eSJayDee
-
Posts
1,763 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by eSJayDee
-
-
I believe he is usually set up as the 2nd return guy. He's primarily back there due to his apparent excellent lead blocking capability.
The idea is that (like last year w/ Brown) the primary return man gets the ball except for maybe 20% of the field. It just so happens that the were able to kick it accurately to that area (although on one of those kicks, McGee was in position to take it but Fletch took it anyway).
For that matter, he seemed to do a pretty good job on his 2 returns.
-
You have ONE YARD TO GO for 7 points. What's your probability of making it? It better be > 50%, but w/ this offense, maybe not. Given the value of a TD relative to only a FG that early in the game AND that your expected return was greater (assume 100% FG success rate = 3 pts, 50% TD = 3.5 pts) it was the right decision.
Further, consider that even if they do fail, they're gaining likely > 25 yards of field position in the exchange relative to scoring & kicking off. Just like punting instead of the FG last week was a correct call, this also is what sways this into being the most prudent decision.
-
Hey, as far as I'm concerned, there are only two true knocks on RJ:
1) He's injury prone. Bledsoe is FAR better than him in this regard. However, depending our the starter quality of output & the next guy off the bench, this might not be so much of an advantage.
2) RJ has a 3 second mind in a 2 second world. Making quality decisions in 3 seconds is an asset in many professions; it works fine in chess & golf, but not football. Unfortunately, it seems that Bledsoe has a 4 second mind!
-
Interesting. I've always thought that it's best to play well at the end of the year, but you would think that at least starting strong would give you a better chance to at least MAKE the playoffs.
I'll extrapolate those stats further. If 18 were 1-1 or 0-2, that means that 6 were 2-0. There should be on avg 8 teams that start off 2-0, so at least for the last 2 yrs, starting well is possibly actually NEGATIVELY correlated w/ making the playoffs.
-
Sorry for the snide remark, but to cure the problem, use Mozilla or NetScape (If nothing else, it'll say 'Mozilla encountered...'.)
Seriously, if nothing else, it might prove diagnostic.
-
1962 Ford Mustang w/ straight 6
If I'n not mistaken, Mustangs didn't come out 'til mid 1964. Do you mean a '72?
BTW, for 'coolest', I'd have to go w/ my very own '68 Charger. Have owned it for 21 years. As for 'exotic', I drove an Excaliber. A previous neighbor of mine was a car salesmen. The Excaliber was basically a (n expensive) kit car built on a (brand new) Camaro chassis. (This was about 1985). They had it at their dealership for promotional purposes. It was surprisingly fast.
-
Anybody who was fortunate enough to see a replay or who taped the game and had the stomach to watch it again, I'd really like to know exactly what Vilarial did to earn that one.
From the view of replay(s), it didn't look like he did anything wrong, or at least not blatant. I wonder if the call was actually on MW (#68 vs #58 & right next to him) Although certainly not a mugging, it did look like MW had hold of a bit of jersey.
-
Actually, I would think that technically it would NOT count as an incomplete. (It definitely wouldn't be considered a complete.)
It counts as an ATTEMPT. Your completion %age is based on # of completions, divided by # of attempts.
So in the aforementioned Moorman example, your completion %age is still zero. (0/1)
-
or Mia Hamm?
now that would put some asses in the seats.
A few years ago, she was visiting the Chefs training camp & she supposedly was making 55 yd FGs, Both LEFT & RIGHT Footed! That's pretty impressive.
-
Yes, we only had 3 DL, but I think on every play we were sending 4 or 5 rushers.
Once they got down to the 20 or whereever, they were still executing their passes VERY quickly as if they were expecting the blitz.
BTW, on the play that Clements got beat on, the 2 safeties were in the middle of the field noticably in front of the completion. It looked like Wire was on that side & Reece on the other. Had Clements been totally toasted, it would have went the distance.
-
Just finished watching the 1st half on tape.
On one particular play, I think Denney hits Leftwich in the face (we're lucky it wasn't a penalty), which results in an errant somewhat wounded duck.
Clements was in zone w/ no one really to cover & is just basically jogging. The ball falls harmlessly about 10 foot from him. Could he have picked it? Who knows 'cuz he didn't even try! I would have liked to see at least a bit of an effort trying to get to the ball.
(IIRC, it was 2nd down, BTW.)
-
One of my concerns about losing AW was his great run support.
I believe TV was our leading tackler today.
One particular play that stood out.
Taylor breaks an off-tackle run, Wire (who was unblocked) misses him & despite being blocks by a TE, TV manages to drag him down by the feet. If not for that tackle, it likely would have been a ~70 yd TD run.
-
Well, I'd be happy 'cuz when the game was on the line, the Dee would have come through.
That was one thing that was lacking last year. Too many times, when it was important to stop someone, they failed.
The Dee was as stout as last year and even managed a couple of turnovers. Still they would have had 1 bonehead screw-up (the 45 yd bomb, thanks Nate).
The offense did what was advertised. Played smash-mouth football & managed to not lose it for us. They stayed committed to the run game even against a superb run Dee.
-
Risk vs Reward, a very prudent decision.
You're up by 4, so they need a TD.
1st, what do you think the %ages are to make that kick? W/ a good kicker, they might be slightly greater than 50%. W/ Lindell, let's just say less than 50%.
IF it is successful, what have you gained? Well, that winning TD that your opponents just made is now a tying TD. Not trivial granted. However, consider that TD drive would have started from an avg of about the 27 instead of the 15 (about the expected result of a punt from their 33 or 38). That increases the liklihood of success slightly greater (maybe 10% or more) due to both distance & time constraints.
Further, you have to consider that if indeed they are successful in scoring a TD, it's also quite likely that there will still be time left on the clock for your drive.
So basically, your taking a chance to give you a bit of an extra cushion (already having the tying FG instead of having to make it in the waning seconds) for about 25 yds of field position (a miss gives them the ball at the 40-41; the expected result of a punt would be about the 15). Not worth it in my book.
If anything, in hindsight I wonder if going for it on 4th & 7 or whatever it was might not have been more prudent.
-
From what I recall from seeing it (haven't rewatched the tape yet), it appears that depending upon how cleanly he ends up catching it, he might not have gotten in the EZ & in fact that might have ended the game.
It was a VERY catchable pass, but it was somewhat behind him on his back shoulder (again, IIRC), so he would have lost some or all of his forward momentum & may have been tackled by the 2 guys that were close to him.
But yes, if you were a Jags fan & they would have ended up losing, you would have definitely blamed him.
-
This was one thing I was wondering. I'm anxious to go back & look at the tape & see what happened.
My only guess/hope was that we were blitzing some DBs, so there was no one to help out.
As long as that pass hung in the air, you'd think practically even one of our 'high motor' DEs could have got back there to help out, yet Clemens was the only DB on the TV screen.
Yeah, I think there shoulda been someone else back there as well.
-
Thanks to everyone who made this happen!
That would be you, Scott. Thank YOU.
-
I would assume Price would come in. McFarland was only 2nd (I hope) 'cuz in PS you have an entire 2nd line working together & Price can't be in 2 places at once.
(MW might be BIG enough to play 2 places, but even w/ that, you'd rather have 2 bodies than one
) -
I wonder if being forced to sign Mathews & being accountable for his entire annual salary due to his tenure is why Brown was let go.
I thought we had decent cap space so I think it's unlikely, but who knows.
-
Fortunately or unfortunately, just 'cuz they get cut, the dream isn't over for many of those young men. There's still the hope that someone will sign them later in the year (or even this week), and of course also for many of them, they'll work to get better & try next year.
It's a tough quest when you look at it that way.
-
I'm sure another HUGE reason that he was cut was that his veteran minimum salary is HUGE
This is not really the case. If you sign an 'old-time' vet for a 1 yr. vet minimum salary, you get a substantial break on the cap cost. This change was implemented a few yrs ago, 'cuz there were many back-up vets (AVP comes to mind), that couldn't get work for the very reason you state. The extra 400k or so of cap room that they took up wasn't worth it relative to a rookie who can sit on the bench for much less.
As a representation, (I don't know accurate #s, but this'll be the general idea), let's say that vet min for someone w/ 10+ yrs is $900k but their cap hit will only be $500k. Rookie min is like $250k, so isn't a good kicker worth $250k? You'd be better off w/ only 52 guys on the roster.
(My personal opinion is that kickers (& punters) are among the most valuable players on the team & getting a good one, like Moorman, is worth WAY more than there relative cap hit relative to other players.)
-
Thanks Cindy & all.
Now the question is, should I designate this my official gameday attire for the year (Obviously the jersey that I've been wearing the last few years isn't doing too well.)
-
I think it all comes down to #s.
I was going over remaining cuts & getting down to 56 or so is pretty easy. The problem is that you've got about 6 or so candidates that you'd like to keep but need to get rid of like 3.
Personally, the way I see it I'd like to keep the 5 WRs, axing Haddad & Smith, keep all 4 TEs & only 1 FB (I'd like to see Lawton be the one). That appears to me to be our strongest mix.
Remember, that although you go w/ '4 wide', they don't all need to be WRs. You can split a TE out there or send a RB.
-
I wouldn't think so. For that matter, I thought it entirely plausible to go the 1st 3 wks w/ only Zolman as a BU.
Bledsoe has proven very durable throughout his career (knock wood); they're not likely to bench him for incompetence (at least that early in the season).
For that matter, some would argue that the only way, or at least the best way, for Losman to get better is to play.
If they thought that highly of Mathews relative to TB, they would have signed him weeks or months ago.
Sorry, the server is too busy to blah blah blah...
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Ditto.
Call me paranoid, but I thought maybe someone was being clever & playing a trick by somehow posting a link to that page as the msg header.