Why I think int's don't bother JJ

by **RGV Pony** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:46 pm

Going back to when JJ first took the job...he commented that we "don't think about punting."

It's pretty obvious that he is as married to his system as Texans are to bbq. I think that the RnS is a system where the goal is TDs, and lots of them. Anything else is just an inconvenience. A FG? fine, but let's reload and get back out there. Turnover? Reload and get back out there. Punt? Reload and get back out there. Interception? Get back out there. As a result, I wouldnt be surprised that an INT is just looked at as a punt, and interception coverage is no more or less important than kickoff or punt coverage. jtstang actually probably had a legit point when bringing up BLM's role as an offensive safety. However, I'm convinced the QB in the RnS is taught to get off the field and out of the face of danger.

I'm reminded of a game Brad Sham was calling when the NFL was using replacement players. QB Kevin Sweeney had a pass intercepted about 40 yards downfield, to which Sham commented "...and nice punt Kevin Sweeney."

And, for those UH fans who have brought up Timmy Chang...I agree, and cant tell you how many times I turned on a UH game being broadcast by ESPN because of Chang's "prolific passing attack..." only to see him throw pick after pick.

by **westexSMU** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:51 pm

[quote="RGV Pony"]

I'm reminded of a game Brad Sham was calling when the NFL was using replacement players. QB Kevin Sweeney had a pass intercepted about 40 yards downfield, to which Sham commented "...and nice punt Kevin Sweeney.[/quote]..... An interception returned for a touchdown is not like a punt or an interception in the end zone on the 1st play of overtime is not like one either.

by **Nacho** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:16 pm

i think jj is very concerned about ints. it's just that he hates a weak arm more.

by **RGV Pony** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:23 pm

westexSMU wrote:
RGV Pony wrote:..... An interception returned for a touchdown is not like a punt or an interception in the end zone on the 1st play of overtime is not like one either.

I agree. Tell JJ.

by **J.T.supporta** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:49 pm

because he doesnt care about winning...thats why INTs dont bother him

by **davidpaul123** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:55 pm

Nacho wrote:i think jj is very concerned about ints. it's just that he hates a weak arm more.

well put. I agree that he expects better decisions, but he needs a guy with an arm that can put the ball down the field in this offense.

by **jason54858** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:37 pm

J.T.supporta wrote:because he doesnt care about winning...thats why INTs dont bother him

That is an interesting thought. I dont know if I would have had the nerve to say this on this site, but this statment to me is worth dissussing. I do have a question, hypothetically if S.M.U were to fire JJ (Not saying the should) what would the buyout be worth?

by **J.T.supporta** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:01 pm

jason54858 wrote:
J.T.supporta wrote:because he doesnt care about winning...thats why INTs dont bother him

That is an interesting thought. I dont know if I would have had the nerve to say this on this site, but this statment to me is worth dissussing. I do have a question, hypothetically if S.M.U were to fire JJ (Not saying the should) what would the buyout be worth?

buy out would be life long embarrassment for the people that brought him in here to win

Why I think int's don't bother JJ

Why I think int's don't bother JJ

Re: Why I think int's don't bother JJ

Re: Why I think int's don't bother JJ

Re: Why I think int's don't bother JJ

Re: Why I think int's don't bother JJ

Re: Why I think int's don't bother JJ

Re: Why I think int's don't bother JJ

Re: Why I think int's don't bother JJ

Who is online