SouthernJet Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I think it was Manginis way of saying 'you guys suck'. Down by 2 million points in 2nd half and Chad basically ran, ran, ran. I think he was saying, we cant throw, so we might as well work on our crappy running game. Very odd, down so many that we ran so much in middle of 3rd quarter on.. I hope to God he didnt give them Monday off, ala Herm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 who cares if the final score is 41 - 0 or 41 - 14? there's no difference in the standings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 who cares if the final score is 41 - 0 or 41 - 14? there's no difference in the standings agree,, I am just saying that I think it was a statement to team,, you cant throw to save your life today and we will work on stuff no matter how silly it looks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Mac Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Maybe he didn't want his QB getting killed again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 Maybe he didn't want his QB getting killed again. if yo uare going to run to protect chad, yo uare saying you are not coming back to win, ,so he could have put Clemens in earlier. I think he was making a statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 agree,, I am just saying that I think it was a statement to team,, you cant throw to save your life today and we will work on stuff no matter how silly it looks that's my theory too SJ-he said hey we lost this game anyway I wanna see if we can get this run blocking thing a little more cohesive-and we'll do it till we get it right-right out of my HS football Coach Gibble's playbook-his phrase was "do EET do eet" (eet=it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4HCrew Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Pure stupidity..punish the players by keeping the starters in risking them to get hurt in a meaningless game. No point proved here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 Pure stupidity..punish the players by keeping the starters in risking them to get hurt in a meaningless game. No point proved here if you looked a few starters were pulled,, but who cares,, if they play like crap they need to fix it, ,those starters MADE IT A MEANINGLESS GAME,, dont adopt the Herm philosopy of coddling these overpriced primadonnas.. only thing that motovates them sometimes is embarrasement.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Pure stupidity..punish the players by keeping the starters in risking them to get hurt in a meaningless game. No point proved here hey 4H how about Del Rio leaving his starting QB in the whole game and actually throwing to the end zone up by 40-man I was hoping someone on Jacksonville would have gotten hurt-sorry I was-I'm only human I couldn't help it-if any of you say you weren't wishing the same you're a liar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4HCrew Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I think the Jags acted classless and was hoping that someone would get hurt. But at the same time this is not a Herm philosophy..Chad had a lousy day and NOTHING was being established. Why not give Clemens reps? why still have Kendall in the game? this is not coddling this is called move on and get ready to win a division game the next week. Would be much harder to win that game if Chad was out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 I think the Jags acted classless and was hoping that someone would get hurt. But at the same time this is not a Herm philosophy..Chad had a lousy day and NOTHING was being established. Why not give Clemens reps? why still have Kendall in the game? this is not coddling this is called move on and get ready to win a division game the next week. Would be much harder to win that game if Chad was out. sort of like sofla said,, for a while he wanted starters out there looking like clowns in a big defeat doing nothing but running,, you know they were embarrased out there behind 34-0 running 3 yards and a cloud of dust plays,, they will remember that.. lets also hope the ygot of plane in NY and took a bus to Hempstead and ran sprints ala Bear Bryant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 He wasn't "punishing" them. He was trying to establish some degree of a running game. It was a good time for it. A meaningless game, since it had already been decided and somewhat easier to run because the Jags are just trying to stop long passes. It kept the QB from being killed and gave a chance to see Washington warm up. Also shortens the game and keeps it from being 68-0. Besides they had no success passing and a little with Washington running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4HCrew Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I will have to agree to disagree..to me it was pointless and proved nothing. If anything it could have exposed some of his own flaws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 He wasn't "punishing" them. He was trying to establish some degree of a running game. It was a good time for it. A meaningless game, since it had already been decided and somewhat easier to run because the Jags are just trying to stop long passes. It kept the QB from being killed and gave a chance to see Washington warm up. Also shortens the game and keeps it from being 68-0. Besides they had no success passing and a little with Washington running. I know, but it very embarrassing for starters to not be throwing to catch up in a big lead,, He worked on stuff but also made a point by leaving in starters,, You dont usually 'work' on stuff with starters in a blowout.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetCane Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I will have to agree to disagree..to me it was pointless and proved nothing. If anything it could have exposed some of his own flaws I'm with 4H here, and I would have put Clemens in at the end of the third quarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I know, but it very embarrassing for starters to not be throwing to catch up in a big lead,, He worked on stuff but also made a point by leaving in starters,, You dont usually 'work' on stuff with starters in a blowout.. I agree it was embarrassing, but not as sad as that last pick Chad threw. The line has been too lame to sub out, they have to work together. Ramsey doesn't deserve to be in and I don't see any point in using too many backups on this team. He could have gone to Clemens sooner, but I think he was worried about the whole inactive, not able to use the other qb thing. I'd have put Clemens in one series sooner. Not a big deal from where I sit. To me they should have been embarrassed enough that not passing should be the least of their worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serphnx Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Sorry, not buying your theory. You don't really have any evidence for it, it's just an idea that popped into your head. So last week on 4th and 2, was he punishing Nugent for missing FGs a few weeks ago? C'mon man, he's doing what he needs to, he's not worrying about "punishing" anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 Sorry, not buying your theory. You don't really have any evidence for it, it's just an idea that popped into your head. So last week on 4th and 2, was he punishing Nugent for missing FGs a few weeks ago? C'mon man, he's doing what he needs to, he's not worrying about "punishing" anyone. and what did he need to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthCoastJetsFan Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I'm with 4H here, and I would have put Clemens in at the end of the third quarter. If Clemens was the 3rd QB, he can't come in before the 4th quarter except in an injury situation. If you bring him in before that, he has to finish the game, the 1st 2 QBs can't come back in. I believe that's the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
war ensemble Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 If Clemens was the 3rd QB, he can't come in before the 4th quarter except in an injury situation. If you bring him in before that, he has to finish the game, the 1st 2 QBs can't come back in. I believe that's the rule. How about we should've put Brad Smith in quarterback for the third quarter, and then Clemens the fourth. You never know, Brad could've been like lights out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.