To me, our offensive strategy is very questionable sometimes. So often, an incomplete pass on 1st and 10 is followed by a running play, as if there's some rule against calling 2 pass plays in a row. Yesterday, we ran the ball on 1st and 20! We have to stop setting up 3rd down. A running play on 2nd and long sets up 3rd down. If you have enough 3rd downs, eventually you will fail to convert and punt yet again. We run our offense as if we are trying to set up a 3rd down play! It's as if on 2nd down we don't want to make a 1st down!
I remember a game a few years ago, the Patriots vs someone else, not us, and the Patriots came out and threw the ball 20 straight times! And in another game, the Pats went down the field with all running plays; they never threw it! Forcing the game plan is stupid. Good teams don't force the game plan. They line up and take what the defense is giving! They don't slam it in there for 2 yards a carry over and over.
I just wish that, when it's 2nd down, we would go for a 1st down instead of just trying to get part of it and set up 3rd down. We are not a grind it out offense, we are an explosive offense. 3rd down is not our forte'. We should try harder to avoid 3rd down.
Balance is nice. But trying to enforce offensive balance when the game is on the line is very aggravating to watch.
The reason we finally won that game yesterday was that we finally abandoned the run. Thank God. Damn, we have all these weapons at WR and TE and we insist on running the ball for 2 yards a carry. That is incredibly aggravating.
Quote:
The reason we finally won that game yesterday was that we finally abandoned the run. Thank God. Damn, we have all these weapons at WR and TE and we insist on running the ball for 2 yards a carry. That is incredibly aggravating.
Receivers stopped dropping the passes. I have no fan confidence in our team. When I see the trips formation over and over and over.... When I see the constant shot gun runs....
erodes the heck out of my team confidence. The reason we won is because John Fox is a stubborn coach as well. If the Bears were aggressive, they wouldn't have had so many field goals. We had two stubborn coaches lined up against each other yesterday and it came down to overall roster talent and we are a "better" team.
Bad teams have a way of looking bad on game days...no matter the play call.
There were about six instances that I couldn't believe they were running the ball.
The first and 20 was one of them.
Too many head scratchers from Olson in this one.
And yet, the Jags won. A 2-yard run and a punt is better than passing it every play and getting Bortles killed or picked off.
I don't think our coaches know what they're doing. I mean... they don't play to the strengths of the players, and they don't seem to know how to adjust. They have a plan, and they stick to it. If it doesn't work, they blame execution. They don't look at our run game and say "You know, we're just not going to get that long run with our current players. Let's stick to the passing game, and play to Blake's strengths." Instead they stick to it, and hope it eventually works. And when it does, it's to the detriment of everyone, because it 'proves' them right in their mind.
I thought Olsen expressed a desire to not put Blake in 3rd and long situations, hence running on 2nd and 10. Either way, run blocking upfront is horrendous. The key to less monotony is more success in the running game. The OLine may need an infusion of talent via the draft next year in order to get right.
Quote:I don't think our coaches know what they're doing. I mean... they don't play to the strengths of the players, and they don't seem to know how to adjust. They have a plan, and they stick to it. If it doesn't work, they blame execution. They don't look at our run game and say "You know, we're just not going to get that long run with our current players. Let's stick to the passing game, and play to Blake's strengths." Instead they stick to it, and hope it eventually works. And when it does, it's to the detriment of everyone, because it 'proves' them right in their mind.
Yes, that is right. Running is in the game plan, and if it doesn't work, do they figure out why and adjust or abandon it? The first question needs to be, why isn't this working? We have coaches up in the press box. Can't they call Olsen and tell him why the running game isn't working so we can either fix the problem or try something else? Instead, we just keep beating our heads against the brick wall.
It's like, gee, we thought this play would work. Why didn't it work? Is it because the Bears are not lining up like we thought they would? Is it because we thought AJ Cann could win his battle, but actually he can't? Why isn't it working? Why do we still think it's going to work if we just try it again? What's going to be different next time?
Is running the ball so all-fired important that we need to run on FIRST AND TWENTY???? Oh, and by the way, after we gain no yardage running on first and 20, what makes us think play action is going to fool anyone? It's SECOND AND TWENTY! Play action? Are you serious?
These guys seem to come in with a game plan and stick to it no matter what. That's foolhardy.
Quote:I thought Olsen expressed a desire to not put Blake in 3rd and long situations, hence running on 2nd and 10. Either way, run blocking upfront is horrendous. The key to less monotony is more success in the running game. The OLine may need an infusion of talent via the draft next year in order to get right.
How about not putting Blake in 3rd down situations at all? How about on 2nd and long, uh, maybe, uh, go for a first down? Why is 3rd and 7 so much better than 3rd and 10? It's ridiculous.
Quote:I thought Olsen expressed a desire to not put Blake in 3rd and long situations, hence running on 2nd and 10. Either way, run blocking upfront is horrendous. The key to less monotony is more success in the running game. The OLine may need an infusion of talent via the draft next year in order to get right.
"I don't want Blake in 3rd and long... so we'll run for 1 yard on 2nd and 10! 3rd and 9 is better than 3rd and 10!"
1st down is predictably a Draw up the gut 75% of the time. Bradley and Olson are not good enough.
Quote:To me, our offensive strategy is very questionable sometimes. So often, an incomplete pass on 1st and 10 is followed by a running play, as if there's some rule against calling 2 pass plays in a row. Yesterday, we ran the ball on 1st and 20! We have to stop setting up 3rd down. A running play on 2nd and long sets up 3rd down. If you have enough 3rd downs, eventually you will fail to convert and punt yet again. We run our offense as if we are trying to set up a 3rd down play! It's as if on 2nd down we don't want to make a 1st down!
I remember a game a few years ago, the Patriots vs someone else, not us, and the Patriots came out and threw the ball 20 straight times! And in another game, the Pats went down the field with all running plays; they never threw it! Forcing the game plan is stupid. Good teams don't force the game plan. They line up and take what the defense is giving! They don't slam it in there for 2 yards a carry over and over.
I just wish that, when it's 2nd down, we would go for a 1st down instead of just trying to get part of it and set up 3rd down. We are not a grind it out offense, we are an explosive offense. 3rd down is not our forte'. We should try harder to avoid 3rd down.
Balance is nice. But trying to enforce offensive balance when the game is on the line is very aggravating to watch.
The reason we finally won that game yesterday was that we finally abandoned the run. Thank God. Damn, we have all these weapons at WR and TE and we insist on running the ball for 2 yards a carry. That is incredibly aggravating.
I was just thinking about this, you're 100% correct, but it's what
bad (stubborn) coaches do. Bad-stubborn coaches try to conform players to a specific ideologie/system ("we're a physical football team that WILL run the ball!") than the opposite, which is adjusting to the strength of your football team. It's evident to everyone (other than Greg & Gus) that the Jaguars don't have the personnel on the offensive line to effectively run the football, one of the commentators in yesterday's game mentioned the Bears were stopping the Jags run game with
6 men in the box, that's incredibly embarrassing considering the Bears rush defense has been nothing short of awful.
What the Jags do have is one of the better pass-blocking offensive lines in the league, a talented QB along with a trio of play-makers at WR, and a TE in Julius Thomas that is effectively a "4th" WR. This offense is better off (almost) completely scrapping it's hideous run game, and transitioning into more of a up-tempo pass happy offense, use the pass to "set-up" the run, this offense needs to pick and choose spots where it runs the ball. Chuck Pagano isn't a great coach either but at least he and that offensive coaching staff understands the limitations Indy has in the run game, the Colts have been "chucking it" since Andrew's rookie year, putting the ball in your best players hands and playing to the strength of your team is
always an ideal strategy for success.
I think we have built an offensive line that can run block in a gap/man scheme. This zone running doesn't fit our o-linemen though. Olson refuses to play to the strength of our players. Very frustrating.
Quote:1st down is predictably a Draw up the gut 75% of the time. Bradley and Olson are not good enough.
So sadly true. The Playcalling has become way too predictable. Lack of creativity, and not running the offense to the strengths of the players.
Why sign Julius Thomas last year? What have we done to involve him? He was an extra blocker for goodness sake on a play that was a total failure. We are running some hybrid ball control thing that is gamed to "not lose" and keep Bortles "safe".
Bad, bad and more bad. How the heck can you have an extra week of preparation and look at the game tape from the Colts last week and melt down for 2/3rds of the game.
I'd like to see JT get targeted more. He did very well last year towards the end, why did we stop finding ways to get him the ball?
Quote:Why sign Julius Thomas last year? What have we done to involve him? He was an extra blocker for goodness sake on a play that was a total failure. We are running some hybrid ball control thing that is gamed to "not lose" and keep Bortles "safe".
Bad, bad and more bad. How the heck can you have an extra week of preparation and look at the game tape from the Colts last week and melt down for 2/3rds of the game.
Yea what better way to utilize your big time free agent than to run a scheme that doesn't even use him...
Many people were clamoring for this in the offseason. Somehow, throwing less TDs and less down the field passes was supposed to be a good thing. I guess they got what they wanted.