(05-06-2018, 07:59 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(05-06-2018, 04:33 PM)Jags02 Wrote: I don't fault the plan because the same plan was working just fine the first half.

I see a lot of this being about Fournette. When you watch him on tape even back in HS an especially in college, you see a guy that breaks games open, and watching him that first half it looked like he was about to do as much. The game plan to keep running the ball should have worked great, but somehow the Pats adjusted and clamped down on the Jaguars ability to create holes for Fournette. Instead of breaking the game open, Fournette was shut down. Were they too persistent? Should they have changed up sooner? It's easy to say as much in retrospect. Certainly to give themselves a chance to win they needed to recognize what the Pats were doing the second half way earlier, but that recognition never happened.

The hope is this year that presented with the same situation, having Linder and Norwell playing side-by-side will make the difference preventing the Patiots run game adjustments from working. 

But they changed the plan. 
It was not the same plan in the second half. 
They all but abandoned that 3 wide set with Grant and Fournette both in the backfield (or Grant lined up in the slot when they were in bunch formation -  that was nifty)
THAT ^ plan was working and working well. The Pats didn't adjust to it. The Jags quit running it. 

They went to a more predictable and less multiple run look with LF27 the primary option to key on -  and that's when the pats began stopping the run.  Fournette had a run for 7 yards and a run for 14 yards in the second half. His other 7 touches in the second half produced a grand total of 5 yards. That shift to a more predictable/conservative run game by the offense was a mistake in my opinion. It gave the pats fewer weapons to defend and they defended them well.

---

Without quoting all of the responses to my prior post - yes - I am aware of the officiating stuff. Of course it prevented a win as well. 

I am simply asserting that the Jags may have even overcome that had the offensive play-calling not shifted as it did - (and of course -  had the defense not whiffed on that 3rd and long.)

ANyway - as I mentioned earlier -  I think the consortium at the top will recognize this and implement some change regarding predictability in the run game.  That is my hope anyway.  

 It would be wonderful to run the ball down every opponents throat at will, but some teams will be effective defending that approach and the Jags will need to keep other avenues open IMO. 

There are a number of things that could have changed the outcome of that game, this run game shift in the second half is just the one that bugs me the most. Because they could have achieved victory in spite of everything else that went wrong had they stayed aggressive and unpredictable with the run game.

Yup, the 1st half and 2nd half game plans on Offense were nothing alike. Hell, I don't even think they put Grant on the field in the 2nd half and the Pats had no answer for him in the 1st half. Even if they had no intention on giving Grant the ball in the 2nd half, you got to at least put him out there as a possible threat/distraction. Because you know he had to have been in the Pats' heads at that point, even if it was just a little bit.

---