Only an absolute buffoon would think McCray is a quality corner and should be starting for this team.

 

Oh, wait...

 

 

While I generally agree... my experience is that there are also far too many of these examples where there's little or no justification of what he's saying.  Particularly when shown evidence explicitly stating otherwise.

 

That's not debate.  That's just being unwilling to admit you have predisposed feelings that prevent you from acknowledging there's pretty strong objective evidence disproving what you believe.

 

Clinging to McCray, who isn't even a starter and who knows how long he'll last on the roster going forward, raises high question of judgment.  That's closer to my assessment than not.

 

You have stated no facts to back up your argument and you call me out for lack of justification? You base your argument on the expertise of Bob Babich. Besides the McCray decision and DC'ing so poorly that his best friend fired him, he also kept Ryan Davis (6.5 sacks in 2014) out of the defense in spite of a desperate need for pressure on the QB. "He was too valuable on special teams." You keep defending Babich, and I'll defend McCray. I think my position is stronger.


 

McCray hardly played last year, but played extremely well in 2014. PFF ratings for him in 2014 were very high, but besides that I saw the same thing with my own eyes, as did most other posters on this board.


 

You used the typical strawman tactic of arguing against something I didn't say. I never said McCray should start. I said Gratz shouldn't have been played ahead of him. But Gratz wasn't a starter. Frankly, I have no idea why McCray was in the doghouse all of last year, but I'm willing to consider that he may have slacked off. Nonetheless in the few instances I did see him play in 2015 he was better than Gratz. And he was certainly WAY better than Gratz when they both defended Dez Bryant in 2014.


 

 

But keep insulting people with no facts to back up your insults. Some day you'll be even better than FBT.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

So we have poor coverage guys and you want to bring guys out of coverage to blitz? And you want to know if I watch football? We brought in how many DB's this year? Thay should tell you something. Although I'm not surprised that someone who thinks we were just fine on D Bradley's second year wouldn't see that.

 

Our coverage guys weren't very good, especially the safeties and the #3 CB.


 

But that doesn't mean he's wrong about blitzing. I once again bring up the first tinhorns game, where Hoyer was never able to handle the blitz, but nonetheless was successful because he was frequently given just a four-man rush on passing downs.


 

One has to pick the right times to blitz, and a lot of that depends on the opposition. With a running QB like Mariota, it's better to emphasize contain. In the case of Hoyer, he should have been blitzed every 2nd or 3rd and long. Also blitzing was called for against the clots in the first game when their OL was still in shambles, and against Rookie Winston. But the Jags didn't step up their blitzing until after the bye.

 

And there can be other reasons to blitz. Against New England blitzing wouldn't have helped, but the Jags should have blitzed seven or more every play in the 4th quarter. They should have hit Brady and made him pay for passing with a big lead. You need to stand up to bullies.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

While I generally agree... my experience is that there are also far too many of these examples where there's little or no justification of what he's saying.  Particularly when shown evidence explicitly stating otherwise.

 

That's not debate.  That's just being unwilling to admit you have predisposed feelings that prevent you from acknowledging there's pretty strong objective evidence disproving what you believe.

 

Clinging to McCray, who isn't even a starter and who knows how long he'll last on the roster going forward, raises high question of judgment.  That's closer to my assessment than not.

 

 

All he's really saying is that McCray is clearly better than Gratz. Do you actually disagree with that?

---

'02

Our coverage guys weren't very good, especially the safeties and the #3 CB.


 

But that doesn't mean he's wrong about blitzing. I once again bring up the first tinhorns game, where Hoyer was never able to handle the blitz, but nonetheless was successful because he was frequently given just a four-man rush on passing downs.


 

One has to pick the right times to blitz, and a lot of that depends on the opposition. With a running QB like Mariota, it's better to emphasize contain. In the case of Hoyer, he should have been blitzed every 2nd or 3rd and long. Also blitzing was called for against the clots in the first game when their OL was still in shambles, and against Rookie Winston. But the Jags didn't step up their blitzing until after the bye.

 

And there can be other reasons to blitz. Against New England blitzing wouldn't have helped, but the Jags should have blitzed seven or more every play in the 4th quarter. They should have hit Brady and made him pay for passing with a big lead. You need to stand up to bullies.

 

 

I don't know. Brady is one of those QBs, much like Brunell was, that loves it when teams blitz. There have been examples of teams getting to him and stopping him, but usually when a team blitzes, he's the one capitalizing.

---

'02

I don't know. Brady is one of those QBs, much like Brunell was, that loves it when teams blitz. There have been examples of teams getting to him and stopping him, but usually when a team blitzes, he's the one capitalizing.

 

Oh I agree it would probably result in a big play or two, but at that point the game was already lost. The idea is to hit him, and hit him hard. There's no excuse for the Pats running up the score and risking an injury to Brady, and the Jags coaching staff should not have allowed them to do so risk free.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Our coverage guys weren't very good, especially the safeties and the #3 CB.


 

But that doesn't mean he's wrong about blitzing. I once again bring up the first tinhorns game, where Hoyer was never able to handle the blitz, but nonetheless was successful because he was frequently given just a four-man rush on passing downs.


 

One has to pick the right times to blitz, and a lot of that depends on the opposition. With a running QB like Mariota, it's better to emphasize contain. In the case of Hoyer, he should have been blitzed every 2nd or 3rd and long. Also blitzing was called for against the clots in the first game when their OL was still in shambles, and against Rookie Winston. But the Jags didn't step up their blitzing until after the bye.

 

And there can be other reasons to blitz. Against New England blitzing wouldn't have helped, but the Jags should have blitzed seven or more every play in the 4th quarter. They should have hit Brady and made him pay for passing with a big lead. You need to stand up to bullies.

 

"They should have hit Brady and made him pay for passing with a big lead. You need to stand up to bullies"

 

I would think you should know by now that Gus just isn't that type of HC.

 

They are out there, but Gus just isn't one of them.

---

I survived the Gus Bradley Error.

1. Our cover guys last year were not good at all, outside of House. Might they have been better with more pressure? Yes, but I'd say there is a reason the team brought in three high profile DBs in Amukumara, Ramsey and Gipson.


2. You DO realize that in order to successfully run that defense Lebeau ran in Pittsburgh for all of those years, this team would need the right personnel, don't you?. You'd need the stud NT-the Casey Hampton or Joel Steed type. We don't have that. You'd also need the stud OLB-the Greg Lloyd, Kevin Green, Jason Gildon, Joey Porter, Chad Brown, and James Harrison type guys outside, as well as the stud ILBs. We don't have nearly enough of either type to have run it successfully. Also know that traditionally, the Steelers under Lebeau always had a stud CB and a stud S to help run that scheme (Woodson, Lake, Polamalu). We don't have those guys here, either. The Steelers have been drafting 3-4 personnel since the 1980s. Had we tried running that scheme here, it would have been a recipe for disaster.

I agree our secondary wasnt great but it wasnt the worst either...You dont need probowl players or hall of fame talent to blitz and create pressure! Because thats really what its about...And you will never know if we indeed had the personnel to do it unless you try.. Something Gus or Babich staff rarely accomplish.. Creating pressure and covering guys play hand in hand..I believe we had talent in the secondary but lack of pressure consistently made those guys look bad..

---

"They should have hit Brady and made him pay for passing with a big lead. You need to stand up to bullies"

 

I would think you should know by now that Gus just isn't that type of HC.

 

They are out there, but Gus just isn't one of them.

 

Probably was too busy thinking about how to arrange the guys placemats for the postgame ice cream party, or maybe the order of scoops he should use for everyone's cone, or who deserved extra extra sprinkles rather than just the normal extra sprinkles everyone gets for participating.

---

Damn those ice cream jokes just never get old. So clever and original.

---