Thanks. Looks like more miscommunication. Hopefully we get that cleared up this week.

 

 

I think that's the good news to take from the big plays. They all seemed to come on massive miscommunication, which should be fixed pretty easily.

 

Yep. Miscommunication. Boy did we miss Cyprien out there. 

 

Imagine those two plays taken away and the two FGs added.  It would have been 23-17 Jags with 7 to go in the 4th quarter.  I hope they can iron that stuff out this week. 

---

In this one (play action)  Henne gets sacked when Bradfield can't decide to stick with his assignment or pick up the blitzing LB. Both of them come free and Gerhart blocks one - but can't get both.  Sack. 



 

 

---

Yep. Miscommunication. Boy did we miss Cyprien out there. 

 

Imagine those two plays taken away and the two FGs added.  It would have been 23-17 Jags with 7 to go in the 4th quarter.  I hope they can iron that stuff out this week. 

 

The breaks mostly when in the Jaguars favor. We can imagine if things had gone even more in our favor, but the Jaguars got such a handicap from the Eagles that any decent team should have won that game.

 

Of course I do believe if Bortles had played it's more likely that the Jaguars would have won that game because Bortles would have made a few breaks in the second half go the Jaguars way on offense when Henne was letting the game slip away.

---

The breaks mostly when in the Jaguars favor.

Which breaks were those?   The Jags executed well until they didn't.  What big breaks did the Eagles hand to the Jags? 

 

My post was a very obvious "coulda', shoulda' , woulda'" scenario and it's obvious who the better team was, but I don't remember any big lucky breaks. The Jags were playing sound football and winning. 

 

Hurns beat his guy.  Twice.  Is that a lucky break? 

---

Of course I do believe if Bortles had played it's more likely that the Jaguars would have won that game because Bortles would have made a few breaks in the second half go the Jaguars way on offense when Henne was letting the game slip away.

 

Take it to one of the Henne threads.

---

Which breaks were those?   The Jags executed well until they didn't.  What big breaks did the Eagles hand to the Jags? 

 

My post was a very obvious "coulda', shoulda' , woulda'" scenario and it's obvious who the better team was, but I don't remember any big lucky breaks. The Jags were playing sound football and winning. 

 

Hurns beat his guy.  Twice.  Is that a lucky break? 

 

Foles held the ball too long on multiple plays, Hurns made fantastic adjustments on bad throws for both TDs (something we haven't seen much of around here) Gerhart didn't get his ACL torn by Cox horse-collaring him. The Jaguars got three turnovers, the Jaguars got multiple sacks.

 

You can say they're not breaks, but when a team of the Jaguars quality gets those kinds of things against a much better team with (seemingly) much better coaching, I call those breaks.

---

Foles held the ball too long on multiple plays, Hurns made fantastic adjustments on bad throws for both TDs (something we haven't seen much of around here) Gerhart didn't get his ACL torn by Cox horse-collaring him. The Jaguars got three turnovers, the Jaguars got multiple sacks.

 

You can say they're not breaks, but when a team of the Jaguars quality gets those kinds of things against a much better team with (seemingly) much better coaching, I call those breaks.

Foles held the ball because the secondary covered well. The sacks and turnovers were not breaks IMO.  They were a product of the defensive scheme functioning as it was designed.  

---

Foles held the ball because the secondary covered well. The sacks and turnovers were not breaks IMO.  They were a product of the defensive scheme functioning as it was designed.  

 

If it had continued all game I'd agree. As it happened after midway through the second quarter the "functioning" degraded and in the second half the "functioning" stopped altogether.

 

I'm not saying the Jaguars didn't do a good job, but you don't jump out to 17-0 in first 20 minutes of a game against a superior opponent without some breaks.

---

If it had continued all game I'd agree. As it happened after midway through the second quarter the "functioning" degraded and in the second half the "functioning" stopped altogether.


I'm not saying the Jaguars didn't do a good job, but you don't jump out to 17-0 in first 20 minutes of a game against a superior opponent without some breaks.

What's your point? You don't win games in the NFL without having a few things go your way. The Jags caught some breaks early and the Eagles caught breaks later in the game.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

Turnovers aren't breaks when they are forced.  When a QB lobs one right to a LB or safety he didn't see underneath - that's a break. 

 

Forced fumbles are defensive execution.  Yes, they could not continue to execute at that pace.  That has zero to do with luck. 

 

They outplayed the eagles - couldn't continue to do so and threw in 3 or 4 idiot mistakes for good measure. They deserved to lose - but I saw no luck in the first half  - just quality play by the Jags. 

---

Turnovers aren't breaks when they are forced.  When a QB lobs one right to a LB or safety he didn't see underneath - that's a break. 

 

Forced fumbles are defensive execution.  Yes, they could not continue to execute at that pace.  That has zero to do with luck. 

 

They outplayed the eagles - couldn't continue to do so and threw in 3 or 4 idiot mistakes for good measure. They deserved to lose - but I saw no luck in the first half  - just quality play by the Jags. 

 

We're not going to agree on this, because what I call catching a break you call skilled play.

 

Sometimes it is just having the better player, but in the case of the Jaguars in the first half, I think it was more about the Eagles not playing well than the Jaguars being good.

 

That said, I still think the Jaguars could have won the game if Bortles had been the starter.

---

If it had continued all game I'd agree. As it happened after midway through the second quarter the "functioning" degraded and in the second half the "functioning" stopped altogether.

 

I'm not saying the Jaguars didn't do a good job, but you don't jump out to 17-0 in first 20 minutes of a game against a superior opponent without some breaks.

So you were expecting the Eagles to turn the ball over 6 times and we have 10 sacks? Get real. Those were not breaks in the first half. We flat out out-played them in the first half. Maybe they caught some breaks too. That Hurns got tackled during that big catch from the 1 yard line or Scobee missed 1 FG and had another blocked.

 

You honestly have this divine hatred for Henne that you can't even give the man credit. He was good in the first half and bad in the second.

---

We're not going to agree on this, because what I call catching a break you call skilled play.

 

Sometimes it is just having the better player, but in the case of the Jaguars in the first half, I think it was more about the Eagles not playing well than the Jaguars being good.

 

That said, I still think the Jaguars could have won the game if Bortles had been the starter.

Fair enough. But, please - please resist injecting your Henne hate agenda in this thread.  There are a half dozen other threads on that topic. 

---

Here's one I'd like to know more about. It's the 25 yd TD to Ertz over the middle. 

 

Gratz releasing his outside guy leads me to believe they are playing zone. Evans looks that way as the ball is thrown and it delays him too long in getting to Ertz as the ball arrives.  Guy seems correct in easing toward the receiver near the 20 yard line who is apparently covered by a LB. (edit-nickel corner - not LB)
  So he (Blackmon)
couldn't get there quick enough for good reason.  This seems to be on Evans if anyone.  Gratz may have a role in it if he wasn't supposed to let his guy release - but it looks like they were in zone and Gratz just fluctuated between which receiver to move toward and hesitated too long to make a play. 

 

Telvin Smith was in there too. Not sure if he should have stayed with the TE or not.  Anyone see something I don't in this one?  Seems like a soft zone got picked on by a good TE and QB. 

 

(Evans is top left --  Smith is above and to the right of Ertz - Poz is below him on the screen)

---

Fair enough. But, please - please resist injecting your Henne hate agenda in this thread.  There are a half dozen other threads on that topic. 

 

What Henne hate?

 

Believing Bortles would have won the game isn't Henne hate.

---

Here's one I'd like to know more about. It's the 25 yd TD to Ertz over the middle. 

 

Gratz releasing his outside guy leads me to believe they are playing zone. Evans looks that way as the ball is thrown and it delays him too long in getting to Ertz as the ball arrives.  Guy seems correct in easing toward the receiver near the 20 yard line who is apparently covered by a LB. So he couldn't get there quick enough for good reason.  This seems to be on Evans if anyone.  Gratz may have a role in it if he wasn't supposed to let his guy release - but it looks like they were in zone and Gratz just fluctuated between which receiver to move toward and hesitated too long to make a play. 

 

I think Lageman discussed this play also. He said we were in Cover 2 and that a game-long problem with our Cover 2 was the seam player not being carried deep enough by the underneath coverage. 

---

I think Lageman discussed this play also. He said we were in Cover 2 and that a game-long problem with our Cover 2 was the seam player not being carried deep enough by the underneath coverage. 

So Telvin/Poz should have stuck him more if that's the case. 

---

So Telvin/Poz should have stuck him more if that's the case. 

 

He did mention those two guys names. He said he didn't know enough about the coverage but that's what it seemed like to him.

---

I agree with Oklahomie that there were some breaks to the Jaguars. Turnovers are remarkably inconsistent week to week and year to year even for good defenses. Sometimes fumbles don't bounce to your guys. Sometimes the QB doesn't throw to defenders even when pressured. There are factors in every turnover that are outside of your control. And I don't think anyone is saying we're up 17-0 without the turnovers.

---

This is one of the more informative and useful threads I've seen on here in a minute. But nothing about that 1st quarter was about breaks or luck. The team executed at a high level for 15 minutes and got the job done. After that they just took a dump. You can play the blame game all you want after 2 minutes of the 2nd quarter because the whole team sucked.

---