The issues were many under Bradley - but one clear problem was that Gus and Olson knew they had to dumb things down for Bortles a bit.
But they took it about 17 steps too far.
When Olson was booted, Hackett was still running Olson's playbook and still working under Gus. Once Gus was finally gone - you saw Marrone and Hackett change the way in which they attempted to mitigate Blake's mistakes, and change the way that they game-planned for an opponent - and it suddenly looked like a different offense.

Now imagine those changes combined with a new playbook designed to incorporate a power run game, a more disciplined and prepared roster of players, and a head coach that knows how to game-plan for individual opponents' weaknesses.

This is going to be a very different offense.

---

The issues were many under Bradley -  but one clear problem was that Gus and Olson knew they had to dumb things down for Bortles a bit.
But they took it about 17 steps too far.
When Olson was booted, Hackett was still running Olson's playbook and still working under Gus.  Once Gus was finally gone - you saw Marrone and Hackett change the way in which they attempted to mitigate Blake's mistakes, and change the way that they game-planned for an opponent  - and it suddenly looked like a different offense.  

Now imagine those changes combined with a new playbook designed to incorporate a power run game, a more disciplined and prepared roster of players, and a head coach that knows how to game-plan for individual opponents' weaknesses.

This is going to be a very different offense.

According to the article there were no changes to the 2WR = run, 3WR = pass giveaway the last two weeks without Gus. And no changes to the defense either.

I had hoped that getting rid of Gus would solve our problem, but if the non-Gus coaching still can't recognize that they are giving away their play selection by the personnel they use then there is still a real concern this season.

---

                                                                          

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

This didnt just start with Gus, it's been around for a long time...JDR played that soft zone crap "Bend but don't break" [BLEEP]...JDR also wanted to be a run first team...He wanted double chin strap smash mouth football...I remember he said (no I'm not gonna look it up) I don't care if they stack the box with 8 guys, we are going to run the ball and then 3 yards and a cloud of dust

---

Did you read the article? It's not just about throwing too much, it's about how the Jaguars made it obvious what they were going to do in critical situations. When the defense has great certainty you'll pass just by your personnel on the field it makes the pass much harder to complete. Same for running.

And that doesn't even mention how the defense couldn't hold a lead and turned terrible playing from ahead. I think the defense last year was not nearly as good as their yardage ranking suggested.

My point is that you gave the Jags offense too much credit 

I'm going to use everyone's favorite benchmark offense run by Tom Brady - Who for the most part runs the same offense every year - Rex Ryan was really the first guy to attack Brady the right way - Send 4 upfront and try to clog up the shorter zones creating a lot of traffic and clutter. Pass to Run Ratio is typically favored to the pass.. so the PAtriots decided they needed to stretch the field more and signed Hogan/Mitchell who does just that, stretch out the field to counter the cluttered short zones that Brady thrives on. You know exactly how Brady is going to attack. He's just better than you. 

In Marrone's case, he tries to highlight what Bortles does well, Improvise - but he needs lots of space because he's not a quick release, spin the ball through a tight window kind of guy. For Bortles to be successful - The Don Coryell Offense is kind of the ideal option for what Bortles does well and that's the brilliance of Hacket and Marrone I believe to give them some credit. They are going to try and emphasize exactly that - not focus on what Bortles can't do but emphasize what he can. Outside of getting a better QB. 

Trust me if you go back through my posts, I've been less than thrilled with the coaching staff being retained. I would have cleaned house entirely. This is not to say your concern is not a valid one. There is absolutely something to it. I can't imagine Coughlin, being the way he is, would be okay with the same offense being run. 

When Hackett took over, the team was far out of contention, you really don't want to start changing philosophy mid season
- it's bad development, it would have been disasterous. You figure in a lot of ways, this is Hacketts year to create a name for himself in the pro's since the last time he was an OC was at Syracuse, and install his personal flare on an NFL offense.

+1 for the post but wasn't Hackett the Bills OC pretty recently?

---

Coach of anonymous Jaguars opponent in 2016 speaking to his team during the week prior to the game: "Alright guys, now we're going to go over what tendencies the Jaguars have when they're up in the 2nd half."

Opposing team's players: "Bahahahahahahahaha"

---

They threw all the time because they couldn't pick up more than a yard running it.

---

Pathetic beyond belief.  WOw

---

I still remember when they ran Gerhart 4 times in a row on the goaline. That was just an epic fail.

---

As someone mentioned earlier about the sample size, it's not great. The games that there was a significant sample in (Colts, Texans, Titans, Colts) we were 2-2 in. All the other games we either never had a lead in the 2nd half or if we did we either never ran an offensive snap with the lead because the opponent immediately scored after us or if we did stop them and got another possession with the lead we only ran 3 to 6 offensive snaps before giving up the lead again. It's not a flattering stat, but looking at it by itself is very misleading.

EDIT: And 2 of those games with a significant sample were coached by Marrone during the last 2 weeks. FWIW

---

The issues were many under Bradley -  but one clear problem was that Gus and Olson knew they had to dumb things down for Bortles a bit.
But they took it about 17 steps too far.
When Olson was booted, Hackett was still running Olson's playbook and still working under Gus.  Once Gus was finally gone - you saw Marrone and Hackett change the way in which they attempted to mitigate Blake's mistakes, and change the way that they game-planned for an opponent  - and it suddenly looked like a different offense.  

Now imagine those changes combined with a new playbook designed to incorporate a power run game, a more disciplined and prepared roster of players, and a head coach that knows how to game-plan for individual opponents' weaknesses.

This is going to be a very different offense.

According to the article there were no changes to the 2WR = run, 3WR = pass giveaway the last two weeks without Gus. And no changes to the defense either.

I had hoped that getting rid of Gus would solve our problem, but if the non-Gus coaching still can't recognize that they are giving away their play selection by the personnel they use then there is still a real concern this season.

If you even passively watched the final two games, it was clear that Hackett changed the approach of the offense a fair amount --  even if he still had Olson's play-book and was "predictable in the second half with a lead" strictly in terms of passing or running out of a personnel grouping. 
He was smarter about how he used those personnel groupings even if you saw the run or pass coming. The pass plays he did call (regardless of formation) were able to milk more production from Bortles while mitigating his mistakes. They moved AR15 around in the formation to create more mismatches and they utilized the TE underneath more often. The spark generated in the run game by clever use of Grant situationally should also not be ignored as something different from Hackett post-Gus.

Anyway -- I don't see any of these "stats" as any indication of what we'll see from Hackett and Wash in 2017. And that's all that matters to me now. 

2016 is long gone and I'm happy to leave it behind.

---

According to the article there were no changes to the 2WR = run, 3WR = pass giveaway the last two weeks without Gus. And no changes to the defense either.

I had hoped that getting rid of Gus would solve our problem, but if the non-Gus coaching still can't recognize that they are giving away their play selection by the personnel they use then there is still a real concern this season.

If you even passively watched the final two games, it was clear that Hackett changed the approach of the offense a fair amount --  even if he still had Olson's play-book and was "predictable in the second half with a lead" strictly in terms of passing or running out of a personnel grouping. 
He was smarter about how he used those personnel groupings even if you saw the run or pass coming. The pass plays he did call (regardless of formation) were able to milk more production from Bortles while mitigating his mistakes. They moved AR15 around in the formation to create more mismatches and they utilized the TE underneath more often. The spark generated in the run game by clever use of Grant situationally should also not be ignored as something different from Hackett post-Gus.

Anyway -- I don't see any of these "stats" as any indication of what we'll see from Hackett and Wash in 2017. And that's all that matters to me now. 

2016 is long gone and I'm happy to leave it behind.

There were myriad questionable coaching issues last year. It seems like over the final two weeks, the remaining staff was at least aware of a handful and took steps towards addressing them. 

I have no clue for sure, but I'm skeptical they could change that much in week 15 even if they wanted to. They probably picked a few of the biggest issues to concentrate on and went to work.

---

If you even passively watched the final two games, it was clear that Hackett changed the approach of the offense a fair amount --  even if he still had Olson's play-book and was "predictable in the second half with a lead" strictly in terms of passing or running out of a personnel grouping. 
He was smarter about how he used those personnel groupings even if you saw the run or pass coming. The pass plays he did call (regardless of formation) were able to milk more production from Bortles while mitigating his mistakes. They moved AR15 around in the formation to create more mismatches and they utilized the TE underneath more often. The spark generated in the run game by clever use of Grant situationally should also not be ignored as something different from Hackett post-Gus.

Anyway -- I don't see any of these "stats" as any indication of what we'll see from Hackett and Wash in 2017. And that's all that matters to me now. 

2016 is long gone and I'm happy to leave it behind.

There were myriad questionable coaching issues last year. It seems like over the final two weeks, the remaining staff was at least aware of a handful and took steps towards addressing them. 

I have no clue for sure, but I'm skeptical they could change that much in week 15 even if they wanted to. They probably picked a few of the biggest issues to concentrate on and went to work.

Issue #1 - ping pong tables are for winners
Issue #2 - Ice cream is for winners
Issue #3 - veteran's day off is for winners

See you in the offseason.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato