AFCCG practice news: Patriots & Jaguars (edit)

[Mack Herron]

I'm not sold on the idea of carrying just 3 WRs, particularly when one of them has been on and off the injury train all year.

If the plan calls for 1-2 WRs virtually the entire game it makes sense. Even last week Dorsett got 0 snaps and I think this week is heavy RB/TE/FB sets. If you look at the active list Reiss proposes, they would all play, which is unlikely if they dress Dorsett. Finally, Slater can clear zones nearly as effectively as Dorsett. Tough call this week but I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Deus Irae]

If the plan calls for 1-2 WRs virtually the entire game it makes sense. Even last week Dorsett got 0 snaps and I think this week is heavy RB/TE/FB sets. If you look at the active list Reiss proposes, they would all play, which is unlikely if they dress Dorsett. Finally, Slater can clear zones nearly as effectively as Dorsett. Tough call this week but I wouldn't be surprised.

No, it still doesn't make sense, because of the injury issues. It's a needless gamble.

 

[Patjew]

No, it still doesn't make sense, because of the injury issues. It's a needless gamble.

I agree. I want to see Dorsett active just in case. Plus I like the dude.

 

[mgteich]

Jimmy G > Aaron Rodgers

Thank you so much. ROFL!

 

[Uptown]

 

[long distance]

No, it still doesn't make sense, because of the injury issues. It's a needless gamble.

Funny you would make this about sense and gambling..

Going with only 3 CBs when Rowe and Gilmore were out was much bigger “gamble“ esp. since they still played a ton of nickel and dime and the #3 CB in that game was “a ST only“ Bademosi (for most people at least) who played the whole game in place of Gilmore.

Going here w 10 receivers even though six are not WRs would hardly be “senseless“ or “gambling“. One could argue going in w only one punt returner (Chung is just fair catching) is more of a gamble in a battle of field position of two very good STs.

And weren't you the one who suggested they should play Burkhead as WR in this game?

 

[Deus Irae]

Funny you would make this about sense and gambling..

Going with only 3 CBs when Rowe and Gilmore were out was much bigger “gamble“ esp. since they still played a ton of nickel and dime and the #3 CB in that game was “a ST only“ Bademosi (for most people at least) who played the whole game in place of Gilmore.

Where did I say it wasn't?

Going here w 10 receivers even though seven are not WRs would hardly be “senseless“ or “gambling“.

Yes, it's both senseless and a gamble. As a matter of fact, while I can't remember the game, it wasn't all that long ago that the team ended up playing a game without enough viable, healthy WRs, because of injuries. I'd rather avoid that, if possible.

One could argue going in w only one punt returner (Chung is just fair catching) is more of a gamble in a battle of field position of two very good STs.

One could argue any number of irrelevant things. Punter numbers would be among them. WR numbers would not.

And weren't you the one who suggested they should play Burkhead as WR in this game?

Yes, I suggested that the man who's coming off of a knee sprain take only slot WR work, rather than work as a RB. That changes nothing, though.

 

[long distance]

Where did I say it wasn't?



Yes, it's both senseless and a gamble. As a matter of fact, while I can't remember the game, it wasn't all that long ago that the team ended up playing a game without enough viable, healthy WRs, because of injuries. I'd rather avoid that, if possible.



One could argue any number of irrelevant things. Punter numbers would be among them. WR numbers would not.



Yes, I suggested that the man who's coming off of a knee sprain take only slot WR work, rather than work as a RB. That changes nothing, though.

Ok, for you it is senseless and gambling. For BB & co. it is how they do things (referring to previous occasions). I was surprised they went in that game with just 3 corners but it would be a bit rich to call that decision senseless gambling. It feels like these people know what they are doing..

Going into this game without Britt and Dorsett is the last worry Id have..

 

[Mack Herron]

Ok, for you it is senseless and gambling. For BB & co. it is how they do things (referring to previous occasions). I was surprised they went in that game with just 3 corners but it would be a bit rich to call that decision senseless gambling. It feels like these people know what they are doing..

Going into this game without Britt and Dorsett is the last worry Id have..

I would agree. Plus, if you really want to play this game, it's all fine and good to say make Dorsett active, but you also need to say whose place Dorsett would take. I already pointed out it would be somebody who actually took snaps. And if you take someone like Grissom off STs, then you should say who would play that position instead. If you take someone off offense or defense to play STs, as often happens in the playoffs (Hogan), then you are increasing injury risk there. Fans often disregard STs but BB certainly does not, and kick and punt coverage have been great strengths of this team. They will take a hit without J Jones but Bademosi is a terrific replacement.

 

[Deus Irae]

I would agree. Plus, if you really want to play this game, it's all fine and good to say make Dorsett active, but you also need to say whose place Dorsett would take. I already pointed out it would be somebody who actually took snaps. And if you take someone like Grissom off STs, then you should say who would play that position instead. If you take someone off offense or defense to play STs, as often happens in the playoffs (Hogan), then you are increasing injury risk there. Fans often disregard STs but BB certainly does not, and kick and punt coverage have been great strengths of this team. They will take a hit without J Jones but Bademosi is a terrific replacement.

Dorsett was active last week, and took nobody's snaps.

 

[Deus Irae]

Ok, for you it is senseless and gambling. For BB & co. it is how they do things (referring to previous occasions). I was surprised they went in that game with just 3 corners but it would be a bit rich to call that decision senseless gambling.

You're now arguing semantics, so it's clear that you've got nothing substantive and we're done here. If you can't figure out the potential issues with relying on Hogan and Amendola's health, you haven't paid a damned bit of attention to this football team over the past several seasons. Since I know you follow the team, I have to assume that you do see the potential issue, but you're just not thinking, and are just using the IBWT fallback, and that's not really a useful approach to discussion.

 

[long distance]

You're now arguing semantics, so it's clear that you've got nothing substantive and we're done here. If you can't figure out the potential issues with relying on Hogan and Amendola's health, you haven't paid a damned bit of attention to this football team over the past several seasons.

You are right. I shouldn't be arguing semantics. That's your job..

 

[Deus Irae]

You are right. I shouldn't be arguing semantics. That's your job..

Ad hom

How cute


Look, tell me that Burkhead's knee is 100% (in a football playing sense), that they won't have him back at RB, and that he's got all the slot WR routes down, and we can re-visit this. Tell me that Reedy is going to be used to keep Amendola off special teams, and I'm happy to look at adjusting my take. Hell, tell me that BB is going to bring Gillislee off the list, so that he can run it down the throat of the Jags, and I'll be receptive to the argument about WR risk. Until then,

Bademosi for Jones
Branch for Grissom
Burkhead for STer

Seems like the way to go.

 

[Ring 6]

If the plan calls for 1-2 WRs virtually the entire game it makes sense. Even last week Dorsett got 0 snaps and I think this week is heavy RB/TE/FB sets. If you look at the active list Reiss proposes, they would all play, which is unlikely if they dress Dorsett. Finally, Slater can clear zones nearly as effectively as Dorsett. Tough call this week but I wouldn't be surprised.

I expect to see a lot of 3 wr. I’d expect 50+ snaps for amendola with cooks, hogan and Gronk playing mostly all of them.

 

[Mack Herron]

I expect to see a lot of 3 wr. I’d expect 50+ snaps for amendola with cooks, hogan and Gronk playing mostly all of them.

I expect a big Devlin/RB/TE day. We'll see soon enough.

 

[Ring 6]

I expect a big Devlin/RB/TE day. We'll see soon enough.

I think we go 3 wr to get their small guys on the field and run against it, then work in throws.

My guess based up 70 plays:
Gronk 65
Allen 15
Develin 15
Cooks. 67
Hogan. 68
Amendola 50

Lewis 35
White 18
Burkhead 17

 

[Mack Herron]

I think we go 3 wr to get their small guys on the field and run against it, then work in throws.

My guess based up 70 plays:
Gronk 65
Allen 15
Develin 15
Cooks. 67
Hogan. 68
Amendola 50

Lewis 35
White 18
Burkhead 17

That would be in line with what we have seen. I am looking for more White, Allen. RBs in the flat and TE seams. Brady will feast on the zones.

 

[Ring 6]

That would be in line with what we have seen. I am looking for more White, Allen. RBs in the flat and TE seams.

I hope you are wrong.

 

[Mack Herron]

I hope you are wrong.

Ha! Could easily be. Not like we have interviews with Josh riding on these predictions.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I expect a big Devlin/RB/TE day. We'll see soon enough.

Agree. I absolutely see them running the ball a significant amount.