Pick 6 is squarely on Bortles IMO.

 

Didn't he say as much himself?

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

WE CLEARLY DO BECAUSE IT WORKED ON SUNDAY, AND IT WORKED WELL WHEN WE USED IT LAST YEAR. The biggest advantage is that the defense doesn't have time to regroup and plan against you. It doesn't take all world wide receivers. New Orleans and New England have had far from stellar receiving corps over the years.

You are right. You don't need world beater at wideout. You need guys who can catch and ours simply just didn't not. Blake did fine. There were at least 3 more completions and 70 yards left out there due to drops.


And as another poster stated, I think the no huddle worked because the defense was in prevent and it was a time sensitive situation. I'm not sure that would be classified as the same no huddle that Peyton or Rodgers runs routinely throughout the game.


Yes technically they were not huddling but the elements of what was happening was very different.

---

You are right. You don't need world beater at wideout. You need guys who can catch and ours simply just didn't not. Blake did fine. There were at least 3 more completions and 70 yards left out there due to drops.


And as another poster stated, I think the no huddle worked because the defense was in prevent and it was a time sensitive situation. I'm not sure that would be classified as the same no huddle that Peyton or Rodgers runs routinely throughout the game.


Yes technically they were not huddling but the elements of what was happening was very different.

Right, but why wouldn't you take advantage of an offensive approach that allows you to exploit defenses that aren't able to organize themselves properly? That's the whole point, the no huddle is a huge advantage for the offense. We need every advantage we can get.

 

I'm not saying use it all the time, that'd be dumb. But we only ever use it inside of 2 minutes right now, while the rest of the league has kind of adapted.

 

This isn't the 90s anymore. Officials call defensive holding and pass interference all the time. If you aren't throwing downfield more, or just throwing a bit more in general, at the very least you're leaving penalty yardage out there.

---

The Ace offense worked pretty well for Washington back in the day. The logic is that the second tight end reduces the need for a fullback.

 

The team does have a couple of "fullbacks" on the roster in Alualu and Gerhart.

There's your sign

---

Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny.

Right, but why wouldn't you take advantage of an offensive approach that allows you to exploit defenses that aren't able to organize themselves properly? That's the whole point, the no huddle is a huge advantage for the offense. We need every advantage we can get.


I'm not saying use it all the time, that'd be dumb. But we only ever use it inside of 2 minutes right now, while the rest of the league has kind of adapted.


This isn't the 90s anymore. Officials call defensive holding and pass interference all the time. If you aren't throwing downfield more, or just throwing a bit more in general, at the very least you're leaving penalty yardage out there.

I think you are missing the point. The reason the offense uses it inside of 2 minutes is because it is a time sensitive situation and the defense is in prevent which is allowing for more underneath passes to made. I think that is why it looks so successful; not really because of the talent but because of the time.


If these guys can't catch when they have 40 seconds to get ready between plays making it 25 to 30 seconds shorter won't help.


Another issue I see is you are assuming we will convert more passes and draw more penalties. Again, I'm not seeing these things happen in the actual allotted time they have so I have no reason to believe they will magically catch more passes or draw more penalties. We are still in baby step mode from what I've seen in week one. Maybe it will improve as the season goes on.

---

I think you are missing the point. The reason the offense uses it inside of 2 minutes is because it is a time sensitive situation and the defense is in prevent which is allowing for more underneath passes to made. I think that is why it looks so successful; not really because of the talent but because of the time.


If these guys can't catch when they have 40 seconds to get ready between plays making it 25 to 30 seconds shorter won't help.


Another issue I see is you are assuming we will convert more passes and draw more penalties. Again, I'm not seeing these things happen in the actual allotted time they have so I have no reason to believe they will magically catch more passes or draw more penalties. We are still in baby step mode from what I've seen in week one. Maybe it will improve as the season goes on.

No, i think you're missing the point. There's a reason good teams use no huddle outside of the 2 minute mark

---

And now our quarterback is pulling the "fans and media dont play so they cant criticize anything" card. An absolutely splendid start to the season.

---

No, i think you're missing the point. There's a reason good teams use no huddle outside of the 2 minute mark

 

Look at the number of receivers on the field for those no huddle plays.  What would be the point of a 3 or 2 TE set and a hurry up offense?  Hey defense you won't get tired because you are already playing 8 and 9 man fronts to take advantage of our offensive set.

---

Birth of the Franchise - November 30, 1993
Death of the Franchise - November 29, 2011

Fans deserve better. Thanks for all the good times too many are in the past.

No, i think you're missing the point. There's a reason good teams use no huddle outside of the 2 minute mark

You are right. I don't think this a good team so it makes sense why we don't use it. Using no huddle won't make us a better team. You have to already be good for it to be effective.

---

This team can barely run regular offense without too many mistakes, it takes a polished offense to run hurry up offense a lot with success. The only reason the hurry up offense looked decent is because the defense was playing prevent.

---

Like I said, the only way that there are changes beyond Bradley is if Blake completely implodes. I don't know that anyone would be back in that case.

If it's just a matter of the team being [BAD WORD REMOVED] poor again, then Bradley goes, but my guess is that they would still give the job to Marrone, because he's not gonna fire an offensive coaching staff he is completely comfortable working with.

 

The real question you have to ask yourself is this: If this year turns into a complete disaster, do you want Marrone to take over next year, or clean house so we can get a guy like Todd Haley?

 

[BAD WORD REMOVED]*AS A SIDE NOTE: Gabbert wasn't bad because of coaching changes, he just flat out wasn't good

I don't get the Marrone love. I really don't. Do you guys actually want someone who hoodwinked his old team into paying him $4 million to quit running the Jaguars?

---

Look at the number of receivers on the field for those no huddle plays.  What would be the point of a 3 or 2 TE set and a hurry up offense?  Hey defense you won't get tired because you are already playing 8 and 9 man fronts to take advantage of our offensive set.

You don't HAVE to use a 2 tight end set in no huddle

---

This team can barely run regular offense without too many mistakes, it takes a polished offense to run hurry up offense a lot with success. The only reason the hurry up offense looked decent is because the defense was playing prevent.

ARE YOU LISTENING TO THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH. When Peyton manning runs the no huddle midway into the third quarter, that's not against prevent defense.

 

It doesn't take a polished offense to run no huddle, it takes an adequate quarterback, which we hope we have.

---

I don't get the Marrone love. I really don't. Do you guys actually want someone who hoodwinked his old team into paying him $4 million to quit running the Jaguars?

Is it ideal? Not at all. I'm just saying, it's the logical conclusion to be drawn. If Caldwell is around another year, and I'm inclined to think he will be, Marrone would be a guy who would have no reason to shake up the offensive staff, since he and hackett have worked together. I still think he was consulted about the Olson hire as well. 

 

Regardless, it wouldn't be fair to a new coach to not allow him to hire his own guys. Caldwell wants continuity for Blake, and may end up having to hire a new coach if Gus is canned. Marrone would allow him to have his cake and eat it too.

---

ARE YOU LISTENING TO THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH. When Peyton manning runs the no huddle midway into the third quarter, that's not against prevent defense.

 

It doesn't take a polished offense to run no huddle, it takes an adequate quarterback, which we hope we have.

I hate to say it but you do need a polished quarterback to run no huddle. That why the first name you used was Peyton Manning. Bortles is still working on his mechanics. Garrard Is what you consider adequate and he never ran it. I hardly see Romo run no huddle and he is damn good. It takes almost an elite level of precision to effectively run a no huddle. I'm sorry you can't accept that but it is the truth. We just aren't to that level yet. 

---

ARE YOU LISTENING TO THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH. When Peyton manning runs the no huddle midway into the third quarter, that's not against prevent defense.


It doesn't take a polished offense to run no huddle, it takes an adequate quarterback, which we hope we have.

To run a no huddle offense it takes everyone being in sync, hence why i said polished offense. I said the only reason the JAGS were successful in running it is because it was against prevent.

---

To run a no huddle offense it takes everyone being in sync, hence why i said polished offense. I said the only reason the JAGS were successful in running it is because it was against prevent.

I think that's asinine

---

I hate to say it but you do need a polished quarterback to run no huddle. That why the first name you used was Peyton Manning. Bortles is still working on his mechanics. Garrard Is what you consider adequate and he never ran it. I hardly see Romo run no huddle and he is damn good. It takes almost an elite level of precision to effectively run a no huddle. I'm sorry you can't accept that but it is the truth. We just aren't to that level yet.

again, it really doesnt require that much precision (the defense has no time to adapt). Bortles says they do a LOT of no huddle in practice. Why isnt it showing up more then? There are going to be games where you have to score more than 21 points to win. Do you know how much precision is involved in 12 play, 10 minute drives?! You simply cant count soley on that type of philosophy to win you football games

---

again, it really doesnt require that much precision (the defense has no time to adapt). Bortles says they do a LOT of no huddle in practice. Why isnt it showing up more then? There are going to be games where you have to score more than 21 points to win. Do you know how much precision is involved in 12 play, 10 minute drives?! You simply cant count soley on that type of philosophy to win you football games

You can't count on an offensive philosophy that either works really, really well or results in lots of three-and-out drives and wrecks your defense.

---

If you have 3 10 minute drives, it's fair to guess that you'll end up with 21 by the end of the game, or somewhere around there. THAT's ASSUMING YOU SCORE ON ALL OF THEM. The problem with huddling all the time and milking clock is that it does you no good if you dont score. You simply leave yourself less time to work with later on (which is problematic considering how often we play from behind)

---