(09-10-2018, 08:12 PM)The_Franchise_QB Wrote:

(09-10-2018, 07:44 PM)JagJohn Wrote: This might be wishful thinking but I suspect the jags deliberately played with somewhat of a limited playbook against the Giants, especially in the second half when LF being out seemed to make us go more conservative and limited the 2 back packages we saw in the preseason. I'm hoping they've kept a few things up their sleeves for the pats. Kinda reminds me of how different the playbook was for the Steelers playoff game than the Bills one.

Sandbagging in the reg season? I would be very disappointed if this was the case. This is the NFL, not college, any team can win each week. If you don't come prepared, you are going to lose. If they used a limited playbook in anticipation for a week 2 matchup against the Pats, then this is the wrong coaching staff to have. In this league, you can NEVER EVER look ahead to opponents. You focus week by week. 

I don't think that's the case though. If they want to use 2 RB packages in the future then it's almost mandatory to have a 4th RB on the team. Once 4nette went down I don't think they wanted to use both healthy RBs on the field at same time in case of injury. If a running teams playbook all of a sudden gets shortened due to a injury to ONE RB, then they don't have enough. I was very confused why this team didn't keep 4 rb's. Don't need 6 wide outs when you aren't even going to throw down field.

Both Fournette and Marrone said that he could have gone back into the game and that holding him out was just precautionary. Why would they do that unless they valued the next game more than the current one and were looking ahead? Can you imagine the kickback if you make a precautionary decision and you lose? All games at this point of the season are important.

The only other explanation I can think of is that Fournette's injury is a little more serious than they want to let on.

IDK. I just thought that holding out a supposedly healthy enough Fournette was odd.

---