Comments on: Talking Offense and Defense: The Achilles Heel

By: zsgowani

zsgowani — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:19:41 +0000

Completely agree with you both. @Davjay1983 , it is definitely a pity that play action worked so poorly for us given how teams were teeing off on the run. It might not completely be a Gabbert footwork problem (factors like offensive line, MJD/Gabbert not really selling the play could be issues) but I think once Mularkey feels comfortable with it, we’ll start doing it again. Even though Mularkey has had Mike Turner for a few years, he’s never had a back like MJD. I hope he uses MJD in the passing game more too, a la Jason Snelling (or a more apt player comparison, a la Ray Rice). @LukeNSims , the 4-3 we re run is definitely on the less aggressive side, (which I think is great, for the team we have right now), but perhaps we have some individual players that are overly aggressive at times – Mathis immediately comes to mind. But I agree that we’re probably more easily deceived than most. Especially since our defense last year was so young and inexperienced, especially in the secondary with all the injuries. It’d be interesting to see if our play against play action was moderately better before more inexperienced guys like Rutland, Middleton, etc. got significant playing time.

By: Davjay1983

Davjay1983 — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:07:01 +0000

Very interesting numbers. Really put things into perspective about just how much needs to begin to improve in 2012. Luke’s right about our 4-3. It’s really a “stand up and play, bread and butter” type defense that relies on reaction, athleticism, and individuals winning their one on ones. Hopefully we’ll be able to read and react a little bit better, create a better pass rush, but more than anything STAY HEALTHY. As far as the offense goes, I’m optimistic about Blaine’s footwork, but I don’t know how much progress he can actually make in this short of a time fram. You’re right, it’d be safe to keep the play action pass on the back burner until he’s ready. It just sucks because it can reeeeeally make a defense pay, especially when they are so used to seeing Jacksonville run the ball so much with such an amazing RB. It’s a pity.

By: LukeNSims

LukeNSims — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:29:44 +0000

Well put together analysis sir! I think we may just be an easily deceived defense…in the 4-3 scheme run by Tucker we don’t have a lot of overly aggressive plays to call and rely on the reaction of individual players. Really too bad. I’m going to blame the secondary being unable to get off the receivers and recognize where they need to be to cover the run. A biased blame game? Perhaps.