For those older fans such as myself, we all remember the '99 season like it was yesterday. 14-2 with 2 sole losses to the stinkin tacks. And the AFCCG at the then Alltell stadium suffering a devastating loss to the stinkin' tacks yet again.
Fast forward to last year. We were unbeaten in the division with the exception to the 2 losses to the stinkin' tacks. Is Coughlin having flashbacks to '99 and advising Caldwell to build this roster to beat them? Let's face it, Indy is a dumpster fire, and the tinhorns have Watt, Merciless, and Watson respectively coming off of devastating injuries. They may not look the same. That leaves that thorn in our sides that is the stinkin' tacks.
Is this roster being shaped to be sure we can get over that hump? Discuss.....
(03-10-2018, 01:18 PM)Dakota Wrote: [ -> ]For those older fans such as myself, we all remember the '99 season like it was yesterday. 14-2 with 2 sole losses to the stinkin tacks. And the AFCCG at the then Alltell stadium suffering a devastating loss to the stinkin' tacks yet again.
Fast forward to last year. We were unbeaten in the division with the exception to the 2 losses to the stinkin' tacks. Is Coughlin having flashbacks to '99 and advising Caldwell to build this roster to beat them? Let's face it, Indy is a dumpster fire, and the tinhorns have Watt, Merciless, and Watson respectively coming off of devastating injuries. They may not look the same. That leaves that thorn in our sides that is the stinkin' tacks.
Is this roster being shaped to be sure we can get over that hump? Discuss.....
Maybe you could start by sharing why you came up with this.
(03-10-2018, 02:26 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2018, 01:18 PM)Dakota Wrote: [ -> ]For those older fans such as myself, we all remember the '99 season like it was yesterday. 14-2 with 2 sole losses to the stinkin tacks. And the AFCCG at the then Alltell stadium suffering a devastating loss to the stinkin' tacks yet again.
Fast forward to last year. We were unbeaten in the division with the exception to the 2 losses to the stinkin' tacks. Is Coughlin having flashbacks to '99 and advising Caldwell to build this roster to beat them? Let's face it, Indy is a dumpster fire, and the tinhorns have Watt, Merciless, and Watson respectively coming off of devastating injuries. They may not look the same. That leaves that thorn in our sides that is the stinkin' tacks.
Is this roster being shaped to be sure we can get over that hump? Discuss.....
Maybe you could start by sharing why you came up with this.
Because it's the offseason, and there's not that much to talk about. Secondly, if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense.
I didn't think I would have had to explain that....
I don't think this roster is being built to beat a specific team in the league but more to take advantage of a trend in the league towards high price quarterbacks on teams with mediocre at best defenses. Because those teams are heavily invested in their passing games it leaves talent on the table for other positions. One example of this is the tinhorns spending a ton of money on Osweiler which meant to didn't have the space to pay Bouye as well, which allowed us to pick him up. Campbell came onto the FA market because Arizona didn't have the money to pay him, partly because Palmer and Fitzgerald had a combined cap hit of $40 million.
Conversely, teams are building defenses to stop the passing game and as a result leave themselves vulnerable to teams with a strong running game. Houston and Seattle are both teams we beat partly because those teams failed to stop the run when it really mattered. Pittsburgh counts as well but that's slightly tempered by the fact they were missing Shazier in the second game. New England eventually beat us because they were able to stop the run.
(03-10-2018, 06:31 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2018, 03:10 PM)Dakota Wrote: [ -> ]Because it's the offseason, and there's not that much to talk about. Secondly, if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense.
I didn't think I would have had to explain that....
I think the question was intended to ask what particular actions have the Jags taken that makes you think this is the case.
I haven't noticed any player acquisitions that would be specific against one team.
Right. Just tossing out a subject without even starting off the discussion is bad forum etiquette. If you want to start a discussion, especially one that doesn't seem to be backed up by reality, maybe start of with an explanation of why you think it's the case, not just a post saying the idea is obvious with no further detail.
Completely logical. The goal should always be during every off season to win your division. It's six games a year you really have to be prepared for because the teams are familiar with each other. If you can sweep your division you're automatically a six win team. So just win three more and you should be damn near a shoe in for the post season as a top seed or wildcard.
The only issue with our team is we can't stop the run just like everyone else. Hopefully that will be better next year, but that is why the Tacks can still beat us. They can stop what we want to do (running) and they can rush enough to take advantage of our weakness. BB has to step up in order to beat the tacks. If he does that, we beat them like a drum (see dec 2016). If he doesn't, we lose.
GOAL ONE - Win your division. Typically the best team in your division can stand up against any of the other teams in the conference with at least a 50-50 chance of advancing to the league championship game.
Identify the best team in your division and built the squad that defeats them head to head.
GOAL TWO - Compete for a Super Bowl title in the play-offs.
(03-11-2018, 01:40 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]Completely logical. The goal should always be during every off season to win your division. It's six games a year you really have to be prepared for because the teams are familiar with each other. If you can sweep your division you're automatically a six win team. So just win three more and you should be damn near a shoe in for the post season as a top seed or wildcard.
You win your division and you are a awarded a playoff birth automatically. This should ALWAYS be the goal. Win your division then compete for a Super Bowl crown.
(03-10-2018, 04:16 PM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think this roster is being built to beat a specific team in the league but more to take advantage of a trend in the league towards high price quarterbacks on teams with mediocre at best defenses. Because those teams are heavily invested in their passing games it leaves talent on the table for other positions. One example of this is the tinhorns spending a ton of money on Osweiler which meant to didn't have the space to pay Bouye as well, which allowed us to pick him up. Campbell came onto the FA market because Arizona didn't have the money to pay him, partly because Palmer and Fitzgerald had a combined cap hit of $40 million.
Conversely, teams are building defenses to stop the passing game and as a result leave themselves vulnerable to teams with a strong running game. Houston and Seattle are both teams we beat partly because those teams failed to stop the run when it really mattered. Pittsburgh counts as well but that's slightly tempered by the fact they were missing Shazier in the second game. New England eventually beat us because they were able to stop the run.
New England beat us because they loaded up to stop the run in order to put the football in Blake Bortles' hands. Any team can stop the run albeit might look like the famous 10-1 electric football formation some times.
Bortles was given the football with 2:48 left.
Here is that drive:
Jacksonville Jaguars at 02:48
3-S.Gostkowski kicks 65 yards from NE 35 to end zone, Touchback.
1-10-JAX 25
(2:48) (Shotgun) 5-B.Bortles
pass short middle to 11-M.Lee to JAX 33 for 8 yards (24-S.Gilmore).
2-2-JAX 33
(2:24) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 5-B.Bortles
pass deep left to 12-D.Westbrook pushed ob at NE 38 for 29 yards (24-S.Gilmore) [98-T.Flowers].
1-10-NE 38
(2:12) (Shotgun) 5-B.Bortles
pass incomplete deep left to 27-L.Fournette.
2-10-NE 38
(2:07) (Shotgun) 5-B.Bortles
sacked at NE 45 for -7 yards (53-K.Van Noy). FUMBLES (53-K.Van Noy) [92-J.Harrison], recovered by JAX-74-C.Robinson at NE 47. 74-C.Robinson to NE 47 for no gain (98-T.Flowers).
Two-Minute Warning
3-19-NE 47
(2:00) (Shotgun) 5-B.Bortles
pass short right to 80-J.O'Shaughnessy pushed ob at NE 43 for 4 yards (25-E.Rowe).
4-15-NE 43
(1:53) (Shotgun) 5-B.Bortles
pass incomplete deep right to 12-D.Westbrook (24-S.Gilmore) [98-T.Flowers].
Not a single rushing attempt. Not one.
(03-11-2018, 05:58 PM)JUNGLE CAT 2017 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2018, 04:16 PM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think this roster is being built to beat a specific team in the league but more to take advantage of a trend in the league towards high price quarterbacks on teams with mediocre at best defenses. Because those teams are heavily invested in their passing games it leaves talent on the table for other positions. One example of this is the tinhorns spending a ton of money on Osweiler which meant to didn't have the space to pay Bouye as well, which allowed us to pick him up. Campbell came onto the FA market because Arizona didn't have the money to pay him, partly because Palmer and Fitzgerald had a combined cap hit of $40 million.
Conversely, teams are building defenses to stop the passing game and as a result leave themselves vulnerable to teams with a strong running game. Houston and Seattle are both teams we beat partly because those teams failed to stop the run when it really mattered. Pittsburgh counts as well but that's slightly tempered by the fact they were missing Shazier in the second game. New England eventually beat us because they were able to stop the run.
New England beat us because they loaded up to stop the run in order to put the football in Blake Bortles' hands. Any team can stop the run albeit might look like the famous 10-1 electric football formation some times.
Bortles was given the football with 2:48 left.
Here is that drive:
Not a single rushing attempt. Not one.
What's your point? Because that drive happened when everybody knew we weren't going to run the ball. Prior to that last drive the Patriots stopped dead pretty much every single running play. The five longest runs in the second half covered 14, 7, 3, 3, and 3 yards. Our longest run the 4th quarter was 2 yards. Yes, the Patriots loaded up against the run but you're forgetting the most important thing: it worked.
Pittsburgh was in Cover 0 with 10 men in the box (TEN!) on Fournette's 90 yard run. Seattle was crowding the line (six men on the line, two more in the box) when Fournette went 13 yards on 3rd and 11 to seal the victory. Plenty of teams played the run and we still beat them. The Patriots beat us by playing the run and it ended up costing us the game.
(03-11-2018, 03:15 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]The only issue with our team is we can't stop the run just like everyone else. Hopefully that will be better next year, but that is why the Tacks can still beat us. They can stop what we want to do (running) and they can rush enough to take advantage of our weakness. BB has to step up in order to beat the tacks. If he does that, we beat them like a drum (see dec 2016). If he doesn't, we lose.
Who is our supposed weakness according to you?
(03-11-2018, 12:16 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2018, 06:31 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]
I think the question was intended to ask what particular actions have the Jags taken that makes you think this is the case.
I haven't noticed any player acquisitions that would be specific against one team.
Right. Just tossing out a subject without even starting off the discussion is bad forum etiquette. If you want to start a discussion, especially one that doesn't seem to be backed up by reality, maybe start of with an explanation of why you think it's the case, not just a post saying the idea is obvious with no further detail.
Complaining about a post when the scroll bar is available is bad etiquette. Anyone with half a brain understood Dakota's post.
(03-10-2018, 01:18 PM)Dakota Wrote: [ -> ]For those older fans such as myself, we all remember the '99 season like it was yesterday. 14-2 with 2 sole losses to the stinkin tacks. And the AFCCG at the then Alltell stadium suffering a devastating loss to the stinkin' tacks yet again.
Fast forward to last year. We were unbeaten in the division with the exception to the 2 losses to the stinkin' tacks. Is Coughlin having flashbacks to '99 and advising Caldwell to build this roster to beat them? Let's face it, Indy is a dumpster fire, and the tinhorns have Watt, Merciless, and Watson respectively coming off of devastating injuries. They may not look the same. That leaves that thorn in our sides that is the stinkin' tacks.
Is this roster being shaped to be sure we can get over that hump? Discuss.....
I don't see evidence of shaping the roster for any particular opponent, but I do see evidence TC learned another lesson from '99. Don't ruin your cap in pursuit of the Lombardi trophy.
(03-11-2018, 07:58 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2018, 12:16 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]Right. Just tossing out a subject without even starting off the discussion is bad forum etiquette. If you want to start a discussion, especially one that doesn't seem to be backed up by reality, maybe start of with an explanation of why you think it's the case, not just a post saying the idea is obvious with no further detail.
Complaining about a post when the scroll bar is available is bad etiquette. Anyone with half a brain understood Dakota's post.
Where was the complaint? And are you saying I don't have half a brain? Seems a little insulting.