Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
No need to be Envious of the Colts Deal

#61

(06-15-2018, 05:56 PM)Bullseye Wrote:
(06-04-2018, 11:36 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: Yep. I feel like I've been saying this until blue in face around here. Thanks for adding more facts to support it. 

The Jags' choice of run formations forced the loaded box.  When they added receivers to the formation, teams unloaded pretty commonly.  Seemed like bunch and trips formations (predictably) were especially effective in backing teams out of the box. 
In year two of a Hackett offense, I expect to see more usage of that.  Lots of ways to be creative from that set - and Hackett has shown a fondness for running multiple permutations of a play while giving the defense the trap of a familiar look.

Irrespective of the reasons, Fournette played against more 8-9 in the box than the other rookie backs, and it impacted his productivity.

Part of the reason for my ringing that bell repeatedly is to note that the play-calling is what affected his productivity - because it was the play-calling that stacked the box. 

It's an important distinction to me as I feel the staff needs to address this issue in more ways than just adding Norwell to the line. 

I think he could be employed more wisely and those stacked box numbers could drop significantly.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#62

(06-18-2018, 11:22 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:
(06-15-2018, 05:56 PM)Bullseye Wrote: Irrespective of the reasons, Fournette played against more 8-9 in the box than the other rookie backs, and it impacted his productivity.

Part of the reason for my ringing that bell repeatedly is to note that the play-calling is what affected his productivity - because it was the play-calling that stacked the box. 

It's an important distinction to me as I feel the staff needs to address this issue in more ways than just adding Norwell to the line. 

I think he could be employed more wisely and those stacked box numbers could drop significantly.

Play calling always impacts player productivity, for better or worse.

But the question is why did they call the plays they did?
 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!





Reply

#63

(06-19-2018, 10:11 AM)Bullseye Wrote:
(06-18-2018, 11:22 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: Part of the reason for my ringing that bell repeatedly is to note that the play-calling is what affected his productivity - because it was the play-calling that stacked the box. 

It's an important distinction to me as I feel the staff needs to address this issue in more ways than just adding Norwell to the line. 

I think he could be employed more wisely and those stacked box numbers could drop significantly.

Play calling always impacts player productivity, for better or worse.

But the question is why did they call the plays they did?

I think it goes back to that old philosophy of "wanting to impose your will" in the run game, but they didn't have what they needed in the trenches to get that done as effectively as they wanted to in several contests.
Reply

#64

(06-19-2018, 11:01 AM)NYC4jags Wrote:
(06-19-2018, 10:11 AM)Bullseye Wrote: Play calling always impacts player productivity, for better or worse.

But the question is why did they call the plays they did?

I think it goes back to that old philosophy of "wanting to impose your will" in the run game, but they didn't have what they needed in the trenches to get that done as effectively as they wanted to in several contests.

Is it possible the team thought they had more pieces to get things done that way as opposed to throwing it all over the yard?

I submit that is what they thought, and it paid off well.
 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!





Reply

#65
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2018, 04:34 PM by Upper.)

(06-19-2018, 12:44 PM)Bullseye Wrote:
(06-19-2018, 11:01 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: I think it goes back to that old philosophy of "wanting to impose your will" in the run game, but they didn't have what they needed in the trenches to get that done as effectively as they wanted to in several contests.

Is it possible the team thought they had more pieces to get things done that way as opposed to throwing it all over the yard?

I submit that is what they thought, and it paid off well.

"He was asked how many passes he would like to see Bortles throw in a game. 'For me, I like to run the ball every play," Marrone told reporters. "None. Zero. I want to go back to the old way. I want to change the game'."

I think it's purely philosophical. I don't expect much change. If I were to submit anything, it would be that running out of 3 wide sets can be awfully effective too. I'd much rather see a nickelback try to tackle LF a dozen times a game than another linebacker.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#66

(06-19-2018, 12:44 PM)Bullseye Wrote:
(06-19-2018, 11:01 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: I think it goes back to that old philosophy of "wanting to impose your will" in the run game, but they didn't have what they needed in the trenches to get that done as effectively as they wanted to in several contests.

Is it possible the team thought they had more pieces to get things done that way as opposed to throwing it all over the yard?

I submit that is what they thought, and it paid off well.


I'm not suggesting that running the ball often was the wrong approach.

I am saying that running the ball so frequently from a formation that screamed "I'M RUNNING THE BALL NOW, I DARE YOU TO STOP ME"  was a big mistake. 

They should have run out of more multiple looks that forced the defense to cover more than a single back. 

The very few times they did run from a three wide set or repeatedly involved the tight end from a 21 set they were able to unstack the box. They did not do that enough. 

Added speed at WR + a stated intent to involve Grant more + ASJ + Norwell --- all of these are hopefully things that help offset this issue, but a decrease in the number of telegraphed runs between the tackles could have an even greater effect IMO.
Reply

#67

(06-19-2018, 06:32 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:
(06-19-2018, 12:44 PM)Bullseye Wrote: Is it possible the team thought they had more pieces to get things done that way as opposed to throwing it all over the yard?

I submit that is what they thought, and it paid off well.


I'm not suggesting that running the ball often was the wrong approach.

I am saying that running the ball so frequently from a formation that screamed "I'M RUNNING THE BALL NOW, I DARE YOU TO STOP ME"  was a big mistake. 

They should have run out of more multiple looks that forced the defense to cover more than a single back. 

The very few times they did run from a three wide set or repeatedly involved the tight end from a 21 set they were able to unstack the box. They did not do that enough. 

Added speed at WR + a stated intent to involve Grant more + ASJ + Norwell --- all of these are hopefully things that help offset this issue, but a decrease in the number of telegraphed runs between the tackles could have an even greater effect IMO.

Agree.

All I can think is that perhaps they didn't get the looks they wanted when in those situations.

In preseason, both Blake and the backup QB hit easy long bombs down the sideline - but I didn't recall that during the regular season.  Perhaps it was the formation, keys, etc... but I would have expected us to be able to take advantage of that more in the regular season.
"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."
Reply

#68
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2018, 05:56 AM by Bullseye.)

A few months back, I posed this question to the board:


Quote:" I realize it's early, but in your estimation, is there a trio in the Colts draft class comparable in quality to our 2016 draft haul of Ramsey, Jack, and Ngakoue? "


It's still early, but they seem to have at last two really good players from this draft in Nelson and Leonard.
 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!





Reply




Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!