Quote:I'm just saying that it's enough for Top 5-10.
Personally I think our aim should be 389. That's a 60 point difference from last year. Good enough for 21st last year.
I don't think thats setting he bar high enough.
I think 360-370 is fair.
Quote:how/ why is that a bait and switch number?
lol, I guess because its shows how bad the defense was last year, you have to attack the premise. Typical from this board.
Cool your jets, TMD. I'm not attacking. My meaning is that 19 is a random number in terms of football scoring. It's obviously possible to achieve but not as common as 20 or 21 or 17 (which would have worked for your purposes.)
Being that 19 is what the Raiders scored against us - had you said "20" you'd have had to follow with "twice" instead of "once." Therefore, it just seems random and only chosen to suit your thread to me. I'm not attacking you. The topic is still a good one.
And it is a bait and switch thread. You imply one thing with incomplete info in your title to "bait" a click and then "switch" directions by finishing your incomplete title. You don't need to be offended by that. It is what it is.
Quote:I don't think thats setting he bar high enough.
I think 360-370 is fair.
370 would be a nice improvement. That's 23.1 points per game. 5 points per game less than last year.
Quote:Cool your jets, TMD. I'm not attacking. My meaning is that 19 is a random number in terms of football scoring. It's obviously possible to achieve but not as common as 20 or 21 or 17 (which would have worked for your purposes.)
Being that 19 is what the Raiders scored against us - had you said "20" you'd have had to follow with "twice" instead of "once." Therefore, it just seems random and only chosen to suit your thread to me. I'm not attacking you. The topic is still a good one.
And it is a bait and switch thread. You imply one thing with incomplete info in your title to "bait" a click and then "switch" directions by finishing your incomplete title. You don't need to be offended by that. It is what it is.
Oh, it seemed like you were attacking.
Although I don't think I was trying to imply something different with the title, just using a more interesting delivery.
Quote:Oh, it seemed like you were attacking.
Although I don't think I was trying to imply something different with the title, just using a more interesting delivery.
It implies it whether you meant it or not. Still, a good topic.
Do you think they can get down to 370 points allowed this year?
Quote:I don't think thats setting he bar high enough.
I think 360-370 is fair.
389 is only about 1 point per game different from 370. I think 389 is a good place to set the bar. Especially given the new rule changes.
You know what else we did last year?
Scored more points against the Seahawks than the record-breaking Broncos, who managed only one touchdown during Super Bowl 48. We scored two touchdowns and a field goal in Seattle.
So if we are going to brag about how good the defense was during ONE game, I would do the same for the offense.
See how it makes little or no sense to brag about holding the TEXANS to only 6 points?
Quote:It implies it whether you meant it or not. Still, a good topic.
Do you think they can get down to 370 points allowed this year?
I actually think 370 is a reachable goal, yes.
Quote:You know what else we did last year?
Scored more points against the Seahawks than the record-breaking Broncos, who managed only one touchdown during Super Bowl 48. We scored two touchdowns and a field goal in Seattle.
So if we are going to brag about how good the defense was during ONE game, I would do the same for the offense.
See how it makes little or no sense to brag about holding the TEXANS to only 6 points?
cat food
Quote:You know what else we did last year?
Scored more points against the Seahawks than the record-breaking Broncos, who managed only one touchdown during Super Bowl 48. We scored two touchdowns and a field goal in Seattle.
So if we are going to brag about how good the defense was during ONE game, I would do the same for the offense.
See how it makes little or no sense to brag about holding the TEXANS to only 6 points?
So, we got blown out by less in a game the Seahawks probably didn't give a lot of effort in than the broncos did in the Superbowl?
It really doesn't seem to be something worth noting.
The Seahawks game was one of those ones I was talking about where the Jaguars were already out of the game way ahead of halftime. The Seahawks were in "let's just not get injured" mode for almost 3 quarters.
Quote:So, we got blown out by less in a game the Seahawks probably didn't give a lot of effort in than the broncos did in the Superbowl?
It really doesn't seem to be something worth noting.
The Seahawks game was one of those ones I was talking about where the Jaguars were already out of the game way ahead of halftime. The Seahawks were in "let's just not get injured" mode for almost 3 quarters.
I never got the impression the Seahawks were putting out less effort in our game. I just thought our defense was so bad we made it look easy.
Quote:I never got the impression the Seahawks were putting out less effort in our game. I just thought our defense was so bad we made it look easy.
The Jaguars scored all of their points in the second half of the game when the Seahawks were up by 31 points.
Maybe the Seahawks really did take one of the worst teams in the league which they had a 31 point lead on as seriously than they took the Broncos in the Superbowl, but I doubt it.
Quote:The Jaguars scored all of their points in the second half of the game when the Seahawks were up by 31 points.
Maybe the Seahawks really did take one of the worst teams in the league which they had a 31 point lead on as seriously than they took the Broncos in the Superbowl, but I doubt it.
The Seahawks definitely put forth more effort against us than the Packers did against them Thursday night.
Why focus on the negative now? Im sure we'll hear plenty after the game.
Giving up a lot of points is a function of the offense going 3 and out every other drive.
Quote:Wow, seems like a lot of points to be ranked 7th. I guess defenses aint what they used to be, leaguewide.
In any event, again - thats asking the Jags to go from 32nd in the league in points allowed to apparently around 7th....in one year. I don't see it happening.
I think 360-370 is a more reasonable target.
How can ypu call yourself a fan not even realize we weren't the 32nd team in points against.
You reaalize we only gave up 28 ppg. I dont have the stats in front of me as i switched pages but there at least 4 9r 5 teams below us in that department.
I think a reasonable amount would be to decrease that to 22 but we need help from offense. We can't be on defense for 40 mins and expect lower scoring.