eSJayDee

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.

I guess the question is which is worse - An elite defense that plays to a mediocre level, or a mediocre offense that plays like horse ca-ca?

I only recently got an HD TV. I'm not too up on the technical details (I was confused as it appeared that I have 3 channel 6s, which apparently I actually do.) but I think they do seperate telecasts. I haven't taken the opportunity to compare the broadcasts side by side (when something is in HD the pic is too awesome to ruin it by scrunching it using PIP), so I don't really know. Someone mentioned elsewhere that you can see both punter & returner on the same screen. My opinion is that they 'shoot' the game basically the same except w/ the HD you're getting about 33% more width (16:9 ratio vs 4:3) which I don't think dramatically alters what you see.

- People say that our run defense fell apart when LF was lost to injury. We weren't doing a very good job of stopping it b4 then. Considering how hot it was on the field and how long they were out there, I don't think having LF out there would've meant for much improvement. - I think contrary to popular opinion, our O-line is actually good at pass blocking, but their weakness is run blocking. For the past few years, it appears that our RBs are met at the LOS (or behind) far more often than they should be. You can't expect a RB to be productive if they have no where to go. Perhaps McNally's teaching abilities have improved their pass blocking skills but their lack of innate talent is what dictates how well they beat their men in run blocking. - People are saying that McGahee sucks at blocking (specifically pass blocking as he doesn't get much opportunity to run block). From what I recall from last year, he often would destroy on-rushers and at least from my layman's observations, usually picked up the correct man. - Moorman may have one of the strongest legs in the league and my personal opinion is that he's relatively accurate, but his touch is poor at particularly bad yesterday. That's something that we need to work on as the benefits we can reap are tremendous. (See the punt leading to TB's safety.) - Speaking of Moorman, is it possible that our new snapper is causing him problems? (I seem to recall him liking Dorenbous(sp?) - Our ST did well yesterday &/or TB isn't too good in this regard. I think they had penalties on > 50% of the ST plays. Our kick returns were good, coverage decent. - Vincent seems to give us much greater range & 'center fielding' ability than we've had in a long range but he's not too reliable in run support. The exact opposite of Prealeou(sp?) who I think was a very sure tackler. - It appeared to me that the problem w/ our passing game was that the receivers weren't getting open. (I haven't reviewed the game yet, so my opinion might change.) Losman wasn't sharp, but I don't think our incredible lack of production was primarily his fault.

FYI, those 'fancy rectanglular TVs' do no good unless the broadcasts are in Hi-Def. Apparently, CBS has opted only to broadcast their top 3 games each week in Hi-Def (see rants from others elsewhere) of which we seldom will be. What you get is actually 'perpendicular letterbox', where the sides of the pic are blacked out instead of the top & bottom.

Hard to get more than 13 touches if almost every series is 3 and out.

I can't really come up w/ a good reason, but it is consistent w/ being unable to advance a lateral. Both are instances where possession is in transition. Then again, you can advance an interception.

Speaking of girls, what happened to the "Babe of the Day", or should be more appropriately title it "Babe of the Weekday"?

We only had 2 returns, but IIRC, I did see him coming off the field on one. (I don't know if he was in his usual position as the '2nd' return man or not, but I assume so.) I also recall them saying that in preseason they had others back there as they were looking for his BACKUP.

Yeah. & I got the brochure indicating this Monday, THE 12th! Receiver was fixed on 708 so that I could tape the game for watching again (& likely again) later.

He put Largent in a very difficult situation. If he had refused, he would have looked like a bigger A-hole than Rice. Oh, & Stuck - I yahoo'd "Largent Rice jersey" & got lots of hits. None of the 1st few had any actual comments, but you can certainly get the jist of what happened. Also, look like Real found a related quote. Considering his expected production at that point in his career, I'd say it was quite disrespectful. As for his waste of kitchen facilities, bear in mind it's probably part of a 4000+ sq ft multi-million $ estate/mansion. 'Wasting' perhaps another $50k or so on kitchen fixtures is sorta like you spurging & wasting having cable outlets installed in every room when you've only got 1 tv. It's what's expected in that kind of house.

when he asked Largent to 'unretire' his jersey #, just so he could use it. Particularly for someone that holds virtually all receiving records, that seems pretty classless to me.

At least in the past, you could intercept the network feed direct from their satellite. (They might now use some sort of encryption.) Of course that'll cost you probably $2k in equipment & the need to have a 6' dish in your yard. Myself, I'd rather just pay for Sunday ticket for the 1/2 or so of the games that aren't covered by the local affiliates.

Presumably you bought them w/ plastic? If stubhub refuses a refund, dispute the charge. If this company hopes to stay in business, credit card companies have got a lot more clout than you. Good luck.

The question boils down to what probability is it that these extra duties will cause him to lose playing time and what is the lost production if he does lose time relative to what is the expected gain if he performs these extra duties. Ignoring many factors such as run support, int %age and most importantly from my perspective, probability that he muffs/fumbles let's guess at some #s. Let's guess that on avg. a CB loses 3 games/yr. due to injury. In the remaining 13 games, he'll face roughly 750 plays, or 1 game lost per every 250 plays. Let's further guess that he has the potential to be involved in 8 passing plays/game on avg. that his abilities will have an effect on the outcome. Each pass completion on avg gains roughly 11 yds. On avg, passes are completed at say 62.5% (so that it = 5/game). Now how much better is he than his backup? 10%? 20%? Let's take a wild stab at 20% (which I personally think is excessive, but might prove to be beneficial to inflate this figure to take into consideration running plays, too) This means that losing him equates to roughly 11 yds/game. He'll get roughly 50 chances to return punts. Now how much more dangerous is returning punts relative to playing CB? Again, let's take a wild guess at 3x. So that 50 return opportunities (he'll actually truly return less but to simplify our model we'll assume he still incurs an equal chance to get injured on all) equates to 150 'regular' plays which equals less than the expected # of plays that leads to a lost game (which we determined to be worth 11 yards.) So it finally boils down to if he's roughly 0.2 yards better than his replacement punt returner. Note, this was only an example, but it is a way of empirically determining your answer whether or not it's a mistake. Just plug in what you think are the appropriate #s to come up w/ your answer. Personally, if we really think he's our best returner (considering ball handling, personally I think this is open to debate, also I'm anxious to see what Parrish can do) it looks like to me the risk is well worth it.

His one sack resulted from a man (who was poorly blocked by S.Williams) catching him from behind. Granted, we/I haven't seen much of him, but possibly either due to running for his life at Tulane or some innate sense, he seems to have good pocket awareness.

I bet he new that

Actually, I think that was one of Kelly's greatest strengths was his accuracy on the move. There was also a somewhat weak armed QB that the 9ers had that was quite successful a large part due to throwing on the move. I like the looks of Losman throwing - good technique (usually), athletic, quick release. I haven't seen enough passes to make a reasonable assessment as to his accuracy either from the pocket or on the move yet.

I think they both were from like 49 yds, too. Those goal posts look mighty small from that distance. I saw the 2nd one & it was a nice looking kick; just missed by a couple feet or so. From that distance, they certainly aren't gimmes. I'd say you're good if you manage 50% from there, which means you'll still miss both 25% of the time.

Maybe JR urinated in the cold tub?