Jump to content

Alworth

Members
  • Posts

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

111 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Get well Fish and please, as urged by others above. quickly get to Paxlovid and/or alternative medicine therapies (your choice) as soon as humanly possible. I got it in January at the age of 72 and was worried for its duration because I had missed the short window in which any therapies are effective.
  2. Lance Alworth, doc (IIRC from Jets Insider)
  3. #19 looked good on Johnny U, It also looked good on the fellow in my avatar (DBs he played against often got a good but ever-diminishing view of it).
  4. I think a source of hope, especially if CJ and Quincy stay healthy, is that we may play more than other teams with 4-2-5--all the more doable because of the overall better talent than before among the DBs..
  5. I have a bit of a different take. Last summer, when playoffs weren't even in the realm of possibility, it didn't seem necessary to JD that he bid for Flacco (Philly, paid him a significant bonus) just to be a mentor. The thought process, which I agree with, was to kick the can down the road because J.D. knew that if Zach went down we could still use White or a journeyman off the street to evaluate and grow the other offense talent. By the way, the significant bonus wasn't paid by us after the trade and the remainder of the week by week money at the time of the trade was small. This year is different. Playoff talk isn't totally crazy and remember also that JD and the rest of us feel a need to make a significant leap in the win total, So this time if made sense to pay Flacco a significant guaranteed amount.
  6. So true about Rankins, We have four IDL even w/o him and not even counting JFM---QW, Shep (signed because Rankins is toast, IMHO). Thomas, and Marshall. I think JD/Saleh know they need the net 4 million-plus cap savings to roll over to next year for finishing touches for FAs (ours or others).
  7. Even if he doesn't develop as a 4-3 pass rusher, he will be a major/different-kind-of force against the run in a 4-3 (not a trivial issue for us). One way or another he will be a problem for the opposition. I have a slight preference for Johnson or KT (Hutch being gone), but I don't see Walker's floor as low (and his upside is high). I can more than live with the pick.
  8. I'm sure this will bring forth jokes from other posters, but Sarge, you left out Zuniga.
  9. Good stuff as always Clayton. And though I agree with Bitonti about Pinnock, we do need a potential starter. I agree with you that round two is a poor resource allocation. But I would go with any then-available potential starter at 69, reaching be darned. You seem to be relegating a lot of players--e.g. Kerry Joseph--to the fourth and fifth. I respect the value-oriented approach, but I'm not sure it's consistent with your labeling of safety as a big need
  10. That's an interesting point about the third possession FidelioJet. Makes me want to walk back my post above. And yet, though it might not stand up to analytics or even easy logic, I have a gut feeling that the team that goes second has two chances to win the game--(1) a turnover or (2) a score of their own--plus their superior ability to score a tying TD if necessary on the second possession,
  11. Zuerlein still has a cannon for a leg too. More likely to repair him than be able to develop Amendola. Pineiro versus Zuerlien in a lengthy sustained competition should yield a solid result one way or the other.
  12. The regular season rule, unworkable for the playoffs, is pretty good. As to the playoffs, the change is bad. The team getting the ball last is playing at all times, if the ball-first team scores a TD, with four downs to make a first down. But the team getting the ball first is playing with three, unless they want to take crazy chances. This is a much worse imbalance than the current playoff rule. You watch. Coaches who win the coin toss will decline to take the ball. The change is nuts.
  13. From the run up to the '09 draft--when I was hoping we could somehow find the much additional capital to move up for him instead of Sanchez--to now, Stafford has always passed the eye test for me. His yards might be inflated because of playing from behind, but his other quarterback metrics are worse because of that desperation. I suspect he didn't play stat ball when the Lions were about to fall out of a game, but instead rightfully let that situation lead to taking chances (causing increased INTs for example). Won't commit yet to him and the HOF, but I am a fan.
  14. In the original thread about a rule change, I made a clumsy argument for not going to a mandatory second possession. Here's a better argument. The team that gets the ball first will have to decide sometimes between punting or not (thus sometimes getting only three downs). The team that gets the ball second always has the luxury of having four downs, not three. That advantage is bigger than the 52.9 to 47.1 percent advantage that the team that goes first has had during the tenure of the current regular season rule. And by the way, that 52.9 number is inflated by an advantage that doesn't exist for the team going first when, as in the case of the current playoff, there is no 10 minute limit (a time limit which may cause the team going first to wind up with an extra possession)
  15. I'm going to get a bit nerdy here. First off, the larger sample size of regular post-rule change overtimes shows that the toss winner wins 52.9%, a number a bit inflated because in a 10 minute OT--not applicable in the playoffs--- there's a good chance that the toss winner will get more possessions. Second, I think the extreme 9 out of 10 wins for the toss winner in playoffs is based on small sample size, not, as has been said above, defenses are more tired come playoff time. Third, the playoff game team that goes second if the rule change talked about this week is instituted will have an advantage FAR LARGER than the team that wins the toss under the current playoff OT rule because it can (1) tie on the second possession or (2) win outright as a function of a first possession turnover caused by its D that produces either (A) a short field, (B) a very short field, (3) a pick six or (4) a scoop and score. It's the third point above that makes a rule change a non-starter for me.
×
×
  • Create New...