Keep the excuses coming.


It was a terrible use of personnel and one of many Gus and his staff have made.

Excuses??? You sound like either you forgot the results of blitzing and leaving Poz in man coverage, don't understand how a simple zone-blitz works or don't want to blitz at all. If you don't want to blitz at all, you should say that because at least then you'll be making sense even if that's a ludicrous strategy. You should know of you choose to blitz and you're not running man behind it, someone HAS to drop unless you want less than 7 men in coverage of course

---

None.

They still had 6 or 7 first downs though. (one came on 1st and 20)


Regardless, the failure to play aggressively on third down in the first half so many times screamed game-plan failure to me.

Watching the same plays that SD exploited this defense with working flawlessly after a bye week was a tough pill.

That has to get fixed. I can't fathom an excuse.

I got the sense they were conservative because the only one with real potential to burn us was Jeffrey. It also seemed like if they forced Hoyer to throw short, they could exploit it. Lack of holding calls continue to haunt us.

---

Excuses??? You sound like either you forgot the results of blitzing and leaving Poz in man coverage, don't understand how a simple zone-blitz works or don't want to blitz at all. If you don't want to blitz at all, you should say that because at least then you'll be making sense even if that's a ludicrous strategy. You should know of you choose to blitz and you're not running man behind it, someone HAS to drop unless you want less than 7 men in coverage of course

Is Gus a good coach? Yes or no. Yes or no is all I need.

---

So now you're changing your tune? Dropping lineman in coverage is not working yet they keep trying. What part of that are you failing to understand?


How about Jack in man coverage? He's only the best cover LB to come out of college in a long time.

Are you saying I'm changing my tune because I cited the flaw of when they were man blitzing??? Plz explain what you mean about changing my tune. If you use jack for man blitzes and take Poz of the field, you don't think teams are going to become aware and exploit it??? Dropping lineman into short zones isn't causing tds. Also, the more they do it, the more natural they will become. Hope you weren't one of those ppl suggesting we go to 34 defense, lots of zone blitzing with linemen dropping...

---

Is Gus a good coach? Yes or no. Yes or no is all I need.

Do you understand basic defense, that's all I need

---

A bed helps me sleep better...when someone calls me a relative of a coach because they have trouble with simple defensive concepts...nah you right, I'm going to sleep so much better

I don't have trouble with simple defensive concepts, even complex ones. Now you, you're just an apologist around here and won't see the light even if it shines in your face. That's not my fault you're dense. Keep on bibbing tho.

---

You either die as a good poster, or live long enough to become the troll.

Do you understand basic defense, that's all I need

Yes.


Your turn.

---

I got the sense they were conservative because the only one with real potential to burn us was Jeffrey. It also seemed like if they forced Hoyer to throw short, they could exploit it. Lack of holding calls continue to haunt us.

That's how you end up with a guy like Cameron Meredith torching you for 113 yards. 

 

Leaving him and Miller open underneath (with no small amount of cushion) so often was an egregious error, IMO. 

---

Yes.


Your turn.

It's guys like him that make me miss tmd lol.

---

You either die as a good poster, or live long enough to become the troll.

Bradley coached a masterful game. Victory, Victory, we believe in victory. Win is a win baby.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

So now you're changing your tune? Dropping lineman in coverage is not working yet they keep trying. What part of that are you failing to understand?


How about Jack in man coverage? He's only the best cover LB to come out of college in a long time.

 

All NFL teams drop linemen into coverage when they run zone blitzes. That's how those plays are designed. This isn't something unique to Gus.

---

Are you saying I'm changing my tune because I cited the flaw of when they were man blitzing??? Plz explain what you mean about changing my tune. If you use jack for man blitzes and take Poz of the field, you don't think teams are going to become aware and exploit it??? Dropping lineman into short zones isn't causing tds. Also, the more they do it, the more natural they will become. Hope you weren't one of those ppl suggesting we go to 34 defense, lots of zone blitzing with linemen dropping...

It hasn't led directly to TDs but it's led to big plays which keep drives alive and then lead to TDs.


I'm confused by you. Are you saying that dropping them in coverage is working? Because the big gains I'm seeing as a result says they're not.

---

I don't have trouble with simple defensive concepts, even complex ones. Now you, you're just an apologist around here and won't see the light even if it shines in your face. That's not my fault you're dense. Keep on bibbing tho.

You see the need to insult? Is because you can't rationally discuss the topic. Mind you, I was having this conversation with scarecrow. It's cool for you to be involved, but your first move wasn't to add your two cents about where we differed regarding blitzes. Your first move was to call me Bradley's brother. You still, after all this back and forth, shown what the fatal mistake was in dropping Malik back on a blitz and you won't because you can't. All you can do is say things like," whatever makes you sleep better." That's your contribution on this board, levity.

---

I agree, gotta go with what works.


If you're carrying for 2.5 YPA against pass defense fronts then nothing you do will work until you pull your RB and start getting more receivers on the field so everyone can't be doubled up.


Football isn't rocket science, Greg and Gus just need to stop trying to push the square peg into the round hole.

Honestly I agree with you but if you examine the logic behind their perspective I can see why they're trying to balance out the run game with the pass game. Asking Blake to throw all the time is inevitably going to lead to turnovers. This coaching staff is incompetent in many ways, but it is still essential in today's game to keep the defense honest by having a good run game. So I can see why Gus would want that to happen even if we don't necessarily have the personnel to make it happen

---

You see the need to insult? Is because you can't rationally discuss the topic. Mind you, I was having this conversation with scarecrow. It's cool for you to be involved, but your first move wasn't to add your two cents about where we differed regarding blitzes. Your first move was to call me Bradley's brother. You still, after all this back and forth, shown what the fatal mistake was in dropping Malik back on a blitz and you won't because you can't. All you can do is say things like," whatever makes you sleep better." That's your contribution on this board, levity.

So does Gus have any nicknames for you or what? This board wants to know.

In all seriousness, if the shoe fits...

---

You either die as a good poster, or live long enough to become the troll.

It hasn't led directly to TDs but it's led to big plays which keep drives alive and then lead to TDs.


I'm confused by you. Are you saying that dropping them in coverage is working? Because the big gains I'm seeing as a result says they're not.

It didn't lead to a big play but I believe it converted a 3rd down. All plays called will not be executed to perfection. In this case, he should have gotten more depth and that would have disrupted the passing lane.


The things you run in practice have to see game time if you want to be able to run them better in the future. There are only so many scenarios you can work on using that play in practice. Both times the play was made in the zone occupied by the dlineman, but the hole want gaping. They have more tape, so they can use that to execute better in the future

---

So does Gus have any nicknames for you or what? This board wants to know.

In all seriousness, if the shoe fits...

When your buddies talk football, this is probably the best you can do, huh?

---

When your buddies talk football, this is probably the best you can do, huh?

I'm not the one that's butt hurt because numerous people on here continue to prove you wrong. Even when you come up with what I can only call are desperate attempts at thinking that you know what you're talking about. But by all means continue on, we all love comedy relief.

---

You either die as a good poster, or live long enough to become the troll.

That said, defense played winning football again.

^Yes,, very much agree with this.


The defense is starting to look legit (and with a bunch of young guys filled in the roster too).


When you look at each game objectively, the defense is not giving up that many points.


When the offense continually stalls, and when they occasionally turn the ball over deep in their own territory, the defense is put in bad field position (and they have to start with the opponent already in FG range, just like today).


GB: 6 points given up in the 2nd half (some 1st half points attributed to an offensive turnover near scoring range)


BAL: 6 points given up in the 2nd half (while getting 3 turnovers in the 4th qtr in Ravens territory)


IND: 6 points given up in 3qtrs (plus getting a key INT that gave the offense starting field position near the goal line)


CHI: 6 points given up in the 2nd half (3 of those points weren't from their own fault,, BB's fumble lost already in Chicago FG range). Defense came in directly after the fumble and stopped them, limiting the damage). Also,, 10 points given up in the 1st half while the offense continued to sputter.


The defense is playing winning football. There's not much they can do when they're on the field most of the game because of continual 3 and outs and turnovers from the offense.


I say the teams struggles are due to the Offense this year.


But hey, they still managed 2 wins regardless. If the offense improves their play (limiting turnovers and sustaining some drives), the Jags will be winning a lot more games.


Sry bout the rant. Just excited over having a legitimate, winning Defense.

---

I'm not the one that's butt hurt because numerous people on here continue to prove you wrong. Even when you come up with what I can only call are desperate attempts at thinking that you know what you're talking about. But by all means continue on, we all love comedy relief.

 

The only thing that has been proven is that there a bunch of people in this thread don't understand what a zone blitz is and how it works.

---