Jacksonville Jaguars (10-4) @ San Francisco 49ers (4-10) - AFC South is there for the taking

[jrry32]

10 minutes ago, .Buzz said:

I want this AFC South title so bad. Hope TEN loses prior to our game.

I hope so too.

[.Buzz]

Just now, jrry32 said:

I hope so too.

Would just be nice to go into the game knowing we're the champs regardless. Still a big game for seeding but...

[jrry32]

On 12/22/2017 at 8:55 AM, iPwn said:

I’ll throw a caveat in this for you. Sometimes we’ve decided to play soft off coverage for entire games or entire halves of the game. When we do this, our secondary doesn’t look anywhere near as good as it normally does. The splits that Wilson put up against us - where he was fumbling around just to make completions in the first half and then making massive TD throws in the late stages of the game - was entirely predicated on our defense playing soft coverage. We played it against the Rams and everyone in the forum was frustrated by our coverage that game too. I didn’t watch our game vs the Cards, but it sounds like that happened then too.

If we play tight coverage, where we’re playing physical with your receivers at the LOS, it’ll be a great test for Jimmy. If we play off ball coverage, the defense really isn’t anything special and I’d still be cautious of using this as a true gauge for how good he’s playing.

Our sets and alignments force teams to play soft coverage against us. Otherwise, McVay uses pick routes and congestion to scheme guys open. It's the right way to play us if you are trying to play it safe.

[pwny]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

Our sets and alignments force teams to play soft coverage against us. Otherwise, McVay uses pick routes and congestion to scheme guys open. It's the right way to play us if you are trying to play it safe.

I’d take my chance with pick plays and congestion before I ever ask Ramsey and Bouye to not do what makes them arguably the two best CBs in football this year. We were letting receivers run wide open underneath and Goff was able to get the ball out, completely neutralizing our pass rush in the process. Our defense is so successful because they force QBs get the call out quickly to avoid pressure and they’re throwing into tight windows. There’s nothing really complex about the scheme of things the guys are asked to do. Diagnose, play close and fast. Take that away; and the defense is just pedestrian.

Playing off only works if the defense is going to use schemed confusion to impact the passer. And we just don’t do that, aside from when Ramsey or Bouye recognize a play as it’s happening and manipulate the passer into thinking the receiver is open when he isn’t (see: Bouye picking off Rivers in OT or Ramsey picking off Brissett 2 weeks ago).

[.Buzz]

 

[jrry32]

19 minutes ago, iPwn said:

I’d take my chance with pick plays and congestion before I ever ask Ramsey and Bouye to not do what makes them arguably the two best CBs in football this year. We were letting receivers run wide open underneath and Goff was able to get the ball out, completely neutralizing our pass rush in the process. Our defense is so successful because they force QBs get the call out quickly to avoid pressure and they’re throwing into tight windows. There’s nothing really complex about the scheme of things the guys are asked to do. Diagnose, play close and fast. Take that away; and the defense is just pedestrian.

Playing off only works if the defense is going to use schemed confusion to impact the passer. And we just don’t do that, aside from when Ramsey or Bouye recognize a play as it’s happening and manipulate the passer into thinking the receiver is open when he isn’t (see: Bouye picking off Rivers in OT or Ramsey picking off Brissett 2 weeks ago).

The problem with this is that it leads to big plays. When we're in heavy sets (12, 21, 13, etc. personnel), we generally pass off of play-action. When we're running 10, 11, 01, etc. personnel, we're generally using bunch sets and/or tight alignments. That means we're almost always aligning our WRs 2x2 or 3x1. The problem with pressing is that it creates a lot of congestion around the LOS, allows for pick plays, and can lead to confusion in the secondary. When you add in Gurley as a major receiving threat out of the back-field, it makes it that much more difficult to play us that way.

It can be frustrating to watch a defense play more of a bend but don't break style, but that's generally going to be your best bet against McVay's scheme. The Vikings gave us a lot of problems because of their plan of stopping the run and taking away the deep ball. It's hard to consistently put together long, methodical scoring drives against great defenses, even if they're playing less aggressive.

[Tugboat]

50 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

The problem with this is that it leads to big plays. When we're in heavy sets (12, 21, 13, etc. personnel), we generally pass off of play-action. When we're running 10, 11, 01, etc. personnel, we're generally using bunch sets and/or tight alignments. That means we're almost always aligning our WRs 2x2 or 3x1. The problem with pressing is that it creates a lot of congestion around the LOS, allows for pick plays, and can lead to confusion in the secondary. When you add in Gurley as a major receiving threat out of the back-field, it makes it that much more difficult to play us that way.

It can be frustrating to watch a defense play more of a bend but don't break style, but that's generally going to be your best bet against McVay's scheme. The Vikings gave us a lot of problems because of their plan of stopping the run and taking away the deep ball. It's hard to consistently put together long, methodical scoring drives against great defenses, even if they're playing less aggressive.

I think this a different aspect of that particular chink in the armour for this defense.  Sets that shuffle our defense into uncomfortable alignments and downfield design that gets them away from the natural and desired matchups.  There hasn't been much of it, but when it's happened...it's been glaring, and has also typically coincided with softer coverage looks.  In terms of closing out games with a big lead, it certainly looks "prevent"...but in closer games, i think there is a bit of chicken or egg to it.  Part of it is probably getting away from what they do best, but part of it has also been adjustments putting our pretty straightforward defense a bit off balance at times.

I mean, it's not like Jalen and Bouye can't play off very successfully.  It's not like we don't have guys who can execute softer looks successfully.  It doesn't seem ideal, but i do think there's more than just Wash getting scared, or calling it a game and mailing in the rest with prevent nonsense or something.

[pwny]

54 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

It's hard to consistently put together long, methodical scoring drives against great defenses, even if they're playing less aggressive.

Problem is, I don’t think this defense is particularly great when they aren’t playing physical at the line and roughing receivers up, and forcing QBs to throw before they want to. It’s just a bland, easy to read and execute against cover 3 defense at that point.

[Tugboat]

9 minutes ago, iPwn said:

Problem is, I don’t think this defense is particularly great when they aren’t playing physical at the line and roughing receivers up, and forcing QBs to throw before they want to. It’s just a bland, easy to read and execute against cover 3 defense at that point.

Most of the time they've slipped back to that though, it's been...whatever.  Maybe puts a dent in some meaningless stats and isn't pretty or exciting to watch, but if they come out on top in the end, maybe save a bit of wear and tear...really doesn't matter.

Other than blowouts and the odd few plays here and there, that Rams game was really the one that comes to mind for me as glaringly obvious that they'd been knocked a bit off balance.  There was more to that than just randomly deciding to let Goff do what he wants.  For example, the way the Rams putter around the line of scrimmage with a total spread of different looks and receiving threats, you don't necessarily want to make it easy for them to run coverage off.  You want to keep good tacklers near the line, which means you're swapping around your coverages.  And that doesn't always go smoothly.  Especially when you need to be able to respond on the fly.

It's not something the scheme can't compensate for...but this is a defense that, especially at that point...was still really just starting to gel together and learn some things, and figure out how to adjust to some of that obfuscation.  We've had random examples of those alignment and matchup problems in other games too though, even in the middle of not playing particularly soft coverage.  It's just that those sort of glitches have become the exception, rather than the norm...so they feel more glaring i think.  And that they tend to be accompanied by softer looks.  Things where you end up with a Safety awkwardly chasing a WR down the field or what have you.  Even though some of those similar looks are where they've generated turnovers when more appropriately fitted.

[jrry32]

19 minutes ago, iPwn said:

Problem is, I don’t think this defense is particularly great when they aren’t playing physical at the line and roughing receivers up, and forcing QBs to throw before they want to. It’s just a bland, easy to read and execute against cover 3 defense at that point.

It worked pretty well against us. Yea, we were playing it safe because the special teams got us the lead, but it seemed like McVay really respected your defense and didn't want to risk it with the way y'all were playing us. Had you played more aggressively, I think he would have been a bit more aggressive. That might have panned out by causing turnovers, but it also might have backfired in a major way. It puts a lot of stress on the defense.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

9 hours ago, .Buzz said:

Would just be nice to go into the game knowing we're the champs regardless. Still a big game for seeding but...

The 2nd part is why i kind of want TN to win. Dont want the team thinking they got it before it starts

[.Buzz]

 

[.Buzz]

 

[.Buzz]

 

[pwny]

10 hours ago, jrry32 said:

It worked pretty well against us. Yea, we were playing it safe because the special teams got us the lead, but it seemed like McVay really respected your defense and didn't want to risk it with the way y'all were playing us. Had you played more aggressively, I think he would have been a bit more aggressive. That might have panned out by causing turnovers, but it also might have backfired in a major way. It puts a lot of stress on the defense.

I think we left guys wide open a lot. That’s part of why I said I didn’t com away impressed with Goff in that game. Seemed like every time you guys ran a shallow cross or the square in, we had nobody within 3 yards by the time the ball arived because the corner started so far off.