Every scheme has tendencies. It makes no difference if you have the personnel to pull it off. Marks out, Fowler out, Poz with one hand, Telvin out, Richard Ash was in, etc etc.
We weren't getting anything done with that squad.
Though it shows why Babich was fired and will never be a good DC. He played it safe, situational and predictable up until the end when his job was on the line.
Quote:Every scheme has tendencies. It makes no difference if you have the personnel to pull it off. Marks out, Fowler out, Poz with one hand, Telvin out, Richard Ash was in, etc etc.
We weren't getting anything done with that squad.
Though it shows why Babich was fired and will never be a good DC. He played it safe, situational and predictable up until the end when his job was on the line.
Yep. I don't have a problem that they had low percentages in some packages and high percentages in others, that's simply bound to happen with situational play calling. The problem lies in the fact that there are too many absolutes in the article. 100% or 0% isn't a tendency, but rather a confirmation to the opponent that they will or won't see certain defensive calls in certain situations. It makes an offense's reads and adjustments easier when they know for a fact you will or won't be running a particular play call on a given down.
That article was not a good look for the Jaguars defensive play calling.
Quote:Well, he did just fire the D-coordinator, so.....
Only two years too late...
Quote:Well, he did just fire the D-coordinator, so.....
ok but he failed to identify these tendencies himself throughout the season while other teams saw it... that is extremely concerning
Quote:ok but he failed to identify these tendencies himself throughout the season while other teams saw it... that is extremely concerning
That and embarrassing.
Quote:That and embarrassing.
they need to learn from this. ignoring it will not help.
All teams analyze each other's tendancies in down & distance situations. What you don't want to have happen is your team having a tendency for a specific situation be at or close to 100% or 0%. You're making the other team's job easy when you do this. Who knows whether Gus was fully or partly responsible for this, but Babich got the axe for it. Let's see how that changes things next year. If it's more of the same, I think it'll be safe to say it's on Gus and he'll likely pay the price for it.
I wonder if those tendency stats are correct because they seem fairly absurd
Quote:Yep. I don't have a problem that they had low percentages in some packages and high percentages in others, that's simply bound to happen with situational play calling. The problem lies in the fact that there are too many absolutes in the article. 100% or 0% isn't a tendency, but rather a confirmation to the opponent that they will or won't see certain defensive calls in certain situations. It makes an offense's reads and adjustments easier when they know for a fact you will or won't be running a particular play call on a given down.
That article was not a good look for the Jaguars defensive play calling.
Eh, I think a lot of this sounds great on paper.The Jaguars are 0% blitz on 3rd and short. But our base formation already stacks the box.
You then have the 100% blitz on dime and 2 LBs, with Sergio as the blitzer. That's great, but how often do we line up this formation? If we line up this formation 10 times the entire year, is this sample size really an accurate depiction of a tendency?
Furthermore, the article confirms what most Jaguar fans already knew (at least those who paid attention): our tendencies changed later in the year when our pass rush just couldn't hit.
I wonder is it the head coach's responsibility to calculate other teams' tendancies, the coordinators', or is some branch of the analytics department responsible for it? Seems like it would take up a lot of a coach's or coordinator's time to do this but if an analytics department is handling it they'd need to have a firm grasp of play calling and what they are looking at on tape.
Quote:Gus getting punked by BoB, lol. Man, talk about rock bottom.
Freaking embarrassing. Lets give the man a extension.
It's information like this that definitely separates good coaches from bad coaches.
Studying film and identifying the opponents tendencies is critical.
I disagree with the posters who are commenting that it is the lack of talent on the defense solely as the issue. The tendencies create much more weaknesses that even the best players can't overcome. I think great coaches can make average players have great production in their schemes. Bad coaching takes those same average players and make them look worse for it. I think there is a balance to it though, our scheme would look much better with key players at certain positions. However there has to be fault within the scheme if said players are rare for that position. Seattle D with Kam/Earl is a world away from what we run with Cyp/Evans. Does that mean we should be drafting safeties in the first until our scheme works? No, only QB/Pass rushers should be that instrumental in the modern NFL.
My perception is that the scheme and playcalling we rely on defensively is a liability more than the lack of talent.
Quote:Eh, I think a lot of this sounds great on paper.The Jaguars are 0% blitz on 3rd and short. But our base formation already stacks the box.
You then have the 100% blitz on dime and 2 LBs, with Sergio as the blitzer. That's great, but how often do we line up this formation? If we line up this formation 10 times the entire year, is this sample size really an accurate depiction of a tendency?
Furthermore, the article confirms what most Jaguar fans already knew (at least those who paid attention): our tendencies changed later in the year when our pass rush just couldn't hit.
The 0% blitz on 3rd and short isn't a big deal considering that running plays and short passes are likely. My complaints weren't really about that specific instance. The 0% on 3rd and 12+ is a problem for multiple reasons. One they should have been able to be certain that a four man rush would come in that situation. The other is why haven't we run a single blitz all season in the most obvious of passing situations?
To your second point, odds are high that it is an infrequent play in our defense, but that still doesn't excuse the lack of effort put into differentiating the play on our side. If it was something along the lines of 75% of the time we blitz out of the package, I wouldn't really mind. Even if it was 100% of the we blitz, but there is no discernible pattern on who or how many blitzers there are, it wouldn't be that big of a deal either.
The problem lies in the fact that an opponent was able to determine that if Sergio is simply in the game while we are in dime and have two LBs, not only will we blitz, but there will be multiple blitzers and one of them is guaranteed to be Sergio. Part of using a blitz is to confuse the offensive linemen on who is coming, so they are not able to slide their protections to account for the additional pass rushers. If they are aware that if this formation comes up during the game that they will have to cover for two additional rushers and one is always Sergio, it makes the blitz much more ineffective.
Quote:I disagree with the posters who are commenting that it is the lack of talent on the defense solely as the issue. The tendencies create much more weaknesses that even the best players can't overcome. I think great coaches can make average players have great production in their schemes. Bad coaching takes those same average players and make them look worse for it. I think there is a balance to it though, our scheme would look much better with key players at certain positions. However there has to be fault within the scheme if said players are rare for that position. Seattle D with Kam/Earl is a world away from what we run with Cyp/Evans. Does that mean we should be drafting safeties in the first until our scheme works? No, only QB/Pass rushers should be that instrumental in the modern NFL.
My perception is that the scheme and playcalling we rely on defensively is a liability more than the lack of talent.
I completely agree !!
Quote:The 0% blitz on 3rd and short isn't a big deal considering that running plays and short passes are likely. My complaints weren't really about that specific instance. The 0% on 3rd and 12+ is a problem for multiple reasons. One they should have been able to be certain that a four man rush would come in that situation. The other is why haven't we run a single blitz all season in the most obvious of passing situations?
To your second point, odds are high that it is an infrequent play in our defense, but that still doesn't excuse the lack of effort put into differentiating the play on our side. If it was something along the lines of 75% of the time we blitz out of the package, I wouldn't really mind. Even if it was 100% of the we blitz, but there is no discernible pattern on who or how many blitzers there are, it wouldn't be that big of a deal either.
The problem lies in the fact that an opponent was able to determine that if Sergio is simply in the game while we are in dime and have two LBs, not only will we blitz, but there will be multiple blitzers and one of them is guaranteed to be Sergio. Part of using a blitz is to confuse the offensive linemen on who is coming, so they are not able to slide their protections to account for the additional pass rushers. If they are aware that if this formation comes up during the game that they will have to cover for two additional rushers and one is always Sergio, it makes the blitz much more ineffective.
But that's the thing though (and my point really), these are hollow stats without knowing the context. The 3rd and short no blitz, as we agree, not a big deal. The box is already stacked.
Now, the 3rd and 12+ being a zero %? I think that's not a surprise to most Jags fan given our difficulties in 3rd and long. Now, the article comments that our tendencies changed since we last played them, and that the 3rd and "medium" is 70%.
Well, what's our success rate out of that 70% that we blitz on 3rd and medium? On the success, how much did they gain? Its always a risk and reward for the defense when you blitz, and when the offense needs 12 yards, its certainly a big risk if you blitz and don't get home.
Furthermore...looking at the play by play from the game...the Jaguars had the Texans 3rd and 12+ four times in the game. The Texans went 0 for four on those downs. There was one play that they gained 55 yards (which I can't find a video off and don't recall by memory so i can't analyze), but it was apparently called back for illegal shift.
It came on a short pass to the RB.
Well, guess what's susceptible to short passes to RBs?
A blitz.
We get it, Babich sucks, Gus sucks... So even If we had talent on defense our tendencies put us at a disadvantage anyway because we never or seldom changed it up. Sounds like a coach worth keeping.
Bobblehead Gus' defensive gameplan is "go out there today and compete and get better man! This is an opportoony for you to demonstrate your spirit man! Isn't this amazing man? This is Jay-gwires football man!"
Quote:Take look on the website. The article goes through the Texans preparing for the week 17 game and going through our tendencies.
Paraphrasing but the Texans recognised that our blitz % on 3rd and short was 0%.
They also realised that we are almost 100% pressure when we go to dime and an odd number of linemen.
Other tidbits include this which makes a lot of sense.
"The Texans think they’ve found a weakness in the Jaguars’ blitz zone, in which the defenders pass the receivers off instead of matching up"
All of this info led O Brien to remark "They got some real tendencies here huh"
I just found it very interesting as it kinda shows how simple our D was this year and how teams would look at it when gameplanning .
I don't think this is any big surprise to any of us who watched the defense all season long, especially on 3rd and anything.
It happened game after game after game by all kinds of QBs.
Quote:Take look on the website. The article goes through the Texans preparing for the week 17 game and going through our tendencies.
Paraphrasing but the Texans recognised that our blitz % on 3rd and short was 0%.
They also realised that we are almost 100% pressure when we go to dime and an odd number of linemen.
Other tidbits include this which makes a lot of sense.
"The Texans think they’ve found a weakness in the Jaguars’ blitz zone, in which the defenders pass the receivers off instead of matching up"
All of this info led O Brien to remark "They got some real tendencies here huh"
I just found it very interesting as it kinda shows how simple our D was this year and how teams would look at it when gameplanning .
That doesn't mean it's "simple." It means it's predictable.
Those are two very different things.