Jets = Classless Too?

According to Deion Branch:



http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nfl/news/story?id=6028621" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meh, both teams talked smack and took jabs at each other leading up to the game, both teams took some cheap shots and late hits during the game, and both teams acted like poor sports after the game.

The Jets have always been classless since Rex Ryan took over.



Now that Ryan beat Bill B. He now has his FOOT in the door. Every press conference Ryan should insert his FOOT into mouth before he speaks. At least he doesn't tip TOE around questions when being asked.



I'm out of foot fetish jokes... Anyone?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Total pot to kettle IMO. Anyone see the story about Patriots lining up on the sidelines to block gunners? Fox showed video evidence of it on the pre game show.

frdbtr wrote:
Total pot to kettle IMO. Anyone see the story about Patriots lining up on the sidelines to block gunners? Fox showed video evidence of it on the pre game show.

sorry, what are gunners?

KYCoug wrote:

Total pot to kettle IMO. Anyone see the story about Patriots lining up on the sidelines to block gunners? Fox showed video evidence of it on the pre game show.

sorry, what are gunners?

A few months ago there was a controversy when a Jets trainer tried to trip a player on punt coverage while running down the sideline(a gunner, who is a position on a punt return team), now fox news has video of the patriots doing the same exact thing earlier in the year then the Jets controversy.



This on top of video gate tells me that the patriots will try every form of cheating to win. Pot calling kettle black when a patriots player comes out and calls another team "classless"

KYCoug wrote:

Total pot to kettle IMO. Anyone see the story about Patriots lining up on the sidelines to block gunners? Fox showed video evidence of it on the pre game show.

sorry, what are gunners?

They call the guys (WR's technically) on the outside "gunners" that are going downfield in all haste to be there when the PR guy catches (fumbles, muffs) the punt. They get pushed out of bounds a lot because they usually have two DB's mugging them on the outside in an attempt to slow him down so the PR can get a better return. And if you get pushed out of bounds and they hit you while you are out there they are risking a flag so they sometimes take a sort of round about "legal" route back onto the field of play-in other words when they get pushed out they run down the sideline out of bounds for a little bit so they can get passed the db's.

Ask Tomlinson about Patriot class when they beat SD at SD in the AFC championship game and proceeded to dance at center field on the Charger emblem....

KYCoug wrote:

Total pot to kettle IMO. Anyone see the story about Patriots lining up on the sidelines to block gunners? Fox showed video evidence of it on the pre game show.

sorry, what are gunners?

It's the position Marky-Mark played in Invincable.

The Patriots got what was coming to them. I'm glad someone finally smacked them in the mouth. Apparently they didn't have enough film this time around. Stupid cheaters!

I understand tripping a gunner deliberately not being right, but I'm not seeing anyone saying it's illegal to line up your players on the sideline. Looks like to me the League is saying they don't have a position on that and don't want to open that can of worms. Seems to me if a gunner goes out of bounds on the opposing side he is doing it at his own risk. I don't see giving him an assist by opening a path to get back on the field to tackle your player makes any sense.

KYCoug wrote:
I understand tripping a gunner deliberately not being right, but I'm not seeing anyone saying it's illegal to line up your players on the sideline. Looks like to me the League is saying they don't have a position on that and don't want to open that can of worms. Seems to me if a gunner goes out of bounds on the opposing side he is doing it at his own risk. I don't see giving him an assist by opening a path to get back on the field to tackle your player makes any sense.

Asking for an injury if the NFL asked me about it. How long till we have a gunner turn into an assassin. Someone who just LAYS OUT some robot opponent who was told to block his path, and doing it deliberately. The guy standing there impeding the path could get seriously messed up.

declocoug wrote:

I understand tripping a gunner deliberately not being right, but I'm not seeing anyone saying it's illegal to line up your players on the sideline. Looks like to me the League is saying they don't have a position on that and don't want to open that can of worms. Seems to me if a gunner goes out of bounds on the opposing side he is doing it at his own risk. I don't see giving him an assist by opening a path to get back on the field to tackle your player makes any sense.

Asking for an injury if the NFL asked me about it. How long till we have a gunner turn into an assassin. Someone who just LAYS OUT some robot opponent who was told to block his path, and doing it deliberately. The guy standing there impeding the path could get seriously messed up.

That's the issue. The league needs to make it illegal to push the gunner out of bounds. Where are the coaches and players suppose to stand? 10 yards back? It will always be a problem until the gunner stays in bounds.



As for the Patriots blocking the gunners. Its a league wide issue. All teams do it and its all caught on video. Now its just know cause of the issue with the Jets.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Nobody keeps it classy like ute fans can



http://www.byusucks.net/images/stories/easygallery/resized/15/1227505922_utah-byu-2008-041.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BigCougsFan wrote:

KYCoug wrote:
I understand tripping a gunner deliberately not being right, but I'm not seeing anyone saying it's illegal to line up your players on the sideline. Looks like to me the League is saying they don't have a position on that and don't want to open that can of worms. Seems to me if a gunner goes out of bounds on the opposing side he is doing it at his own risk. I don't see giving him an assist by opening a path to get back on the field to tackle your player makes any sense.

Asking for an injury if the NFL asked me about it. How long till we have a gunner turn into an assassin. Someone who just LAYS OUT some robot opponent who was told to block his path, and doing it deliberately. The guy standing there impeding the path could get seriously messed up.

That's the issue. The league needs to make it illegal to push the gunner out of bounds. Where are the coaches and players suppose to stand? 10 yards back? It will always be a problem until the gunner stays in bounds.

Why should it be illegal to push the gunner out of bounds? Football's a rough sport. As long as the block was otherwise legal, I don't care if the gunner gets pushed out of bounds. Should it be illegal for a pulling lineman blocking in the boundary to push a puny defensive back out of bounds?



If the teams have players or staff standing where potential action takes place on the sidelines, and those players/staff get injured by legal action that spills on to the sideline, that's their problem. Those players/staff have assumed a certain amount of risk in deciding to stand so close to the field.



As to a gunner deliberately laying out a person on the sideline blocking his path, the NFL has plenty of cameras to catch that, and the league can dish out punishment for such behavior. It shouldn't be too hard to catch.

I don't like the jets but I'm very happy they beat the pats.

BoiseBYU wrote:
Ask Tomlinson about Patriot class when they beat SD at SD in the AFC championship game and proceeded to dance at center field on the Charger emblem....

Thinking the exact same thing, my best friend is a hardcore chargers fan. Hates tom brady with a passion. Funny now they are crying.