(05-06-2018, 12:20 AM)Treestone Ice Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2018, 08:12 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Not ready to do it
Quite possibly never will be. That one was ours.
It was an amazing season but i hope we aren't looking back in the next 5 years going "THAT was our moment but we blew it". Happens to so many teams.
I rewatched it for the first time last night. What a great game by Myles jack. A few things that changed the game. Myles jack wasn’t down. Refs need to Stop blowing the whistle when there could be more to a play. 3 defensive PI calls gave up atleast 20 yards each time. Those were the only chunk plays they had except for one or 2 others in the whole game. New England lost Dion Lewis, Brandin Cooks, and Amendola this offseason that could all we needed to beat them.. I also agree with needing to continue swing passes for Corey grant. I saw a attempt to fournette that he couldn’t catch but had a step on the defender. Dante Fowler was bringing pressure all game when he was in. Great game by the Jags! Now I can move on!
Nope. Still too painful to watch.
(05-06-2018, 05:32 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2018, 10:02 PM)JAGFAN88 Wrote: [ -> ]while i love the jags and BB5 is my QB and all that jazz. As long a Morron is still the coach i will not trust him to go for the jugular.
I get this train of thought. I find it to be way over the top, but I get it. There was way too much "taking the foot off of the gas pedal" in the play calling last season in 5 or 6 of the contests for my taste.
However, I tend to assume that they'll grow from that upon review.
(05-05-2018, 10:50 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Doug and TC can overdo the "Let's not beat ourselves" strategy, although it would have paid off if that game was called evenly. The strategy usually does pay off, but against some QBs you never want to let up.
I think the addition of Andrew Norwell indicates the strategy won't change. They still want to close out games with the run. But the officiating was so skewed in that game, even if the Jags were running it for big chunks in the 4th quarter, there would have been several phantom holding calls to kill the drives. The officiating was that lopsided and not much you can do about that.
And here ^ is the astute observation of why that may not be changing.
Still -- I do believe the process of Coughlin, Marrone, and Hackett analyzing 2017 tape together has a better chance of resulting in adjustment rather than straight doubling down.
Do they want to beat you with a power run game that you just can't stop? Yes.
Are they going to continue to just line up blatantly obvious run formations and dare you to stop it? I'm not completely convinced they will. (unless it's a crap run defense on the other side of the LOS)
A conference championship loss is a pretty big deal. To assume this staff is so stubborn they won't learn from the missteps that contributed to the loss seems pretty presumptuous to me. Maybe they are that block-headed, but I don't think so.
This is (after all) the same staff that trotted out that nifty 3 wide set with Grant and Fournette in the backfield and kept the pats guessing with it for 2 quarters. It's not a stretch to think they'll see how well that idea of theirs worked in retrospect and build upon it with this arsenal of speedy receivers.
I think the problem with your reasoning is that it's not the only way to consider the loss. They could just as easily say "we made it all the way to the AFC championship and had a chance to win. The problem wasn't strategy, the problem was execution, we're just going to do the same thing harder." And they would have firmer ground to make those claims than many a claim that goes as simply believed true in other facets of society, like politics.
(05-06-2018, 08:27 AM)spmakros Wrote: [ -> ]I rewatched it for the first time last night. What a great game by Myles jack. A few things that changed the game. Myles jack wasn’t down. Refs need to Stop blowing the whistle when there could be more to a play. 3 defensive PI calls gave up atleast 20 yards each time. Those were the only chunk plays they had except for one or 2 others in the whole game. New England lost Dion Lewis, Brandin Cooks, and Amendola this offseason that could all we needed to beat them.. I also agree with needing to continue swing passes for Corey grant. I saw a attempt to fournette that he couldn’t catch but had a step on the defender. Dante Fowler was bringing pressure all game when he was in. Great game by the Jags! Now I can move on!
That is where I am as well. It still hurt to watch but there are so many positives you can take away from the game. Imagine if the game was just called even?
(05-06-2018, 09:39 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (05-06-2018, 05:32 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]I get this train of thought. I find it to be way over the top, but I get it. There was way too much "taking the foot off of the gas pedal" in the play calling last season in 5 or 6 of the contests for my taste.
However, I tend to assume that they'll grow from that upon review.
And here ^ is the astute observation of why that may not be changing.
Still -- I do believe the process of Coughlin, Marrone, and Hackett analyzing 2017 tape together has a better chance of resulting in adjustment rather than straight doubling down.
Do they want to beat you with a power run game that you just can't stop? Yes.
Are they going to continue to just line up blatantly obvious run formations and dare you to stop it? I'm not completely convinced they will. (unless it's a crap run defense on the other side of the LOS)
A conference championship loss is a pretty big deal. To assume this staff is so stubborn they won't learn from the missteps that contributed to the loss seems pretty presumptuous to me. Maybe they are that block-headed, but I don't think so.
This is (after all) the same staff that trotted out that nifty 3 wide set with Grant and Fournette in the backfield and kept the pats guessing with it for 2 quarters. It's not a stretch to think they'll see how well that idea of theirs worked in retrospect and build upon it with this arsenal of speedy receivers.
I think the problem with your reasoning is that it's not the only way to consider the loss. They could just as easily say "we made it all the way to the AFC championship and had a chance to win. The problem wasn't strategy, the problem was execution, we're just going to do the same thing harder." And they would have firmer ground to make those claims than many a claim that goes as simply believed true in other facets of society, like politics.
So - are you saying that you believe they will not adapt their approach, but will instead continue to dare teams to stop the run if they either have a lead or feel they match up well defensively?
I realize that's a possibility but I think these guys are smarter than that.
Nonetheless - it may prove that the additions to the O-Line will allow them to "run the ball at will" more successfully against many opponents than they did last season. I just think they'll mix that up more judiciously.
Their gameplan against the pats will be telling in this regard.
(05-06-2018, 11:25 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-06-2018, 09:39 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]I think the problem with your reasoning is that it's not the only way to consider the loss. They could just as easily say "we made it all the way to the AFC championship and had a chance to win. The problem wasn't strategy, the problem was execution, we're just going to do the same thing harder." And they would have firmer ground to make those claims than many a claim that goes as simply believed true in other facets of society, like politics.
So - are you saying that you believe they will not adapt their approach, but will instead continue to dare teams to stop the run if they either have a lead of match up well defensively?
I realize that's a possibility but I think these guys are smarter than that.
Nonetheless - it may prove that the additions to the O-Line will allow them to "run the ball at will" more successfully against many opponents than they did last season. I just think they'll mix that up more judiciously.
Their gameplan against the pats will be telling in this regard.
Honestly I don't know. Marrone has shown good signs of adaptability so far in his career, but we'll have to wait and see.
The first half against the pats was a revelation, I hope we see more of that kind of dynamic strain against teams that think they can just load up against stopping Fournette, but we'll have to wait and see.
My only fear is that it can be hard for someone to really adapt against their true instincts, and I think Marrone may just have the instincts that make him want to do what he thinks is being safe with a lead. If the team is good enough that might work anyway, but we'll see.
Let's be clear here; the team's strategy in the second half did work. Any time you don't have a defensive touchdown stolen from you, or you get the occasional penalty called in your favour, or the opposition isn't handed TDs by pass interference, that wins you the game.
(05-06-2018, 03:12 PM)iapetus Wrote: [ -> ]Let's be clear here; the team's strategy in the second half did work. Any time you don't have a defensive touchdown stolen from you, or you get the occasional penalty called in your favour, or the opposition isn't handed TDs by pass interference, that wins you the game.
You think so?
I'd think that starting the third quarter up 7 points against the best QB to play the game in recent memory, you may want to do better on offense than FG, punt, FG, punt, punt, punt, turnover on downs.
I see that as a failure. That's asking too much of your defense against that particular team IMO.
(05-06-2018, 03:47 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-06-2018, 03:12 PM)iapetus Wrote: [ -> ]Let's be clear here; the team's strategy in the second half did work. Any time you don't have a defensive touchdown stolen from you, or you get the occasional penalty called in your favour, or the opposition isn't handed TDs by pass interference, that wins you the game.
You think so?
I'd think that starting the third quarter up 7 points against the best QB to play the game in recent memory, you may want to do better on offense than FG, punt, FG, punt, punt, punt, turnover on downs.
I see that as a failure. That's asking too much of your defense against that particular team IMO.
Not just that, but the last three drives before the final desperation one were all garbage that ran very little time and gained very little field position. It was a gutless second half plan.
(05-06-2018, 03:47 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-06-2018, 03:12 PM)iapetus Wrote: [ -> ]Let's be clear here; the team's strategy in the second half did work. Any time you don't have a defensive touchdown stolen from you, or you get the occasional penalty called in your favour, or the opposition isn't handed TDs by pass interference, that wins you the game.
You think so?
I'd think that starting the third quarter up 7 points against the best QB to play the game in recent memory, you may want to do better on offense than FG, punt, FG, punt, punt, punt, turnover on downs.
I see that as a failure. That's asking too much of your defense against that particular team IMO.
I agree with you but it's not too much to ask for our defense with six all pro players to stop the Patriots in the fourth quarter on 3rd and 18.
Yep you don't deserve to win if you give up a 3rd and 18 late in the game.
(05-06-2018, 03:47 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-06-2018, 03:12 PM)iapetus Wrote: [ -> ]Let's be clear here; the team's strategy in the second half did work. Any time you don't have a defensive touchdown stolen from you, or you get the occasional penalty called in your favour, or the opposition isn't handed TDs by pass interference, that wins you the game.
You think so?
Well, yes. Because that combination of things is exactly what the Patriots needed to win the game. With equitable calling of penalties, some of those drives by the Jaguars would have been prolonged in the same way that Patriots ones were. With an extra 7 points on the board (as there should have been) the defence would have held on to the lead.
(05-06-2018, 04:35 PM)leopold332002 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-06-2018, 03:47 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]You think so?
I'd think that starting the third quarter up 7 points against the best QB to play the game in recent memory, you may want to do better on offense than FG, punt, FG, punt, punt, punt, turnover on downs.
I see that as a failure. That's asking too much of your defense against that particular team IMO.
I agree with you but it's not too much to ask for our defense with six all pro players to stop the Patriots in the fourth quarter on 3rd and 18.
You can't discount the affect of the zebra's here though. If you keep getting flagged you tend to back off to prevent the flag. Also the lack of a holding call on that play cannot be overlooked. Had the uniforms been changed do think there would have been a flag?
(05-06-2018, 06:11 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (05-06-2018, 04:35 PM)leopold332002 Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with you but it's not too much to ask for our defense with six all pro players to stop the Patriots in the fourth quarter on 3rd and 18.
You can't discount the affect of the zebra's here though. If you keep getting flagged you tend to back off to prevent the flag. Also the lack of a holding call on that play cannot be overlooked. Had the uniforms been changed do think there would have been a flag?
I agree with that too and unfortunately, we got shafted in that game in more ways than one.
(05-06-2018, 04:33 PM)Jags02 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-06-2018, 04:19 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]Not just that, but the last three drives before the final desperation one were all garbage that ran very little time and gained very little field position. It was a gutless second half plan.
I don't fault the plan because the same plan was working just fine the first half.
I see a lot of this being about Fournette. When you watch him on tape even back in HS an especially in college, you see a guy that breaks games open, and watching him that first half it looked like he was about to do as much. The game plan to keep running the ball should have worked great, but somehow the Pats adjusted and clamped down on the Jaguars ability to create holes for Fournette. Instead of breaking the game open, Fournette was shut down. Were they too persistent? Should they have changed up sooner? It's easy to say as much in retrospect. Certainly to give themselves a chance to win they needed to recognize what the Pats were doing the second half way earlier, but that recognition never happened.
The hope is this year that presented with the same situation, having Linder and Norwell playing side-by-side will make the difference preventing the Patiots run game adjustments from working.
But they changed the plan.
It was
not the same plan in the second half.
They all but abandoned that 3 wide set with Grant and Fournette both in the backfield (or Grant lined up in the slot when they were in bunch formation - that was nifty)
THAT ^ plan was working and working well. The Pats didn't adjust to it. The Jags quit running it.
They went to a more predictable and less multiple run look with LF27 the primary option to key on - and that's when the pats began stopping the run.
Fournette had a run for 7 yards and a run for 14 yards in the second half. His other 7 touches in the second half produced a grand total of 5 yards. That shift to a more predictable/conservative run game by the offense was a mistake in my opinion. It gave the pats fewer weapons to defend and they defended them well.
Without quoting all of the responses to my prior post - yes - I am aware of the officiating stuff. Of course it prevented a win as well.
I am simply asserting that the Jags may have even overcome that had the offensive play-calling not shifted as it did - (and of course - had the defense not whiffed on that 3rd and long.)
ANyway - as I mentioned earlier - I think the consortium at the top will recognize this and implement some change regarding predictability in the run game. That is my hope anyway.
It would be wonderful to run the ball down every opponents throat at will, but some teams will be effective defending that approach and the Jags will need to keep other avenues open IMO.
There are a number of things that could have changed the outcome of that game, this run game shift in the second half is just the one that bugs me the most. Because they could have achieved victory in spite of everything else that went wrong had they stayed aggressive and unpredictable with the run game.
In addition to the conservative coaching, we got shafted that game by the refs. 1 bogus PI and 1 questionable PI - both leading to scores, the early whistle on the play by Myles - which more than likely wins the game, the penalty on Church, the non call on Telvin - which seals the game for the Pats. The Pats got a gift and anyone who questions this knows absolutely nothing about football.
(05-06-2018, 07:59 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-06-2018, 04:33 PM)Jags02 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't fault the plan because the same plan was working just fine the first half.
I see a lot of this being about Fournette. When you watch him on tape even back in HS an especially in college, you see a guy that breaks games open, and watching him that first half it looked like he was about to do as much. The game plan to keep running the ball should have worked great, but somehow the Pats adjusted and clamped down on the Jaguars ability to create holes for Fournette. Instead of breaking the game open, Fournette was shut down. Were they too persistent? Should they have changed up sooner? It's easy to say as much in retrospect. Certainly to give themselves a chance to win they needed to recognize what the Pats were doing the second half way earlier, but that recognition never happened.
The hope is this year that presented with the same situation, having Linder and Norwell playing side-by-side will make the difference preventing the Patiots run game adjustments from working.
But they changed the plan.
It was not the same plan in the second half.
They all but abandoned that 3 wide set with Grant and Fournette both in the backfield (or Grant lined up in the slot when they were in bunch formation - that was nifty)
THAT ^ plan was working and working well. The Pats didn't adjust to it. The Jags quit running it.
They went to a more predictable and less multiple run look with LF27 the primary option to key on - and that's when the pats began stopping the run. Fournette had a run for 7 yards and a run for 14 yards in the second half. His other 7 touches in the second half produced a grand total of 5 yards. That shift to a more predictable/conservative run game by the offense was a mistake in my opinion. I gave the pats fewer weapons to defend and they defended them well.
Without quoting all of the responses to my prior post - yes - I am aware of the officiating stuff. Of course it prevented a win as well.
I am simply asserting that the Jags may have even overcome that had the offensive play-calling not shifted as it did - (and of course - had the defense not whiffed on that 3rd and long.)
ANyway - as I mentioned earlier - I think the consortium at the top will recognize this and implement some change regarding predictability in the run game. That is my hope anyway.
It would be wonderful to run the ball down every opponents throat at will, but some teams will be effective defending that approach and the Jags will need to keep other avenues open IMO.
There are a number of things that could have changed the outcome of that game, this run game shift in the second half is just the one that bugs me the most. Because they could have achieved victory in spite of everything else that went wrong had they stayed aggressive and unpredictable with the run game.
Totally agree with you. I believe the additions we have added in the off season are to offset when the opposing team puts 8 men in the box. I know this staff wants to go retro Big 10 football with 9 yards and a cloud of dust mentality but I have to believe as well that they are smart enough to know the game has evolved and when need be you have to pass to set up the run. Norwell and ASJ confirm that in my humble opinion
Only get so many opportunities in life. What was our closest opportunity before this? The 1999 team? Could be a long time before we are in this spot again.