Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Marrone's staff
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Jacksonville Jaguars
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
FreeDaJags


Joined: 05 Jan 2017
Posts: 57
Location: UF
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iPwn wrote:
Mike Kaye said that while not confirmed, it looks like most everyone believes that Wash is gonna keep the 4-3 Under as the scheme.



Lol

Pure nepotist, loser mentality hiring.
Bradley didn't run a 4-3 under.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
.Buzz


Joined: 16 Jul 2013
Posts: 3760
Location: Iowa
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jagman777 wrote:
.Buzz wrote:
jagman777 wrote:
Jags wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone noted this before:

http://www.espn.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/66411/jaguars-cb-jalen-ramsey-a-complete-flip-in-staff-scheme-needed


lmfao

what a circus


?

It's a young player that experienced his first losing season ever in his life. Not sure what you expect. Jalen has a big mouth, he's vocal about his frustrations. I wouldn't really call it a circus.

Plus he likely gets his wish, this isn't going to be the same defense. We wouldn't have changed our entire defense coaching staff outside of Wash if we were sticking to it.


I'm sure Jalen is thrilled we're keeping the same DC he played under all year and then made the comments he made

inb4 "changing the scheme brah!"

you are all in for some serious disappointment lol


So because a rookie comes out and says he doesn't like the scheme that means we should just do whatever we can to please him? Ok...

The main problem they complained about were how anti-aggressive things were. IDC what the scheme is as long as we play to their strengths. No more playing Skuta over Jack JUST because Skuta fits the "OTTO" position more (which we got away from when Gus was out and Wash was the only guy running the defense), let Ramsey show off his skills and allow Gipson to be more aggressive and involved. The thing about Seattle is that they changed things over the years and adjust.
_________________

El Ramster on the sig


Last edited by .Buzz on Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tugboat


Joined: 30 Mar 2011
Posts: 5205
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iPwn wrote:
Mike Kaye said that while not confirmed, it looks like most everyone believes that Wash is gonna keep the 4-3 Under as the scheme.



Lol

Pure nepotist, loser mentality hiring.



It's not like the 4-3 Under doesn't work at all. Seattle have used variations on the theme to fantastic effect. Heck, the Falcons have spun off on that all the way to the Super Owl.


The key theme in success though, is flexibility in fitting the scheme to the personnel. Rather than repeatedly and aimlessly jamming square pegs into round holes and assigning vague generalities to a role instead of responsibilities as we saw under Gus. You see the way the Seahawks defense is an ever-evolving entity shaped by the players they have available. If you can do that, the 4-3 Under can definitely work...and work well.

The question is really: is Wash actually any good at doing that?

The other question: how well has Dave actually cherrypicked guys who fit the general needs of the scheme in the first place? Frankly...if he's done a crap job of that, he needs to go...period.



I'm totally on board with them persisting in that 4-3 Under mold...but i want to see them actually run it well, and with the right players to play their roles, and the players feeling like they're in the right roles as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
iPwn


Global Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 55966
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

.Buzz wrote:
You go ahead and believe we're keeping it intact after firing all the position coaches and the HC that brought the scheme here. Makes perfect sense.
I'll go ahead and believe that a guy who has been a part of the same scheme for half a decade is going to continue using that scheme when people are saying signs point to him using the same scheme.
_________________

Live like you're down 3-1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
iPwn


Global Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 55966
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FreeDaJags wrote:
iPwn wrote:
Mike Kaye said that while not confirmed, it looks like most everyone believes that Wash is gonna keep the 4-3 Under as the scheme.



Lol

Pure nepotist, loser mentality hiring.
Bradley didn't run a 4-3 under.
Uhh...what?
_________________

Live like you're down 3-1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
.Buzz


Joined: 16 Jul 2013
Posts: 3760
Location: Iowa
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iPwn wrote:
.Buzz wrote:
You go ahead and believe we're keeping it intact after firing all the position coaches and the HC that brought the scheme here. Makes perfect sense.
I'll go ahead and believe that a guy who has been a part of the same scheme for half a decade is going to continue using that scheme when people are saying signs point to him using the same scheme.


I have no problem running that scheme.

I have a problem with Skuta playing over our 2nd rd pick when Skuta is at best a glorified bench player. I have a problem with not making adjustments. I have a problem with not letting our best players play to their strengths. I have a problem with the lack of accountability Gus had when players would make [inappropriate/removed] mistakes and let them go right back in without talking to them about it (Which Marrone ALWAYS did once he took over).

Have zero problem with the scheme as long as they adjust it to fit the players. Until Wash shows he is going to be like Gus in that aspect (which considering he tossed out the OTTO term the week after Gus was fired and Jack played a lot more snaps I am going to assume he isn't until he shows something different) than I could care less.
_________________

El Ramster on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
.Buzz


Joined: 16 Jul 2013
Posts: 3760
Location: Iowa
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iPwn wrote:
FreeDaJags wrote:
iPwn wrote:
Mike Kaye said that while not confirmed, it looks like most everyone believes that Wash is gonna keep the 4-3 Under as the scheme.



Lol

Pure nepotist, loser mentality hiring.
Bradley didn't run a 4-3 under.
Uhh...what?


From what I'm reading it sounds like Gus ran more of a 4-3 over here with SOME 4-3 under.
_________________

El Ramster on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
iPwn


Global Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 55966
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

.Buzz wrote:
iPwn wrote:
FreeDaJags wrote:
iPwn wrote:
Mike Kaye said that while not confirmed, it looks like most everyone believes that Wash is gonna keep the 4-3 Under as the scheme.



Lol

Pure nepotist, loser mentality hiring.
Bradley didn't run a 4-3 under.
Uhh...what?


From what I'm reading it sounds like Gus ran more of a 4-3 Over here with SOME 4-3 under.
Not really. He ran both, but the defense was predominantly built to be the 4-3 Under. I mean the OTTO was simply a rename of the basic Under SAM.

Like every problem people have with the front 7 for our players is because of the Under.

Pissed that Jack wasn't on the field? That's because the Under requires the SAM to play on the LOS to eat blocks and Jack doesn't have that bulk. The over puts the SAM back in space on the second level and let's them roam to the play.

Pissed that we never put Telvin on TEs despite the fact he's an elite cover LB? That's because the Under puts the SAM over the TE to eat up a blocker at the first level and to prevent TE chips on the LEO. When the TE releases, so does the SAM. The Over plays the WILL over the TE for pass coverage and is expected to shed block attempts in the run game.

Telvin/Jack work well as Over OLBs. They don't work as a combo for Under OLBs.
_________________

Live like you're down 3-1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VLoo


Joined: 05 Feb 2014
Posts: 399
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Will the 4-3 Under require us to play exclusively single high safety?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
iPwn


Global Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 55966
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VLoo wrote:
Will the 4-3 Under require us to play exclusively single high safety?
No. The Tampa 2 uses a lot of Under fronts. Wash is familiar at some level with the Tampa 2, so I mean he could do that instead of the press man cover 3 hybrid, but who knows what he's going to do.
_________________

Live like you're down 3-1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DuvalsKing


Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 1017
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you listen to Seahawks fans they will tell you they don't feel like their defense really started to take until Gus went to Jacksonville and Quinn took over they'll tell you that the defense played more aggressive and Quinn added more bells and whistles and put guys in a better position. Wash has to find a way to put players in a better position.
_________________
Who I wanted drafted vs Jags over the last 4 drafts
2014:Khalil Mack - Blake Bortles
2015:Amari Cooper - Dante Fowler
2016:Jalen Ramsey - Jalen Ramsey
2017:Solomon Thomas - Leonard Fournette
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FreeDaJags


Joined: 05 Jan 2017
Posts: 57
Location: UF
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whining over keeping the 43U defense is pretty much, once again, complaining before putting any thought into anything. Our personnel is best suited to a 4-3U, almost every team with a dominant pass rushing DT runs a 43U, running a 43U does not mean Wash will not tweak the defense to make it more aggressive, it is literally just what our personnel calls for. It's beyond ridiculous to moan about them using a defense that is what we acquired our players to run. Yeah, lets toss everybody into a 3-4 just because it's different and see how it works out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
iPwn


Global Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 55966
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FreeDaJags wrote:
Whining over keeping the 43U defense is pretty much, once again, complaining before putting any thought into anything.
Says the guy who just said yesterday that we didn't even run the 4-3 Under.
_________________

Live like you're down 3-1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
iPwn


Global Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 55966
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And I mean the defense is only worth keeping the Under if you think it's better to have
- Skuta playing on the LOS instead of having Jack in space
- Telvin not covering TEs
- Malik not moving around
- No pressure generated from LE
- Day/Abry predominantly playing backup to Malik instead of starting next to him.

Once you're okay with breaking away from those, you really have no pieces that aren't translatable to varied fronts or different schemes at all. Under, Over, Over Stem, one gap, 2 gap. Most everyone fits all of that. The only one who doesn't really fit outside of a Under is Marks (and who knows if he's ever going to be good anyway) and the space heater 5Ts.

There's nothing wrong with keeping the Under as a part of the package. The Under should be a part of any base 4-3 playbook. The issue is that the way Kaye said it, it looks like there won't be much schematic variance from what we did before.
_________________

Live like you're down 3-1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Trentwannabe


Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 6781
Location: Igloo, Canada
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your new QB Scott Milanovich is a QB guru. He played the position and fun fact, was the first overall pick in the XFL Laughing

He's coached a variety style of QB's in the CFL and his offense was always near the top of the league. He revived the career of two dwindiling veterans and created two franchise guys from scratch.

He should be nothing but good for Bortles and I could see him as an OC in a few years.
_________________

Thank you NickChowaniec!

Trust the Process.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Jacksonville Jaguars All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 13 of 15

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group