Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Full Version: Jags Offense - Conservative but effective
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
One of the things that make me cringe in the aftermath of a loss is the inevitable assertion the team was too conservative offensively.  I recall a post game call in show a few years back after a loss in San Diego where a caller asked when we were going to open up the offense.  We threw FIFTY-FOUR (54) passes in that game.

I don't know how it happened, or exactly when it happened, but somehow conservative football became synonymous with ineffective football.

Although an offense can be too conservative on occasion, conservative football is not the same as ineffective football or boring football.

This last game against the Texans proves my point.

The Jaguars approach in that game will not remind anyone of the greatest show on turf offense of the Rams.  Bortles threw all of 21 passes.

Instead the game plan was a paean to a seemingly bygone era, bludgeoning the Texans on the ground to the tune of 39 carries and 155 yards rushing.  That approach, properly executed, effectively negated the strength of the Texans' front 7-rushing the passer.  It kept Bortles in favorable down and distance situations and our defense rested.  As for entertainment value, in the aftermath of Sunday's win, I have yet to see any complaints about style points.  Everyone here is giddy.  Besides, who didn't enjoy seeing Fournette truck Texans CB Kevin Johnson?

This approach will help the Jaguars passing game in the weeks to come, because teams will now be susceptible to play action keying in on the run.  We will need this to be more effective passing now that Allen Robinson is out for the year.

You may say this approach worked for a game for the Jaguars with no promise of future success.  But even in this pass happy era, teams have used an effective rushing attack to have success.  Just last year, the tacks utilized a run oriented attack to leap up to 9-7 after a dismal season the year before.  The Seahawks went to back to back Super Bowls with a largely conservative, ball control offense, and the 49ers went to a Super Bowl utilizing a similar approach.  In fact, you could argue that as teams draft smaller, faster defenders to better defend the pass, it makes them more susceptible to a strong ground attack, which is what Marrone, Coughlin and co. are establishing here.
The entire post had me nodding my head in agreement.
Great post and I completely agree. Bortles has to be effective on the limited amount of passes he will now be throwing. When they are stacking 8-9 men in the box...he has to deliver the ball to keep the defense honest.
(09-13-2017, 08:41 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]The entire post had me nodding my head in agreement.

Me, too.

I'm old enough to remember the 1985 Bears, and that was as entertaining a team as I've ever seen, and what I remember about it was the overwhelming defense, and the running game. Jim McMahon was a character, but he was no great quarterback.

They played that 46 defense and on passing downs, it was like an avalanche of black jerseys on the quarterback. It was brutal. But really entertaining.
They are wisely playing to the "strength" of their quarterback, his strength being his weakness in the passing game if that makes sense. LF27 appears to be the real deal and CIvory an adequate complement.

I still don't understand why they didn't do more with the OL in the draft and in FA but maybe they are smarter than me and decided that those available either weren't worth the price tag, didn't fit the scheme, or they could use the assets better. Smoot over Feeny is still a head-scratcher to me, maybe Feeny just can't play.
(09-13-2017, 09:46 AM)PF* Wrote: [ -> ]They are wisely playing to the "strength" of their quarterback, his strength being his weakness in the passing game if that makes sense. LF27 appears to be the real deal and CIvory an adequate complement.

I still don't understand why they didn't do more with the OL in the draft and in FA but maybe they are smarter than me and decided that those available either weren't worth the price tag, didn't fit the scheme, or they could use the assets better. Smoot over Feeny is still a head-scratcher to me, maybe Feeny just can't play.
(emphasis added)

Well, he isn't starting with the Chargers right now, and allowed his guy to block the game tying FG on Monday night.

Maybe he isn't that good.
(09-13-2017, 09:12 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-13-2017, 08:41 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]The entire post had me nodding my head in agreement.

Me, too.

I'm old enough to remember the 1985 Bears, and that was as entertaining a team as I've ever seen, and what I remember about it was the overwhelming defense, and the running game.  Jim McMahon was a character, but he was no great quarterback.  

They played that 46 defense and on passing downs, it was like an avalanche of black jerseys on the quarterback.  It was brutal.   But really entertaining.

That was a beautiful team to watch.  They destroyed my team then (Dallas 44-0), but I shake my head and smile to this day watching highlights of that team. 

Sadly, the current rules would have neutered that defense.
As a Patriots fan, I lived the '85 Bears in our first Super Bowl. The whole region was excited b/c the Patriots hadn't been in a Championship game since 1963 when they lost to Lance Alworth, Keith Lincoln and the San Diego Chargers, 51-10. The Patriots in a Super Bowl? Unthinkable.

Although they led the Bears SB 3-0, the onslaught left them decimated, demoralized and destroyed at 46-10 (a slight improvement over 51-10 but not much). I still cringe when I think of Richard Dent.

That Bears team had enormous talent and a tough, no-baloney, coach in Ditka. They were true Monsters of the Midway.
Efficient at kicking FGs and not converting turnovers into points.

I mean, the D gives you 10 sacks and 4 turnovers and a TD, 29 points is pretty low considering
(09-13-2017, 08:41 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]The entire post had me nodding my head in agreement.

Me, too