Good:
1. Jaguars finally get a win.
2. Trevor Lawrence: Overall. a very good day. Only a couple bad plays, but much improved.
3. Tank Bigsby: Love his physicality when carrying the ball. Turning out to be very good draft pick despite shaky rookie season.
4. Brenton Strange: Hell of a catch on the touchdown.
5. Trevon Walker: Relentless pressure.
6. Ezra Cleveland: Starting to look like the guy they expected after the trade with the Vikings.
7. Ventrell Miller: Continues to make plays
Bad:
1. Defense almost gave the game away at the end. Inexcusable.
2. Antonio Johnson: Flacco kept going at him with much success.
3. De"Ernest Johnson: Bad penalties must stop.
UglY;
I'll pass on this one following the victory.
Good:
TLaw was having fun out there. He was hitting his throws, only a few incompletions, and you could tell he was in rhythm.
Love to see big chunks in the run game. Tank is legit.
Our OLBs were getting pressure and we forced a turnover!
NO STUPID PENALTIES OR AVOIDABLE MISTAKES
Bad:
Still can't get that 4-minute offense down, not sure why this is still a thing.
D got soft late, still not sure if that is taking the pressure off, playing prevent / zone, or what, but Nielsen looked like he wanted to choke someone on that last TD
Ugly:
Gabe getting heated with TLaw and then fumbling shortly after. Enjoy your slice of humble pie, kid.
(10-07-2024, 08:40 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]Good:
TLaw was having fun out there. He was hitting his throws, only a few incompletions, and you could tell he was in rhythm.
Love to see big chunks in the run game. Tank is legit.
Our OLBs were getting pressure and we forced a turnover!
NO STUPID PENALTIES OR AVOIDABLE MISTAKES
Bad:
Still can't get that 4-minute offense down, not sure why this is still a thing.
D got soft late, still not sure if that is taking the pressure off, playing prevent / zone, or what, but Nielsen looked like he wanted to choke someone on that last TD
Ugly:
Gabe getting heated with TLaw and then fumbling shortly after. Enjoy your slice of humble pie, kid.
I think I kind of like Gabe holding TL's feet to the fire for making the wrong throw when he was wide open.
If these guys are able to hold each other accountable without completely losing their minds over it, that might be good in doses.
Trevor sure as hell responded on the field.
(10-07-2024, 09:38 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2024, 08:40 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]Good:
TLaw was having fun out there. He was hitting his throws, only a few incompletions, and you could tell he was in rhythm.
Love to see big chunks in the run game. Tank is legit.
Our OLBs were getting pressure and we forced a turnover!
NO STUPID PENALTIES OR AVOIDABLE MISTAKES
Bad:
Still can't get that 4-minute offense down, not sure why this is still a thing.
D got soft late, still not sure if that is taking the pressure off, playing prevent / zone, or what, but Nielsen looked like he wanted to choke someone on that last TD
Ugly:
Gabe getting heated with TLaw and then fumbling shortly after. Enjoy your slice of humble pie, kid.
I think I kind of like Gabe holding TL's feet to the fire for making the wrong throw when he was wide open.
If these guys are able to hold each other accountable without completely losing their minds over it, that might be good in doses.
Trevor sure as hell responded on the field.
Any impetus which makes Trevor see the field more is fine with me.
Good:
1. Trevor Lawrence being allowed to run QB sneaks.
2. The OC/HC finally figuring out that QB sneaks are worth doing to get short yardage.
3. The O-Line as a whole looked great. They've been good throughout this season, but today, they put it all together for the entire game.
4. Tank. I've been a huge supporter of his, even through his mistakes his rookie year. It's nice to see how he's really developed.
5. BTJ. We got ourselves a legit #1 WR, boys. The TD catch and run was great. But let's not forget all the tough catches he had in the middle of the field with clot defenders all over him. He made catches in traffic while getting hit. He's got hands, he's got speed. He's got it all.
6. Our LBers are legit. Miller's growth at LB has been great. Lloyd continues to get better. Muma is great depth. Our LB corps is legit. Especially when we get Oloukun back.
7. Travon Walker's overall game. If he wasn't getting sacks, or causing fumbles, or getting good pressure, he was being double teamed or held all day long. He was a monster out there.
8. How bout some love for Cam Little. He's literally 21 years old and has ice in his viens.
9. Special teams overall: Logan Cooke is the best punter in the league. And Duvernay's punt return set us up in the 2nd half. Great job by both those guys.
Bad:
1. The Secondary overall - We had moments where they looked good. That tip ball by Cisco may very well have saved us points. But other than a few good moments, when we are up by 14, we just got smoked. And the 1st Quarter secondary looked lost out there.
2. Take the points, Doug! We got away with it this game. But this constant need for Doug to not take points and try and prove something on 4th downs may very well cost us a Wildcard spot.
3. DT pass rush pressure. We just get not push up the middle on passing plays.
Ugly:
The Lawrence INT. The decision to throw that ball into triple coverage was terrible. The route design of that play also had 2 players converging into the same spot. It was just a bad throw and a bad route tree. Of course, Lawrence had Strange open for a dump off. Lawrence should have taken the check down to Strange.
(10-07-2024, 05:03 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ]Good:
...
...
...
Ugly:
The Lawrence INT. The decision to throw that ball into triple coverage was terrible. The route design of that play also had 2 players converging into the same spot. It was just a bad throw and a bad route tree. Of course, Lawrence had Strange open for a dump off. Lawrence should have taken the check down to Strange.
It wasn't even double coverage
Please stop posting this ridiculous inaccuracy
The Saftey in zone saw TL's intention and broke off of his area of assignment to make a play
(10-07-2024, 06:19 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2024, 05:03 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ]Good:
...
...
...
Ugly:
The Lawrence INT. The decision to throw that ball into triple coverage was terrible. The route design of that play also had 2 players converging into the same spot. It was just a bad throw and a bad route tree. Of course, Lawrence had Strange open for a dump off. Lawrence should have taken the check down to Strange.
It wasn't even double coverage
Please stop posting this ridiculous inaccuracy
The Saftey in zone saw TL's intention and broke off of his area of assignment to make a play
How many defenders were coming to the ball? Just look at the video. He threw it to where 3 defenders where able to make a play on the ball. That's triple coverage, in my book. By the time the ball was intercepted, there were 2 other defenders right there to help with the play.
That. Is. Triple. Coverage. He threw it into an area that was well defended. He had Strange waiting for the check down. He should have thrown it there. And I'll say this as well: The 2 WRs converging into the same area in the middle of the field was ugly route design.
You can to try and nuance it as much as you want. But it was triple covered. There was really no place that Trevor could have thrown that ball that would have resulted in success. That's triple coverage in my book. The under route was covered. The over route was covered. And the safety came in to get the INT. That's 3 players in the area. 3 means triple. 3. Tres. Trios. Drei. Mittsu. Seh. Tria. Tre.
(10-07-2024, 06:42 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2024, 06:19 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]It wasn't even double coverage
Please stop posting this ridiculous inaccuracy
The Saftey in zone saw TL's intention and broke off of his area of assignment to make a play
How many defenders were coming to the ball? Just look at the video. He threw it to where 3 defenders where able to make a play on the ball. That's triple coverage, in my book. By the time the ball was intercepted, there were 2 other defenders right there to help with the play.
That. Is. Triple. Coverage. He threw it into an area that was well defended. He had Strange waiting for the check down. He should have thrown it there. And I'll say this as well: The 2 WRs converging into the same area in the middle of the field was ugly route design.
You can to try and nuance it as much as you want. But it was triple covered. There was really no place that Trevor could have thrown that ball that would have resulted in success. That's triple coverage in my book. The under route was covered. The over route was covered. And the safety came in to get the INT. That's 3 players in the area. 3 means triple. 3. Tres. Trios. Drei. Mittsu. Seh. Tria. Tre.
Sorry.
I didn't realize you were so insanely uninformed as to the meaning of double coverage.
Double coverage almost always refers to a defensive call that has a receiver covered man to man - or by the DB in the zone of his route PLUS a safety assigned to play over the top of that designated receiver or that designated half of the field in order to limit any pass to the receiver. That's a real definition. Not something made up. not something debatable or formable to your narrative.
You are just
Talking. Out. Of. Your [BLEEP].
Triple coverage is pretty much a unicorn - which I guess should have tipped me of to your ignorance of the topic - but since you've already shown the inability to distinguish a DB from a LB perhaps I should not have been surprised.
This was not double coverage - this was not triple coverage.
Trevor telegraphed his throw by staring down his guy too long and the safety made a heads up play.
You're out of your depth, Donnie. Give up.
Oh hey, a Big Lebowski reference. Good one.
Trevor was going deep no matter what. The defense had it covered on all 3 possibilities. It was not double coverage. It was triple covered. There were 3 clots defending the area.
But whatever. You are the delicate genius. You know best. The more I watch that play, the more it's obvious that it was the ugly of the game. Which, by the way, is the topic of this thread. (Good/Bad/Ugly)
So tell me how that play, the design of the play, and the execution of that play isn't the "Ugly" of the game? Oh, no. I get it. You just want to argue the minutia of your genius analysis. While the rest of us recognize the obvious.
(10-07-2024, 07:18 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ]Oh hey, a Big Lebowski reference. Good one.
Trevor was going deep no matter what. The defense had it covered on all 3 possibilities. It was not double coverage. It was triple covered. There were 3 clots defending the area.
But whatever. You are the delicate genius. You know best. The more I watch that play, the more it's obvious that it was the ugly of the game. Which, by the way, is the topic of this thread. (Good/Bad/Ugly)
So tell me how that play, the design of the play, and the execution of that play isn't the "Ugly" of the game? Oh, no. I get it. You just want to argue the minutia of your genius analysis. While the rest of us recognize the obvious.
It was absolutely, 100%, unequivocally single coverage. You really should look into understanding this.
That safety was not assigned to cover that receiver. He made a decision to vacate his rather obvious assignment and make a play on the ball.
I wouldn't call it the UGLY of the game.
Trevor got greedy and made an ill advised throw because he didn't pick up on the Saftey picking up on him.
Bad play. "Ugliest aspect of the game?"
No
That - to me - would be the secondary being ripped for 359 yards and 3 air TDs from Joe Flacco.
(10-07-2024, 07:26 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2024, 07:18 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ]Oh hey, a Big Lebowski reference. Good one.
Trevor was going deep no matter what. The defense had it covered on all 3 possibilities. It was not double coverage. It was triple covered. There were 3 clots defending the area.
But whatever. You are the delicate genius. You know best. The more I watch that play, the more it's obvious that it was the ugly of the game. Which, by the way, is the topic of this thread. (Good/Bad/Ugly)
So tell me how that play, the design of the play, and the execution of that play isn't the "Ugly" of the game? Oh, no. I get it. You just want to argue the minutia of your genius analysis. While the rest of us recognize the obvious.
It was absolutely, 100%, unequivocally single coverage. You really should look into understanding this.
That safety was not assigned to cover that receiver. He made a decision to vacate his rather obvious assignment and make a play on the ball.
I wouldn't call it the UGLY of the game.
Trevor got greedy and made an ill advised throw because he didn't pick up on the Saftey picking up on him.
Bad play. "Ugliest aspect of the game?"
No
That - to me - would be the secondary being ripped for 359 yards and 3 air TDs from Joe Flacco.
OK, bro.
When there are 3 defenders in the area, it's triple covered. I just don't know how you can't figure that out. There was the defender over the top, there was the defender underneath, and the safety coming over to make the pick. That's 3. That's triple coverage. Stop trying to spin it any other way.
That's the ugly of the game.
The Secondary was bad. I mentioned that, which you deleted from your first response to me. That was cute, your delicate genius couldn't allow my post to stand as is.
I stand by my "Ugly" call. It was a bad decision by Lawrence to throw into a 3 man covered area. All while he had Strange wide open waiting for the check down. And the route design caused 2 WRs to converge on the same spot in the zone D.
It was an ugly play. All around.
The Secondary wasn't ugly. That's just you trying to cope with the fact that maybe you're wrong... The secondary was bad. We can discuss the TD catches that got them back in the game. 1 of them was basically a hail mary that was answered.
(10-07-2024, 07:36 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2024, 07:26 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]It was absolutely, 100%, unequivocally single coverage. You really should look into understanding this.
That safety was not assigned to cover that receiver. He made a decision to vacate his rather obvious assignment and make a play on the ball.
I wouldn't call it the UGLY of the game.
Trevor got greedy and made an ill advised throw because he didn't pick up on the Saftey picking up on him.
Bad play. "Ugliest aspect of the game?"
No
That - to me - would be the secondary being ripped for 359 yards and 3 air TDs from Joe Flacco.
OK, bro.
When there are 3 defenders in the area, it's triple covered. I just don't know how you can't figure that out. There was the defender over the top, there was the defender underneath, and the safety coming over to make the pick. That's 3. That's triple coverage. Stop trying to spin it any other way.
...
...
...
LOL
That's not what "triple covered" means.
Sorry you don't understand. Maybe one day you'll figure it out - I'm over trying to educate you here.
(10-07-2024, 07:51 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2024, 07:36 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ]OK, bro.
When there are 3 defenders in the area, it's triple covered. I just don't know how you can't figure that out. There was the defender over the top, there was the defender underneath, and the safety coming over to make the pick. That's 3. That's triple coverage. Stop trying to spin it any other way.
...
...
...
LOL
That's not what "triple covered" means.
Sorry you don't understand. Maybe one day you'll figure it out - I'm over trying to educate you here.
3 players covering 1 WR.
Strange wide open waiting for the check down.
2 WR's running routes to the same spot.
By the way, you're derailing this thread. I made my point. And you keep harping on me. Can you just let it go? Just let it go, man. I made several Good and Bad points. But you are harping on one thing. Just chill the [BLEEP] out. Why have such antagonism?
Do you honestly think that the "Ugly" I called is so egregious that you have to constantly argue the point? Maybe just let things go, my guy.
(10-07-2024, 09:06 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2024, 07:51 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]LOL
That's not what "triple covered" means.
Sorry you don't understand. Maybe one day you'll figure it out - I'm over trying to educate you here.
3 players covering 1 WR.
Strange wide open waiting for the check down.
2 WR's running routes to the same spot.
By the way, you're derailing this thread. I made my point. And you keep harping on me. Can you just let it go? Just let it go, man. I made several Good and Bad points. But you are harping on one thing. Just chill the [BLEEP] out. Why have such antagonism?
Do you honestly think that the "Ugly" I called is so egregious that you have to constantly argue the point? Maybe just let things go, my guy.
The only point you made is that you have no idea what double/triple coverage is. Great job. I had already let it go, but whatever.
Bad INT, but not 'ugliest' aspect of game.
(10-07-2024, 09:12 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2024, 09:06 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ]3 players covering 1 WR.
Strange wide open waiting for the check down.
2 WR's running routes to the same spot.
By the way, you're derailing this thread. I made my point. And you keep harping on me. Can you just let it go? Just let it go, man. I made several Good and Bad points. But you are harping on one thing. Just chill the [BLEEP] out. Why have such antagonism?
Do you honestly think that the "Ugly" I called is so egregious that you have to constantly argue the point? Maybe just let things go, my guy.
The only point you made is that you have no idea what double/triple coverage is. Great job. I had already let it go, but whatever.
Bad INT, but not 'ugliest' aspect of game.
And I've disagreed with you and pointed out why.
So just let it go. Stop trolling me with the same things in this thread. You're opinion is yours. Mine is mine. We disagree.
Can you just grow up and stop threatening me with bans and warnings when I disagree with you?
(10-07-2024, 09:17 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2024, 09:12 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]The only point you made is that you have no idea what double/triple coverage is. Great job. I had already let it go, but whatever.
Bad INT, but not 'ugliest' aspect of game.
And I've disagreed with you and pointed out why.
So just let it go. Stop trolling me with the same things in this thread. You're opinion is yours. Mine is mine. We disagree.
Can you just grow up and stop threatening me with bans and warnings when I disagree with you?
I didn't threaten you with anything. I once gave you advice, and once reminded you of that advice.
In another thread you continued spamming the board as you've done in near countless unrelated threads with a narrative that has exceeded the limitation for warning should you continue to turning every thread toward it.
Our code of conduct clearly states that spamming the board will not be tolerated.
Continually injecting the same off topic narrative into multiple threads has been deemed spamming by our mod team and you would not be the first to receive a warning, suspension, or banning as a result.
In this thread I simply tried to help you understand what double coverage is. And you still don't get it. Congrats on being willfully ignorant and trying to call it "opinion" when you are objectively wrong about a very simple concept.
You can't expect to login to a football forum and express a very inaccurate assessment of a play that is very quantifiable and not be corrected at times. In that regard, it may be you who should attempt to "grow up."
(10-07-2024, 09:32 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2024, 09:17 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ]And I've disagreed with you and pointed out why.
So just let it go. Stop trolling me with the same things in this thread. You're opinion is yours. Mine is mine. We disagree.
Can you just grow up and stop threatening me with bans and warnings when I disagree with you?
I didn't threaten you with anything. I once gave you advice, and once reminded you of that advice.
In another thread you continued spamming the board as you've done in near countless unrelated threads with a narrative that has exceeded the limitation for warning should you continue to turning every thread toward it.
Our code of conduct clearly states that spamming the board will not be tolerated.
Continually injecting the same off topic narrative into multiple threads has been deemed spamming by our mod team and you would not be the first to receive a warning, suspension, or banning as a result.
In this thread I simply tried to help you understand what double coverage is. And you still don't get it. Congrats on being willfully ignorant and trying to call it "opinion" when you are objectively wrong about a very simple concept.
You can't expect to login to a football forum and express a very inaccurate assessment of a play that is very quantifiable and not be corrected at times. In that regard, it may be you who should attempt to "grow up."
This fight should be taken offline. DM me. This type of trivial bull [BLEEP] has no place in this fan board.
(10-07-2024, 09:38 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2024, 08:40 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]Good:
TLaw was having fun out there. He was hitting his throws, only a few incompletions, and you could tell he was in rhythm.
Love to see big chunks in the run game. Tank is legit.
Our OLBs were getting pressure and we forced a turnover!
NO STUPID PENALTIES OR AVOIDABLE MISTAKES
Bad:
Still can't get that 4-minute offense down, not sure why this is still a thing.
D got soft late, still not sure if that is taking the pressure off, playing prevent / zone, or what, but Nielsen looked like he wanted to choke someone on that last TD
Ugly:
Gabe getting heated with TLaw and then fumbling shortly after. Enjoy your slice of humble pie, kid.
I think I kind of like Gabe holding TL's feet to the fire for making the wrong throw when he was wide open.
If these guys are able to hold each other accountable without completely losing their minds over it, that might be good in doses.
Trevor sure as hell responded on the field.
I got no problem with Gabe getting onto TLaw, but when your number is called, you can't poop the bed. That's a good way to get overlooked the next time you're open.
(10-07-2024, 09:32 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2024, 09:17 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ]And I've disagreed with you and pointed out why.
So just let it go. Stop trolling me with the same things in this thread. You're opinion is yours. Mine is mine. We disagree.
Can you just grow up and stop threatening me with bans and warnings when I disagree with you?
I didn't threaten you with anything. I once gave you advice, and once reminded you of that advice.
In another thread you continued spamming the board as you've done in near countless unrelated threads with a narrative that has exceeded the limitation for warning should you continue to turning every thread toward it.
Our code of conduct clearly states that spamming the board will not be tolerated.
Continually injecting the same off topic narrative into multiple threads has been deemed spamming by our mod team and you would not be the first to receive a warning, suspension, or banning as a result.
In this thread I simply tried to help you understand what double coverage is. And you still don't get it. Congrats on being willfully ignorant and trying to call it "opinion" when you are objectively wrong about a very simple concept.
You can't expect to login to a football forum and express a very inaccurate assessment of a play that is very quantifiable and not be corrected at times. In that regard, it may be you who should attempt to "grow up."
Y'all should take this crap to PMs and spare the rest of us already.
(10-07-2024, 09:39 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2024, 09:32 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ][..]
This fight should be taken offline. DM me. This type of trivial bull [BLEEP] has no place in this fan board.
...guess I should learn to read a thread in its entirety
