Happier, but still not happy

xan · 11-06-2007, 10:27 AM

While I appreciate your arguments, T-R, they're not held up to much scrutiny fact wise, save one.

From NFL Gamebook:

1-10-NO 33 (6:56) R.Bush right end to NO 40 for 7 yards (R.Mathis).
1-10-NO 48 (5:45) D.Brees pass short middle to R.Bush to JAX 34 for 18 yards (R.Nelson). P25
1-3-JAX 3 (2:48) R.Bush left end to JAX 4 for -1 yards (B.Iwuh).
1-10-NO 37 (12:57) R.Bush left end to NO 37 for no gain (S.Knight, M.Peterson).
3-10-NO 37 (12:06) (Shotgun) D.Brees pass short left to R.Bush to NO 41 for 4 yards
2-2-NO 38 (9:05) R.Bush left guard to NO 39 for 1 yard (R.Meier).
3-1-NO 39 (8:23) R.Bush right guard to NO 45 for 6 yards (K.Pettway). R30
2-10-NO 45 (7:36) R.Bush right end to JAX 49 for 6 yards (R.Mathis).
Timeout #2 by NO at 06:49.
3-4-JAX 49 (6:49) D.Brees pass short right to R.Bush pushed ob at JAX 43 for 6 yards (D.Smith). P31

6 of Bush's 17 touches (and 12 of our 25 runs) in the running game came with the game out of reach (the last 22 minutes of the game), where he gained only 19 yards; Jax was stacking the line to try to stop the run. He was more successful running when the game was in doubt - go figure. So the argument that there was balance or distribution is fallacious. The point still stands that the unwillingness/inability to run between the tackles when the game is competitive is an area for concern. Screen passes or swing passes aren't "long handoffs," they're timing plays that require an anticipation of a free zone to receive and run. They're not as successful this year as they were last year, and are, the way we run them, career shortening for Bush. You look at the pass/run ratios of the Pats (51%pass/49%run) - hey, you mentioned they should run more!, Colts (51/49), 'Boys (53/47) or Lions (56/44), you'll find balance and consistancy, despite their considerable weapons at WR.

My bad for thinking that Stroud didn't play. I missed the stat where he only had one tackle, no pressures and had little to do with the game. Probably looking over his shoulder for the Commish pulling his butt out of the game for drug use. Must have had no impact on his play or teammates.

And how is the argument contradictory that we beat a team that is confused and injured with their Best QB and best Corner out with injuries starting LT Barnes suspended for the game, starting RG Naole injured early, and and the reserves for both LT Suspension) and LG (injury), plus a backup LB (Suspension)? I'm glad we exploited that weakness, but that's the

4th team in a row we've beaten who's been missing significant pieces to the puzzle after losing 4 in a row to teams who have not been missing those peices.

Hence, the concern. Not sure why that's hard to grasp, but there ya go.

Sorry to put so much sarcasm in my reference to Mortal Lock, but I couldn't help noticing the reference to the Saints' inablity to beat teams who should be demoted to Div III, hence the concern. Again, not sure why that was hard to grasp, but there ya go.

And the rookie mistake/bad luck/confused play - McKenzie's INT. From the Times-Picayune (Brian Allee-Walsh, Nov 5, 2005):

Trailing 24-17 with 9:01 remaining in the third quarter, the Jaguars faced fourth-and-4 at the Saints' 34-yard line. From shotgun formation, Gray threw toward wide receiver Ernest Wilford in front of the Jaguars' bench. Wilford turned outside, Gray threw inside and Saints cornerback Mike McKenzie turned the Jaguars inside out, returning an interception 75 yards for a touchdown.

The Jaguars never recovered, falling to the resurgent Saints 41-24.

"Mike McKenzie, he's a good friend of mine, and I've got to hear that for the next year or so," said Gray, who has been thrust into a starting role while injured starter David Garrard recovers from ankle surgery. "It was just a wrong route. Maybe, it was miscommunication on my part and the receiver, but we'll get that corrected."

From the horse's mouth. Hence the concern. Not sure why there's a problem with the observation, but even that minimal confusion didn't deter that QB from embarrassing our defense. Without 3 of their starting and two backup linemen missing, they couldn't get a nose running much less their "all-pro" backs. And why run when we've got the venerial equivalent in JD?

Tough, smash mouthed football team? [URL="http://http://mvn.com/nfl-jaguars/2007/11/05/is-toughness-a-concern-for-jacksonville/"] Not so much.

For point 7, are you arguing against my theory that the teams left on the schedule are going to be difficult to beat, especially our divisional opponents? If so, elaborate. to alleviate the concern.

For Point 8, I'll be the first to cheer for every opponent of the Giants and Lions, but I'm of the camp that you can't count on your adversary self destructing. I've got all those teams finishing around 11-5, not 15-1/14-2 anyway, which would still put them in the driver's seat relative to the Saints should the Saints lose one more game and not win the division. Those teams have more room for error than the Saints, hence the concern. Not sure why that's difficult to comprehend, or not fact based, but there ya go.

Too bad the theory that I'm misinformed didn't work out. And I'm not pooping on anything. I'm happier, but not happy. This team is on the right track, but hasn't proven it can compete with the elite of the NFL, which is what they should be doing, IMHO. If they play well and win the next 3 weeks, they have a chance to control their destiny, despite shortcomings.

11-06-2007, 10:27 AM	#13
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,373 Blog Entries: 34	Re: Happier, but still not happy While I appreciate your arguments, T-R, they're not held up to much scrutiny fact wise, save one. From NFL Gamebook: 1-10-NO 33 (6:56) R.Bush right end to NO 40 for 7 yards (R.Mathis). 1-10-NO 48 (5:45) D.Brees pass short middle to R.Bush to JAX 34 for 18 yards (R.Nelson). P25 1-3-JAX 3 (2:48) R.Bush left end to JAX 4 for -1 yards (B.Iwuh). 1-10-NO 37 (12:57) R.Bush left end to NO 37 for no gain (S.Knight, M.Peterson). 3-10-NO 37 (12:06) (Shotgun) D.Brees pass short left to R.Bush to NO 41 for 4 yards 2-2-NO 38 (9:05) R.Bush left guard to NO 39 for 1 yard (R.Meier). 3-1-NO 39 (8:23) R.Bush right guard to NO 45 for 6 yards (K.Pettway). R30 2-10-NO 45 (7:36) R.Bush right end to JAX 49 for 6 yards (R.Mathis). Timeout #2 by NO at 06:49. 3-4-JAX 49 (6:49) D.Brees pass short right to R.Bush pushed ob at JAX 43 for 6 yards (D.Smith). P31 6 of Bush's 17 touches (and 12 of our 25 runs) in the running game came with the game out of reach (the last 22 minutes of the game), where he gained only 19 yards; Jax was stacking the line to try to stop the run. He was more successful running when the game was in doubt - go figure. So the argument that there was balance or distribution is fallacious. The point still stands that the unwillingness/inability to run between the tackles when the game is competitive is an area for concern. Screen passes or swing passes aren't "long handoffs," they're timing plays that require an anticipation of a free zone to receive and run. They're not as successful this year as they were last year, and are, the way we run them, career shortening for Bush. You look at the pass/run ratios of the Pats (51%pass/49%run) - hey, you mentioned they should run more!, Colts (51/49), 'Boys (53/47) or Lions (56/44), you'll find balance and consistancy, despite their considerable weapons at WR. My bad for thinking that Stroud didn't play. I missed the stat where he only had one tackle, no pressures and had little to do with the game. Probably looking over his shoulder for the Commish pulling his butt out of the game for drug use. Must have had no impact on his play or teammates. And how is the argument contradictory that we beat a team that is confused and injured with their Best QB and best Corner out with injuries starting LT Barnes suspended for the game, starting RG Naole injured early, and and the reserves for both LT Suspension) and LG (injury), plus a backup LB (Suspension)? I'm glad we exploited that weakness, but that's the 4th team in a row we've beaten who's been missing significant pieces to the puzzle after losing 4 in a row to teams who have not been missing those peices. Hence, the concern. Not sure why that's hard to grasp, but there ya go. Sorry to put so much sarcasm in my reference to Mortal Lock, but I couldn't help noticing the reference to the Saints' inablity to beat teams who should be demoted to Div III, hence the concern. Again, not sure why that was hard to grasp, but there ya go. And the rookie mistake/bad luck/confused play - McKenzie's INT. From the Times-Picayune (Brian Allee-Walsh, Nov 5, 2005): Trailing 24-17 with 9:01 remaining in the third quarter, the Jaguars faced fourth-and-4 at the Saints' 34-yard line. From shotgun formation, Gray threw toward wide receiver Ernest Wilford in front of the Jaguars' bench. Wilford turned outside, Gray threw inside and Saints cornerback Mike McKenzie turned the Jaguars inside out, returning an interception 75 yards for a touchdown. The Jaguars never recovered, falling to the resurgent Saints 41-24. "Mike McKenzie, he's a good friend of mine, and I've got to hear that for the next year or so," said Gray, who has been thrust into a starting role while injured starter David Garrard recovers from ankle surgery. "It was just a wrong route. Maybe, it was miscommunication on my part and the receiver, but we'll get that corrected." From the horse's mouth. Hence the concern. Not sure why there's a problem with the observation, but even that minimal confusion didn't deter that QB from embarrassing our defense. Without 3 of their starting and two backup linemen missing, they couldn't get a nose running much less their "all-pro" backs. And why run when we've got the venerial equivalent in JD? Tough, smash mouthed football team? [URL="http://http://mvn.com/nfl-jaguars/2007/11/05/is-toughness-a-concern-for-jacksonville/"] Not so much. For point 7, are you arguing against my theory that the teams left on the schedule are going to be difficult to beat, especially our divisional opponents? If so, elaborate. to alleviate the concern. For Point 8, I'll be the first to cheer for every opponent of the Giants and Lions, but I'm of the camp that you can't count on your adversary self destructing. I've got all those teams finishing around 11-5, not 15-1/14-2 anyway, which would still put them in the driver's seat relative to the Saints should the Saints lose one more game and not win the division. Those teams have more room for error than the Saints, hence the concern. Not sure why that's difficult to comprehend, or not fact based, but there ya go. Too bad the theory that I'm misinformed didn't work out. And I'm not pooping on anything. I'm happier, but not happy. This team is on the right track, but hasn't proven it can compete with the elite of the NFL, which is what they should be doing, IMHO. If they play well and win the next 3 weeks, they have a chance to control their destiny, despite shortcomings.
	Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger." Hobbes: "Common lament."