Week 12: Jacksonville Jaguars (3-7) @ Buffalo Bills (3-7) - Status Quo

[Adrenaline_Flux]

1 minute ago, pwny said:

Yeah and it worked out for us once too. Then what happened?

It was more an anecdote than anything. But the Bears made all the right calls this offseason in a somewhat similar situation, but they were all still arguably "bad bets". It's life in the NFL and it's part of why there is so much parity from year to year compared to other sports. There is a lot of turnover and it's difficult to get good depth everywhere and hit on your parlay.

[.Buzz]

 

[.Buzz]

Pretty alarming either way.

[Adrenaline_Flux]

cartoon villain

[.Buzz]

1 minute ago, Adrenaline_Flux said:

cartoon villain

You think its all Coughlin?

I do have a hard time believing Coughlin liked Watson, hated Bortles prior to coming here, and did a complete 180. But that's just me.

[Speedyg]

5 minutes ago, .Buzz said:

Pretty alarming either way.

The only possible positive spin on that is it was Tom's first time as the head guy, and there were tons of rumblings about how it'll be his way or the highway and how he wouldn't be able to stop himself from overstepping his boundaries. However, Doug is also his guy, that we're pretty sure off, and Doug by everything we've seen is all-in on Bortles too.

[Adrenaline_Flux]

Just now, .Buzz said:

You think its all Coughlin?

I do have a hard time believing Coughlin liked Watson, hated Bortles prior to coming here, and did a complete 180. But that's just me.

Why does it have to be all Coughlin or all Caldwell? I think Coughlin has final say, but gets input from everyone including Caldwell. This situation has been a collective effort. 

I think Caldwell will be gone at the end of the year though. Too many cooks in the kitchen. I don't think he's as bad as a lot of people think though, but it's easy to scapegoat him considering how everything has went down. I don't know if he ever gets another GM shot (usually it's one and done for people) but I'd be surprised if he isn't brought in elsewhere.

But even last year when things were going well, everyone attributed it to Coughlin and not Caldwell or Marrone. It's astonishing. It's a collective effort. If you truly think Coughlin would come in and just be a mascot, it's your right, but I think it's pretty disrespectful to look at him as a nostalgic puppet who is helpless against a cackling, mustache-twirling Caldwell.

[pwny]

11 minutes ago, Adrenaline_Flux said:

It was more an anecdote than anything. But the Bears made all the right calls this offseason in a somewhat similar situation, but they were all still arguably "bad bets". It's life in the NFL and it's part of why there is so much parity from year to year compared to other sports. There is a lot of turnover and it's difficult to get good depth everywhere and hit on your parlay.

Sure. And you're not wrong about that. But the reason why some teams have years and years of success while others find ways to be good for a year before going back to the trash heap is because some teams actually do things well and other teams do things poorly and get some luck occasionally. 

Why are the Steelers always in the playoffs but the Chargers are always not? Is it that Ben is that much better than Rivers? Were the Chiefs always in the playoffs with Alex Smith because they just were all time lucky at their parlay? What about the Ravens in their 10 year block of success? They never really had *the guy* at QB, but were always in the hunt. Were they just super lucky and went a decade without injuries?

Or maybe not making bad bets with no backup plan really makes a difference. Maybe that's why some teams make the playoffs every year and others make it once then miss them for a decade. 

Maybe everybody else is, but I'm not looking to be what the Chargers have been; crying every season that bad luck kept us just shy of the playoffs.

[Adrenaline_Flux]

6 minutes ago, Speedyg said:

However, Doug is also his guy, that we're pretty sure off, and Doug by everything we've seen is all-in on Bortles too.

which is why he has benched him twice

[pwny]

Zach being 19 or so and overly reactionary really shows through sometimes.

[Speedyg]

5 minutes ago, Adrenaline_Flux said:

which is why he has benched him twice

He's benched him once right? Vs. Houston. I don't count pre-season, especially when he went right back to him the following week. And even when asked about Blake after that Houston benching, he was quick to say that it wasn't just Blake's fault (which it wasn't, not for that game). Then after last week vs. Pittsburgh, he came right back and said Blake would be starting this week.

[Adrenaline_Flux]

Just now, pwny said:

Sure. And you're not wrong about that. But the reason why some teams have years and years of success while others find ways to be good for a year before going back to the trash heap is because some teams actually do things well and other teams do things poorly and get some luck occasionally. 

Why are the Steelers always in the playoffs but the Chargers are always not? Is it that Ben is that much better than Rivers? Were the Chiefs always in the playoffs with Alex Smith because they just were all time lucky at their parlay? What about the Ravens in their 10 year block of success? They never really had *the guy* at QB, but were always in the hunt. Were they just super lucky and went a decade without injuries?

Or maybe not making bad bets with no backup plan really makes a difference. Maybe that's why some teams make the playoffs every year and others make it once then miss them for a decade. 

Maybe everybody else is, but I'm not looking to be what the Chargers have been; crying every season that bad luck kept us just shy of the playoffs.

- Steelers always being in the playoffs over the Chargers had more to do with poor coaching and honestly just some bad luck. Chargers were deep with depth for years and did nothing with it.  Chargers level of injuries the past few years has been insane. Their level of injuries is incredibly abnormal. I'd also argue that their coaching has been garbage for years though. Steelers neglected their OL for years though and have had a history of depending on progression of unproven young WRs (which has largely panned out since 2010). They also had defensive depth for years (which is because an overwhelming amount of their first rounders were defensive players who they would try to develop as eventual replacements) and once that died, they did struggle briefly.

- Chiefs have had good gameplanning and coaching and Alex Smith was a good game manager. They had their struggles too with depth --- a lot really and it's probably part of the reason they've struggled late in the year. They also didn't have the same type of offensive power they have now until last year; and even last year it wasn't that good. They brought in a medicore Sammy to replace Wilson though and they've largely failed at finding replacements on defense or having any sort of depth beyond DL and they've basically had to win shootouts a lot of weeks. 

- Ravens had insane depth on the defense from constantly drafting defense. But, again, good coaching and scheming. They had a lot of holes on offense though and it's what kept them out of playoffs some years.

Unless you have an elite QB or have an elite defense that you are constantly investing high capital in (and thus neglecting your offense/QB position) you're going to struggle making the playoffs every single year.

There's a difference between having a backup plan and having to have three to four backup plans at every one of your problematic position groups. Besides that, maybe I've missed it, but where are all these fans saying we are only bad due to injuries? The injuries certainly have not helped and are a big factor, but the constant offensive scheme failures, blown coverages on defense, and the complete death of any sort of competent play from Blake Bortles since the Kansas City game have all been significant factors if not the biggest factors. 

[Adrenaline_Flux]

6 minutes ago, Speedyg said:

He's benched him once right? Vs. Houston. I don't count pre-season, especially when he went right back to him the following week. And even when asked about Blake after that Houston benching, he was quick to say that it wasn't just Blake's fault (which it wasn't, not for that game). Then after last week vs. Pittsburgh, he came right back and said Blake would be starting this week.

If you're going to cherrypick circumstance and fiddle with what Marrone actually said, we're done here.

[Speedyg]

18 minutes ago, Adrenaline_Flux said:

If you're going to cherrypick circumstance and fiddle with what Marrone actually said, we're done here.

LMAO how is that cherry picking when every single time Blake has faltered, Doug went right back to him?

Even the ONE legitimate time he benched him, he came right out and said he was just trying to jump start the offense.

And, tell me, what exactly did I fiddle on what Doug said?

He's been as vocal a supporter for Blake for as long as he's been here.

Go ahead, I'll be waiting. Coz you got nothing.

 

 

[Adrenaline_Flux]

He said he was trying to spark the offense and that he only benched Blake because he couldn't bench all of the offense. Regardless, if there was this mandate, he wouldn't have benched him then or in the preseason last year.

The reason he keeps going back to Bortles is because he sees him as the best option to win. Probably because of his mobility. This may sound shocking, but typically coaches try to do what they think is the best option for the team in order to win even if it's choosing a guy you don't trust over a guy with a noodle arm (whether he has made the right decision is another argument and whether there is a right decision is yet another one).

I think there's a good chance we see Kessler before the end of the year though.