absolute genius. A regular Norman Einstein

In response to FFS post of 6:58. (I'll avoid quoting it to save save bandwidth ) Going off memory this time, you have a point that WM certainly didn't 'engage' that blitzer much and in fact it might have been TBs strategy to have that blitzer 'peel off' to the left, thereby covering any short pass, scramble or screen in that direction. I still contend that at the time that WM had to commit, that rusher would have been priority #1. His actions eliminated the immediate threat of that guy coming up the middle. I'll concede that it certainly would have been better had he have flattened him, but largely due to the direction the defender chose to go, that wasn't easy. I think based on what we know, you can't say WM was the primary cause of the safety & as far as I'm concerned, it looks to me that he carried out his assignment as well as can be expected.

On Moorman's 1st touchback, the ball hit at the 2 & bounced in. There were 2 players in position to make a play on the ball, but neither one did. After the play, they were talking to one another in a way such that one might infer that they each thought the other was going to go for the ball. Perhaps the outside guy had been O.B. so he knew enough not to touch it. Regardless, it was actually a good punt. In this case, relying on the coverage to make the play rather than the punter to hit the coffin corner proved wrong. Also, on TBs punt that was downed at the one. Our 'wingman' stopped blocking the gunner at the 10 & set up to block for a return. I don't know if they're instructed to stop blocking once they pass the returner (or the 10) to lessen the chance of them getting hit by the ball, but in this case, letting the gunner go allowed him to down the punt at the 1. Definitely either a strategic or an implementation mistake on our part allowed TB to make the play.

I just watched the play again, & I don't think it is apparent that McGahee was to blame. He took the inside blitzer & although he didn't have a very effective block, he managed to screen the guy sufficiently to the left (w/ respect to the offense formation) that he was a non-factor. This allowed JP to easily roll right. Unfortunately once he did that, there were 2 other guys coming from that area. WM might have been to blame, but at least from our non-informed observations, based on the 'pick up the free guy inside-out' axiom, he adequately did his job. Based on my opinion, It looks like JP had adequate time to throw from inside the pocket, finding a hot-receiver. Then again, I'm making that call w/ hindsight and knowing the result of what awaited him when he escaped the pocket.

Normally, that would be a very valid question and perhaps a legitimate problem. However, since Sunday it would have only required him to go out 3 plays in a row and exert himself for about 4-5 seconds at a time b4 he would be back on the bench, it probably wasn't much of an issue.

Seriously, I don't think it's usually posted unitl late in the day.