Schott or Players?
George Orwell
On last year's offense being predictable: "I don't think
that's the case. I think if there’s one thing we never are,
it’s predictable. We have a very challenging offense in
terms of where we line players up, the plays we run, the
amount of plays that we have, the complexity of the offense.
By no means do we have an easy offense for people just to
come in and learn. That’s why I think it takes a certain
kind of offensive player to play in our system, because
it’s a very challenging system. I think what we didn’t do
(last season), whatever we were running, we weren’t
running it very well. I've said it before, the best
defense I ever played against was the Miami Dolphins
about 8, 9, 10 years ago, and they played pretty much
the same defense every game. And it didn't matter what
you did, they rushed the passer, they covered you, they
covered you short, they covered you deep. They had one
or two change-ups that complemented what they were doing.
And I had my worst games against them. Our passing game
was terrible against them, and we knew going into the
game, exactly what they'd play. That to me is the mark
of a really good team, is when they do know what you're
gonna do, but you do it so well, they're really not able
to stop you anyway."
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
MZ
Who can tell? The Pats statistically had one of the best offenses in
the league last year.
Michael
> http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2010/08/t...
>
> On last year's offense being predictable: "I don't think
> that's the case. I think if there’s one thing we never are,
<SNIP>
my feeling about shotty is that he can design lots of fancy plays.
the problem is that he cant INTELEGENTLY string together fancy
"drives". Add to that, he does not appear to be able to identify and
exploit a particular weakness that a defense may have. But this is
just the opinion of a blow-hard fan. Schotty is a pro. All the
expert commentators kiss his ass. I must be wrong.
John C TX
It saves us the trouble.
This is his year. Line, WR, RB's and all he has to do with Sanchez is
make him average as he sucked last year.
papa.carl44
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ed75206a-a484-44e5...@c21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
<SNIP>
YOU are not wrong...and we finally really agree. Burf and I have been
saying he picks his plays from a shoe box...like he has a bunch of stuff on
cards and it doesn't have a particular plan to it. To me, a good offensive
coach is thinking at least two plays ahead of what he is doing all the time.
I can usually see this, I was very fortunate to coach with some guys who
could do it really well....I do not see that happen with the Jets. To me,
it always looks like a "safe play" and once in a while he tries a
surprise...that is usually no surprise because he never seems to set it up.
OMHO, but I was right a lot of times when I worked at this :-)
John C TX
wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
I could go through the list of holes that he has dealt with since he
showed up but when I do that they are called excuses. Your answer is
adjust and there may be some merit to that argument but many of things
that he criticized by the many amateurs in this room -- myself
included-- are not what happens on the field.
My big criticism is that he couldn't figure out how to get Washington
on the field more often & earlier than he did in spite of the fact he
still wasn't picking up the blitz last year. Also that it took until
last year (I hope) for him to have a quality OL coach his fault or the
head coach?
The holes were numerous. When Pennington was healthy the offense was
good even if the OL sucked & we were thin at RB (year one). You look
around the NFL. If you have a bad QB your OC looks like a schmuck.
Even Henning in Miami struggled at times last year and I know you
think he is good. If you have a bad OL & a bad QB he rarely lasts
long. Look at the Giants. Gilbride looks OK when Manning plays well.
He looked good with Warren Moon but didn't look so good in Buffalo,
Jacksonville, Pittsburgh & his many other stops.
papa.carl44
"John C TX" <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc464cd8-fc9a-4671...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I'm not talking about his holes...lots of teams have holes. The Dolphins
had HUGE holes last year but they did things that helped make it work. What
I'm saying has to do with the flow of the game, the rhythm and choice of
plays. It isn't there, and it has very little to do with the holes....not
getting Washington into the game was a HUGE issue, there were lots of ways
he could have used that talent without expecting him to pick up the blitz.
BTW...I never said adjust. All I've ever said is he does not have a scheme
that looks coherent. I've watched a lot of offensive coaches, and some get
it and others don't...it's easy to pick apart the ones who don't...when a
guy can look at the defense and predict the weaknesses he gets it and he
begins to run plays that exploit that. That sense of the rhythm in the game
forces a defensive coach to try and do certain things, when that happens,
and the good OC knows he is forcing it...he takes advantage and blows
somebody up. Schott does not look to me like he even has a clue about
that...to me it looks like he tries something, then tries something else,
maybe comes back to something....or maybe just forgets about it. I've never
felt there was any flow to what he tries to do. I will give you that of all
the QB's that have been around, Penny is the one who could make it happen on
his own...Chad knew about making things work together, and he still does.
My criticisms of him were I don't think he will ever last a full pro season
and he simply can not consistently hit a quick pattern, but in terms of
deception, establishing a flow and using what the D gives him..he is still
very good..he showed it in the game against the Jags.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
despite what i "think i see" i'm gonna try to keep an open mind about
shotty this year... lots of times when things seem to be apparent even
to the "experts", something else happens. circumstances and so on...
but... this time out... with all the offensive assets the jets have
and... no more rookie qb, top quality line, loaded to the gills with
pass catchers, green, tomlinson and the terminator... for shotty, it
better be "go time". if he blows all of that talent out of his ass
this season what will be left to say ???
Michael
> The O never was able to get into the flow, after losing Holmes for the first 4 games.
> Rex should've made sure that Braylon shaved his beard... it interfered with his
> passcatching.
> With Mercury in retrograde, Schott had just too much to overcome... when the heavens are
> against you, what can one man do?
> Schott was dealt a bad hand, when player X was injured...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
i'll agree about braylon's grooming habbits, but i dont agree with the
faneca excuse... other than getting beat cleanly once at the beginning
of the panthers game, slauson did a good job.
John C TX
wrote:
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:bc464cd8-fc9a-4671...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
A great coach, one of the best in the world, told me it is much easier
to coach defense than offense and that isn't a knock on what you did.
His logic is that because there isn't ball in hand or the transfer of
one you have less to worry about and skills & systems are easier to
implement. Now I have seen people blow up when I repeat that
statement -- I don't have the credentials he has-- but having coached
in 3 sports, albeit at rather low levels, I treat it as dogma.
If you look at NFL stats and sort by points:
Not surprisingly the top teams have the top QB's. There have been
some coaches that always do better but even Henning who you like, & do
I, struggles with bad QB's. He only outscored Schott by 12 points. Go
down the list and tell me what happens to the geniuses w/o their QBs?
Then when they have a crap OL things really go dark. I am more
sympathetic to OC's especially when sometimes the criticisms are not
reflective of the game .
Ultimately players need to perform. I think an OC who has had QB
after QB thrown at him, one in the middle of August, played season
with guys who don't belong on the league on the line and no RB at
times has done OK.
Like I said I have to believe he is better than what we had 4 years
ago & except for the big ?'s at LG & RT has enough.
John C TX
You seem to be fixated on asses.
What will I do? I will admit I was wrong but I will actually watch
the game.
papa.carl44
Here's the deal, Henning took Ray Lucas and made him look like Superman at
times. Henning took a thought to be washed up Vinny Testeverde and made him
a hero. Henning has players from as far back as the mid 70's era Jets
saying he was the best coach they ever had...NONE of this stuff is happening
or going to happen with Schott. You are 100% correct, players need to
perform...and good coaches need to find a way to get them to do that. I
haven't seen Schott do that either.
I don't know who told you the offense defense thing...but I'd say he was
probably an offensive coach. I don't disagree, but I'd say they are
completely different and can't really be compared that way because they are
so very different. Offense is allignment, assignment, execute and Defense
is allignment, responsibility, react. An offensive lineman for example is
at a huge advantage, he knows what the play is and where the ball is going.
The offense knows the snap count too. I would say the best athletes are
often on defense. BTW...I got to be a defensive coordinator because I
coached the offensive line for several years. After I understood a lot of
offensive schemes it got really easy to pick them apart. I worked the last
10 years with a guy who was an incredible offensive tactician...he would be
thinking several plays ahead all the time. I got really interested in how
he thought like that. He had an idea of how to attack a given defense, if
his first selection worked he said it was easy...but if that didn't work it
sent him to plan B and so forth...the point is there were thought out
schemes for each option and he did it aggressively and made it look like it
was "supposed" to be that way. He also did something else I thought was
brilliant...he had an emergency game plan of six plays...stuff they could
run in no huddle, and could run faultlessly...it might change from time to
time, and could be run out of all kinds of formations...but it was the "go
to" system when stuff got confusing or they were being backed up. That
"plan" always got things back in rhythm and brought back confidence. In
short...what we are talking about is a coach taking control of the game.
There are guys with a lot less talent than Schott has had who seem to be
able to get more performance. OMHO.
papa.carl44
Do any of your friends ever tell you to lighten up? :-)
Michael
> the game.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
if another person's observation/idea differs from yours, it may not
mean that they did not watch the game :-) always good to keep in
mind... fans actually like to watch their sport...
MZ
It's a sort of a chicken and egg question. Last year, either Schott
held Sanchez back because Sanchez truly sucked, or Schott held Sanchez
back because he's a timid coach and he doesn't gameplan for his
opponents. I honestly don't know which of those is true. It's possible
both were. Whichever the source was, it prevented the offense from
doing anything of note.
Personally, I felt Schott's personnel groupings were beyond peculiar and
his 3rd down playcalling was dumb on many occasions. This makes me lean
more towards Schott being the problem.
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:VLGdnUY_INsG6unR...@giganews.com...
Mark, thank you for saying that succinctly and clearly...when I failed to
:-) PC
John C TX
Alright I hate you now too.
:)
I like many of the things Schott does especially the motion. I just
can't abide this"fire this guy, fire that guy, mentality" even
though I hated that he couldn't figure out how to get Leon the ball
more. Again, I always look at the issues he has faced and wonder what
kind of coach wold he be w/o them.
As for Sanchez he should not have been playing after only starting 14
games but I am glad now they did. He admitted this off season he
didn't know the plays. When they took the ball away from him we
started to play better.
John C TX
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:58:03 -0700 (PDT), John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> >> Actually, my good colleague from the other side of most aisles, yer right, they are
> >> excuses.
>
> >I will merely point out that you seem to ignore people's observations
> >when they interfere with your commentary.
>
> Yup, my observations definitely must take the back seat to others commentary.
buRf, my issues with you is you make a comment, someone replies & you
make the same comment & ignore whatever observation was made. It
comes off as condescending. Tell me I am an idiot or crazy, just say
why, I don't know how anyone learns if you don't.
John C TX
wrote:
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:939460be-fe4b-43be...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
He did a great job with Lucas but he had a very good Oline & coach,
great RB & great receivers. As for Vinne he had some good years in
Cleveland with BB but Henning did put a nice offensive on the field
but my point is that it is often the Jimmies & the Joes not the X's &
O's.
>NONE of this stuff is happening
> or going to happen with Schott. You are 100% correct, players need to
> perform...and good coaches need to find a way to get them to do that. I
> haven't seen Schott do that either.
He was a last minute hire and as we have discussed between us maybe
didn't pay his dues prior to arrival. Someoen, maybe Mark speculated
that Mangini didn't want anyone who knew more than him. Schott also
inherited some stiffs & again, one of the risks of a young coach,
didn't know enough capable coaches. Remember I have never said he was
the next Sid Gillman I have maintained he has had personnel issues.
> I don't know who told you the offense defense thing...but I'd say he was
> probably an offensive coach. I don't disagree, but I'd say they are
> completely different and can't really be compared that way because they are
> so very different.
He coached both more known for defense.
btw he is not a football coach and it was good to illicit some of your
insight.
:)
>Offense is allignment, assignment, execute and Defense
> is allignment, responsibility, react. An offensive lineman for example is
> at a huge advantage, he knows what the play is and where the ball is going.
> The offense knows the snap count too. I would say the best athletes are
> often on defense. BTW...I got to be a defensive coordinator because I
> coached the offensive line for several years. After I understood a lot of
> offensive schemes it got really easy to pick them apart.
That makes a lot of sense. Look at Parcells, is there anything he
didn't coach at one time or another?
>I worked the last
> 10 years with a guy who was an incredible offensive tactician...he would be
> thinking several plays ahead all the time. I got really interested in how
> he thought like that. He had an idea of how to attack a given defense, if
> his first selection worked he said it was easy...but if that didn't work it
> sent him to plan B and so forth...the point is there were thought out
> schemes for each option and he did it aggressively and made it look like it
> was "supposed" to be that way. He also did something else I thought was
> brilliant...he had an emergency game plan of six plays...stuff they could
> run in no huddle, and could run faultlessly...it might change from time to
> time, and could be run out of all kinds of formations...but it was the "go
> to" system when stuff got confusing or they were being backed up. That
> "plan" always got things back in rhythm and brought back confidence. In
> short...what we are talking about is a coach taking control of the game.
I like it. Not only because it makes sense but it tells the players
there is a plan and a leader.
> There are guys with a lot less talent than Schott has had who seem to be
> able to get more performance. OMHO.
Outside of Henning who do you think they are?
And that question is not one of me being a tool. I am curious what
you think.
Michael
<SNIP>
> I like many of the things Schott does especially the motion. I just
> can't abide this"fire this guy, fire that guy, mentality" even
> though I hated that he couldn't figure out how to get Leon the ball
> more. Again, I always look at the issues he has faced and wonder what
> kind of coach wold he be w/o them.
What do you do for a living ??? Would you expect that you'd be able to
keep your job if you were arguable ineffective for three consecutive
years ??? I agree that Shotty has some nifty plays. The problem is,
nifty plays used without regards to circumstances is going to be
ineffective. An good example would be calling a slow developing
option play against the Colts defense. Or... Running it up the gut on
the goal line against Wilfork, Warren and Seymour. If Shotty was
confronted by a tiger, he'd try to confuse it by sticking his head in
its mouth. But then again... You've got Papa here to remind us that I
don't even know what a football locker room smells like.
John C TX
> On Aug 25, 9:41 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > I like many of the things Schott does especially the motion. I just
> > can't abide this"fire this guy, fire that guy, mentality" even
> > though I hated that he couldn't figure out how to get Leon the ball
> > more. Again, I always look at the issues he has faced and wonder what
> > kind of coach wold he be w/o them.
>
> What do you do for a living ??? Would you expect that you'd be able to
> keep your job if you were arguable ineffective for three consecutive
> years ???
I would say if you don't give a manager the tools do the job you
shouldn't sack him.
>>I agree that Shotty has some nifty plays. The problem is,
> nifty plays used without regards to circumstances is going to be
> ineffective. An good example would be calling a slow developing
> option play against the Colts defense. Or... Running it up the gut on
> the goal line against Wilfork, Warren and Seymour. If Shotty was
> confronted by a tiger, he'd try to confuse it by sticking his head in
> its mouth. But then again... You've got Papa here to remind us that I
> don't even know what a football locker room smells like.
& someone somewhere would complain if he ran something different.
Like I said, look at the top offenses & look at their QB's.
John C TX
btw Mark, if you watch Kubiak's & Shanahan's (the kid) sets there are
similarities to what Schot does with less motion.
Michael
that's a fair point. i'm going to conceed that i may be wrong. he's
still got his job and even rex gave him lip service. i'm gonna shut
my face about "schotty must go" until i see what he brews up in the
first three games. i'll say this in anticipation... given all the
pass catchers the jets have, i'll be at least scratching my head if
they are not utililzed especially with how good edwards looks. i like
smash mouth too, but you gotta get your best guys in on things. if
they are gonna run it a lot, i'd at least like to see some quality
play action too.
Hammer
>
> - Show quoted text -
The problem with your logic is that anyone can be a great coach if
they have star personnel and no issues. The test of a coach is what
they can make of lesser circumstances.
Michael
> time, which has nothing to do with me, or where I come from.
> I don't do *you're an idiot or crazy.* I state my case, or opinion. And no, I don't
> ignore what anyone says. If I make the same comment, it means I don't see things the same
> as the poster. I can take in someone's opinion, understand where they're coming from, but
> not agree. Bottom line, it aint my job to change anyone's mind... everyone's entitled to
> their opinion. - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
john likes to flash his tin star. though, i like the idea that his
primary motive in this case is giving maximum consideration for
allowing a guy to keep his job.
John C TX
> time, which has nothing to do with me, or where I come from.
> I don't do *you're an idiot or crazy.* I state my case, or opinion. And no, I don't
> ignore what anyone says. If I make the same comment, it means I don't see things the same
> as the poster. I can take in someone's opinion, understand where they're coming from, but
> not agree. Bottom line, it aint my job to change anyone's mind... everyone's entitled to
> their opinion.
Idiot or crazy was hyperbole but it is preferable to ignoring
someone's point and repeating it. Condescion may not be your intention
but it oftentimes is your style.
I guess I m different. If someone offers their interpretation, or a
fact-- facts are few & far between as most of this banter is very
subjective-- I offer my view.
John C TX
Michael go back into your jail cell Otis is lonely.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
john... why are you are in here pretending to be a jet fan ??? given
some of your football opinions, i'm starting to think that while the
rest of us are watching the games, you are alone with a bottle
listening to your collection of self help tapes...
John C TX
It is bad enough your retorts are never funny but when you steal a bad
line & throw it at the guy who originally used it, well, a low point
even for you.
Good news though, Otis sold you for two packs of cigarettes, and he
will give you one. In case you get your hopes up, a cigarette, not a
pack.
Michael
> line & throw it at the guy who originally used it, well, a low point
> even for you.
>
> Good news though, Otis sold you for two packs of cigarettes, and he
> will give you one. In case you get your hopes up, a cigarette, not a
>
> - Show quoted text -
you seem to have a fixation with alchahol. projection ???
Copp
"papa.carl44" <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
> YOU are not wrong...and we finally really agree. Burf and I have been
> saying he picks his plays from a shoe box...like he has a bunch of stuff on
> cards and it doesn't have a particular plan to it.
You guys are in lala land. Your team just doesn't have
that much talent on offense compared to Indy or NE.
papa.carl44
<SNIP>
See....there you go again, I never said anything like that...and frankly,
it's none of my business where you go sniffing around :-) I agree with on
Schott. After I get home tomorrow I'll answer John about good OC's too.
papa.carl44
When they are all back, the true measure will be if he goes down the field
at all...or if he just keeps up the dink and dump game. How will he develop
any play action? Those things will be important to watch.
papa.carl44
Motion has to be designed to do something and not just put a guy in position
to do the obvious.
papa.carl44
That's the American way these days...only for guys making a ton of
money....regular guys get sacked.
papa.carl44
:)
Well...I do think Dan is at the top of the current coaching heap. Then I'd
say, Paul Brown, Sid Gillman, Vince Lombardi. Definitely Ken
Wisenhunt...maybe a real top guy. Todd Hailey is really good. Joe Gibbs
once was good. I also think Charlie Weis was very good, somewhere he lost
something, maybe when he had the surgery :-) Bryan Harsin at Boise is good.
I think there are a lot in college that understand the game of creating
situations that allow them to control the game.
papa.carl44
"papa.carl44" <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
news:RrCdnfYPKLgRvuvR...@giganews.com...
It's about guys who make it different...it has NOTHING to do with great
players...it's the approach the coach takes in the scheme he develops.
Copp
> saying he picks his plays from a shoe box...like he has a bunch of stuff on
> cards and it doesn't have a particular plan to it.
You guys are in lala land. Your team just doesn't have
John C TX
> Well...I do think Dan is at the top of the current coaching heap. Then I'd
> say, Paul Brown, Sid Gillman, Vince Lombardi. Definitely Ken
> Wisenhunt...maybe a real top guy. Todd Hailey is really good. Joe Gibbs
> once was good. I also think Charlie Weis was very good, somewhere he lost
> something, maybe when he had the surgery :-) Bryan Harsin at Boise is good.
> I think there are a lot in college that understand the game of creating
> situations that allow them to control the game.
It is funny you mentioned Whisenhunt as I was thinking about that the
other day, i.e. how their offense goes this year. It will be
interesting to see what he can do with Leinhart. Too bad the Jets
didn't hold on to him. Payton is good & like Whisenhunt made the
transition to head coach. I would love to see some numbers on the
success of OC & DC transitioning to head coach in the NFL. btw the
only OC you mentioned who isn't a head coach outside of Henning was
Weis. Maybe a tough job to fill? I still think having that good QB
turns OC into head coaches.
College is tougher to gauge a guy's talent because programs that have
an easy time recruiting, and coaches who are good at it, can hide
shortcoming (see Mack Brown). That guy at Boise is obviously good.
John C TX
wrote:
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:380fe4bd-7fd3-4eb6...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
I had a related argument with Glenn one time as he didn't like smith
as a player. I liked Smith because I saw him a game changer at
Mizzou. In fairness to Schott when Smith is in motion, and this has
been the case for years, the defense adjusts. A few years ago he had
an incredibly high # of 1st downs both running & catching as a % of
total touches -- I am doing this for memory but I want to say 70%.
In any event watch what happens when a Jet is moving, especially Smith.
Michael
>thanks for throwing projection into Michael's vocabulary.
that was one of my more off the cuff offerings. i should not have
gone there. antagonizing anyone over a problem they may have with
booze is cheap. i dont drink more than one drink every now and again
because booze is a cardio toxin. not good for a guy that had major
heart surgury a few years back. anyway... given what i have seen with
a few people that had some issues... problems with booze or what ever
else should not be used as leverage against anyone. only a first rate
shit heel would do it
papa.carl44
John, I'm not looking at a guy who makes it to head coach. And the way I'm
looking at it has nothing to do with the players. These guys are in the
NFL, it isn't like you are at a small high school that has never had a
tradition in football. All of the guys playing have some degree of
capability. Granted, you'll get the all-pro guard who, as Michael says,
gets blown up and that certainly screws up a play. But I can still see what
the intentions of the play are. It's not the OC's job to coach skills, in
fact I don't think a lot of skill gets taught once training camp is over.
Position coaches do that, and they keep them sharp through the season. What
I'm talking about is the design of the offense, the scheme and what they go
out there to do, the goal they have. Last year the Fish knew they had to
keep their defense off the field and while they had some good stuff going on
in the running game they didn't have consistent or steady QB'ing. The
wildcat worked for them because of HOW they ran it, not because they ran it.
It's really hard to evaluate stuff on TV..much easier to do with game films
or live. When you follow the offense you want to see what the initial
reactions of key defenders are to movement. You say you like the motion
Schott uses...why? Look at defenders, rarely does motion confuse them and
they never run around trying to adjust to it. Motion that is "A" away from
the play, "T" through the play or "X" into the play should move defenders,
not just put somebody in position to get the ball or make a block. To me,
it looks like Schott always comes back to some super cautious and very
simple play while he is "thinking" of something else to do...and that ain't
good. You are right Payton is a good coach and he understand the game and
can take control of a game.
If a team at any level is capable of just blowing another team away,
overpower them because of superior talent...I'm not going to applaud the OC
as a great coach...it has nothing to do with it. I want to see something
that makes me sit up, get on the edge of my chair and watch what is
happening because I can't figure it out. I want to see D backs looking
confused because of what they see, not who is doing it. True, the less
talent you have the more you have to rely on a game plan and
schemes...that's why it's such a great game.
papa.carl44
:-) Booze is an everything toxin..not just cardio...everything...beyond
very strict moderation it does no good...I'm glad you are doing well...the
health thing I can really relate to.
Michael
wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
thanx papa :-) yes... thus far all has gone very well. the surgery i
had is called the "modified ross procedure". it is for the most part,
if all goes well, a curative surgery. if you need a new aortic valve,
the two traditional options are a mechanical valve or a pig valve.
with the mechanical valve, the valves last a life time, but you have
to take blood thinners for the rest of your life. i am very active
and do a lot of physical things, so a life on blood thinners is out of
the question for me. i'd be surviving, but not living. if you get a
pig valve, it guarantees you'll need surgery again in six years or so
because they wear out. with the ross procedure, they remove your
healthy pulmonary valve and sew it in place of your bad aortic valve.
in place of the pulmonary valve they take out, they put in a homograph
valve. there is little to no pressure on the pulmonary side, so those
homographs work perfectly. your former pulmonary valve works great on
the aortic side. the end result is you get two living tissue valves.
still.. it is one of the most complicated heart surgeries that there
is. you must be in perfect health and be able to take 8 hours on a
heart lung machine. you swing for the home run and hope it works.
thus far, all looks good :-)
MZ
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>>> thanks for throwing projection into Michael's vocabulary.
>> that was one of my more off the cuff offerings.
>
> about being insensitive.
>
> You didn't offend me it was the projection thing -- & this is not a
> shot at buRf because I don't really know him. I have seen too many
> people use that word as an excuse for rude comments & behavior.
> Pointing your finger at me makes me crazy as well but I can always
> decide too snap it off.
>
>
> btw I like booze too much to abuse it. Then I'd have to stop.
>
> :)
A lot of times, accusing someone of projecting is like invoking the "I'm
rubber you're glue" argument.
John C TX
Listen Schott's movement isn't always effective but I have seen time
after time where Smith or someone else but especially with smith has
moved and he has turned the hips of a safety, CB or LBer. many of
Jones & Washington long gains have come off those plays.
>
> If a team at any level is capable of just blowing another team away,
> overpower them because of superior talent...I'm not going to applaud the OC
> as a great coach...it has nothing to do with it. I want to see something
> that makes me sit up, get on the edge of my chair and watch what is
> happening because I can't figure it out. I want to see D backs looking
> confused because of what they see, not who is doing it. True, the less
> talent you have the more you have to rely on a game plan and
> schemes...that's why it's such a great game.
PC, if you look at your list it is pretty short. Guys like Henning
are perfect as OC's in that they are experienced -- something much of
Americas has forgotten-- and generally have no ambition to be a head
coach. As I write that I wonder if that has helped Gilbride improve.
I really appreciate your answers.
papa.carl44
Henning was a head coach, twice...Atlanta and San Diego...then at Boston
College. I think lots of guys have the desire to be head coaches, and some
may just want to do the position thing....I think the HC is more of a
personality deal. I worked with a guy who was brilliant at offense
especially. He had coached in college and I'm certain he would be good in
the NFL....but at some point he started to regret not seeing his
family...that aspect of it just wasn't for him so he took a job at a high
school and created a dynasty....that can be very rewarding. He actually has
people choosing to move to the area so a kid can go to school there.
Actually I know two like that and was with one today..he's in his 70's and
coaching his final season. I give it to them...applaud them. I just
couldn't do it. I've stayed married for 41 + years but haven't done much of
anything else that long...I like change and challenge and it made me move
around a lot. If my brain were working better I'd come up with the rest of
the list of good offensive schemers. In today's group, Wisenhunt stand out
and of course, he brough in Hailey too. Both of those guys have ties to
Henning too. I think a lot of it is about being able to teach players to
see things and teach a few of them to think like you do as a coach. I think
some guys have their fling at HC and settle back into what they do
best...and...they have a LOT more time to play golf.
papa.carl44
My double transplant surgery, kidney and liver from a single donor was 19
hours long with two surgical teams. Fist the kidney guys did their thing
and then the liver team took over. All of that came from a cut on my hand,
and infection that never healed and was not treated properly. That resulted
in sepsis after four years of being sick on and off. At the end of the four
years I had emergency surgery for an old hernia (football result) that came
apart. The infection had "colonized" in the mesh of that old hernia...and
that was it...off and running wild for 6 months. I was as close to dead as
anyone can get. Then I got the two transplants. I have AB- blood too so it
was the rarest of the rare. It could be a really crappy day now...and its a
great day. I read a bunch about your surgery...very amazing stuff. I get
to talk with a lot of very cool docs at The Hospital of the University of
Pennsylvania....I'm kind of a celebrity with some of them because nobody
thought I'd live...they worked their asses off to save me and I will be
forever grateful. Stay well !
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Papa... Quite an ordeal. Glad you made it. Sounds like you are a
tuff guy and you had some fantastic doctors. The silver lining is of
course a unique appreciation for... everything. Keep on strokin',
man. And yes... The modified Ross procedure is interesting stuff.
The guy that did mine two years ago is considered the best in the
world for that surgery. Patients come from all over the planet for
his knife work. As big of a surgery as it is, I still felt fine when
I first woke up. I was on my feet the next day, out of the hospital
in three days and back to work in three weeks. The best part of all
is that I dont take any medications at all and I have no physical
restrictions of any kind. My heart function is perfect and I take
full advantage. There is a possibility that one of the valves will go
bad again, but the natural history that we have now for the modified
Ross gives me an 85 % chance of not needing any re-op in the next 20
years. It turns out that this surgery is ideal a lot of the time for
children that have valve issues. With traditional treatment, if a kid
had a bad valve that needed to be replaced, other surgeries would have
to be done as the kid grew or as the replacement valves wore out.
With the modified Ross, the valves grow along with the kids. It saves
them from having to go through repeat surgical procedures. I had a
minor blockage of my valve from birth. It was so moderate, I was
still able to be very active and play on the baseball team. As the
doctors told me though, it would probably get a lot worse as I grew.
Sure enough it did. Like clockwork it got critical just when they
said it would. Once those valves stiffen up they get covered with
calcium very quickly. Fortunately, they patched me up :-)
JetsLife
> http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2010/08/t...
>
> On last year's offense being predictable: "I don't think
> that's the case. I think if there’s one thing we never are,
> terms of where we line players up, the plays we run, the
> amount of plays that we have, the complexity of the offense.
> By no means do we have an easy offense for people just to
> come in and learn. That’s why I think it takes a certain
> kind of offensive player to play in our system, because
> it’s a very challenging system. I think what we didn’t do
> (last season), whatever we were running, we weren’t
> running it very well. I've said it before, the best
> defense I ever played against was the Miami Dolphins
> about 8, 9, 10 years ago, and they played pretty much
> the same defense every game. And it didn't matter what
> you did, they rushed the passer, they covered you, they
> covered you short, they covered you deep. They had one
> or two change-ups that complemented what they were doing.
> And I had my worst games against them. Our passing game
> was terrible against them, and we knew going into the
> game, exactly what they'd play. That to me is the mark
> of a really good team, is when they do know what you're
> gonna do, but you do it so well, they're really not able
> to stop you anyway."
>
> Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
> non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
> reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
> di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
> Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
> https://www.mixmaster.it
I think it has been both. Schotty hasn't always had the best to work
with, yet his cumulative results don't speak awfully well for him.
Never hurts to have an elite QB. If Sanchez can stay within himself
and not turn the ball over, the Jets offense should be fine. The
question then: is 'fine' enough to win it all?
Johnny Morongo
> John C TX wrote:
> > On Aug 24, 2:59 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> > wrote:
> >> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:bc464cd8-fc9a-4671...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Aug 23, 12:03 pm, George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> >>>>http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2010/08/t...
> >>>> On last year's offense being predictable: "I don't think
> >>>> that's the case. I think if there’s one thing we never are,
Bingo!