(09-10-2024, 11:56 PM)cland Wrote:

(09-10-2024, 10:56 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: The chart yesterday was some rando Tweet of some vaguely named stat about "neutral passing" that you likely never heard of either.

As for this chart, as I showed earlier, the early down runs after the fumble worked fine (except the last drive when the "drive starter" failed), once again this team couldn't run for the 1 yard conversion, and had Lawrence thrown the ball on 3rd or 4th an 1 you two would be losing your [BLEEP] over the play call then too. Never mind that he threw a perfect pass on 3rd and 5 that Kirk dropped. And you two looking at this chart and see the 49rs and Jags in the same place on it should really give you some pause about what they were doing in the second half. The game plan took them to the 2 yard line for a 3 score lead with 4 minutes left in the 3rd. The only thing that went wrong was that ETN didn't score. Had he done so there's no Hill 80 yarder and it's likely that their defense deflates and the Jags walk out with a win. Frankly if we're in that situation 10 times 9 of them end up a Jags win, and if I had to bet $10k on the Jags to win starting over from that ETN carry I'd do it every time. [BLEEP] happens, it's how the ball bounces sometimes and the Jags [BLEEP] the bed this time around.

The 49ers beat the Jets 32-19, had a 26-7 lead in the middle of the third quarter, and they scored 16pts in the 2nd half.  There's nothing wrong with burning clock by running.  

The issue is that the Jags didn't adjust once their lead dwindled to 3 points. Their next offensive drive Pederson made an insane call to go for it on fourth deep in their own territory - running it (unsuccessfully) 4 times in a row.  The criticism is that they didn't let Trevor Lawrence take the game over on that drive.

The Jaguars should've had a 24-7 lead on the fish near the end of the 3rd quarter, so criticism of the second half plays that happened before that time are unfounded, the game plan was working fine.

After that time (14 point swing) the running game that you're talking about produced 9 yards on the ground then failed to convert the 1 yard twice. They went for it on 4th and 1(!) yet the chart says "conservative" and people are [BLEEP] about the play call...because they ran it with 1 yard to go? I would've punted, but Pederson went for it as he is wont to do and in the grand scheme it didn't hurt them. Last year people [BLEEP] at length about them passing in short yardage and the run game was working against the fish; not calling a run would've been dumb. The players failed to convert the call twice. Did these people [BLEEP] about the Full House Sweep against the bolts in the playoffs that won the game? No, because it worked. They're [BLEEP] about the calls now, not because of the calls, but because they didn't work. It's lazy.

Next series, the run game produced a first down (ETN for 11), then 5 more yards and Trevor "took control" and...Kirk dropped an easy conversion to kill the drive. Conservative? No, "effective" is the right word had the player not dropped the ball. 

Last drive, 1 run 2 passes that got him sacked?  

So basically everyone is up in arms about play calling when none of the passes were effective because of player failure and half of the runs were situational while the others were actually effective. They had the right plan, the players lost the momentum and a huge lead, the other team took it and ended up winning. [BLEEP] happens, players need to execute in the big moments.

---