(12-26-2017, 07:41 AM)SeldomRite Wrote:

(12-26-2017, 07:28 AM)Bullseye Wrote: Taking this at face value, while fascinating, I don't think a run or pass on the first play of the game, standing alone, determines the winner or loser of a game.

It's much more telling that Bortles has had better games when Fournette isn't in the lineup. The coaching staff clearly has a game plan for when Fournette is available and when he's not. Unfortunately the one they use when he's available is outdated as he's not the player he was for the first few games.

Building a game plan around hoping a plodding, injured running back can get four yards against a stacked box on first down is a bad plan.

1.  Is it the game plan when Fournette is available or when he is available and healthy?  I remember we beat the Steelers Texans and Ravens when Fournette was healthy.

2.  If you allege we can't get 4 yards a carry against a stacked box, I could agree with this sentiment.  But if Fournette were still capable of getting 4 ypc consistently against a stacked box, I'm not sure if that's a bad plan.  However, it is important to have balance offensively.

I want to emphasize, though, I do not refer to mere numerical balance between run and pass. While important, there has to also be appropriate balance between short, intermediate and long passes. If we have the same number of runs and passes, but all of the passes are short, we become as much of a negative offensive caricature as we would if we ran the ball non stop. At the end of the day, we'd end up running into a stacked box, and the effectiveness of the run is diminished, as well as the rest of the passing game. We have to be able to threaten downfield and give the secondary reason to respect the deep pass. That would open things up in the running game and passing game.

---