(09-10-2018, 03:20 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]We won a close game on the road in poor weather without our best offensive weapon. That's what good NFL teams do.
It hurt me to see Arob make several stud catches for the Bears yesterday too, but we're going to have to get over it.
(yes this one was a joke)
(09-10-2018, 03:31 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2018, 03:20 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]We won a close game on the road in poor weather without our best offensive weapon. That's what good NFL teams do.
It hurt me to see Arob make several stud catches for the Bears yesterday too, but we're going to have to get over it.
(yes this one was a joke)
Never!
I have nit-picks but no real complaints. Good job yesterday in a game that was tougher than it looked on paper.
The Pats worry me of course, but it's a great opportunity. Not just to make a statement or get revenge, but to have a 2-0 record, the tie-breaker vs the Pats, which could be huge, and to have that game behind us while Titans and Colts still have to play NE. Also, Texans travel to Titans next week, so one of those will be 0-2.
(09-10-2018, 03:31 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2018, 03:20 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]We won a close game on the road in poor weather without our best offensive weapon. That's what good NFL teams do.
It hurt me to see Arob make several stud catches for the Bears yesterday too, but we're going to have to get over it.
(yes this one was a joke)
That single 12 yard reception he had in the entire second half really put the bears over the top.
(09-10-2018, 04:38 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2018, 03:31 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]It hurt me to see Arob make several stud catches for the Bears yesterday too, but we're going to have to get over it.
(yes this one was a joke)
That single 12 yard reception he had in the entire second half really put the bears over the top.
He was definitely fighting for the 50/50 balls tho and looked good in the first half. Neither of which Moncrief was doing. He caught over half his passes also whereas Moncrief was 1/5. Yeah I would rather have ARob.
(09-10-2018, 04:42 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2018, 04:38 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]That single 12 yard reception he had in the entire second half really put the bears over the top.
He was definitely fighting for the 50/50 balls tho and looked good in the first half. Neither of which Moncrief was doing. He caught over half his passes also whereas Moncrief was 1/5. Yeah I would rather have ARob.
Over Fournette? Because that is who the punchline was about.
(09-10-2018, 04:47 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2018, 04:42 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]He was definitely fighting for the 50/50 balls tho and looked good in the first half. Neither of which Moncrief was doing. He caught over half his passes also whereas Moncrief was 1/5. Yeah I would rather have ARob.
Over Fournette? Because that is who the punchline was about.
You whooshed me.
(09-10-2018, 04:57 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2018, 04:47 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]Over Fournette? Because that is who the punchline was about.
You whooshed me.
Yeah, I definitely wouldn't be implying that Moncrief is our best offensive weapon.
Every close win will be close because of Blake. Every loss will be Blake’s fault. Every big win will be because we limited Blake.
Did I get it right?
Blake is who he is. He will make some mistakes, make some good throws and make some plays with his legs. Would it be cool to have some rookie QB backing him up like a Mahomes? Sure but the guy has started 1 game.... 1. Lets not tout him as the next Favre just yet.
(09-10-2018, 05:30 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Every close win will be close because of Blake. Every loss will be Blake’s fault. Every big win will be because we limited Blake.
Did I get it right?
Blake is who he is. He will make some mistakes, make some good throws and make some plays with his legs. Would it be cool to have some rookie QB backing him up like a Mahomes? Sure but the guy has started 1 game.... 1. Lets not tout him as the next Favre just yet.
Yeah I think you got the hang of it. I don't have a problem with Blake as much I do the play calling from time to time. We still don't use Grant as much as I would like. And minus the game against the ravens last season, we seem to get ultra conservative once we get the lead. I would like to see us step down on the throat when we have the lead rather than sit back and try and avoid mistakes(which is the impression I typically get when watching us play with the lead). Overall I am happy we have managed a win week one 2 years in a row so I don't have much to complain about.
People who think we should have won by 2 or more touchdowns on the road against a pretty good NYG team are delusional. 10 of the 14 games this week have been decided by 8 points or less. This isn't college.
Who's panicking? We're 1-0.
(09-10-2018, 02:43 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]We're all happy that we won, but that doesn't mean we can't critique how we won. We vastly overmatched the Giants but the game was a nailbiter because of our offensive philosophy. Marrone's "I wouldn't take 15 more TD passes from Bortles if it means he throws 5 more INTs" philosophy is going to cost us games. I was hoping the AFCCG and Doug Pederson putting Marrone on full blast in his book would change things, but it doesn't look like it has.
As Herm Edwards said,
You play
To win
The game
Did we win the game? I’m starting to think I saw the wrong game.
We know Doug and Tom hate turnovers more than anything and there's a good reason. It's because most NFL games are close and turnovers have the greatest impact on wins and losses. Look how quickly a tipped pass turned into the game-winning TD yesterday. For the Giants, that turnover was the game-losing play.
So I forgive Doug for playing it safe. They trust the defense to bend, don't break, and bust a couple big plays. it usually works. You see a lot of teams play desperate against our D, like the fancy, semi-legal schemes to free Beckham, lots of 4th down attempts, etc. The Pats went to every trick play in the book and still needed divine intervention from NFL HQ.
I guess I'm the only one that thought the INT was a terrible throw? If you're going to miss that throw, miss it long. It was essentially the same problem on the near INT/TD to Paul.
I also thought the Oline offered a lot of encouragement outside of the penalties. Blake had pretty good protection.
It certainly wasn't among his worst, but it was pretty bad. Moncrief had just started to separate past Jenkins too. If he threw it two yards farther Moncrief could have had a real nice gain. Moncrief also could have broken the pass up as others have said, but it would have been quite a play he had a lot of momentum carrying him past Jenkins at that point. The worst part though...look at that windup. He dropped the ball down and back as far as ever multiple times yesterday, he's really gotta reign that back in.
https://www.giants.com/video/cb-janoris-...qb-bortles
(09-11-2018, 12:46 AM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]It certainly wasn't among his worst, but it was pretty bad. Moncrief had just started to separate past Jenkins too. If he threw it two yards farther Moncrief could have had a real nice gain. Moncrief also could have broken the pass up as others have said, but it would have been quite a play he had a lot of momentum carrying him past Jenkins at that point. The worst part though...look at that windup. He dropped the ball down and back as far as ever multiple times yesterday, he's really gotta reign that back in.
https://www.giants.com/video/cb-janoris-...qb-bortles
Yeah. Pretty much agree with your assessment. He could've made a play on it but that's asking a lot from a guy in the process of separating vertically from his man down the field. That's a lot of momentum going forward.
I mean, I'll just say, it was clearly not meant to be a back shoulder or 50/50 type ball.
(09-10-2018, 03:09 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2018, 03:03 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.jacksonville.com/sports/20180...ke-bortles
I already did. From less than a week ago. No lessons were learned.
Asked if would be OK with Bortles throwing 15 more touchdown passes than he did last season, but having five more interceptions, Marrone said: “No.”
“Because I know the turnovers will lead to wins and losses more than the touchdowns,” Marrone said. “Now if you said 15-game winning streak, I’ll take that. How’s that?”
I dont have a problem with the philosophy. Stats are meaningless as long as you win. His point was, he wants to win. Whether that means Fournette runs for 200 yards per game or Blake throws 4 tds per game doesn't matter, get the W. Adding 5 INTs can be much more back breaking than adding 15 tds could.
except mathematically, it is a positive... 15 more touchdowns for 5 more interceptions.... 5 interceptions BEST CASE FOR THE OTHER TEAM is 5 touchdowns for them.... so a 10 touchdown net positive for us
so no, that philosophy, if well thought out, is flat out WRONG
(09-11-2018, 08:23 AM)Krayz_Jville_D Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2018, 03:09 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ]I dont have a problem with the philosophy. Stats are meaningless as long as you win. His point was, he wants to win. Whether that means Fournette runs for 200 yards per game or Blake throws 4 tds per game doesn't matter, get the W. Adding 5 INTs can be much more back breaking than adding 15 tds could.
except mathematically, it is a positive... 15 more touchdowns for 5 more interceptions.... 5 interceptions BEST CASE FOR THE OTHER TEAM is 5 touchdowns for them.... so a 10 touchdown net positive for us
so no, that philosophy, if well thought out, is flat out WRONG
There are WAY too many variables in that math.
These 15 extra TDs could be garbage time when we had a huge lead or had no chance to come back. The 5 INTs could all be during potential game winning drives or a pick 6 leading to a loss.
You could also flip it and make the TDs game deciding and the INTs in garbage time.
Its not a simple equation. That's why Marrone said "15 game winning TDs then yes" because in the grand scheme of things INTs are potentially more game changing.
(09-10-2018, 11:58 PM)Senor Fantastico Wrote: [ -> ]I guess I'm the only one that thought the INT was a terrible throw? If you're going to miss that throw, miss it long. It was essentially the same problem on the near INT/TD to Paul.
I also thought the Oline offered a lot of encouragement outside of the penalties. Blake had pretty good protection.
Definitely a bad under throw.