(12-27-2018, 05:19 PM)Jagsfan4life9/28/82 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018, 03:40 PM)hb1148 Wrote: [ -> ]There were inconsistencies last year true, mostly thanks to Blake's inconsistency. But that was a pretty good offense last year. Only 17th in passing offense but we lead the league in rushing offense and as I already mentioned, 6th in overall scoring and 7th in offensive TDs scored. No matter how you cut it, that's pretty darn good. Makes the collapse this year all the more crazy.
I disagree. You're trotting out rankings as if they mean everything. There are so many factors those rankings do not take into account. For example, let's revisit scoring. Already mentioned was defensive touchdowns, but how many offensive scores can still be attributed to the defense by giving the offense a short field? How about time of possession afforded the offense by the defense? Truth be told, as often as the defense gave the offense the ball, the team should have been number one in scoring by a large margin. Also, if the offense was "darn good" as you describe, the team would had have a better record than the 10-6 they posted, plus the would have went into this season as the Champions.
Really, last year's offense was average, so yes, this year's "collapse" makes perfect sense. Take an already questionable offense, saddle it with some key injuries, and we get the complete ineptitude we've witnessed this season.
We can disagree, it's a free country but I still say last year's offense was good and the numbers bear that out. In addition to the other things I've mentioned, the Jags also ranked 6th in total yards gained which invalidates the idea they were scoring due to short fields. Your main gist seems to be that you have a feeling they weren't very good so they must not have been very good which is pretty subjective. The reason they only went 10-6 in 2017 was due to their weakness with regards to giving the ball away. If you'd make the argument that a good offense doesn't give the ball away that frequently, you'd have more of a point but that doesn't negate the fact that they were still moving the ball and scoring at a good rate.
(12-27-2018, 05:19 PM)Jagsfan4life9/28/82 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018, 03:40 PM)hb1148 Wrote: [ -> ]There were inconsistencies last year true, mostly thanks to Blake's inconsistency. But that was a pretty good offense last year. Only 17th in passing offense but we lead the league in rushing offense and as I already mentioned, 6th in overall scoring and 7th in offensive TDs scored. No matter how you cut it, that's pretty darn good. Makes the collapse this year all the more crazy.
I disagree. You're trotting out rankings as if they mean everything. There are so many factors those rankings do not take into account. For example, let's revisit scoring. Already mentioned was defensive touchdowns, but how many offensive scores can still be attributed to the defense by giving the offense a short field? How about time of possession afforded the offense by the defense? Truth be told, as often as the defense gave the offense the ball, the team should have been number one in scoring by a large margin. Also, if the offense was "darn good" as you describe, the team would had have a better record than the 10-6 they posted, plus the would have went into this season as the Champions.
Really, last year's offense was average, so yes, this year's "collapse" makes perfect sense. Take an already questionable offense, saddle it with some key injuries, and we get the complete ineptitude we've witnessed this season.
I mean even if you say the defense was giving them short field do you really think the defenses above and below or ranking weren't getting the same kind of production if not better then ours? That seems like your cherry picking things for your argument it goes both ways. Wouldn't that mean the Ravens who ended up with more turnovers then our defense did by 1 be above us in their OFF RANKINGS with your logic? They weren't even close btw the Ravens were 29th in passing and 11th in rushing. Detroit and Philly were within 1 to 2 turnovers as well and the lions didn't really capitalize on their turnovers/ short field being 6th in passing BUT 32ND in rushing. Philly was 13th passing and 4 in rushing. Close enough to us that it should be a non factor. The offense was able to handle it self effectively in its own right last year unlike this catastrophe we have going this year.
(12-27-2018, 01:39 AM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2018, 10:47 PM)Jagsfan4life9/28/82 Wrote: [ -> ]Revamp the offense? I'm not sure the offense was ever vamped to begin with.
When is the last time we had a high scoring offense?
Define a "high scoring offense" in the NFL. This isn't college ball where 40+ or 50+ points is "the norm".
(12-27-2018, 06:24 PM)hb1148 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018, 05:19 PM)Jagsfan4life9/28/82 Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree. You're trotting out rankings as if they mean everything. There are so many factors those rankings do not take into account. For example, let's revisit scoring. Already mentioned was defensive touchdowns, but how many offensive scores can still be attributed to the defense by giving the offense a short field? How about time of possession afforded the offense by the defense? Truth be told, as often as the defense gave the offense the ball, the team should have been number one in scoring by a large margin. Also, if the offense was "darn good" as you describe, the team would had have a better record than the 10-6 they posted, plus the would have went into this season as the Champions.
Really, last year's offense was average, so yes, this year's "collapse" makes perfect sense. Take an already questionable offense, saddle it with some key injuries, and we get the complete ineptitude we've witnessed this season.
We can disagree, it's a free country but I still say last year's offense was good and the numbers bear that out. In addition to the other things I've mentioned, the Jags also ranked 6th in total yards gained which invalidates the idea they were scoring due to short fields. Your main gist seems to be that you have a feeling they weren't very good so they must not have been very good which is pretty subjective. The reason they only went 10-6 in 2017 was due to their weakness with regards to giving the ball away. If you'd make the argument that a good offense doesn't give the ball away that frequently, you'd have more of a point but that doesn't negate the fact that they were still moving the ball and scoring at a good rate.
Well yes, a good offense doesn't turn the ball over as routinely as they did, so yes, they weren't a good offense.
Also, short fields wasn't my only point. How many times did the defense stop the opposition on downs, receive the punt, only for offense to punt it right back? Wasn't that almost the entirety of the Buffalo game? Sorry, good offenses don't look like that.
What was puzzling was the bursts of brilliance they had. But that was always followed by stretches of ineptitude. Average both of those things together and you get, well...average, like I said. I'm not saying they were terrible, but they weren't good, either.
Bell would be a $25m cap hit for the Steelers. He's walking this off season and I'm worried he may go to the Colts. They have a lot of cap and it's been decades since the Colts had a run game
Regarding the O, I'm of the thought that you find players to fit the system rather than building around what you have. The player turnover with the salary cap, makes it so hard to keep a unit together that long in my opinion. I also think it's too much to adjust for players different styles and skills. Say you have a 6'4 WR, your going to throw high balls and exploit the height advantage but if the backup is a 6'1 speedster then you can't play them the same way.
T.C says he wants to stay with the run and believes in it. I expect us to try and be more aggressive and pass next year, especially PA but the OC hire may be more important than the QB situation. How much control will they have? Is it running the same basic system we have been or will they be able to create their own style and system. How much of an input will they have with Bortles and any 1st round QB?
Going into stats that killed us this year, we were one of the best teams in the red zone last year and this year we are one kf the worst teams. Stack that on top of the fact that we can barely get to the red zone now. A major point this off season will be redzone offense i believe.
The KC game highlighted the season for me jmo. We got stopped in the red zone twice. If that went the other way maybe the season changes a bit but i think that game killed the teams morale for the rest of the season.
Who is a top rated innovative college coach when it comes to the run game/PA. Maybe we will go that route for OC.
(12-27-2018, 07:31 PM)Jagsfan4life9/28/82 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018, 06:24 PM)hb1148 Wrote: [ -> ]We can disagree, it's a free country but I still say last year's offense was good and the numbers bear that out. In addition to the other things I've mentioned, the Jags also ranked 6th in total yards gained which invalidates the idea they were scoring due to short fields. Your main gist seems to be that you have a feeling they weren't very good so they must not have been very good which is pretty subjective. The reason they only went 10-6 in 2017 was due to their weakness with regards to giving the ball away. If you'd make the argument that a good offense doesn't give the ball away that frequently, you'd have more of a point but that doesn't negate the fact that they were still moving the ball and scoring at a good rate.
Well yes, a good offense doesn't turn the ball over as routinely as they did, so yes, they weren't a good offense.
Also, short fields wasn't my only point. How many times did the defense stop the opposition on downs, receive the punt, only for offense to punt it right back? Wasn't that almost the entirety of the Buffalo game? Sorry, good offenses don't look like that.
What was puzzling was the bursts of brilliance they had. But that was always followed by stretches of ineptitude. Average both of those things together and you get, well...average, like I said. I'm not saying they were terrible, but they weren't good, either.
Well, let me know if you need me to make any more points for you and I will. ;-) But one point (or game) does not a convincing argument make. It's like the people that think Fournette sucked that year because he had a 3.9 ypc average in 2017 even though he accounted for nearly 1400 yards. They're getting hung up on one point and losing track of the big picture. The Buffalo game plan was to play a ball control offense against a very good defense and so that's what happened. Look at what they did for the rest of December and against Pittsburgh.
You should look at the game logs or whatever and not let what happened this year cloud your perception of what happened last year. The offense collapsed this year but I think they have a chance to get back to or be better than what they were in 2017. The OL and new QB/coordinator combo will be the key.
I think most would've been fine this year with last year's offense.
(12-28-2018, 08:38 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I think most would've been fine this year with last year's offense.
We'd have won the division again.
(12-27-2018, 07:09 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018, 01:39 AM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]When is the last time we had a high scoring offense?
Define a "high scoring offense" in the NFL. This isn't college ball where 40+ or 50+ points is "the norm".
To me a "high scoring" offense is one that you expect to put up 28 points a game. That is you don't put up at least 28, it is considered a bad game by your offensive standards. Also to me high scoring is one that can score quickly when needed and doesn't need 15 plays drives to score a TD. To me a high scoring offense is one that other teams fear playing and they know if they give you the ball last, they are going to lose.
(12-28-2018, 02:31 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ] (12-28-2018, 08:38 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I think most would've been fine this year with last year's offense.
We'd have won the division again.
I don’t think so.
Jags had the luxury of playing against Savage, Brisett and Mariota 6 times.
Last years offense was a mirage. Take away the defensive TDS and they averaged like 17 a game or something like that. Also, if the defense allowed more than 20 last year, the Jags more than likely lost.
Last year was a perfect storm of schedule, injuries (or the lack of injuries for the Jags) and the best defense in football. The offense had the ball on so many extra possessions and yet couldn’t really do much with it.
(12-29-2018, 10:33 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (12-28-2018, 02:31 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ]We'd have won the division again.
I don’t think so.
Jags had the luxury of playing against Savage, Brisett and Mariota 6 times.
Last years offense was a mirage. Take away the defensive TDS and they averaged like 17 a game or something like that. Also, if the defense allowed more than 20 last year, the Jags more than likely lost.
Last year was a perfect storm of schedule, injuries (or the lack of injuries for the Jags) and the best defense in football. The offense had the ball on so many extra possessions and yet couldn’t really do much with it.
Last year's offense would have made this year's team a contender for the division title without a doubt.
Adjusting for defensive scores, last year's offense averaged about 23 points per game compared to this year's offense which is only scoring about 15 ppg. That's a huge difference.
This year, they're giving up 19.7 ppg which is currently 5th best in the league, showing the defense is still pretty good but not good enough to make up for the lousy offensive scoring. In 2017 they gave up 16.8 ppg which was 2nd. I think it's safe to assume that a better offense this year would have allowed the defense to come close to last years ppg average and allowed the team to compete for the division title (i.e. 23 ppg + defensive scores against less than 20 ppg given up).
(12-29-2018, 11:01 AM)hb1148 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-29-2018, 10:33 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t think so.
Jags had the luxury of playing against Savage, Brisett and Mariota 6 times.
Last years offense was a mirage. Take away the defensive TDS and they averaged like 17 a game or something like that. Also, if the defense allowed more than 20 last year, the Jags more than likely lost.
Last year was a perfect storm of schedule, injuries (or the lack of injuries for the Jags) and the best defense in football. The offense had the ball on so many extra possessions and yet couldn’t really do much with it.
Last year's offense would have made this year's team a contender for the division title without a doubt. Adjusting for defensive scores, last year's offense averaged about 23 points per game compared to this year's offense which is only scoring about 15 ppg. That's a huge difference.
This year, they're giving up 19.7 ppg which is currently 5th best in the league, showing the defense is still pretty good but not good enough to make up for the lousy offensive scoring. In 2017 they gave up 16.8 ppg which was 2nd. I think it's safe to assume that a better offense this year would have allowed the defense to come close to last years ppg average and allowed the team to compete for the division title (i.e. 23 ppg + defensive scores against less than 20 ppg given up).
Last year, the team won 2 games when the defense gave up more than 20 in the regular season (Seattle and SD). That’s including a game when Rivers threw 2 interceptions and gifted the team the W.
The offense was average last season and when they were called upon, they normally didn’t come through. This season again, couldn’t come through. They won 10 games last year under a perfect storm. 10 games wouldn’t have cut it this season when the division is much much better.
(12-29-2018, 11:14 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (12-29-2018, 11:01 AM)hb1148 Wrote: [ -> ]Last year's offense would have made this year's team a contender for the division title without a doubt. Adjusting for defensive scores, last year's offense averaged about 23 points per game compared to this year's offense which is only scoring about 15 ppg. That's a huge difference.
This year, they're giving up 19.7 ppg which is currently 5th best in the league, showing the defense is still pretty good but not good enough to make up for the lousy offensive scoring. In 2017 they gave up 16.8 ppg which was 2nd. I think it's safe to assume that a better offense this year would have allowed the defense to come close to last years ppg average and allowed the team to compete for the division title (i.e. 23 ppg + defensive scores against less than 20 ppg given up).
Last year, the team won 2 games when the defense gave up more than 20 in the regular season (Seattle and SD). That’s including a game when Rivers threw 2 interceptions and gifted the team the W.
The offense was average last season and when they were called upon, they normally didn’t come through. This season again, couldn’t come through. They won 10 games last year under a perfect storm. 10 games wouldn’t have cut it this season when the division is much much better.
Not sure how you call an offense that was in the top 10 in scoring average, but ok. Last year they did win a couple of close games that maybe they shouldn't have but they also lost a couple of close games that they probably shouldn't have. It evens out. 10 games is probably about where they should have been last year and probably what we should have been this year if not for the offense nose-diving.
(12-29-2018, 10:33 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (12-28-2018, 02:31 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ]We'd have won the division again.
I don’t think so.
Jags had the luxury of playing against Savage, Brisett and Mariota 6 times.
Last years offense was a mirage. Take away the defensive TDS and they averaged like 17 a game or something like that. Also, if the defense allowed more than 20 last year, the Jags more than likely lost.
Last year was a perfect storm of schedule, injuries (or the lack of injuries for the Jags) and the best defense in football. The offense had the ball on so many extra possessions and yet couldn’t really do much with it.
It's an interesting thought. For instance, we would have beaten Pit again this year if we had last year's offense.
We also held the surging Colts and Luck scoreless for 6 straight quarters.
There's also the possibility that a better offense sets the defense up for the possibility of more big plays/turnovers.
(12-29-2018, 11:14 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]The offense was average last season and when they were called upon, they normally didn’t come through.
I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure how anyone who watched every game last season could see that any differently.