How do you expect Bradley's team to overachieve with the worst active roster in the NFL?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Not so much the record for me - its more the point differential. 

 

Tom Coughlin had 2 straight 6-10 teams here in Jax, and he managed to coach every game so at least Jax was in most of them until the final gun. Those 2 Coughlin teams wound up with a positive point differential for the season. 

 

Bradley's teams don't seem to overachieve on either side of the ball. 

 

I don't see Bradley's teams attack specificly game planned weaknesses on a week to week basis like Belichick teams seem to do, Bradley's teams seem to have the same sort of game plan every week with little variability.  

 

Does this mean:

 

a)  They game plan to attack certain weaknesses on a week to week basis, but don't actually attack them during games...or

b)  They game plan to attack certain weaknesses, just not on a weekly basis; or...

c)  They don't game plan to attack certain weaknesses?

 

Is it possible they identify weaknesses and game plan to attack them, but don't have the personnel to attack these weaknesses effectively?

 

Example-as you know, Justin Blackmon can attack a defense much more effectively and in many other ways than can Brown or any of the other guys we picked up later in the season.  Yet Blackmon was not there for 12 games.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

How do you expect Bradley's team to overachieve with the worst active roster in the NFL?

 

Thats what great coaches do. 

 

This team having a 5-11  or 6-10 record and a point differential around -100 would have been "overachieving" and you could have pointed to coaching as the lynchpin. 

 

Going 4-12 given the easy 2nd half schedule and finishing with a -210 point differential is not overachieving. 

---

Does this mean:

 

I.)  They game plan to attack certain weaknesses on a week to week basis, but don't actually attack them during games...or

II.)  They game plan to attack certain weaknesses, just not on a weekly basis; or...

III)  They don't game plan to attack certain weaknesses?

 

Is it possible they identify weaknesses and game plan to attack them, but don't have the personnel to attack these weaknesses effectively?

 

Example-as you know, Justin Blackmon can attack a defense much more effectively and in many other ways than can Brown or any of the other guys we picked up later in the season.  Yet Blackmon was not there for 12 games.

 

How do you know what they did or didn't game plan?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bullseye" data-cid="111020" data-time="1389727697">
<div>
Does this mean:

 

I.)  They game plan to attack certain weaknesses on a week to week basis, but don't actually attack them during games...or

II.)  They game plan to attack certain weaknesses, just not on a weekly basis; or...

III)  They don't game plan to attack certain weaknesses?

 

Is it possible they identify weaknesses and game plan to attack them, but don't have the personnel to attack these weaknesses effectively?

 

Example-as you know, Justin Blackmon can attack a defense much more effectively and in many other ways than can Brown or any of the other guys we picked up later in the season.  Yet Blackmon was not there for 12 games.

 

How do you know what they did or didn't game plan?

 

 

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

 

 

The Patriots offense has taken hits all year personnel wise, and they still seem to be a chameleon on offense on a week to week basis. 
 
Great coaching. 

---

Thats what great coaches do. 

 

This team having a 5-11  or 6-10 record and a point differential around -100 would have been "overachieving" and you could have pointed to coaching as the lynchpin. 

 

Going 4-12 given the easy 2nd half schedule and finishing with a -210 point differential is not overachieving. 

 

If the Jaguars went 5-11 or 6-10 they would have given away any chances of getting a difference maker (Clowney/Bridgewater/Manziel). Is that what you wanted?

---

If the Jaguars went 5-11 or 6-10 they would have given away any chances of getting a difference maker (Clowney/Bridgewater/Manziel). Is that what you wanted?

 

 

 

The above is not the argument. 

 

The argument right now is what would have been overachieving. I gave you an example of what would have been reasonable to be considered overachievement for this team. 

 

 

We wound up not overachieving and STILL missed out on the top pick, so we lose both ways in regards to the above. (I never wanted pick 3 I wanted pick 1)  Pick 1 gives you more opportunity. 1st pick in every round. I would have been fine with missing out on the top pick had we instead wound up overachieving. 

 

Instead we wound up in purgatory....again. 

 

One or the other extreme would have been good. Purgatory = no good. 

---

 

<div>The Patriots offense has taken hits all year personnel wise, and they still seem to be a chameleon on offense on a week to week basis. 
 
Great coaching. 
 

</div>

 

Still better players on offense than a Jaguars offense missing Blackmon for 12 games.

 

Brady alone makes that so, but aside from that, their OL was better from tackle to tackle than ours was.

 

You can certainly argue the Patriots are deeper and more talented at RB than the Jaguars-so again, they have the personnel to successfully implement a game plan.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

TMD, you can't have it both ways.

 

Pick what you would rather have:

Scenario A: Go 4-12, land the #3 overall pick, and be guaranteed a difference maker in Clowney, Bridgewater, or Manziel.

Scenario B: Go 6-10, land the #9 overall pick.

 

Pick the better scenario. We are in a better position now than if we would have "over-achieved", so drop the "over-achieve" nonsense. The Vikings "over-achieved" and it cost them a chance at getting a difference maker.

---

TMD, you can't have it both ways.

 

Pick what you would rather have:

Scenario A: Go 4-12, land the #3 overall pick, and be guaranteed a difference maker in Clowney, Bridgewater, or Manziel.

Scenario B: Go 6-10, land the #9 overall pick.

 

Pick the better scenario. We are in a better position now than if we would have "over-achieved", so drop the "over-achieve" nonsense. The Vikings "over-achieved" and it cost them a chance at getting a difference maker.

 

 

I explained it well here: 

 

 

 

 

We wound up not overachieving and STILL missed out on the top pick, so we lose both ways in regards to the above. (I never wanted pick 3 I wanted pick 1)  Pick 1 gives you more opportunity. 1st pick in every round. I would have been fine with missing out on the top pick had we instead wound up overachieving. 
 
Instead we wound up in purgatory....again. 
 
One or the other extreme (1st pick in draft or overachieving) would have been good. Purgatory = no good. 

---

We still get one of the 3 elite players (per you) in this draft. What about the Vikings, who over-achieved. Are they in a better situation?

---

(1st pick in draft ) would have been good.

that's loser talk, but you are what you are I guess

 

Caldwell needs to build us into a winner regardless on where we're picking, he can't worry about how many games we win or what coaches are being hired in the division

---

that's loser talk, but you are what you are I guess

 

Caldwell needs to build us into a winner regardless on where we're picking, he can't worry about how many games we win or what coaches are being hired in the division

 

No, he can't worry about it. 

 

But I can comment about it, and make evaluations based on similar occurrences of bad teams trying to rebuild in a tough division environment, such as the Cardinals in the NFC East example that I brought forth. 

 

It may be "loser talk" but its also correct. 

 

The easier the division environment the better chance Caldwell/ Bradley & co will have to succeed. Sorry to give ya the truth. 

---

#3 pick in the draft is being "stuck in purgatory."

 

lol...

---

 

<div> 
Great coaching. 
 

</div>

 

Very true.   One of the greatest QBs ever doesn't hurt either.  Brady won at least 3 games this year practically by himself in the second half. 

---

Thats what great coaches do. 

 

This team having a 5-11  or 6-10 record and a point differential around -100 would have been "overachieving" and you could have pointed to coaching as the lynchpin. 

 

Going 4-12 given the easy 2nd half schedule and finishing with a -210 point differential is not overachieving. 

 

Funny, your blathering about point differential... your new found "YPA" to yap about incessantly.

 

Timely, since you're propping the 49ers who have the smallest of win margins in the playoffs...

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Funny, your blathering about point differential... your new found "YPA" to yap about incessantly.

 

Timely, since you're propping the 49ers who have the smallest of win margins in the playoffs...

 

San Fran had one of the highest point differentials of the regular season. 

 

Maybe that helps explain why they've been able to go on the road in 2 difficult spots and win 2 straight playoff games this year. 

---

Funny, your blathering about point differential... your new found "YPA" to yap about incessantly.


Timely, since you're propping the 49ers who have the smallest of win margins in the playoffs...

Ypa is dead because it doesn't fit his Luck tanking agenda. Will be brought back if he can improve next year

---

 

I explained it well here: 

 

 

 

 

<div>We wound up not overachieving and STILL missed out on the top pick, so we lose both ways in regards to the above. (I never wanted pick 3 I wanted pick 1)  Pick 1 gives you more opportunity. 1st pick in every round. I would have been fine with missing out on the top pick had we instead wound up overachieving. 
 
Instead we wound up in purgatory....again. 
 
One or the other extreme (1st pick in draft or overachieving) would have been good. Purgatory = no good. 
 

</div>

You never advocated winning 5 or 6 games . I was advocating 6 wins and winning out our division to prove something and you said that would be a mistake by Gus and would prove nothing.

 

So does winning mean something or not?

 

As usual your arguments are contradicting themselves.

---

Thats what great coaches do. 

 

This team having a 5-11  or 6-10 record and a point differential around -100 would have been "overachieving" and you could have pointed to coaching as the lynchpin. 

 

Going 4-12 given the easy 2nd half schedule and finishing with a -210 point differential is not overachieving. 

If that had happened, instead of hearing how "maybe Gus was the wrong pick" we would be hearing "won even more meaningless games and now we have a poor draft position".

---