Benchmark

[Jetsfan80]

1 hour ago, Lurker89 said:

Lol I agree ... I also can't help but die laughing at the who did he play analysis coming out of college  now following him to the NFL.

I'm mostly going to judge him on his reps and not try to poke holes in everything he does.(not a veiled insinuation that you are doing so... others however, @Jetsfan80 I'm looking at you ??)

 

I haven't been doing so much of that this week.  I'm in "wait and see" mode now.  

[Jetsfan80]

4 hours ago, Dcat said:

Wow...  really?  I must have forced myself to be immune from this data.  3+ years without a divisional win is pretty much the lowest of the low in the NFL.  I'd say we have some catching up to do.  

2019, actually.  We beat the Dolphins and Bills late in the 7-9 Gase season.  (Though the Bills game was against their backups).  

Even so, it was a 12-game losing streaking in divisional games we snapped on Sunday, and we did so in an emphatic way.  This was crucial.  

[Jetsfan80]

3 hours ago, nj meadowlands said:

His rushing touchdown was also tough as nails.

His toughness has been surprising.  That boogie boarding pu$$y Darnold never demonstrated an ounce of that.  

[Integrity28]

4 hours ago, slats said:

It’s the first time they’ve won two in a row since 2020.

Holy crap.

[Jetsfan80]

3 hours ago, nycdan said:

Speaking of Special Teams...

I can't get over the complete cognitive dissonance of how much disdain I had for Welker and Edelman yet how much a fan of Berrios I am. 

Sometimes you just have to accept things and roll with them, I guess.

 

Unlike Edelman, Berrios never celebrated a routine 9-yard completion like he just made a one-handed sideline TD catch to win a playoff game in overtime.  

The hate for Edelman was justified.  I never really had that kind of hate for Welker though.  Except when he single-handedly destroyed my fantasy week with that 99-yard TD catch on MNF way back in 2011.  I'll never forget that.  

Also, @BornJetsFan1983 dreams of the day when Berrios doesn't garner Welker/Edelman comparisons.

[jvill 51]

3 hours ago, slats said:

Also, if Moore’s toes weren’t touching the white, he has another nice reception. 

Haven't seen the all 22 from this play yet, but from the stands it seemed like Zach was very late on that throw. He also didn't have to be so safe with the location, Moore was pretty open. Still, overall a very solid day stacked on top of a dominant 4th quarter from the week prior. Good stuff.

[Sperm Edwards]

3 hours ago, Warfish said:

We were up 5-0 after the first quarter yesterday, 2 of which came on one of the worst Ref calls I've ever seen (sorry, that was simply not 'intentional grounding", for two reasons, one, an eligible receiver was clearly in the area, and two, the grounding itself wasn't intentional at all, it was because his arm was hit mid-throw). 

I thought the analysis showed there was no eligible receiver in the area. Technically there was a receiver but he was not eligible, and a veteran QB like Bridgewater would know that he wasn't. 

It did look like his arm was coming forward, but that's not in question. It's that he was attempting a pass to someone ineligible in order to avoid a sack. That makes it a sack, whether his arm was going forward or not. So this 2nd reason is kinda the same thing as the 1st reason.

Admittedly I didn't go back to re-watch it, and I was literally getting a beer when they were doing half of the analysis, but I thought I remembered them saying that. Anyway the refs did huddle together to analyze it themselves, no?

Or maybe he was eligible and the guys in the booth got it wrong. I really don't know for certain. But that alone would make it not "one of the worst yada yada yada..." -- I also admit that phrase here triggers me because of its overuse; like hearing words like journey, literally (when what's meant is figuratively), and plenty more. A snowflake moment for me? Perhaps, but I was about to add that term to the list, too.  

[PS17]

4 hours ago, The Crusher said:

OMG, Shut up Slats!

Bro don’t be f ucking with us using JWN’s avatar. I already feel like I’m on crazy pills being 3-2.

[jamesr]

I thought the analysis showed there was no eligible receiver in the area. Technically there was a receiver but he was not eligible, and a veteran QB like Bridgewater would know that he wasn't. 
It did look like his arm was coming forward, but that's not in question. It's that he was attempting a pass to someone ineligible in order to avoid a sack. That makes it a sack, whether his arm was going forward or not. So this 2nd reason is kinda the same thing as the 1st reason.
Admittedly I didn't go back to re-watch it, and I was literally getting a beer when they were doing half of the analysis, but I thought I remembered them saying that. Anyway the refs did huddle together to analyze it themselves, no?
Or maybe he was eligible and the guys in the booth got it wrong. I really don't know for certain. But that alone would make it not "one of the worst yada yada yada..." -- I also admit that phrase here triggers me because of its overuse; like hearing words like journey, literally (when what's meant is figuratively), and plenty more. A snowflake moment for me? Perhaps, but I was about to add that term to the list, too.  

The "receiver"in the vicinity was actively engaged in pass blocking so was not considered an eligible target. The refs did talk it through for a while before throwing the flag so it was a considered decision rather than a knee-jerk one.

From my own view, Teddy was not intending to throw at that point until he saw the pressure ... it wasn't that the hit coincided with the throwing motion, it caused the throwing motion to happen in an attempt to get rid of the ball / avoid the sack.

All in all, it was far from a terrible call. It may not have been 100% clear cut, but there was enough there to justify it. In my opinion anyway.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Sperm Edwards]

13 minutes ago, jamesr said:

The "receiver"in the vicinity was actively engaged in pass blocking so was not considered an eligible target. The refs did talk it through for a while before throwing the flag so it was a considered decision rather than a knee-jerk one.

From my own view, Teddy was not intending to throw at that point until he saw the pressure ... it wasn't that the hit coincided with the throwing motion, it caused the throwing motion to happen in an attempt to get rid of the ball / avoid the sack.

All in all, it was far from a terrible call. It may not have been 100% clear cut, but there was enough there to justify it. In my opinion anyway.

This is what I'm saying. It's not a bad call because his arm was going forward. I don't think that was in dispute. It's that his arm was going forward because he was getting sacked, and it was going forward to throw it towards someone who wasn't eligible to catch it in the first place.

Or put another way, if he hadn't attempted to throw it illegally he'd have been sacked in the EZ. That's why it's a safety even though his arm was going forward.

If he was throwing to an eligible receiver then it's just an incomplete pass. If they didn't call it a safety then it would be a terrible call by the refs.

It was less of a ticky-tack call than the DPI on Carter.

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

But that alone would make it not "one of the worst yada yada yada..." -- I also admit that phrase here triggers me because of its overuse; like hearing words like journey, literally (when what's meant is figuratively), and plenty more. A snowflake moment for me? Perhaps, but I was about to add that term to the list, too.  

Fair enough I guess.  I still have trouble with the idea of intentional grounding when the only reason for the grounding is a defender hit your arm.  I cannot recall ever seeing those two events on the same play the same way.  By definition, if you intended to throw it to X, and a defender hit your arm and deflected the ball away, I just don't see that as intentional grounding.  I mean is a pass deflection by a lineman that gets batted backwards intentional grounding too?  I just don't get it I guess.  Glad the sh*t call went our way for a change (at least partially offset the horrible PI calls and non-calls that day), but still.  

[BornJetsFan1983]

5 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

Unlike Edelman, Berrios never celebrated a routine 9-yard completion like he just made a one-handed sideline TD catch to win a playoff game in overtime.  

The hate for Edelman was justified.  I never really had that kind of hate for Welker though.  Except when he single-handedly destroyed my fantasy week with that 99-yard TD catch on MNF way back in 2011.  I'll never forget that.  

Also, @BornJetsFan1983 dreams of the day when Berrios doesn't garner Welker/Edelman comparisons.

i missed this convo but berrios is not on the same level of those other two players obviously. But it was nice to seem him after costing us a TD with his poor blocking and awareness to be able to see him get force fed a speed run for a td. not sure why we keep forcing to him when a more talented E moore is better suited but whatever.

[Sperm Edwards]

3 hours ago, Warfish said:

Fair enough I guess.  I still have trouble with the idea of intentional grounding when the only reason for the grounding is a defender hit your arm.  I cannot recall ever seeing those two events on the same play the same way.  By definition, if you intended to throw it to X, and a defender hit your arm and deflected the ball away, I just don't see that as intentional grounding.  I mean is a pass deflection by a lineman that gets batted backwards intentional grounding too?  I just don't get it I guess.  Glad the sh*t call went our way for a change (at least partially offset the horrible PI calls and non-calls that day), but still.  

You know what grounding is. He was throwing it to no one - or no one eligible, which has no distinction by the rules - to avoid getting sacked with the ball in his hand.

[Warfish]

54 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You know what grounding is. He was throwing it to no one

Except he wasn't. 

Because we don't know who he was throwing it to.

Because someone hit his arm.

54 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

...to avoid getting sacked with the ball in his hand.

I hear throwing it is still a legal way to not get sacked in the endzone too.

/shrug, agree to disagree.  It's not a good call just because we benefitted from it.

If we had been on the other end, lol.  Yeah.

[Sperm Edwards]

34 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Except he wasn't. 

Because we don't know who he was throwing it to.

Because someone hit his arm.

I hear throwing it is still a legal way to not get sacked in the endzone too.

/shrug, agree to disagree.  It's not a good call just because we benefitted from it.

If we had been on the other end, lol.  Yeah.

As I understand it, he threw it to someone who was ineligible, which (by the rules) is the same as throwing it to no one. If someone eligible was even in the broad vicinity they always give them the benefit of the doubt. 

[Alentador31]

15 hours ago, Warfish said:

Fair enough I guess.  I still have trouble with the idea of intentional grounding when the only reason for the grounding is a defender hit your arm.  I cannot recall ever seeing those two events on the same play the same way.  By definition, if you intended to throw it to X, and a defender hit your arm and deflected the ball away, I just don't see that as intentional grounding.  I mean is a pass deflection by a lineman that gets batted backwards intentional grounding too?  I just don't get it I guess.  Glad the sh*t call went our way for a change (at least partially offset the horrible PI calls and non-calls that day), but still.  

You're getting hung up on the word intentional. I think the key is that he intended to throw the ball - not that he intended to ground the ball. Was his arm hit? Yes, but his arm was also going forward because he intended to throw the ball to avoid the sack. Had it not, it would have been a fumble and we would be having a different conversation. 

As explained by others above, the receiver in the area was not eligible. Therefore, intentional grounding. 

[slats]

22 hours ago, Warfish said:

We were up 5-0 after the first quarter yesterday, 2 of which came on one of the worst Ref calls I've ever seen

Just wanted to point out that the 79 yard pass play to Hall was the last play of the first quarter, and then the Jets were up 12-0 four seconds into the second. It was a pretty good quarter. 
 
Also find it odd that you’re so hung up on that safety. There were a couple bad calls over the weekend, but I’m not seeing anyone bringing up that one. With the time it took to make that call, I suspect the league office was involved. Sauce forced him to throw to avoid the imminent sack, and he tried to throw towards an ineligible receiver. This was hardly the Brady or Carr sack/unnecessary roughness calls. Those were terrible. 

[Warfish]

3 hours ago, Alentador31 said:

You're getting hung up on the word intentional. I think the key is that he intended to throw the ball - not that he intended to ground the ball. Was his arm hit? Yes, but his arm was also going forward because he intended to throw the ball to avoid the sack. Had it not, it would have been a fumble and we would be having a different conversation. 

As explained by others above, the receiver in the area was not eligible. Therefore, intentional grounding. 

If the rule were this simple, every single instance of a passer's arm being hit mid-throw would be called for intentional grounding, as almost all of those passes wind up where no eligible receiver exists.

I'm sorry, it's a bad call IMO.  The right call was incomplete pass.  Again, glad we got the crap call in our favor for a change.  

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, slats said:

Just wanted to point out that the 79 yard pass play to Hall was the last play of the first quarter, and then the Jets were up 12-0 four seconds into the second. It was a pretty good quarter.

The Jets first three quarters were leading to us to being beaten by a #3 QB and a crappy RB in Mostert.  If you want to say the 1st Q was good, and the 2nd and 3rd Q's bad, ok.  Ultimately, with 9 min. left in the game, we were facing what appeared to be a SOJ type losing the game, till we blew it open.  A great 4th quarter.  

1 hour ago, slats said:

Also find it odd that you’re so hung up on that safety. There were a couple bad calls over the weekend, but I’m not seeing anyone bringing up that one. With the time it took to make that call, I suspect the league office was involved. Sauce forced him to throw to avoid the imminent sack, and he tried to throw towards an ineligible receiver. This was hardly the Brady or Carr sack/unnecessary roughness calls. Those were terrible. 

The officiating in our game, as I said elsewhere, was horrible all day, especially on PI calls.  Again, I'm happy to agree to disagree with all of you on this, I think it was a very poor call, wrong on several levels, but I'm glad we got it for a change.