Game thoughts... Jets-Raiders
Michael
adjust on the fly. Short of Hunter, the Jets had the manpower to win
the game. The sacks on Sanchez were a scheme/play calling issue.
2. Jets defense got fooled a few times. Still consider that the
Raiders scored their points off of offensive mistakes by the Jets.
3. The officials were tuff on Cro today, but it was his lack of
concentration on the return muff that cost them. You can consider
that a 14 point play and quite probably, the play mistake that cost
them the game.
Silver lining.
Colin Baxter looked like a vet center. He's a nasty player. He is
powerful and has feet. Did you see him getting out there to block on
running plays ???
More good news... The Patriots lost.
More bad news... The Bills are joining in the fun :-)
Papa Carl
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:13f521d4-207f-4d18...@20g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
They need Mangold back...and let him or Baxter play some other
position...anything to get the dead weight out of there...Hunter is
terrible...and Slauson is not so freakin great either.
Michael
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
baxter should be checked out at RT when mangold comes back. he's got
the feet. that wont fix the major problem though. with schotty
running the offense, they could still screw things up with joe jacoby
and anthony munos as their tackles. SCOTTY STRAIGHT UP SUCKS. He
cant think on his feet. He cant see the game.
Papa Carl
Look..with this O line you could have Vince L. as OC and it would be
difficult...they are very bad.
oldn...@mindspring.com
> 1. Biggest problem... Schotty
Defense utterly collapses giving up 34 points to a Jason Campbell QBed O, including 234 yards rushing, a 7.3 yards per attempt.
I was waiting to see who'd be the first person to come right out and say "it was Schott's fault".
Congrats, you're the first one I've seen, so you get the prize! (Disclosure: the tax on same is entirely your liability). Watch your mail.
> not being able to see the game and
> adjust on the fly. Short of Hunter, the Jets had the manpower to win
> the game. The sacks on Sanchez were a scheme/play calling issue.
> 2. Jets defense got fooled a few times.
Both the Jets O and D lines were *physically overpowered* by the Raiders in the second half, as Simms and friends constantly repeated, and even a blind fan could see with two fingers.
*That's* how your D gives up 234 yards rushing on 34 runs and your QB gets hammered on every play he isn't sacked -- behind an O-line coached by the more-than-capable Callahan.
> Still consider that the
> Raiders scored their points off of offensive mistakes by the Jets.
LOL. 234 yards rushing at 7.3 per carry came off of "offensive mistakes".
Well, it must be so, because "defensive failure" doesn't even make your list!
> 3. The officials were tuff on Cro today, but it was his lack of
> concentration on the return muff that cost them. You can consider
> that a 14 point play and quite probably, the play mistake that cost
> them the game.
On that we agree. Those points and the lost possession off the fumble, *plus* the four pass penalties for another 46 yards *plus* the first downs awarded, may very well have cost them the game right there.
It's not often a cornerback gets to drive the result of a 61-point game by himself.
Of course, that was the *defense* losing the game, there.
Michael
> On Sunday, September 25, 2011 7:43:52 PM UTC-4, Michael wrote:
> > 1. Biggest problem... Schotty
>
> Defense utterly collapses giving up 34 points to a Jason Campbell QBed O, including 234 yards rushing, a 7.3 yards per attempt.
>
> I was waiting to see who'd be the first person to come right out and say "it was Schott's fault".
>
> Congrats, you're the first one I've seen, so you get the prize! (Disclosure: the tax on same is entirely your liability). Watch your mail.
take your prize and flush it... the consistent problem with the
jets... for the past several seasons... has been their bone headed
offensive scheme and play calling. if you cant see that, you must be
watcing the cartoon network when the rest of us are watching the
games. the jets have had a top tier defense week in and week out
since rex took over.... cant say that about the schotty offense that
is always at the bottom of the pack.
Papa Carl
<oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1840841.1195.1316997862599.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqjk17...
Listen "Old Nasty" you are quite right on this...the D sucked...you simply
can not give up that kind of yardage and let them off the hook so many times
and still call yourselves a good D...but...comparatively...the O is a lot
worse and causes problems for the D by where they give them the ball to
defend etc. You can not blow easy scoring shots and keep putting pressure
back on your defense and expect them to hold up...they need that confidence
and rhythm just as much as the O does. This was not a well coached team
tonight...no part of othe game, poorly coached and poorly executed and
played.
Papa Carl
sees it...everybody who knows anything about football sees it...so if
someone wants to pick a fight...let it go....however, tonight...the defense
played like the offense ususally does...they sunk down too and could not
come up with big plays when needed.
Michael
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
shit.
oldn...@mindspring.com
> > On Sunday, September 25, 2011 7:43:52 PM UTC-4, Michael wrote:
> > > 1. Biggest problem... Schotty
> >
> > Defense utterly collapses giving up 34 points to a Jason Campbell QBed O, including 234 yards rushing, a 7.3 yards per attempt.
> >
> > I was waiting to see who'd be the first person to come right out and say "it was Schott's fault".
> >
> > Congrats, you're the first one I've seen, so you get the prize! (Disclosure: the tax on same is entirely your liability). Watch your mail.
>
> take your prize and flush it... the consistent problem with the
> jets... for the past several seasons... has been their bone headed
> offensive scheme and play calling.
And you keep obsessing about "bone headed offensive scheme".
Get off the crack pipe.
> if you cant see that, you must be
> watcing the cartoon network when the rest of us are watching the
> games. the jets have had a top tier defense week in and week out
oldn...@mindspring.com
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Michael <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote:
Now BuRf, let's try to speak the truth.
I've never swung anything in support of Schott -- and if you can quote me anywhere saying I think Schott is a "good OC" I will send you some printed paper cash money through the mail.
What I *do* actually do is look at facts like "34 points allowed ... 234 yards rushing given up a 7.3 per ... four penalties on a single DB...."
And I reach outrageous conclusions about them, such as:
"Hey, *they* aren't the fault of Schott any more than the murder of Jimmy Hoffa or Saddam's missing WMDs."
To which you respond: "There goes the same old Grinch, always singing high praises of Schott as he helps Schott murder union leaders, hide WMDs, and subvert the defense."
oldn...@mindspring.com
No. You can't do it and *win*. You can't give up 34 points (zero off turnovers), 234 yards rushing at 7.3 a clip, let Jason Campbell hit 67% of his passes against you, and *win*.
It's not that you disqualify yourself from saying you are a good D -- it is that you *can't win today's game*. The D that gives up all that *loses the game*. Period.
> but...comparatively...the O is a lot worse
Really? Who was worse in today's game?
Was it the middling-talent O that had 24 points, 429 yards, and prodcued a 33:30 time of possession advantage to protect the D?
Or was it the "league's best D" that got crushed: 67% completions for the mighty Campbell, 234 yards rushing, 4 penalties on a single DB?
Because people here are making lists of causes of today's loss, and the somehow defense *isn't even on them*. See above.
And Schott is #1. See above. Which means, y'all think the defense actually played BETTER than the O today! In today's game? Really???
> and causes problems for the D by where they give them the ball to defend etc.
And the D didn't put the O in the hole in today's game? No??
In the game I saw today, Rex elected to receive and the D immediately gave up a length of the field TD drive to put the O in the hole right there. Right?
(How much did Schott contribute to that? I'm sure Michael will be able to cite several ways! <g>)
Then the O dug out of it with 17 points on three possessions to take a 10-pt lead. Right?
So the O, after being put in the hole by the D, dug out and handed the D the advantage of a two-score lead. Correct?
*Then* the D promptly decided to invite the Raiders to see how many yards they could rush for, at how high an average. Wow, 234 at 7.3! Worth the next 24 points.
Is that about correct for you?
OK, so then after the **defense blew this game** all anyone wants to talk about here is...
Schott sucks ... Schott sucks ... Schott sucks ... the main reason for losing this game was Schott ... Schott was the #1 reason for the loss ... I'm not going to renew my season ticket if Schott is back next year (bullshit, you will)...
It never fucking ends!
Is there nothing else to talk about? Like maybe what actually happened in today's game?? A lot did! For instance, Sanchez had arguably the best game of his life, career-high 365 yards, 2 TDs, 1 pick. Not worth a mention?
Or in today's other games? Like what happened to the Pats today?
Last year I thought it was amusing up to a point ... but really, a word of advice to some:
If after the way the defense failed today from opening drive to last, if any of you *really think* the #1 reason for the loss *today* was Schott, then it's time for you to take a break from this game. For your own sake.
As to me, as today I haven't seen anybody here who wants to talk about anything at all about football other than how Schott sucks, maybe it's time for me to take a break from this group.
There are other forums where people actually talk about, you know, football -- all kinds of things about football. I'll be happier there.
No offense meant to you, Papa, I've come to like you (in spite of you being so cruel and mean to me when we first met. <g>)
Actually, I like most everyone here. Well, usually. :-)
See ya' later.
Papa Carl
<oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:33512686.1484.1317013569357.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqjk17...
are...afterall, you did not pick that moniker for no reason...you enjoy
being a prick and hanging on to bits of statistics and you love to argue.
This is a great example. Of course the D was horrendous in this game. But
the O did not outscore the opponent and they had numerous misfired,
penaltires, interceptions failures to score when in position to do so and
the QB couldn't hit a donkey's ass with a banjo...it is simply not a
question of which one was bad or lost the game, they both were. If the O
had made that last play, and then they recovered an onsides kick and scored
again winning the game...both O and D still sucked all day ! And this is
what I have been saying...they play to just squeak by somehow...never to be
clearly the better team. I guess my biggest point would be there is no way
a GOOD coaching staff can go into battle with that O line...not knowing it
was bad...how and the Hell does that happen? So O sucks, D sucks and the
coaches of both must too.
I like you too, but don't try and tell me crappy offense does not affect a
defense. I started out coaching offensive line and did that for
years...then the last 11 years I coached defense, mostly linebackers....when
the O puts you in bad spots, can't let you get off the field and will not
score when opportunities are there...it takes a toll. The Jets have grown
accustomed to the D scoring or doing more to win it...and the D has joined
the O in the pursuit of less than mediocrity. But...if they were a
dominating unit...they would have stopped an only fair offense...they
didn't...so yes, they sucked.
John C TX
> ever, ever, ever, argue it's not Schott... that it's Rex, or Sanchez, or the D, or
> Pettine, or some nonsense stat, etc, etc, etc.
> I stand corrected ;)
> Like when the team was up 14-3, & moving the ball, suddenly everything stopped, they
> settled for a FG...then the Raiders scored 28 unanswered points. To you, that of course
> falls on the D. During that 28 point run, the O never got on the field, Cromartie never
> botched a kickoff, etc.
To me early on it fell on the QB when the score was 7-7 after Kerley's
return we sat 1st & 10 on the Raiders 24. Sanchez forces one in & it
is picked off. Goo d QB's don't do that. You are all about "feel"
well I saw a chance to break the Raiders back.
2nd Half
first two drives are screwed with sacks
Next drive Sanchez can't us two yards on 3rd & 4th down
sack
TD
near TD game over
b, there may be a reason to hate Schott but our defense was
outmatched. We had no pass rush in the 2nd half. Their special team
coach saw something in Cromartie (they tried that kick twice) and our
OL couldn't protect the QB in the 2nd half so maybe the play calling
is an issue but it appears to this guy that we had more problems than
our OC.
>
> By the way, the jets D did not give up 7.3 yards per carry.
> That is statistical nonsense.
> On one carry, they gave up 70 yards.
We gave up runs of 70, 23, & 24 yards. We had some problems.
Papa Carl
"buRford" <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
news:3gn087lrdln01c1jk...@4ax.com...
> thread), you never,
> ever, ever, ever, argue it's not Schott... that it's Rex, or Sanchez, or
> the D, or
> Pettine, or some nonsense stat, etc, etc, etc.
> I stand corrected ;)
> Like when the team was up 14-3, & moving the ball, suddenly everything
> stopped, they
> settled for a FG...then the Raiders scored 28 unanswered points. To you,
> that of course
> falls on the D. During that 28 point run, the O never got on the field,
> Cromartie never
> botched a kickoff, etc.
>
> That is statistical nonsense.
> On one carry, they gave up 70 yards.
But BuRf...he only watches the statistics...the actual game does not matter.
Papa Carl
"John C TX" <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b769fab-f415-4d94...@d18g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
That was all Sanchez and a terrible decision...he is NOT a good QB.
_________________________________________________________
2nd Half
first two drives are screwed with sacks
Next drive Sanchez can't us two yards on 3rd & 4th down
sack
TD
near TD game over
Explain how it was Sanchez who couldn't get two yards???? He carried the
ball? Became a power running back?
__________________________________________________________________________
b, there may be a reason to hate Schott but our defense was
outmatched. We had no pass rush in the 2nd half. Their special team
coach saw something in Cromartie (they tried that kick twice) and our
OL couldn't protect the QB in the 2nd half so maybe the play calling
is an issue but it appears to this guy that we had more problems than
our OC.
>
> By the way, the jets D did not give up 7.3 yards per carry.
> That is statistical nonsense.
> On one carry, they gave up 70 yards.
We gave up runs of 70, 23, & 24 yards. We had some problems.
The D was poor...and perhaps Rex is falling into the pattern he accepts from
his assistants? They were not prepared.
Johnny Morongo
> On Sunday, September 25, 2011 9:40:38 PM UTC-4, buRford wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Michael<mjd...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 25, 8:44 pm, oldn...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, September 25, 2011 7:43:52 PM UTC-4, Michael wrote:
>>>>> 1. Biggest problem... Schotty
>>>>
>>>> Defense utterly collapses giving up 34 points to a Jason Campbell QBed O, including 234 yards rushing, a 7.3 yards per attempt.
>>>>
>>>> I was waiting to see who'd be the first person to come right out and say "it was Schott's fault".
>>>>
>>>> Congrats, you're the first one I've seen, so you get the prize! (Disclosure: the tax on same is entirely your liability). Watch your mail.
>>>
>>> take your prize and flush it... the consistent problem with the
>>> jets... for the past several seasons... has been their bone headed
>>> offensive scheme and play calling. if you cant see that, you must be
>>> watcing the cartoon network when the rest of us are watching the
>>> games. the jets have had a top tier defense week in and week out
>>> since rex took over.... cant say that about the schotty offense that
>>> is always at the bottom of the pack.
>>
>>
> Now BuRf, let's try to speak the truth.
>
> I've never swung anything in support of Schott -- and if you can quote me anywhere saying I think Schott is a "good OC" I will send you some printed paper cash money through the mail.
>
> What I *do* actually do is look at facts like "34 points allowed ... 234 yards rushing given up a 7.3 per ... four penalties on a single DB...."
>
> And I reach outrageous conclusions about them, such as:
>
> "Hey, *they* aren't the fault of Schott any more than the murder of Jimmy Hoffa or Saddam's missing WMDs."
>
> To which you respond: "There goes the same old Grinch, always singing high praises of Schott as he helps Schott murder union leaders, hide WMDs, and subvert the defense."
"...subvert the defense." Regular inane play selection and stunted
drives just so happen to characterize his offenses for years. And it
often result in unfavorable field position with which the D must deal,
thus subverting it.
Papa Carl
X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> If ya like stats, take away those three runs, and they averaged 4
> yds/carry... which is of
> course, bs too, as most stats are.
>
> The Jets botched a bunch of big plays yesterday... 5, maybe 6.
> What I'm speaking of is a larger issue, and it's an issue every game
> spanning seasons.
> It has an effect on the flow of games, momentum, & outcome.
>
> As for Sanchez, he bounced back after the INT, & we scored.
> And then the next series, we were moving smartly down the field, when
> Schott decided to
> remove Shonn. The Jets had momentum... then the O stopped, until
> crunch-time.
>
> Why take Shonn out of the game, when he's hitting his rhythm, and the team
> can go up 21-3?
> Why change what is working?
I share Papa's philosophy on sticking with what works until they can't
stop it but using that logic wouldn't you leave LT in? He had a 74
yard run after a pass & an 18 yard TD. We know why they don't.
Greene had some success but so did LT. One criticism I read often--
this is not an dd hominem attack but an observation of many in the
group-- is that Schott doesn't use all the clubs in his bag & also
that he doesn't use them correctly. Well I think he did a good job in
the 1st half. In the 2nd half they adjusted
Here were the drives:
punt
TD
int
TD
FG
punt
That isn't shabby & on the last drive that stalled Greene ran 2/3
plays so didn't Schott do what you wanted? I know there are other
issues you & others have with Schott but that int to me really hurt &
still makes no sense. How does a pro QB do that?
> This is an issue that comes into play, almost every game, win or lose.
> Normally, the D will pick-up the O, but yesterday they didn't. Same with
> STs.
> So, the *big* story is their D's failure.
> After starting the game on their heels, they regained their attacking
> style (the next few
> drives after the initial drive of the game)... then tanked late in the 2nd
> qtr.
>
> But game in & out, their D & STs play well.
> It's the O that has no direction, year-in, year-out... with the cast of
> characters
> changing, but not the O brains. Hence, people focus on the one
> constant - - the aimless
> offense.
Maybe or maybe our QB still has growing pains. We will find out next
year as I don't see Schott coming back. No way they pay him $2MM per
year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many times have you seen Greene run the same play that LT runs? They
don't use them the same at all...and what do you think that tells the
defense? OK...if Greene is in and he is set behind QB...power run to gap
(name the gap)....Why is it other teams seem to know what they are going to
do all the time? It's sets, tendencies and who is in the game. The LT play
was bad defense and tackling that let it go. They would most likely stop
that on the next try. But a scheme play that they can't stop should be run
over and over till they do...and make them reveal something in the D that
helps you.
Papa Carl
X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> 2nd Half
>
> first two drives are screwed with sacks
> Next drive Sanchez can't us two yards on 3rd & 4th down
> sack
> TD
> near TD game over
> ________________________________________________________________
> Explain how it was Sanchez who couldn't get two yards???? He carried the
> ball? Became a power running back?
> __________________________________________________________________________
3rd & short & 4th down. One had good coverage but one he didn't
complete the pass. I honestly can't remember whether there was drop or
he short armed it. I do remember watching thinking we missed an
opportunity.
>
> b, there may be a reason to hate Schott but our defense was
> outmatched. We had no pass rush in the 2nd half. Their special team
> coach saw something in Cromartie (they tried that kick twice) and our
> OL couldn't protect the QB in the 2nd half so maybe the play calling
> is an issue but it appears to this guy that we had more problems than
> our OC.
>
>
>
> > By the way, the jets D did not give up 7.3 yards per carry.
> > That is statistical nonsense.
> > On one carry, they gave up 70 yards.
>
> We gave up runs of 70, 23, & 24 yards. We had some problems.
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> The D was poor...and perhaps Rex is falling into the pattern he accepts
> from
> his assistants? They were not prepared.
in the open field but this team each year does lose focus at times.
maybe you are on to something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They are not focused at all....what was worse, they don't even seem upset
that much and some of them appear to be looking for crap reasons why they
didn't perform...did you hear Sanchez with all the "WE" stuff....screw that
crap...there was NO WE in his bad throws, he did it and he needs to come out
and say he screwed up and lost the game. You see that even in a guy like
Romo. Do you think you'll ever see Sanchez play hurt to that extent and
play well while hurt?
Papa Carl
"Johnny Morongo" <Mor...@Burf.com> wrote in message
news:j5qjka$e4$1...@dont-email.me...
scheme etc. That gives them tremendous confidence and that in turn keeps
them fresh. They are never on the run, back on their heels. So....their
offense benefits from that feeling of "we are in control"...and when they
come on to the field they feel like it and they know if they screw up the D
has their back AND can deliver. The Dallas win was pure miracle and very
poor play on the part of Dallas...the kind of mistakes that break some teams
for good. The Jaguars were just terrible. Now...Raiders were not good, but
aggressive and Rex's boys were flat out dead and unprepared. To not be able
to adjust your offensive attack because they change up their D and their
coverages...and then have a backup O lineman come on TV and talk about
it...come on ! NOT PREPARED and an O staff that does not know what to
do....Somebody needs to get their ass chewed out big time...and the D is
starting to catch the malaise the O has. This is a pattern, and has begun
again from last season...that is TOTALLY on the coaching staff and the
organization.
oldn...@mindspring.com
> ever, ever, ever, argue it's not Schott... that it's Rex, or Sanchez, or the D, or
> Pettine, or some nonsense stat, etc, etc, etc.
> I stand corrected ;)
Hey, you *accuse me* of saying the failings of the defense are on the defense, and not on Schott and the offense. Look above, you actually accuse me of that! :-)
And you *accuse me* of invoking "nonsense stats" when doing so.
Yes, I do! I invoke nonsense stats such as: 34 points allowed (none off turnovers) ... 234 yards rushing allowed ... 67% pass completions allowed to the great Jason Campbell. Though really, the 34 points allowed is the key "nonsense stat".
Yes indeed, I stand and declare that the failings of the defense are the failings of the defense! Though it is very lonely doing so around here.
Looks like it is just me and Rex.
But I am going to keep saying it, no matter how much it peeves you.
You've really taken to the old Repub "if you are not with us you are damned against us" attitude: "if you don't curse Schott left and right for losses the *other* parts of the team cause, you are a damned Schott appeaser, a Schott supporter, damn you!"
You seem to really enjoy the feel of that.
> Like when the team was up 14-3, & moving the ball, suddenly everything stopped, they
> settled for a FG...then the Raiders scored 28 unanswered points.
A fat 34 total? With *none* off of turnovers. In a league where the average score is under 23? Hey, how'd that happen?
Ah, of course, it was the offense's fault.
You, Michael and all are now stating a very interesting philosopy: Losses are *always* on the offense because no matter how many points the defense allows by screwing up however badly, the offense should score more!
I predicted last year that Schott hatred would drive you all to this, and now it has.
If the offense squanders a possible TD into a FG, or has a drive where it doesn't score at all, that's *failure*. But if the defense allows score after score, say for 34 points, none of turnovers (where the league average is 23), that's *not* failure.
And a game-turning 70-yard run allowed by the D to bring the other team back from the dead --- heck, don't even count that in the average carry stats, because it is merely one run! Why it just "statistical nonsense" to count only one run like that as if it mattered.
> To you, that of course
> falls on the D. During that 28 point run, the O never got on the field, Cromartie never botched a kickoff, etc.
>
> That is statistical nonsense.
> On one carry, they gave up 70 yards.
If we don't count it then the D merely gave up 164 yards at 5.3 a carry on 31 carries, with McFadden held to just *another* 101 yards. Good job!
How could they possibly be criticized for that?
But you were right about one thing, the media is mostly pointing at the defense for this loss.
Of course they are only quoting Rex on that, and following his words.
The way Rex sees things so different than you and Michael and all, it seems y'all may have a bigger problem with Rex than you want to admit.
Michael
> "Johnny Morongo" <Moro...@Burf.com> wrote in message
> - Show quoted text -
watch the jets offense, but when people defend schotty in the face of
such demonstrable incompetence, it gets to be a bit much. i am also
VERY glad you have noticed that it is bringing down the defense as
well. people are commenting that "the jets defense does not have the
same fire that they did their first season under rex". the current
defensive roster is very good. the scheme is as good as ever. the guys
on defense are professionals, but they are not robots. the offense is
so bad... and the word that must be used is *NEEDLESSLY*.... they are
so NEEDLESSLY bad on offense due to scheme and play calling, even the
defense is cooling off.
Papa Carl
that a lot of short cuts were taken with the O...they have to recognize that
some areas appear to have gone downhill. How do they interpret all of that?
Just like all of us when we are asked to do a lot more at work right after
they cut a bunch of stuff we felt we needed to do the job. Could be totally
wrong, and time will tell....if more than a couple people begin to seem
disgruntled...we will know that all is not well in Jetislandia.
Papa Carl
"Papa Carl" <papa...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Gv2dnfJaD5Q3YxzT...@giganews.com...
the new receivers are an upgrade...I'm not so sure...think that keeping
familiar targets for a shaky QB is a better idea..