Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:I agree that the halftime adjustments have killed us.  We've scored 23 points in the 2nd half all year with 17 of those coming in the second half of the Colts game.  Outside of the Colts game, we have been reasonably close (yes I'm considering being down 21-7 against the skins reasonably close).  After half-time we've been absolutely destroyed.  There haven't been any times where we've come out and looked like we made adjustments.

 

Their halftime adjustments look like - "hey lets get something to eat".  

Quote:LOL, you act as if this Jaguars roster is historically young. Get over yourself. It isn't. Its not even the youngest in the league this season.


The 1989-90 Dallas Cowboys roster was just as young, if not younger. The difference was that Jimmy Johnson actually knew what the hell he was doing. Thats why you saw improvement.


There have been plenty of examples of very young teams that haven't continued to be THIS bad over the years.


21 games and Gus still looking every bit the rookie as he did his debut is cause and reason for concern. He's still awful on game management/ clock management, and their halftime adjustments appear to be bathroom breaks. Gus' Coordinator choices might have yielded the worst OC/ DC combo in the entire league.


Again, I can excuse a losing record in year 2.....however, theres no excuse for the point differential to continue to be as bad as its been. By now Bradley should be getting this team to at least be competitive on an almost weekly basis.

I agree with you 100% about the blowouts being unacceptable. These guys are professional athletes. They should not be getting their butts kicked every week, unless they are completely unprepared. The last two weeks have been slightly better, so I'm willing to wait and see how the team plays for the rest of the season, but I'm just about done with Gus. Nice guy, but if he can't get his team ready to play on Sundays, then Shad/Caldwell need to bring in somebody who can.

Quote:Their halftime adjustments look like - "hey lets get something to eat".

 

Corn.

 

Where's that ham sandwich we were trying to get for Gabbert?

To compare the 1990 cowboy roster to ours is comedy.

They only had one rookie Emmitt Smith

 

Just view the experience listed

www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/dal/1990_roster.htm

 

The Jaguars have rookies starting

Quote:LOL, you act as if this Jaguars roster is historically young. Get over yourself. It isn't. Its not even the youngest in the league this season. 

 

The 1989-90 Dallas Cowboys roster was just as young, if not younger. The difference was that Jimmy Johnson actually knew what the hell he was doing. Thats why you saw improvement. 

 

There have been plenty of examples of very young teams that haven't continued to be THIS bad over the years. 

 

21 games and Gus still looking every bit the rookie as he did his debut is cause and reason for concern. He's still awful on game management/ clock management, and their halftime adjustments appear to be bathroom breaks. Gus' Coordinator choices might have yielded the worst OC/ DC combo in the entire league. 

 

Again, I can excuse a losing record in year 2.....however, theres no excuse for the point differential to continue to be as bad as its been. By now Bradley should be getting this team to at least be competitive on an almost weekly basis. 

 

He needs to at least get until end of the year.

 

You use the 1990 Cowboys as an example. But the 1990 Cowboys were 3-7 through 10 games. The three wins were close games against two of the worst teams in the league. But they ended the year winning 4 of their last 6. 

Quote:The 1990 Cowboys only had one Rookie

 

Emmitt Smith

 

They had more experience at WR

Irvin 2nd year player

Martin 3rd year player

Novacek 5 year player

 

to compare them to the current Jaguars is comedy

www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/dal/1990_roster.htm

 

Dallas avg age was like 26.1 there (1990). The Jags are 25. something. So, its close. 

 

Dallas actually got YOUNGER the following 2 years (1991-1992) and got BETTER results. 

 

 

The only comedy is people trying to act like young teams HAVE to be as bad as what we're seeing by the Jaguars. 

 

They are bad on the field in big part because they are a poorly coached football team, IMO. 

 

 

You can keep ignoring that 800 pound gorilla in the room all you want. 

Quote:Dallas avg age was like 26.1 there (1990). The Jags are 25. something. So, its close. 

 

Dallas actually got YOUNGER the following 2 years (1991-1992) and got BETTER results. 

 

 

The only comedy is people trying to act like young teams HAVE to be as bad as what we're seeing by the Jaguars. 

 

They are bad on the field in big part because they are a poorly coached football team, IMO. 

 

 

You can keep ignoring that 800 pound gorilla in the room all you want. 

 

Jags are 25.2.  Keep in mind though, 53 players on a team.  So while that may seem small, if you subtracted 10 years from the four oldest cowboys back then, you'd still have an older roster than the Jags. You could even subtract 5 years from the nine oldest, and still have an older roster.

The 1990 Cowboys also had two games in the first 10 where they were outgained by 200 yards and one where they were outgained by 300 yards.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/te...l/1990.htm

 

Maybe a light came on in week 11 of that season. Because going into that game they had only score 15 total points the prior two weeks. But they rattled off four straight wins after that.

Repeating last year without any signs of improvement would certainly raise eye brows. So far, that is the case. Funny how Gus needs time and Mularkey got the shaft.

But it is too soon to claim he is over his head. I can make an argument that Caldwell didnt put together a competitive team. Young team is one thing. But its rookie young team that we must consider. WRs.QB.OLine. All rooks. No TE.

 

As far as the D goes, I can see some blame on coaching, including Gus. Last week looked better, so we'll see.

 

We just cant have another few wins at the end like 2013 and hear, "things looking up"..."positive things out there".

 

Shad recently said, Buffalo needs a new stadium for a better game day experience. Really Shad? The fans there aren't complaining. But we are. Maybe I just have a different opinion on what a game day experience is. Im not an owner, just a fan.

I don't have a problem with Bradley up to this point but I don't like his coordinator hires. He needs to make changes, we'll see if that happens this offseason. His coordinator hires may be the death of him if he doesn't find better options or Fisch and Babich magically change everything they're doing and turn it around.

Quote:He needs to at least get until end of the year.

 

You use the 1990 Cowboys as an example. But the 1990 Cowboys were 3-7 through 10 games. The three wins were close games against two of the worst teams in the league. But they ended the year winning 4 of their last 6. 

 

When the Cowboys beat the Buccaneers for their 2nd/ 3rd win respectively, the Bucs held a 3-1/ and 4-2 record. Yes, the Bucs from that point on - went on to finish 6-10....but I'd say that the Cowboys sweeping them played a hand in their season falling apart at that point. You know how big momentum is/ can be in this league. 

 

The Cowboys also were much improved in year 2 on defense, giving up only roughly 300 points for the entire season.....and look at the defensive roster in 1990 that they accomplished that with. 

 

Gus is supposed to be a defensive specialist and our defense remains one of the worst in football still in year 2. 

Quote: 

 

Bradley's expertise lies on the defensive side of the ball. The fact that in year TWO now, we are still giving up 40-burgers on defense and again rank by FAR over the rest of the league in total points given up is ridiculous at this point and does not reflect favorably on Bradley. Not that its excusable but you can at least understand the offense being this bad at this point under Bradley since he's not an offensive guy. 


 

<i>You're a big Cowboys guy....funny that that Dallas offense was real bad in both 1989 and 1990; I think in year 2 they STILL only totalled 240 points for the entire season, which is garbage.....yet you saw their defense not suffer adversely like Bradleys is still doing. Dallas only gave up about 300 points in 1990, despite a bad offense that I am sure had its share of 3 & outs. Did Dallas even give up a single 40 burger that year?? They were much more competitive than the Jaguars are being......and that was despite being in a MUCH tougher division. </i>

 

 

 

 

Impatience?? 21 games now and the same stuff going on qualifies as "impatience"??? 


 

If this was me ranting about Bradley after 6 games in his first season, then you'd have a point. 


 

How long is Bradley deemed "untouchable" by you?? How long does he get a free pass?? 3 years? 5 year? 10? lol

 

 

Dallas being last in offense then does not equate to Jacksonville being last in offense now.  As I pointed out, you can make a much stronger case for coaching being the problem with the Dallas offense of that time considering by 1990, Aikman, Emmitt, Irvin, Novacek, Stepnoski, Johnston, Newton, Tuinei (that's 8 out of the 11 offensive starters in Super Bowl XXVII) were already on the roster and experienced.  By the end of 1990 (they won 4 straight games to reach 7-7 until Aikman got hurt against Philly and they lost the last 2), they were a much more efficient offense even with Shula being there weighing them down.  Bortles is in his first year, as is Lee, A. Robinson and Hurns.  Those guys may become the nucleus of a big time team in the future, but at this point they are all rookies and will have their struggles with consistency.

 

Furthermore, keep in  mind, the rules actually allowed teams to play defense then.  It's much harder-especially for a team that lacks talent-to play defense now.

 

Regarding impatience...yes you are being impatient.  We've already discussed Jimmy Johnson.  Remember Bill Walsh?  Know what his record was after 21 games with San Francisco?

 

5-16, and arguably with no improvement on the defensive side of the ball.

 

Jimmy Johnson had a worse record than Bradley at a similar point, while Walsh was one game better.

 

Following your rationale and timetable, your conclusion would be that both Johnson and Walsh were also in over their heads.

 

My point is that given the massive rebuilding job the team had to endure, these results were not totally unexpected.

 

It isn't my point that Bradley is beyond reproach under any and all circumstances.  But let's face it, when have you EVER seen ANY team with SIX (6) rookie starters on one side of the ball?

 

If experience can turn a guy you hated in Cecil Shorts into a productive (even if not dominant or special) WR, what can it do for Bortles, Lee, A. Robinson, Hurns, Linder, Bowanko and Joeckel?

 

What would that accumulation of combined experience do for offensive production overall?

 

Would it be safe to assume the team would play with more leads?  Wouldn't that put the defense in more predictable situations?

 

By the end of this year first part of this year, I'd say any failures of the team to show any signs of improvement should be met with some criticism.

Younger because they gained two rookies on defense R. Maryland and Larry Brown

 

They still have experienced WR's, TE's, and at QB.... This team does not have that yet? WE HAVE ROOKIES  the 1991 Cowboys had more experienced players in their 2nd and third years..

Quote:Jags are 25.2.  Keep in mind though, 53 players on a team.  So while that may seem small, if you subtracted 10 years from the four oldest cowboys back then, you'd still have an older roster than the Jags. You could even subtract 5 years from the nine oldest, and still have an older roster.

 

Also keep in mind that teams are overall (on average) are younger now, compared to then.....leaguewide. 

 

Quote:The 1990 Cowboys also had two games in the first 10 where they were outgained by 200 yards and one where they were outgained by 300 yards.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/te...l/1990.htm

 

Maybe a light came on in week 11 of that season. Because going into that game they had only score 15 total points the prior two weeks. But they rattled off four straight wins after that.

 

The Cowboys offense remained hideous generally speaking, until 1991. The Cowboys only scored 240 points in year 2 of their rebuilding. Thats when they fired their OC and installed Norv Turner as OC. The Offense from that point went on to be one of the more consistently good ones in the league. 

 

Quote:I don't have a problem with Bradley up to this point but I don't like his coordinator hires. He needs to make changes, we'll see if that happens this offseason. His coordinator hires may be the death of him if he doesn't find better options or Fisch and Babich magically change everything they're doing and turn it around.

 

I don't see Gus replacing Fisch or Babich. I'd be shocked if he did. Granted, I agree with you that they both should go. 

Quote:Gus is supposed to be a defensive specialist and our defense remains one of the worst in football still in year 2. 

 

We've made few draft picks on Defense too though.  6 players drafted on defense, with 4 coming from the 4th round or later.  most of our defensive signings have been stop gap guys, with some of them being a guy we just take a shot at and see if they stick.  I think Defense will be a focus next year in both free agency and in the draft.


Poz is getting older.  I think we'll see improved play though now that Winston Guy is gone.  A Defense is only as strong as it's weakest link.

We will see. I'm not willing to say Bradley won't do it, he may not have a choice.

Quote:When the Cowboys beat the Buccaneers for their 2nd/ 3rd win respectively, the Bucs held a 3-1/ and 4-2 record. Yes, the Bucs from that point on - went on to finish 6-10....but I'd say that the Cowboys sweeping them played a hand in their season falling apart at that point. You know how big momentum is/ can be in this league. 

 

The Cowboys also were much improved in year 2 on defense, giving up only roughly 300 points for the entire season.....and look at the defensive roster in 1990 that they accomplished that with. 

 

Gus is supposed to be a defensive specialist and our defense remains one of the worst in football still in year 2. 

 

You ignored the fact that the 1990 Cowboys team you prop up got off to another poor start. 3-7 after week 10. Johnson had a 4-22 record through 26 games.

Quote: 

The 1989-90 Dallas Cowboys roster was just as young, if not younger. The difference was that Jimmy Johnson actually knew what the hell he was doing. Thats why you saw improvement. 

 

 

This isn't true.

 

According to Profootball reference.com, that 1990 Dallas team had ONE (1) rookie starter in the starting 22, and that was Emmitt Smith.  They had two other players who were in their second year of the NFL-Aikman and Stepnoski.  They had 5 players who were in their 3rd seasons in 1990:  Irvin, Norton, James Washington, DE Daniel Stubbs, and FB Tommie Agee.

 

That's 8 players total in their starting 22 with 3 years of experience or less.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/te...roster.htm

 

This year's Jaguars?

 

There have been SIX (6) rookie starters on offense alone:

 

Bortles

Lee

A. Robinson

Linder

Bowanko

Hurns

 

There appears to be a 7th who will ascend to starting status before too long (Storm Johnson).

 

There are another four (4) who are in their second season of NFL football

Joeckel

Cyprien

Gratz

Reynolds

Quote:Dallas being last in offense then does not equate to Jacksonville being last in offense now.  As I pointed out, you can make a much stronger case for coaching being the problem with the Dallas offense of that time considering by 1990, Aikman, Emmitt, Irvin, Novacek, Stepnoski, Johnston, Newton, Tuinei (that's 8 out of the 11 offensive starters in Super Bowl XXVII) were already on the roster and experienced. 

 

This don't flush. 
How do any of us know right now that Joeckel, Linder, Pasztor, Lee, Robinson, Hurns, Bortles or Storm Johnson aren't also future studs?? At that time none of the players you cite were guarantees to be great players, let alone HOF'ers. 
 Dallas' coaching and player development deserves credit here in helping those guys attain their peak potential. 


 

 

By the end of 1990 (they won 4 straight games to reach 7-7 until Aikman got hurt against Philly and they lost the last 2), they were a much more efficient offense even with Shula being there weighing them down. 

 

LOL, if that was Jaguar-land in that same situation, the fans here would be arguing to KEEP Shula since there was tangible (but very little) "impwovement" haaha. Jimmy Johnson, OTOH, was SMART enough to realize that Shula wasn't good enough, and wasn't duped by tiny improvement that late in the process, and made the necessary upgrade to Norv Turner that next offseason. And the rest was history. 


 

 

 

Bortles is in his first year, as is Lee, A. Robinson and Hurns.  Those guys may become the nucleus of a big time team in the future, but at this point they are all rookies and will have their struggles with consistency.

 

...and as said, at that point those same players were young in Dallas and were guaranteed nothing in terms of becoming the players they eventually did. 


 

 

Furthermore, keep in  mind, the rules actually allowed teams to play defense then.  It's much harder-especially for a team that lacks talent-to play defense now.

 

Regarding impatience...yes you are being impatient.  We've already discussed Jimmy Johnson.  Remember Bill Walsh?  Know what his record was after 21 games with San Francisco?

 

5-16, and arguably with no improvement on the defensive side of the ball.

 

 

Oh, so you just mention that back then the landscape was different (in an attempt to excuse Bradleys [BAD WORD REMOVED] poor defense), so now you go back another DECADE, to try and look for another relevant example to help your argument. 


 

Bill Walsh was also a highly respected offensive mind. He developed a whole new revolutionary offense to fit the talent he had in San Fran. Our coaches are still the opposite "YOU WILL FIT OUR SYSTEM" type inflexible dinosaurs. 


 

 

Jimmy Johnson had a worse record than Bradley at a similar point, while Walsh was one game better.

 

Following your rationale and timetable, your conclusion would be that both Johnson and Walsh were also in over their heads.

 

 

Yes, I was the one that mentioned that Jimmy started 4-22. He also was in a MUCH more difficult situation to rebuild given the environment of the division at that time (NFC East was light years ahead of the current AFC South in terms of competition), there also was no salary cap and very little free agency at that point. I think they had Plan B types at that point which were for the most part fringe players at best. 


 

LOL, Walsh was even before that.....


 

Any comparable examples in the current generation?


 

 

 

My point is that given the massive rebuilding job the team had to endure, these results were not totally unexpected.

 

It isn't my point that Bradley is beyond reproach under any and all circumstances.  But let's face it, when have you EVER seen ANY team with SIX (6) rookie starters on one side of the ball?

 

If experience can turn a guy you hated in Cecil Shorts into a productive (even if not dominant or special) WR, what can it do for Bortles, Lee, A. Robinson, Hurns, Linder, Bowanko and Joeckel?

 

Fisch IMO is as big a problem to us as David Shula was to the Cowboys. Jimmy Johnson had enough sense to jettison Shula at seasons end in 1990 and wasn't duped by "modest" improvement in the 2nd half of that season. I'd bet you people will gush at the slightest bit of hope shown by this offense, as will Gus, and Fisch will remain, and be defended by this peanut gallery. 


 

 

 

What would that accumulation of combined experience do for offensive production overall?

 

Would it be safe to assume the team would play with more leads?  Wouldn't that put the defense in more predictable situations?

 

By the end of this year first part of this year, I'd say any failures of the team to show any signs of improvement should be met with some criticism.

 

<b><i>I'm not against giving Bradley the rest of this year. I'm not saying to pull the plug right now. I'm saying without any serious improvement between now and seasons end, they should go in a different direction. </i></b>

Quote:You ignored the fact that the 1990 Cowboys team you prop up got off to another poor start. 3-7 after week 10. Johnson had a 4-22 record through 26 games.

 

I ignored that? I was the one that brought up the 4-22 record of the Cowboys first in this thread.