(09-10-2018, 09:19 PM)The_Franchise_QB Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2018, 08:38 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]Both Fournette and Marrone said that he could have gone back into the game and that holding him out was just precautionary. Why would they do that unless they valued the next game more than the current one and were looking ahead? Can you imagine the kickback if you make a precautionary decision and you lose? All games at this point of the season are important.
The only other explanation I can think of is that Fournette's injury is a little more serious than they want to let on.
IDK. I just thought that holding out a supposedly healthy enough Fournette was odd.
I hear you, but the way I took it was if NEEDED 4nette could have came back in. Something like a playoff game, divisional game, etc.. Wasn't something worth risking game 1 of the season in case of re-aggravating it and making it worse. Hammy's can be real weird. My point is, if they are holding things back in the playbook and thinking ahead towards specific opponents.... well that's completely different in my book and the entire staff should be gone. During preseason we saw the 2 back set and since this is a run first team, figured we would see it. Once 4nette went down, IMO it was gone from the playbook because only 2 RB's left. That's a problem for a run first team.
How would you determine when he was needed? Once they go ahead? They had possession with the chance to go ahead with a TD late in the game. With a game that close you need your best players.
This was a 5 point game and we never led by more than 10. I could understand the precautionary philosophy if it was a blowout, but this was a game where the opponent stayed within reach of winning the entire time.
This is the NFL. Players play hurt unless their injury prevents them from being able to play. The team Doctors would not allow him to continue to play if they thought there was a significant chance of further injury. They all admitted that this wasn't the case for Fournette.
I find it hard to believe that a game this close they would sit their best offensive weapon for precautionary reasons unless they were thinking about preparing for the next game. The only time I have ever heard of a team doing this is in pre season games, late season games after a playoff spot has been secured, or a blowout.
(09-10-2018, 09:59 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2018, 09:19 PM)The_Franchise_QB Wrote: [ -> ]I hear you, but the way I took it was if NEEDED 4nette could have came back in. Something like a playoff game, divisional game, etc.. Wasn't something worth risking game 1 of the season in case of re-aggravating it and making it worse. Hammy's can be real weird. My point is, if they are holding things back in the playbook and thinking ahead towards specific opponents.... well that's completely different in my book and the entire staff should be gone. During preseason we saw the 2 back set and since this is a run first team, figured we would see it. Once 4nette went down, IMO it was gone from the playbook because only 2 RB's left. That's a problem for a run first team.
How would you determine when he was needed? Once they go ahead? They had possession with the chance to go ahead with a TD late in the game. With a game that close you need your best players.
This was a 5 point game and we never led by more than 10. I could understand the precautionary philosophy if it was a blowout, but this was a game where the opponent stayed within reach of winning the entire time.
This is the NFL. Players play hurt unless their injury prevents them from being able to play. The team Doctors would not allow him to continue to play if they thought there was a significant chance of further injury. They all admitted that this wasn't the case for Fournette.
I find it hard to believe that a game this close they would sit their best offensive weapon for precautionary reasons unless they were thinking about preparing for the next game. The only time I have ever heard of a team doing this is in pre season games, late season games after a playoff spot has been secured, or a blowout.
Yeah, I agree that in a game so close you need your best players. If you can play, you play. I believe they were thinking ahead for the rest of the season, not necessarily the next game. It was pretty odd when we saw him on the sideline and they reported he could come back in. He is a captain nonetheless too. Playbook has to open up more this week.
Remind the refs before the game what constitutes a player being ruled down after a fumble recovery.
(09-10-2018, 11:21 PM)The_Franchise_QB Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2018, 09:59 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]How would you determine when he was needed? Once they go ahead? They had possession with the chance to go ahead with a TD late in the game. With a game that close you need your best players.
This was a 5 point game and we never led by more than 10. I could understand the precautionary philosophy if it was a blowout, but this was a game where the opponent stayed within reach of winning the entire time.
This is the NFL. Players play hurt unless their injury prevents them from being able to play. The team Doctors would not allow him to continue to play if they thought there was a significant chance of further injury. They all admitted that this wasn't the case for Fournette.
I find it hard to believe that a game this close they would sit their best offensive weapon for precautionary reasons unless they were thinking about preparing for the next game. The only time I have ever heard of a team doing this is in pre season games, late season games after a playoff spot has been secured, or a blowout.
Yeah, I agree that in a game so close you need your best players. If you can play, you play. I believe they were thinking ahead for the rest of the season, not necessarily the next game. It was pretty odd when we saw him on the sideline and they reported he could come back in. He is a captain nonetheless too. Playbook has to open up more this week.
I also agree with you that the play calling appeared to be held back. Maybe not looking ahead for the rest of the season, but at least for the next two games. Beating the pats would go a long way in establishing are place in the conference and beating the titans would go a long way in establishing are place in the division.
Maybe our perception of what is happening is wrong, but I agree with you 100% that we can't play the same way we have the last two second halves and expect to win. The pats were the last team to beat us doing that.
Like they say, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. Hopefully the play calling against the pats won't qualify as being insane.
Even though it was the opener, I think in a weird way The Giants game was a trap game. Non-divisional opponent, on the road with the home debut against the Patriots the following week. They could be forgiven if they were looking ahead a little bit. The reaction in the locker room when Marrone mentioned this week's opponents was definitely telling.
Concussing Gronkowski in the first quarter helps.
(09-11-2018, 06:49 AM)hb1148 Wrote: [ -> ]Even though it was the opener, I think in a weird way The Giants game was a trap game. Non-divisional opponent, on the road with the home debut against the Patriots the following week. They could be forgiven if they were looking ahead a little bit. The reaction in the locker room when Marrone mentioned this week's opponents was definitely telling.
They get forgiven because we won.
Just think about the backlash if the giants came back and won and we found out Fournette was considered healthy enough to return to the game.
The personnel decisions and vanilla playcalling were very odd for an early regular season game. It seemed more like a pre season gameplan.
I can't say for sure that the coaching staff were looking ahead, but it kind of gave you that feeling.
Who knows.
(09-11-2018, 07:15 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Concussing Gronkowski in the first quarter helps.
Does it? We did a lot better when he was in
From today's OZone:
"Also, how Hackett calls plays one week has literally zero to do with how he will call plays the following week. Take a look at the Buffalo and Pittsburgh playoff games from this past January if you’re unclear on this."
It's probably not a case of deliberately 'holding back' with the playbook, it's more to do with game planning and game situation. The weather conditions were also a factor. As soon as we got a lead we basically shut up shop on offense and left the defense to seal the deal. It's the same thing that killed us against the Pats in the playoffs, so I totally understand why some people hate it. But... hopefully it means we have something of an advantage in this game because we can throw some new stuff at them. We will see.
(09-11-2018, 09:14 AM)JagJohn Wrote: [ -> ]From today's OZone:
"Also, how Hackett calls plays one week has literally zero to do with how he will call plays the following week. Take a look at the Buffalo and Pittsburgh playoff games from this past January if you’re unclear on this."
It's probably not a case of deliberately 'holding back' with the playbook, it's more to do with game planning and game situation. The weather conditions were also a factor. As soon as we got a lead we basically shut up shop on offense and left the defense to seal the deal. It's the same thing that killed us against the Pats in the playoffs, so I totally understand why some people hate it. But... hopefully it means we have something of an advantage in this game because we can throw some new stuff at them. We will see.
Hopefully he understands you can't sit on a lead with Brady.
(09-10-2018, 08:38 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2018, 08:12 PM)The_Franchise_QB Wrote: [ -> ]Sandbagging in the reg season? I would be very disappointed if this was the case. This is the NFL, not college, any team can win each week. If you don't come prepared, you are going to lose. If they used a limited playbook in anticipation for a week 2 matchup against the Pats, then this is the wrong coaching staff to have. In this league, you can NEVER EVER look ahead to opponents. You focus week by week.
I don't think that's the case though. If they want to use 2 RB packages in the future then it's almost mandatory to have a 4th RB on the team. Once 4nette went down I don't think they wanted to use both healthy RBs on the field at same time in case of injury. If a running teams playbook all of a sudden gets shortened due to a injury to ONE RB, then they don't have enough. I was very confused why this team didn't keep 4 rb's. Don't need 6 wide outs when you aren't even going to throw down field.
Both Fournette and Marrone said that he could have gone back into the game and that holding him out was just precautionary. Why would they do that unless they valued the next game more than the current one and were looking ahead? Can you imagine the kickback if you make a precautionary decision and you lose? All games at this point of the season are important.
The only other explanation I can think of is that Fournette's injury is a little more serious than they want to let on.
IDK. I just thought that holding out a supposedly healthy enough Fournette was odd.
Maybe they were looking ahead to the next five or 6 games. If you've ever had a hamstring or calf strain, then you might know that a strain that starts out as a week to week thing can just as easily 'pop' and turn into a 4-6 week thing.
Stay aggressive on offense and defense. You can't sit back and be vanilla with this team. It's too easy for them to read and react accordingly.
Obviously you want to protect the football. But we also can't be penalized 11 times again for nearly 120 yards. And we have to get better than 4 - 13 on third downs. That won't cut it against this team. 20 points was enough to beat the Giants. We may need 27 in this one.
(09-11-2018, 02:03 PM)Jagsfan32277 Wrote: [ -> ]95 degrees hot and humid
That's too much... Wifey can't go now without being one of those people that gets dragged out by ambulance with heatstroke
(09-11-2018, 03:20 PM)scottyg Wrote: [ -> ] (09-11-2018, 02:03 PM)Jagsfan32277 Wrote: [ -> ]95 degrees hot and humid
That's too much... Wifey can't go now without being one of those people that gets dragged out by ambulance with heatstroke
Time for divorce, boyo.
(09-11-2018, 11:29 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]Stay aggressive on offense and defense. You can't sit back and be vanilla with this team. It's too easy for them to read and react accordingly.
Obviously you want to protect the football. But we also can't be penalized 11 times again for nearly 120 yards. And we have to get better than 4 - 13 on third downs. That won't cut it against this team. 20 points was enough to beat the Giants. We may need 27 in this one.
Agreed.
I saw the Bears try to hold on to a 20 point lead the other night against Rodgers... no lead is safe with elite QBs on the other side of the field.
We need to score and we need to bring pressure. Every drive.
Even as good as our D is... we can't bank on 20 being enough. Even if Bortles throws an INT... he's gonna have to throw the ball and make some plays, so don't pare back the playbook VS this team....open it up.
(09-11-2018, 03:30 PM)jags_r_bake Wrote: [ -> ] (09-11-2018, 03:20 PM)scottyg Wrote: [ -> ]That's too much... Wifey can't go now without being one of those people that gets dragged out by ambulance with heatstroke
Time for divorce, boyo.
Nope. Not for that anyway... I go without her per usual.
(09-11-2018, 04:18 PM)scottyg Wrote: [ -> ] (09-11-2018, 03:30 PM)jags_r_bake Wrote: [ -> ]Time for divorce, boyo.
Nope. Not for that anyway... I go without her per usual.
I love how you just tabled it...
"not for that"
(09-11-2018, 04:24 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (09-11-2018, 04:18 PM)scottyg Wrote: [ -> ]Nope. Not for that anyway... I go without her per usual.
I love how you just tabled it...
"not for that"
LOL!
![[Image: DmvFsiaV4AAiA86.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmvFsiaV4AAiA86.jpg)