Random NFL thoughts (Jets trip, Brady snow, DJack's celebration, Favre streak)

[JasonEvans]

What do folks think about this Jets coach who stuck out his knee (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=yhoo-ept_sports_nfl_experts-294916)to trip a Dolphins player running down the sidelines on a punt return? The dude (Sal Alosi, the Strength and Conditioning coach) is going to get suspended and fined, for sure. Do people think he should be fired?

I am of the belief that this kind of thing is sacrosanct in sports. Coaches do not get involved in on-field play. It is one of those things that is simply inexcusable. I sorta hate to see the guy's career ended over it, but you have to send a really strong message about this.

Next item-- I have Tom Brady on my Fantasy team in the league I really care about. I am in the first round of the playoffs this week. I have the second most points in the league but, sadly, I am facing the team with the most (we are the #4 and #5 seeds) points. Tough matchup. Anyway, I looked up Sunday morning and the folks on TV are talking about a freaking blizzard in Chicago-- 50 MPH winds and 2-4 inches of snow during the game. So, I benched Brady and started Rothlisberger.

Yes, I am an idiot.

As it stands right now, I have a 7 point lead going into Monday Night. He has Hakeem Nicks to go and I have the Giants D. I am clearly the favorite, but it is a sweat. If I had started Brady, I'd be leading by 17 points and I would not be worried at all. Grrrr! Last time I ever bench Tom Terrific!

Finally, what do folks think about Deshawn Jackson's TD celebration from the 1-foot line last night? I just worry that he is going to cost himself points at some point. Recall that he sorta spiked a football early on a TD a couple years ago and it was ruled a fumble at the 1 instead of a TD. I do like his personality, but he is a real showboat and not exactly a classy guy. He and Vick are a lethal combo though-- wow!

-Jason "final side note-- it is a crime that one of the Falcons or Saints will be a Wild Card-- clearly the two best teams in the NFC" Evans

[DukeUsul]

As an Eagles fan I love his energy and clearly his skill. And even though it seems that, by the letter of the law, what he did may not have been a penalty (as Chris Collinsworth pointed out, you really can't go to the ground in celebration if you're going to the ground as you score), I can't argue with it. He was clearly showboating in an unsportsmanlike manner, so I'd not argue the flag.

I'm very afraid that he'll do something like that again that will cost us a game.

[InSpades]

The Jets coach should have already been fired. I think it's a mistake for the Jets to wait to see what the league says about it. He admitted to tripping the guy... I don't think there's anything more that can be said at this point. It was a disgraceful act.

The Saints are certainly very good, but the Giants and Eagles are in a similiar position. The last few weeks in the NFC is going to be very interesting. The most interesting team is Tampa... who really have no bad losses and no good wins.

We all make bad fantasy decisions every now and then. I had the Jets defense in 2 leagues and started them dutifully (despite poor results) up until 3 weeks ago when I finally had enough. Of course againt the Bungles they get 3 turnovers, 3 sacks and a safety (to go w/ a special teams return TD). Probably cost me a playoff spot in 1 of the 2 leagues.

[bjornolf]

The bad thing about the Jackson play is that Newman had given up on the play and peeled off, then clearly looked like he felt stupid for not finishing the play. He did a double take when he saw what Jackson did. If he'd kept running, Jackson wouldn't have been able to do it without Newman catching him and, at the very least, putting a good lick on him for it, possibly even knocking the ball loose. I don't think he deserved a "going to the ground during a celebration" penalty. What he deserved was an unsportsmanlike conduct taunting penalty. I realize the final result is the same (15 yards on the kickoff), but it does make the difference between the ref getting the call right v. wrong in a technical sense.

As for the Jets coach, I think he should be fined and suspended. Not 100% sure on the fired thing. Otherwise, the player that nailed the ball carrier out of bounds should be fired too (can't remember what game that was, but they showed it on sportscenter...I think it was on a kick return). That is a HORRIBLE thing to do though, like in the Alabama v. Rice Cotton Bowl in the 50s.

[DukeUsul]

I don't think he deserved a "going to the ground during a celebration" penalty. What he deserved was an unsportsmanlike conduct taunting penalty. I realize the final result is the same (15 yards on the kickoff), but it does make the difference between the ref getting the call right v. wrong in a technical sense.

Agreed, that would have been a more correct call.

[Kimist]

...don't forget how Woody Hayes career ended:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEVJyf0ft3I

[JasonEvans]

...don't forget how Woody Hayes career ended:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEVJyf0ft3I

Well, Woody had some serious anger management history. I don't really see these as the same kind of thing.

--Jason

[tommy]

The Jets' assistant coach should've been fired first thing this morning, if not last night. There are, or should be, some bright line rules in life. One of them is: coaches or others on the sideline of a game do not get involved in the game physically in this kind of manner. Period. Everybody knows it. Apologizing today is pretty much irrelevant in my mind.

Pink slipping him wouldn't ruin the guy's career. He can get another job somewhere else for some other team, if not in the pros right away then somewhere else. Gotta send a message that there is zero tolerance for this kind of thing.

What a shock, though,, that it just happens to have happened from the Jets sideline . . . :rolleyes:

[weezie]

Fascinating stuff here....

But really, how about my Lions?! Watch out folks, we just might have something starting to maybe, kind of possibly, some time, almost wha', just a little bit simmer in The "D". And it is all starting with my guy named Suh.

And, in the meantime, enjoy Ford Field tonight, all youse guys who rarely get to see it and yes, I know you don't really want to see it either, but our smoked kielbasas (es?) rock the house.

[Mal]

All this talk and no mention of the giant souffle falling in Minneapolis? The most ridiculous franchise in the NFL just got a little more ridiculous. Clearly, the karmic debt to the Vikings' run to the NFC Championship last year with Brett Favre has a few payments left yet.

On other notes, I marvel at the Patriots. I'm not surprised they won yesterday - weather like that favors efficient offenses with precision passing, because it's just so hard to play defense in slippery conditions like that, both on the line and in the backfield. And they're a cold weather team with plenty of experience in the snow. But the way they just trounced a 9 win team (albeit a fraud) a week after shipwrecking the Jets. Well, they look like the team to beat now, for sure. And all this with a no name (3 or 4 names, actually!) RB, two WR's under 6 feet, a rookie tight end and a defense that's not close to its heyday. Pretty impressive.

As for those of you still playing fantasy, consider yourselves lucky. I missed the playoffs by one point, ONE point, and then would have had 9 TDs yesterday from Turner, Witten, Colston and Floyd, to go along with 115 yards from Ward and 170 from Torain.

[blazindw]

Fascinating stuff here....

But really, how about my Lions?! Watch out folks, we just might have something starting to maybe, kind of possibly, some time, almost wha', just a little bit simmer in The "D". And it is all starting with my guy named Suh.

And, in the meantime, enjoy Ford Field tonight, all youse guys who rarely get to see it and yes, I know you don't really want to see it either, but our smoked kielbasas (es?) rock the house.

First off, Lions Lions Lions!!!! We finally won a close game. And this is the week after we put 8 people on IR, including at least 3-4 starters. Incredible display of heart by our defense!

Also, reports are starting to come in that the people who scored free tickets to the makeup game at Ford Field tonight may witness history: Favre was not on the starters' bus to the stadium and a couple players have reported that he is not slated to start. Of course, I'll believe that when it actually happens. That game will only be shown in NYC, Albany, Minneapolis, Rochester MN and anyone who has Sunday Ticket.

[wilson]

it is a crime that one of the Falcons or Saints will be a Wild Card-- clearly the two best teams in the NFCIt is ridiculous, but happily, it does not appear that that team will be the Falcons. Assuming the Falcons take care of business and the Seahawks and Panthers in weeks 15 and 17, they would win the division based on the tiebreaker...it would come down to record vs. NFC, and thus far, the only difference between the two teams' intra-conference records are their showings against the Arizona Cardinals; while the Falcons drubbed them 41-7 in Week 2, the Saints fell to them 30-20 in Week 5. Moreover, the Saints have the more difficult remaining schedule. Sandwiched around the Monday-nighter in the Georgia Dome, the Saints have @Baltimore and a home game against Tampa, in contrast to the Birds' Seattle-Carolina two-course feast.
It's of course not a done deal, but the Falcons definitely have the inside track.

[ncexnyc]

Sorry Jason, but I've got the honorary charter membership to the Fantasy Idiot Club. I cut Wes Welker several weeks back on a few of the teams that I had him on, I also have sat Brady several weeks running because of the supposed poor match-ups. The Pats have gone from a team winning with smoke and mirrors to an offensive jugernaut similar to a few years ago.

[JasonEvans]

It is ridiculous, but happily, it does not appear that that team will be the Falcons. Assuming the Falcons take care of business and the Seahawks and Panthers in weeks 15 and 17, they would win the division based on the tiebreaker...it would come down to record vs. NFC, and thus far, the only difference between the two teams' intra-conference records are their showings against the Arizona Cardinals; while the Falcons drubbed them 41-7 in Week 2, the Saints fell to them 30-20 in Week 5. Moreover, the Saints have the more difficult remaining schedule. Sandwiched around the Monday-nighter in the Georgia Dome, the Saints have @Baltimore and a home game against Tampa, in contrast to the Birds' Seattle-Carolina two-course feast.
It's of course not a done deal, but the Falcons definitely have the inside track.

I would love to sew up home field by beating Nawlins on Monday night. That way we could play the starters for about half the game against Carolina and then give them a week off for the bye week.

Of course, doing that might mean they would come out flat and out of sync in their first playoff game (likely against either the Bears, Eagles, Giants, or maybe Packers). Is it better to get rest and a bye week or is it better to be playing every week and stay sharp?

--Jason "if the Ravens beat the Saints and the Falcons beat the SHawks, would the Falcons clinch? I don't think so" Evans

[Blue in the Face]

Also, reports are starting to come in that the people who scored free tickets to the makeup game at Ford Field tonight may witness history: Favre was not on the starters' bus to the stadium and a couple players have reported that he is not slated to start. Of course, I'll believe that when it actually happens. That game will only be shown in NYC, Albany, Minneapolis, Rochester MN and anyone who has Sunday Ticket.
Believe it - Favre is inactive (http://www.rotoworld.com/content/clubhouse_news.aspx?sport=NFL&majteam=MIN).

[JasonEvans]

Sorry Jason, but I've got the honorary charter membership to the Fantasy Idiot Club. I cut Wes Welker several weeks back on a few of the teams that I had him on, I also have sat Brady several weeks running because of the supposed poor match-ups. The Pats have gone from a team winning with smoke and mirrors to an offensive jugernaut similar to a few years ago.

It seems a long time ago, but Brady had a really bad fantasy run around the early-middle of the season. He put up 10, 13, 10, 13, and 17 points in consecutive weeks. Considering most of us who have him picked him up in the 2nd-4th round of our FFootball drafts, those are really bad QB numbers.

I too thought about sitting him, but stuck with it and have enjoyed the recent ride (32, 15, 29, 29, 22 over the past 5 weeks) until I sat him in the blizzard this week. I won't be making that mistake again!

-Jason "Hakeem Nicks is active tonight-- if he has a big game, I won't get any more chances to start Brady!" Evans

[juise]

final side note-- it is a crime that one of the Falcons or Saints will be a Wild Card-- clearly the two best teams in the NFC

As an Eagles fan, I would definitely say that the Falcons and Saints have had the best seasons in NFC thus far, but I think them being clearly the "best" teams is arguable. I would not be especially fearful of the Eagles going to Atlanta for a playoff game.

*Cough* Fourteen-point win without Vick. *Cough* *Cough* ;)

(And yes, I know that game was in Philly, but the Eagles have a slightly better record away from the Linc right now... which may be related to the strength of their away schedule thus far.)

[weezie]

First off, Lions Lions Lions!!!!

Keep the faith, my young blazindeedub, our day will come... or at least you will push my wheelchair into the Superbowl...won't you?! ;)

[rthomas]

Big Ben: the guy plays football. And it's OBVIOUS that there are different rules for Ben and all the other QB's in the league. Hit him in the face, helmet, hit him late whatever, he just plays the game. Touch Brady, penalty whatever...

And Polamolu... he may be the best game changer ever. HOF...

What I love about the Steelers is that they are winning the way they are supposed to.

[JasonEvans]

Big Ben: the guy plays football. And it's OBVIOUS that there are different rules for Ben and all the other QB's in the league. Hit him in the face, helmet, hit him late whatever, he just plays the game. Touch Brady, penalty whatever...

The current conventional wisdom is that there are one set of rules for all the QBs in the league and one set for the QBs named Big Ben and Michael Vick. They both seem to get hit a lot more than other QBs. Vick got two helmet-to-helmet jobs on the same play in the game yesterday and nothing was called. ESPN was saying that fines would likely be handed out to the players who hit Vick, but there was no penalty on the play. Wow.

-Jason "Ben and MV7 are not good guys, but they are easy to root for -- dunno why, but they are" Evans

[DevilHorns]

The Jets coach should have been fired.

After seeing Carroll go down and stay down while on the sideline he should have walked toward him to make sure he was OK. Instead he hugged the sideline in the same stance, hoping that nobody caught him on tape. Pathetic.

[Duvall]

-Jason "Ben and MV7 are not good guys, but they are easy to root for -- dunno why, but they are" Evans

Can you really put Vick and Roethlisberger in the same category? I mean, that seems kind of unfair to Vick.

[rthomas]

Can you really put Vick and Roethlisberger in the same category?

No, you can't. Ben has two rings. And chances for more.

[wilson]

if the Ravens beat the Saints and the Falcons beat the SHawks, would the Falcons clinch? I don't think soYes, the Falcons would clinch under that scenario. That would leave the Birds at 12-2 and the Ain'ts at 10-4. Best-case scenario for the Ain'ts, then, would be a tie for the division. Again, tiebreakers would come down to record vs. common opponents, in which the Falcons still would hold the edge. The Falcons' win vs. Baltimore coupled with an Ain'ts loss to the Ravens would cancel out a Falcons loss to Carolina (which isn't happening anyway).

[hurleyfor3]

No kidding, I got a call from a recruiter last week about a job opening in Minneapolis.

After the events of this weekend, my salary requirements just doubled.

[allenmurray]

Is Ryan saying, "He made a mistake and he admitted it." Like admitting it was some major moral victory. What else was he going to do but admit it - he was on videotape.

[wilson]

Yes, the Falcons would clinch under that scenario. That would leave the Birds at 12-2 and the Ain'ts at 10-4. Best-case scenario for the Ain'ts, then, would be a tie for the division. Again, tiebreakers would come down to record vs. common opponents, in which the Falcons still would hold the edge. The Falcons' win vs. Baltimore coupled with an Ain'ts loss to the Ravens would cancel out a Falcons loss to Carolina (which isn't happening anyway).And according to this (http://atlanta.sbnation.com/atlanta-falcons/2010/12/14/1875520/nfl-playoff-scenarios-nfc-falcons-giants-eagles), the Falcons would clinch NFC home field advantage with "two wins over any combination of the Seahawks, the Saints, and the Panthers." There is of course no such thing as a sure victory, but a home game against this year's Panthers is about as close as you'll ever see to such a thing in the NFL. So if the Birds beat Seattle on Sunday, they'll be in very, very good shape.

[bjornolf]

Somebody on the radio was talking about NFL coaches messing up end of half and game clock management situations, saying that the average gamer at 15 has played hundreds of games of Madden in the time an NFL coach has coached 20 games, and therefore understand and can manage the clock better than the average coach without even thinking about it. Over five years, he argued that a gamer plays 1000+ games to a coach's 100 or so coached.

Specifically they were talking about the Baltimore Ravens last night passing on 3rd down rather than running, since Houston had no timeouts and they could have run it down to the 2 minute warning, but there have been TONS of these over the course of the season.

I tend to agree. Thoughts?

[JasonEvans]

Somebody on the radio was talking about NFL coaches messing up end of half and game clock management situations, saying that the average gamer at 15 has played hundreds of games of Madden in the time an NFL coach has coached 20 games, and therefore understand and can manage the clock better than the average coach without even thinking about it. Over five years, he argued that a gamer plays 1000+ games to a coach's 100 or so coached.

Specifically they were talking about the Baltimore Ravens last night passing on 3rd down rather than running, since Houston had no timeouts and they could have run it down to the 2 minute warning, but there have been TONS of these over the course of the season.

I tend to agree. Thoughts?

I am not sure that coaching a Madden game is the same as coaching an NFL game. The pressures tend to be a bit different ;)

As for the decision to throw last night, I don't think it was a bad call. Getting the first down would have all but ended the game. While it is true that you could have run some time off the clock with a run, it is not like there was just 1:00 or so left in the game. The pass play happened with almost 3 minutes remaining. There was enough time so that, no matter what, Houston was going to have a reasonable amount of time remaining to get down the field.

--Jason "the Ravens D has got to be a major concern for that team right now" Evans

[bjornolf]

I am not sure that coaching a Madden game is the same as coaching an NFL game. The pressures tend to be a bit different ;)

As for the decision to throw last night, I don't think it was a bad call. Getting the first down would have all but ended the game. While it is true that you could have run some time off the clock with a run, it is not like there was just 1:00 or so left in the game. The pass play happened with almost 3 minutes remaining. There was enough time so that, no matter what, Houston was going to have a reasonable amount of time remaining to get down the field.

--Jason "the Ravens D has got to be a major concern for that team right now" Evans

The argument was that with a run they could have wasted the clock to the 2 minute warning. With no timeouts and the punt downed at the 5 yard line, Houston wouldn't have been able to take the shots down the middle of the field that they did which resulted in a long gain and then stopped the clock with the 2 minute warning. It took over 2 minutes for Houston to score. If Baltimore hadn't punted until the 2 minute warning, Houston would have had about 1:50 to march 95 yards, and the middle of the field would have been useless without timeouts. Easier to defend AND less time and no stoppage. 95 yards to go with no timeouts and less than 2 minutes is a COMPLETELY different scenario in the NFL than the same with 2:30 to go.

[tommy]

Espn has a story up about Zach Thomas making the accusation that the Jets tripping incident was not a momentary lapse by the coach, but actually a premeditated, orchestrated event involving 4 or 5 inactive Jets players working in concert with the coach on the sideline, standing foot-to-foot in an unusual arrangement in an unusual area of the sideline and causing the Dolphin player to have to run past them in that area, making it easy for the coach to stick out his leg, especially since he had time to prepare for the Dolphin player to approach.


http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/news/story?id=5919573


Looking at the video with that in mind, the positioning of the players does seem odd. Not sure that's enough to "convict" them, but I sure wonder what a review of the game film, or other Jets game films would show as to the place they usually stand during a punt and the manner in which they stand. Anything like this structured arrangement? If not . . . hmm.

I don't know if the league wants to investigate this, but if they do, and if they find that this was orchestrated and premeditated, the hammer would have to fall real hard. How? And on whom?

[JasonEvans]

The argument was that with a run they could have wasted the clock to the 2 minute warning. With no timeouts and the punt downed at the 5 yard line, Houston wouldn't have been able to take the shots down the middle of the field that they did which resulted in a long gain and then stopped the clock with the 2 minute warning. It took over 2 minutes for Houston to score. If Baltimore hadn't punted until the 2 minute warning, Houston would have had about 1:50 to march 95 yards, and the middle of the field would have been useless without timeouts. Easier to defend AND less time and no stoppage. 95 yards to go with no timeouts and less than 2 minutes is a COMPLETELY different scenario in the NFL than the same with 2:30 to go.

I hear you but that was not the scenario. According to the Yahoo boxscore, look at when the pass happened--

2nd-6, HOU48 3:03 R. Rice rushed to the right for 4 yard gain
3rd-2, HOU44 2:58 J. Flacco incomplete pass to the left
4th-2, HOU44 2:42 S. Koch punt. J. Jones returned punt for no gain.

I am sorry, but the "run it down to the 2 minute warning" scenario did not exist. They could have run it down to about 10 seconds or so before the 2 min warning, but not all the way. That is a significant difference.

-Jason "I can see either rationale, but I don't think the run was an automatic decision" Evans

[bjornolf]

I hear you but that was not the scenario. According to the Yahoo boxscore, look at when the pass happened--

2nd-6, HOU48 3:03 R. Rice rushed to the right for 4 yard gain
3rd-2, HOU44 2:58 J. Flacco incomplete pass to the left
4th-2, HOU44 2:42 S. Koch punt. J. Jones returned punt for no gain.

I am sorry, but the "run it down to the 2 minute warning" scenario did not exist. They could have run it down to about 10 seconds or so before the 2 min warning, but not all the way. That is a significant difference.

-Jason "I can see either rationale, but I don't think the run was an automatic decision" Evans

If there's 2:58 left and you run the ball, you're at about 2:08 when you snap the ball on the punt and 2 minute warning probably happens with the end of the punt play, but yea, I see your point.

[cspan37421]

Interesting what the article says about Steve Tasker - and what Tasker says about himself, as a "gunner." Puts the formation into a whole different light.

Unsportsmanlike to trip the guy, for sure, but it sounds like players commonly run out of bounds to avoid blockers.

[Jarhead]

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/news/story?id=5919573


Looking at the video with that in mind, the positioning of the players does seem odd. Not sure that's enough to "convict" them, but I sure wonder what a review of the game film, or other Jets game films would show as to the place they usually stand during a punt and the manner in which they stand. Anything like this structured arrangement? If not . . . hmm.



Did you actually watch the video? What players are you talking about. Those people standing there near the culprit who did the tripping look more like ground crew people. It didn't seem that they were in any way involved in the tripping. The conspiracy theorists won't find much of a conspiracy in this event. The Jets' strength coach simply had a moment of stupidity.

[El_Diablo]

Did you actually watch the video? What players are you talking about. Those people standing there near the culprit who did the tripping look more like ground crew people. It didn't seem that they were in any way involved in the tripping. The conspiracy theorists won't find much of a conspiracy in this event. The Jets' strength coach simply had a moment of stupidity.

If you read the article you will understand this a little better, but the six-man wall is reported to be Alosi and five inactive players, not ground crew. Hence the reference to players. And yeah, only one of them (Alosi) does the tripping, but the others appear to be part of a pre-planned human wall, so while they might not have "involved in the tripping," they appear to be involved in at least purposefully planning to impede the "gunner."

Factor in the fact that (1) they appeared in the same unwavering toe-to-toe edge-of-the-sideline formation for opponent punts, including the one before this one; (2) they do not line up like this for other plays, including their own punts; (3) other than the tripper, one of the other wall members is leaning as if to brace for impact; (4) it's the Jets; and (5) gunning and counter-gunning is nothing new to the NFL. Then you can see that Thomas seems to have a pretty valid point here. That is, unless you'd prefer to strain credulity to explain all these as mere coincidences.

I think it's rather obvious that they coordinated the line-stacking in order to reduce the amount of potential space the opposing player has as he runs down the sideline. Steve Tasker summed it up best:

"You think this is the first time [a trip] ever happened? Come on," Tasker said. "Guys were always giving me extra shoves. You don't want to see someone get hurt, but it's not a big deal. Why wouldn't you give a guy a forearm shiver? Everyone on the sideline is part of a team and they all want to win. Shoot, even the doctors are competitive. If [the Jets] are coached to do that, so what? Call a penalty on them. If a gunner is going to use the sideline as a weapon, like I did, why wouldn't you want to form a road block? There's nothing wrong with that as long as it's within the rules."

[Mal]

No kidding, I got a call from a recruiter last week about a job opening in Minneapolis.

After the events of this weekend, my salary requirements just doubled.

Because you need to be paid more to live in a place that's soon to be without an NFL franchise? ;) Anyway, that's the way they like it up there. It's not as unbearable as everyone seems to think, but the reputation of the weather lets Minnesotans keep the place to themselves, mostly. I found, growing up there, that a tough winter lends a sense of community for having to endure it together.

[cato]

I think it's rather obvious that they coordinated the line-stacking in order to reduce the amount of potential space the opposing player has as he runs down the sideline.

Indeed, that does appear to be the case now. The Jets' story now seems to be that the coach acted alone. I could buy it, I suppose, but I'm not sure how much better that makes the Jets look here. Certainly, this will all play into the "Jet as organization out of control" reputation that is floating around.

[hurleyfor3]

Because you need to be paid more to live in a place that's soon to be without an NFL franchise?

I need to be paid more to move to a place with no mountains, worse weather than I had dealt with for the previous 14 years (Chicago), and not a United/Continental/Star Alliance hub. And they're not getting a Final Four again anytime soon, either. :(

I already live in the place whose winters are better than everyone thinks. 52 degrees right now in Denver. 15 in Minny.

Anyway, I gave him an "absolutely have to consider the opportunity at that salary" number and he implied they could work with that. So we'll see.

[tommy]

Indeed, that does appear to be the case now. The Jets' story now seems to be that the coach acted alone. I could buy it, I suppose, but I'm not sure how much better that makes the Jets look here. Certainly, this will all play into the "Jet as organization out of control" reputation that is floating around.

Yes, now the Jets are admitting that it was orchestrated, and have suspended the coach "indefinitely." As opposed to the season-long suspension they imposed when they thought that he acted alone. Big difference, huh?

The idea that this coach would have done this "alone" -- involving 5 or 6 inactive players with him -- strains credulity. Especially in a league like the NFL where the head coach is involved in everything. It seems like in the Jets organization, everyone is taking their cues as to attitude from Rex Ryan. This act appears to be an expression of that attitude, and I simply don't believe it would have happened without Ryan's knowledge and approval.

It wouldn't surprise me if the real reason they've only suspended the coach instead of firing him is that they're scared that if they fire him, he'll turn on them and provide proof that Ryan knew and approved. Then things would get very interesting.

[Duvall]

Because you need to be paid more to live in a place that's soon to be without an NFL franchise? ;)

I dunno. As a Duke fan, I'm certainly hoping that the Vikings can extort a Final Four-complaint stadium out of someone up there. There's still a chance!

[Mal]

Anyway, I gave him an "absolutely have to consider the opportunity at that salary" number and he implied they could work with that. So we'll see.

Cool! I was just teasing. Yeah, it's cold, but other than the mountains, I think people in Minnesota make the most out of winter weather of anyone I know. For one thing, there's all the water, and it's far enough north that it stays frozen for the season, and the snow stays, too, which leads to a lot of outdoor opportunities. Unlike here in Chicago, for instance, where it's brutally cold for a week or two at a time but not really a snow climate as much and you get a lot of snow/melt/slush/freezing rain cycles. And I have yet to find a better summertime climate than Minneapolis. You'll definitely miss the mountains, but not the outdoor lifestyle. There are a lot of transplanted Minnesotans in Denver and vice versa for a reason.

Frankly, I thought living downtown in Chicago was rougher in the winters than the Twin Cities, anyway. El platforms vs. hamster habitat skyway. They actually protect people from the cold up there.

Anyway, good luck with your decision/opportunity!

[94duke]

Jets suspend Sal Alosi indefinitely for ordering wall on sidelines
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/12/15/sal-alosi-wall.ap/index.html?eref=sihp

[mkirsh]

If you read the article you will understand this a little better, but the six-man wall is reported to be Alosi and five inactive players, not ground crew. Hence the reference to players. And yeah, only one of them (Alosi) does the tripping, but the others appear to be part of a pre-planned human wall, so while they might not have "involved in the tripping," they appear to be involved in at least purposefully planning to impede the "gunner."


While I think the tripping is inexcusable, I'm not sure I see much fault in the "wall" concept. Assuming the players have a right to be on certain parts of the sideline, I think it makes sense for them to take up as much space as the rules allow to prevent the gunner from using the sidelines as a tool to avoid blocking. The gunner should be on the field to begin with, so wouldn't consider an off the field of play "wall" with no tripping cheating. All I've seen is outrage about this though - am I missing something?

[SuperTurkey]

While I think the tripping is inexcusable, I'm not sure I see much fault in the "wall" concept. Assuming the players have a right to be on certain parts of the sideline, I think it makes sense for them to take up as much space as the rules allow to prevent the gunner from using the sidelines as a tool to avoid blocking. The gunner should be on the field to begin with, so wouldn't consider an off the field of play "wall" with no tripping cheating. All I've seen is outrage about this though - am I missing something?

They don't have that right. There is a line 3 ft behind the sideline behind which players are required to stand. Coaches are allowed to be closer to the sideline.

[DevilHorns]

They don't have that right. There is a line 3 ft behind the sideline behind which players are required to stand. Coaches are allowed to be closer to the sideline.

Exactly. However, I'm not sure how many NFL teams do this... and I'm guessing it's not a new idea at all.

I don't think instructing to form the wall should have resulted in an indefinite suspension (I think the whole purposeful tripping should have been enough to do that from the get go).

Who here believes the Jets' special teams coach truly had no idea that they were narrowing running space for gunners by forming a wall? I have a hard time believing he was ignorant of this.

For the lawyers out there --- Can Carroll take legal action against Alosi? Perhaps accuse him of assault? (Just a hypothetical, there has been zero inclination that he would).

[SuperTurkey]

I don't think instructing to form the wall should have resulted in an indefinite suspension (I think the whole purposeful tripping should have been enough to do that from the get go).

I agree that his initial suspension should have been longer, especially if he had been forthcoming about this during the Jets' initial investigation on Monday. But since he either lied or omitted this information, I'll be very surprised if they don't fire him.

[InSpades]

Does anyone actually believe that the Strength and Conditioning coach decided on his own to form a wall of players on the sideline to help out the Jets special teams?

And that none of the real (head, offensive, defensive, special teams) coaches had anything to do with this decision?

I find that really really hard to believe. I think the much more likely outcome here is that Alosi is "taking one for the team" and this explains why he is "indefinitely suspended" instead of fired. He knows he screwed up, the Jets know they put him there.

[mkirsh]

They don't have that right. There is a line 3 ft behind the sideline behind which players are required to stand. Coaches are allowed to be closer to the sideline.

I'm a little confused by the 3 foot rule - the sideline itself is 3 feet wide, so do the players need to stand 3 feet behind this (therefore 6 feet away from being in-bounds)? If so, then I agree that my original post was wrong and the wall against the rules.

[rasputin]

Exactly. However, I'm not sure how many NFL teams do this... and I'm guessing it's not a new idea at all.

I don't think instructing to form the wall should have resulted in an indefinite suspension (I think the whole purposeful tripping should have been enough to do that from the get go).

Who here believes the Jets' special teams coach truly had no idea that they were narrowing running space for gunners by forming a wall? I have a hard time believing he was ignorant of this.

For the lawyers out there --- Can Carroll take legal action against Alosi? Perhaps accuse him of assault? (Just a hypothetical, there has been zero inclination that he would).

Hypothetically, there could be a civil claim here. As a practical matter, its chances of succeeding would be close to zero, it seems to me.

[SuperTurkey]

I'm a little confused by the 3 foot rule - the sideline itself is 3 feet wide, so do the players need to stand 3 feet behind this (therefore 6 feet away from being in-bounds)? If so, then I agree that my original post was wrong and the wall against the rules.

Yes, that's how it works. In the replays, you can see a thin white line parallel to the sideline behind the wall of players and Alosi. That is the line behind which players are required to stand. I'm sure it's very common that players ignore this (in much the same way that, ahem, certain basketball coaches roam the sideline and court), but having a wall of players in front of the line, directly behind the sideline, is a pretty obvious violation.

[SuperTurkey]

Does anyone actually believe that the Strength and Conditioning coach decided on his own to form a wall of players on the sideline to help out the Jets special teams?

And that none of the real (head, offensive, defensive, special teams) coaches had anything to do with this decision?

I find that really really hard to believe. I think the much more likely outcome here is that Alosi is "taking one for the team" and this explains why he is "indefinitely suspended" instead of fired. He knows he screwed up, the Jets know they put him there.

I don't think it's unbelievable. Mike Golic made an interesting point this morning: inactive players tend to be managed by the strength and conditioning coach, who along with team doctors is responsible for getting them healthy again. Given that, it's certainly plausible that Alosi would be in a position to organize a group of inactive players to do this.

Now, if it was a mix of other coaches, active players, etc, it would be much harder to believe that Alosi was solely responsible.

[bjornolf]

Yes, that's how it works. In the replays, you can see a thin white line parallel to the sideline behind the wall of players and Alosi. That is the line behind which players are required to stand. I'm sure it's very common that players ignore this (in much the same way that, ahem, certain basketball coaches roam the sideline and court), but having a wall of players in front of the line, directly behind the sideline, is a pretty obvious violation.

Wow, I learn something new every day. I thought players could go right up to the thick sideline line, and only coaches were supposed to be in the white area.

[bjornolf]

While I think the tripping is inexcusable, I'm not sure I see much fault in the "wall" concept. Assuming the players have a right to be on certain parts of the sideline, I think it makes sense for them to take up as much space as the rules allow to prevent the gunner from using the sidelines as a tool to avoid blocking. The gunner should be on the field to begin with, so wouldn't consider an off the field of play "wall" with no tripping cheating. All I've seen is outrage about this though - am I missing something?

Gunners are often knocked out of bounds by blockers. By rule, they're not supposed to just go out of bounds and run down the field, and they're required by rule to make every effort to get back in bounds as soon as possible. That's a subjective rule, but I HAVE seen it called before (it's been years).