Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Austin Seferian-Jenkins - What do you think?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Milkman said:

I vaguely remember some guy on here claiming ASJ was better than Ebron and everybody was laughing at him. I wonder if anybody who ownd Ebron now would reject a ASJ for Ebron offer? Lolol

Milkman, I was one of the fools who came in here driving the Ebron bandwagon. The league that I owned him in ended up locking me out of the league and throwing away the key because of my mouth and sharp tongue so I don't own any shares of him. He looks like a fragile BUST. I just acquired ASJ off waivers last week in the redraft league I have been forced to play in since becoming a fantasy orphan. He is not the most athletic guy on the field but he looks a hell of a lot better than Ebron. In my opinion, he is done. It took me longer to realize it because I burned a first round pick on the bum. Excellent call but don't let it get to your head. And I agree, he got robbed of that second touchdown. Absolute GARBAGE call. 

Edited by georg013
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Austin Seferian-Jenkins reeled in eight-of-11 targets for 46 yards and a touchdown Sunday in the Jets’ Week 6 loss to the Patriots.

 

Seferian-Jenkins was a target hog once again, particularly in the first half when he saw seven of his 11 looks from Josh McCown. He put New York on the board first with a one-yard touchdown in the first quarter. That came on a play where he was able to create separation from Elandon Roberts. ASJ nearly had another touchdown in the fourth quarter but the play was changed to a touchback on review. The Jets have a right to be upset as Seferian-Jenkins lost possession briefly but recovered and should have been credited with the touchdown. That play would later be the difference in the game as New England won by a slim 24-17 margin. ASJ has scored in two straight games while seeing at least eight targets in each contest. He’ll be a back-end TE1 next week against Miami.

 

 

Edited by The Frankman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love ASJ.

i punted on TE & ended up with Brate/Clay. I added ASJ in both leagues and some folks in my league mocked me for carrying 3 TEs.

clay went down, which sucked, but I feel like I’ve got a luxury - I’ll be starting a TE at flex through the BYEs. Brate & ASJ are friggin machines. 

Gotta love the targets for ASJ. Anyone who picked him up has a legit double digit scoring weapon every week. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ASJ and Jets were ripped off. Would this play have flipped for any other team other than NE? I really hate them. It feels like the league goes out of its way to grease the path for Patriots.  The play on field was a TD and to overturn there must be overhwelming. Not only wasn't it, it looked clearly like a TD.  Someone has some splaining to do.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I love ASJ.

i punted on TE & ended up with Brate/Clay. I added ASJ in both leagues and some folks in my league mocked me for carrying 3 TEs.

clay went down, which sucked, but I feel like I’ve got a luxury - I’ll be starting a TE at flex through the BYEs. Brate & ASJ are friggin machines. 

Gotta love the targets for ASJ. Anyone who picked him up has a legit double digit scoring weapon every week. 

I've got both of them too. Everyone was surprised I waited on TE. Picked up ASJ 3 weeks ago. Bonus flex play.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m just rooting for the guy and glad he’s turning his life around. Not because I own him but I respect that fact that he came out and admitted he had a problem and is openly talking about it. How many players deny, deny, deny even after they are suspended don’t even talk about their problem? I have mad respect for what he’s doing and with the amount of targets (including redzone) he could finish in the top 3.

Tex

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dynasty leaguers have to be happy as well that ASJ just turned 25 two weeks ago and is an unrestricted FA next year, leaving him free to go wherever he wants and partner with whatever QB he wants.  Just hope he makes a better decision in FA than Mark Ingram did a few years ago when we all got excited about him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, az_prof said:

ASJ and Jets were ripped off. Would this play have flipped for any other team other than NE? I really hate them. It feels like the league goes out of its way to grease the path for Patriots.  The play on field was a TD and to overturn there must be overhwelming. Not only wasn't it, it looked clearly like a TD.  Someone has some splaining to do.

I agree the Jets were ripped off but I don't think the opponent was a factor at all and I hate the Patriots.  

The NFL's IR rules are ridiculous -- it should be to used to overturn blatant obvious blown calls and that's it.   The video did not conclusively prove anything so they should have stayed with the call on the field.   The NFL needs to remember this and stop micro-managing the game cause they're not very good at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

I agree the Jets were ripped off but I don't think the opponent was a factor at all and I hate the Patriots.  

The NFL's IR rules are ridiculous -- it should be to used to overturn blatant obvious blown calls and that's it.   The video did not conclusively prove anything so they should have stayed with the call on the field.   The NFL needs to remember this and stop micro-managing the game cause they're not very good at it.

I disagree with the notion that the IR didn't conclusively show anything. It was clear as day that ASJ did not have the ball in his hands before he crossed the goal line. You can see that from pretty much every angle available. 

The rule may be dumb, but there was no video to show he REESTABLISHED himself with possession of the ball in the field of play. 

For the record, the same rule came into play on the infamous 4th and 2 play between NE and IND. Kevin Faulk caught the pass beyond the line to gain, but he then monetarily lost control of the ball. When he reestablished the ball and his feet on the field, he was no longer past the first down marker. When the ball briefly popped out, that elimitated his forward progress that would have been a first down. 

Again, on the ASJ play, the rule is asinine, but I think they applied it correctly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anarchy99 I have read your responses about this play and none of what you are saying about him having to re-establish himself has any relevance to this play.  No one else possesed the ball and it never was deemed a fumble (if he had done that in the middle of the field it never would have been scored a fumble).  Re-establishing yourself is only relevant after an actual fumble, not a bobble of the ball and then immediately regaining control.  The only thing that matters in this instance is did ASJ have possession of the ball the instant he hit the pylon.  He did have posession of it, or at worst the referees in no way could prove that he didn't have possession of it and since the initial call was a touchdown then it is a touchdown.  The instant he hit the pylon the play was over.  At that instant he either had posession and its a TD or they needed 100% indisputable proof that he did not have posession to overturn it.  Since there is no camera angle showing him with anything but the ball being trapped against his body the instant his body touched the pylon then its a TD.  The refs absolutely botched the call and you are trying to defend them using a rule that in no way can be applied to this play.

Or are you trying to argue that if that happened in the middle of the field that it would have been ruled a fumble and recovery by ASJ?  Since it absolutely would not have then the re-establishing rule doesnt apply here.

Edited by hcd156
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, hcd156 said:

Anarchy99 I have read your responses about this play and none of what you are saying about him having to re-establish himself has any relevance to this play.  No one else possesed the ball and it never was deemed a fumble (if he had done that in the middle of the field it never would have been scored a fumble).  Re-establishing yourself is only relevant after an actual fumble, not a bobble of the ball and then immediately regaining control.  The only thing that matters in this instance is did ASJ have possession of the ball the instant he hit the pylon.  He did have posession of it, or at worst the referees in no way could prove that he didn't have possession of it and since the initial call was a touchdown then it is a touchdown.  The instant he hit the pylon the play was over.  At that instant he either had posession and its a TD or they needed 100% indisputable proof that he did not have posession to overturn it.  Since there is no camera angle showing him with anything but the ball being trapped against his body the instant his body touched the pylon then its a TD.  The refs absolutely botched the call and you are trying to defend them using a rule that in no way can be applied to this play.

Or are you trying to argue that if that happened in the middle of the field that it would have been ruled a fumble and recovery by ASJ?  Since it absolutely would not have then the re-establishing rule doesnt apply here.

I haven't been posting my opinion, I have been posting what THE ACTUAL HEAD REFEREE SAID about this exact play.
LINK

Head referee says Jets touchdown-turned-fumble call was 'pretty obvious'
By Phil Perry October 15, 2017 6:25 PM

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. -- Tony Corrente said there was one replay of the Austin Seferian-Jenkins touchdown-that-wasn't which made the correct call, in his mind, fairly apparent. 

"We went through two or three primary looks," Corrente told pool reporter Bob Glauber of his interaction with the replay officials in New York, "and then this other shot came up. When the other shot came up, it was just 'boom, boom, booom.' It was a pretty quick determination. It was pretty obvious."

Corrente said that midway through the fourth quarter Seferian-Jenkins was ruled to have scored a touchdown because his back was to the down judge on the field. The down judge thought he saw the ball pass over the goal line in the front right corner of the end zone, but he couldn't see the ball tucked away. 

"Because he lost the ball on his way to the ground the first time and had to re-grasp, that means now it's a loose ball," Corrente said. "He has to have control and survive the ground in the process of the recovery or, as we say, the process of the catch. So that's what that was about."

The bottom line for Corrente -- and obviously for senior vice president of officiating Alberto Riveron and his team, who make the final decisions on video reviews -- was that Seferian-Jenkins had not re-established himself in-bounds with possession of the football after Malcolm Butler punched it loose. That would mean, like a catch, having two feet (or a knee, or a forearm, etc.) in bounds with the football secured.

"You've got to keep in mind, he doesn't have possession of the football yet," Corrente said when asked about Seferian-Jenkins hitting the pylon. "When he lost the ball short of the goal line, when he lost the ball, he re-gained control but that doesn't mean he possesses the ball. He doesn't possess the ball until he's completed going to the ground now and re-controlling the ball, which he did not survive the ground, which is why it wasn't a touchdown."

It was a game-changing call and a controversial one given that the replay, according to some, seemed inconclusive. But Corrente and the officials in New York saw it differently.

"At [the] point he touched the pylon, it was during the process of trying to recover the ball," Corrente said. "Even though he may have had the ball in his hands the second time, that control does not mean possession until he comes to the ground and shows firm control of the ball at that point."

Full Transcript
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he caught the ball and then lost control of it that should be considered a TD. He recovers his own fumble and then advances the ball over the TD line.

If they are saying he never caught the ball (had possession) then it is no catch, which is how they ruled it (I guess?).

Similar thing with Montgomery in the Vikings game. I thought Montgomery scored a TD, but they ruled that he didn't complete the catch because he was bobbling it and didn't establish possession. 

From watching the replay I think it is very clear that he caught the ball and had possession of it. He takes at least two steps forward with the ball secured in the crook of his arm. The ball does come loose just before he crosses the goal line. That should be considered a fumble (he never loses it though) not saying that he didn't catch the ball.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except I, and anyone that actually knows rules of football, are arguing that he got the call wrong.  The play was dead as soon as he hit the pylon.  This is not a reception.  Once he hit the pylon then posession must be determined at that exact moment, not at some arbitrary time after because the play is over then.  Corrente got the call wrong.  As to your argument about re-establishing himself in the field of play he never says that.  He talks about him controlling the ball after he hits the ground out of bounds, which when going by NFL or just plain football rules is completely irrelevant.  They applied a rule as if it were a reception and the ball needed to be controlled through the end of the catch but the catch was never in doubt.  Possession was supposed to be determined at the instant he hit the pylon.  Unless the NFL created a rule different about this exact situation that differs from basic football rules then Corrente got it wrong.  If there is a rule about this exact situation then you or Corrente would need to provide that rule because it differs from the normal rules of football.  The NFL did create such a rule in regards to completing the catch once you're in the end zone but that is the only rule that I know of where the play isnt dead as soon as the ball crosses the goal line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

If he caught the ball and then lost control of it that should be considered a TD. He recovers his own fumble and then advances the ball over the TD line.

If they are saying he never caught the ball (had possession) then it is no catch, which is how they ruled it (I guess?).

Similar thing with Montgomery in the Vikings game. I thought Montgomery scored a TD, but they ruled that he didn't complete the catch because he was bobbling it and didn't establish possession. 

From watching the replay I think it is very clear that he caught the ball and had possession of it. He takes at least two steps forward with the ball secured in the crook of his arm. The ball does come loose just before he crosses the goal line. That should be considered a fumble (he never loses it though) not saying that he didn't catch the ball.

 

1 minute ago, hcd156 said:

Except I, and anyone that actually knows rules of football, are arguing that he got the call wrong.  The play was dead as soon as he hit the pylon.  This is not a reception.  Once he hit the pylon then possession must be determined at that exact moment, not at some arbitrary time after because the play is over then.  Corrente got the call wrong.  As to your argument about re-establishing himself in the field of play he never says that.  He talks about him controlling the ball after he hits the ground out of bounds, which when going by NFL or just plain football rules is completely irrelevant.  They applied a rule as if it were a reception and the ball needed to be controlled through the end of the catch but the catch was never in doubt.  Possession was supposed to be determined at the instant he hit the pylon.  Unless the NFL created a rule different about this exact situation that differs from basic football rules then Corrente got it wrong.  If there is a rule about this exact situation then you or Corrente would need to provide that rule because it differs from the normal rules of football.  The NFL did create such a rule in regards to completing the catch once you're in the end zone but that is the only rule that I know of where the play isnt dead as soon as the ball crosses the goal line.

Ay Caramba.

The head ref rule states that once he had zero hands on the ball and lost possession of the football, it is treated like he was making a catch. Regain control of the ball, two feet or one knee down, maintain full control of the ball upon hitting the ground. The head referee said it and NFL HQ said it. 

As I mentioned in one of these threads, a similar situation happened against NE in the infamous 4th and 2 play against IND several years ago. NE went for it at their own 28 yard line. Brady hit Kevin Faulk at the 31 or 32 yard line. Two feet down, control of the ball, possession established . . . should be game over, right? Except a Colts defender then hit Faulk before he went to the turf and pushed him backwards, and Faulk juggled the ball. By rule, that nullifies his forward progress and he needed to start the process all over. Control the ball, two feet down in bounds. He was able to do that, but at the time he was deemed to re-possess the ball and establish himself on the field, he did so at the 29 and a half yard line. Faulk never really "fumbled" as the ball never hit the ground, but once he had no hands on the ball, the whole process started over. It's a dumb rule, but that's how they call it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

We agree its a pretty dumb rule.

Yes. There are three really stupid rules at play:

1) having to go through the process of making a catch to be considered in possession of the football.

2) giving the other team the ball as a touch back for fumbling out of the end zone.

3) the refs being able to remap / reconsider the play on instant replay from the point it was determined the ball came loose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, hcd156 said:

Except I, and anyone that actually knows rules of football, are arguing that he got the call wrong.  The play was dead as soon as he hit the pylon.  This is not a reception.  Once he hit the pylon then posession must be determined at that exact moment, not at some arbitrary time after because the play is over then.  Corrente got the call wrong.  As to your argument about re-establishing himself in the field of play he never says that.  He talks about him controlling the ball after he hits the ground out of bounds, which when going by NFL or just plain football rules is completely irrelevant.  They applied a rule as if it were a reception and the ball needed to be controlled through the end of the catch but the catch was never in doubt.  Possession was supposed to be determined at the instant he hit the pylon.  Unless the NFL created a rule different about this exact situation that differs from basic football rules then Corrente got it wrong.  If there is a rule about this exact situation then you or Corrente would need to provide that rule because it differs from the normal rules of football.  The NFL did create such a rule in regards to completing the catch once you're in the end zone but that is the only rule that I know of where the play isnt dead as soon as the ball crosses the goal line.

Yes it was, and since he hadn't re-established possession, the call was correct.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21042849/officiating-czar-stands-call-nullify-new-york-jets-touchdown

Edited by Hankmoody
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hcd156 said:

Anarchy99 I have read your responses about this play and none of what you are saying about him having to re-establish himself has any relevance to this play.  No one else possesed the ball and it never was deemed a fumble (if he had done that in the middle of the field it never would have been scored a fumble).  Re-establishing yourself is only relevant after an actual fumble, not a bobble of the ball and then immediately regaining control.  The only thing that matters in this instance is did ASJ have possession of the ball the instant he hit the pylon.  He did have posession of it, or at worst the referees in no way could prove that he didn't have possession of it and since the initial call was a touchdown then it is a touchdown.  The instant he hit the pylon the play was over.  At that instant he either had posession and its a TD or they needed 100% indisputable proof that he did not have posession to overturn it.  Since there is no camera angle showing him with anything but the ball being trapped against his body the instant his body touched the pylon then its a TD.  The refs absolutely botched the call and you are trying to defend them using a rule that in no way can be applied to this play.

Or are you trying to argue that if that happened in the middle of the field that it would have been ruled a fumble and recovery by ASJ?  Since it absolutely would not have then the re-establishing rule doesnt apply here.

I agree with your interpretation that the play was over the moment the player was in simultaneous contact with the loose ball and the pylon/sideline.

At that instant, to have a valid fumble recovery, ASJ had to have re-established possession of the ball with two feet (or one body part) inbounds.

Corrente said it.  Dean Blandino said it.

The possession element is unclear/not definitive.  The inbounds element looks clear -- i.e., he wasn't inbounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Yes. There are three really stupid rules at play:

1) having to go through the process of making a catch to be considered in possession of the football.

2) giving the other team the ball as a touch back for fumbling out of the end zone.

3) the refs being able to remap / reconsider the play on instant replay from the point it was determined the ball came loose.

1)  What alternative is there?  If you lose control, you gotta be required to regain control, no?  You can't just give it to the next guy that touches it.

2)  That one's pretty awful.  Take it back to the 1 and the team keeps possession.  They do that on every other fumble forward.

3)  That's like the entire purpose of replay though.  If you look at something and see something that's wrong, you correct it.  Even if that wasn't incorrectly called originally.  They do this frequently - if there were 12 men on the field, that can be called on a play that it wasn't initially called on.  If the QB makes a throw on the sideline and the WR catches a TD, you gotta correct the call if the QB's foot was out of bounds before he threw it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, davearm said:

I agree with your interpretation that the play was over the moment the player was in simultaneous contact with the loose ball and the pylon/sideline.

At that instant, to have a valid fumble recovery, ASJ had to have re-established possession of the ball with two feet (or one body part) inbounds.

The bolded is not true on regular receptions, so no reason why it should be true after a fumble either.

Imagine a player diving for a reception...he grabs the ball out of the air, dives for and hits the pylon, then as he lands on the ground, the ball is knocked from his hands.

This would be ruled "incomplete, because the receiver did not maintain control through the process."  Even though he was at some instant in contact with the pylon while going to the ground.

We can think it a dumb rule, but we have seen it called that way for years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hankmoody said:

1)  What alternative is there?  If you lose control, you gotta be required to regain control, no?  You can't just give it to the next guy that touches it.

2)  That one's pretty awful.  Take it back to the 1 and the team keeps possession.  They do that on every other fumble forward.

3)  That's like the entire purpose of replay though.  If you look at something and see something that's wrong, you correct it.  Even if that wasn't incorrectly called originally.  They do this frequently - if there were 12 men on the field, that can be called on a play that it wasn't initially called on.  If the QB makes a throw on the sideline and the WR catches a TD, you gotta correct the call if the QB's foot was out of bounds before he threw it.

The issue in Item 1 is that momentarily having the ball come out and immediately grabbing it DOES NOT = re-establishing possession, which is where people are having issues involving this play. ASJ was airborne when he lost the ball and still airborne when he got his hand on it again and hit the pylon. To many people in these ASJ threads, that means he had possession and then hit the pylon = automatic touchdown, end of story.

The ball seems to be moving around and not firmly tucked away when ASJ hits the ground, and it shifts from one arm to the other arm across his chest with his back on the ground out of bounds. Whether that should be considered reestablishing possession will vary from person to person, I guess.

As for Item 3, it seems like the refs on video review get to determine the outcome of the play from the point of where the mistake was made until the end of the play, and whatever the call on the field was becomes irrelevant. In this case, it seems like the irrefutable evidence had to show ASJ had reestablished himself on the field of play (as opposed to video that proved he never did).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, hcd156 said:

Except I, and anyone that actually knows rules of football, are arguing that he got the call wrong.  The play was dead as soon as he hit the pylon.  This is not a reception.  Once he hit the pylon then posession must be determined at that exact moment, not at some arbitrary time after because the play is over then.  Corrente got the call wrong.  As to your argument about re-establishing himself in the field of play he never says that.  He talks about him controlling the ball after he hits the ground out of bounds, which when going by NFL or just plain football rules is completely irrelevant.  They applied a rule as if it were a reception and the ball needed to be controlled through the end of the catch but the catch was never in doubt.  Possession was supposed to be determined at the instant he hit the pylon.  Unless the NFL created a rule different about this exact situation that differs from basic football rules then Corrente got it wrong.  If there is a rule about this exact situation then you or Corrente would need to provide that rule because it differs from the normal rules of football.  The NFL did create such a rule in regards to completing the catch once you're in the end zone but that is the only rule that I know of where the play isnt dead as soon as the ball crosses the goal line.

This is RGIII completing a run.  How do you think this play was called?

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/b17e3eece52cd0d80ad836e05aa06aefcb6786f5/c=248-0-4844-3456&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/Wilmington/2014/12/14/B9315495875Z.1_20141214205705_000_GQP9DCOQU.2-0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Arodin said:

The bolded is not true on regular receptions, so no reason why it should be true after a fumble either.

Imagine a player diving for a reception...he grabs the ball out of the air, dives for and hits the pylon, then as he lands on the ground, the ball is knocked from his hands.

This would be ruled "incomplete, because the receiver did not maintain control through the process."  Even though he was at some instant in contact with the pylon while going to the ground.

We can think it a dumb rule, but we have seen it called that way for years. 

You are right.  I wasn't clear.

What I meant to convey is that ASJ's opportunity to re-establish possession ended when he touched the pylon/sideline.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, davearm said:

You are right.  I wasn't clear.

What I meant to convey is that ASJ's opportunity to re-establish possession ended when he touched the pylon/sideline.

 

We mostly agree then.  We have seen players "recover" balls while out of bounds...it is ruled the same as if the ball simply went out of bounds at that spot:

1) Offensive player fumbles, defender recovers but is ruled to have been out of bounds.  Ball goes back to the offense at that spot, or at the point of the fumble, depending on time remaing (can't advance an offensive fumble in the last x min).

2) player recovers a kickoff with the ball in bounds, but while standing on the line.  Flag for kickoff out of bounds.

So if ASJ was not controlling the fumble till he was out of bounds, the call would be correct.  He doesn't have to reestablish to affect whether or not the ball is in or out of bounds.  He would have to reestablish to earn a recovery TD.  He didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arodin said:

We mostly agree then.  We have seen players "recover" balls while out of bounds...it is ruled the same as if the ball simply went out of bounds at that spot:

1) Offensive player fumbles, defender recovers but is ruled to have been out of bounds.  Ball goes back to the offense at that spot, or at the point of the fumble, depending on time remaing (can't advance an offensive fumble in the last x min).

2) player recovers a kickoff with the ball in bounds, but while standing on the line.  Flag for kickoff out of bounds.

So if ASJ was not controlling the fumble till he was out of bounds, the call would be correct.  He doesn't have to reestablish to affect whether or not the ball is in or out of bounds.  He would have to reestablish to earn a recovery TD.  He didn't.

Loose ball touching a player that is OOB puts the ball OOB.

If this ASJ had happened away from the end zone, they wouldn't rule ASJ made a valid recovery, they'd rule that the ball went OOB before anyone made a valid recovery, putting the ball back with the offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

The issue in Item 1 is that momentarily having the ball come out and immediately grabbing it DOES NOT = re-establishing possession, which is where people are having issues involving this play. ASJ was airborne when he lost the ball and still airborne when he got his hand on it again and hit the pylon. To many people in these ASJ threads, that means he had possession and then hit the pylon = automatic touchdown, end of story.

The ball seems to be moving around and not firmly tucked away when ASJ hits the ground, and it shifts from one arm to the other arm across his chest with his back on the ground out of bounds. Whether that should be considered reestablishing possession will vary from person to person, I guess.

As for Item 3, it seems like the refs on video review get to determine the outcome of the play from the point of where the mistake was made until the end of the play, and whatever the call on the field was becomes irrelevant. In this case, it seems like the irrefutable evidence had to show ASJ had reestablished himself on the field of play (as opposed to video that proved he never did).

 

I realize that, but it sounded like you were agreeing that's a dumb rule.  I don't see any other way to do it.  If he loses possession he must re-establish it just like any other player on the field must.  If he had done that and the defender got his hands on the ball while having a foot out of bounds would those people expect the defense to be awarded the ball?  That would make no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, davearm said:

Loose ball touching a player that is OOB puts the ball OOB.

If this ASJ had happened away from the end zone, they wouldn't rule ASJ made a valid recovery, they'd rule that the ball went OOB before anyone made a valid recovery, putting the ball back with the offense.

Except that if the ball goes out of bounds IN the end zone it is a touchback.  See Gurley a week ago for a less controversial example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, davearm said:

Loose ball touching a player that is OOB puts the ball OOB.

If this ASJ had happened away from the end zone, they wouldn't rule ASJ made a valid recovery, they'd rule that the ball went OOB before anyone made a valid recovery, putting the ball back with the offense.

Exactly.  The only ignorant thing in play here is that a ball fumbled out of the endzone goes to the other team.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arodin said:

Except that if the ball goes out of bounds IN the end zone it is a touchback.  See Gurley a week ago for a less controversial example.

That was considered IN the end zone because it hit the plyon.  It's the exact same thing.  The moment the ball/player hit the plyon it's OB, and since it's not possessed it's a TB to the other team (which is awful).

Edited by Hankmoody
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguably one of the Top 3-5 waiver wire pickups of the season. Cost nothing in all probability and already a Top 10 TE option with Top 5 upside in PPR. Yards are the only negative because he runs so many shallow routes but he's dominating targets, getting RZ work and has become McCown's favorite option in the passing game. He's always had the talent but it looks like he has his head on straight. Combine that with a great situation and it's all been coming together. 

And yeah, the replay call was pure bullchit. 

Edited by packersfan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2017 at 7:49 PM, packersfan said:

Arguably one of the Top 3-5 waiver wire pickups of the season. Cost nothing in all probability and already a Top 10 TE option with Top 5 upside in PPR. Yards are the only negative because he runs so many shallow routes but he's dominating targets, getting RZ work and has become McCown's favorite option in the passing game. He's always had the talent but it looks like he has his head on straight. Combine that with a great situation and it's all been coming together. 

And yeah, the replay call was pure bullchit. 

Top 6 on a PPG already.

I couldn't care less about his YPC, he racks numbers up and he's THE target hog for the NYJ. The only TEs seeing more targets per game are named Ertz and Kelce.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

One tight end I’m bullish on in PPR leagues is Austin Seferian-Jenkins. Since returning from his two-game suspension to start the year, ASJ has averaged 12 points per game which is tied for fifth among tight ends. As Rich mentioned, his yardage output has been pretty poor, but he’s tied for first on the Jets in target share at 23 percent. Josh McCown’s affinity for tight ends seems to have carried over to the Jets, making ASJ a usable TE1 ROS.

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/75173/409/roundtable-tight-end-talk
 

Quote

 


Since returning from suspension, Austin Seferian-Jenkins has the second-most targets (29) and the most receptions (23) of all tight ends, but ranks 10th in receiving yardage as his 6.6 yards per catch is ahead of only Ben Watson (5.3 yards) over that span.

Opposing teams are targeting their tight ends 27.7 percent of the time versus the Dolphins, the third highest rate in the league.

 

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/75119/478/the-nfl-week-7-worksheet?pg=2

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four of his first five games have come against teams that are among the bottom eight in surrendering FFP to TE (the fifth, JAC, is 15th in most FFPA to TEs.) Little tougher test this week, and then another green light matchup against BUF (6th most.) Then it’s slim pickings until Week 14 (DEN, 5th.)

I might be jumping off this bandwagon as I have Olsen on IR, due back Week 12. Not sure how much value I can get for him, but it’s him or Witten to cut/trade, and the senior citizen has been pretty solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ratbast said:

Shouldn’t the biggest issue with this dude be fragility? Seems he’s almost matchup proof otherwise, with the TEs this year. 

We cannot say he’s matchup proof until he actually has a tough matchup & then produces. 

He’s been sober for 281 days, which he says was his biggest issue. I believe him, and hope he has 28,100 more.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BobbyLayne said:

We cannot say he’s matchup proof until he actually has a tough matchup & then produces. 

He’s been sober for 281 days, which he says was his biggest issue. I believe him, and hope he has 28,100 more.

That's about 77 years. I'm actually ok if he has A drink for his 80th birthday.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT are people doing with him tonight?  Buff is a tough defense but apparently their one weakness in the passing game is vs the TE.  But it’s not a crazy weakness and they’ve only allowed 6 passing scores all season.  

Is he riding the pine for you tonight or starting? And over who?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, rickyg said:

WHAT are people doing with him tonight?  Buff is a tough defense but apparently their one weakness in the passing game is vs the TE.  But it’s not a crazy weakness and they’ve only allowed 6 passing scores all season.  

Is he riding the pine for you tonight or starting? And over who?  

Starting R Anderson over him at flex. Starting Derby over ASJ and Reed. Hunter on bye. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, rickyg said:

WHAT are people doing with him tonight?  Buff is a tough defense but apparently their one weakness in the passing game is vs the TE.  But it’s not a crazy weakness and they’ve only allowed 6 passing scores all season.  

Is he riding the pine for you tonight or starting? And over who?  

Buffalo would look a lot worse against TE's but they just have not faced anyone good.  Brate is best one they faced. They got Olsen but that was game he got hurt.

 

They got Jets earlier with no ASJ, Olsen who got hurt in game, Derby, Hooper, Kroft, Brate/Howard, Cook.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...