How do the Jaguars make the playoffs in 2010: #1 Eliminate Red Zone Turnovers
by Jonathan Loesche on Jul 6, 2010 10:55 AM EDT
in Jacksonville Jaguars Comcast Sponsored Posts
Email
PrintJack Del Rio has made it clear that the his expectations of the Jaguars in 2010 is to make the playoffs. How are they going to take the major step of being the team that defined "Yeah, but" in 2009 to a contender in 2010? We'll look at several things over the coming weeks.
First up was the Jaguars perpetual nemesis in 2009, redzone turnovers. Last year the Jaguars led the NFL in red zone turnovers as a team, while David Garrard lead all players in the NFL. The Jaguars inability to capitalize in the redzone most likely cost this team a trip to the playoffs in 2010. Let's take a look at several key moments in 2009 and see how red zone problems hurt the Jaguars.
Week 2 vs Arizona: Blocked FG returned for TD
Although not technically a red zone turnover, it still resulted in no points for the Jaguars. Worse yet, it actually gave 7 points to Arizona. If it goes through, it's 10-6 Arizona and it's still a ball game. Instead, it was 17-3 Arizona and the fat lady could've come out right then and there.
Week 5 vs Seattle: Failed 4th down attempt
Again, not technically a red zone turnover, but still no points were involved. I actually agree with JDR's decision to go for it there. If the Jaguars had converted, it would've given them a quick 7-0 lead on the road in one of the most hostile stadiums in the NFL. Instead, Seattle held, managed to go 99 yards for the score, and the Jaguars were never competitive in that game again.
Week 6 vs St.Louis: MJD Fumble and Garrard Interception
The Jaguars gave two nearly fatal gifts to the Rams in Week 6. First MJD fumbled on the one, then later on Garrard threw it to a wide open James Laurinitis for an interception. Although the Jaguars prevailed in overtime, these were two more crippling turnovers.
Week 10 vs NY Jets: MJD fumbled at the one
The Jaguars were seemingly on there way to routing the Jets when Quentin Groves picked up a fumble and was seemingly destined for a touchdown. Instead, he tripped over his own shoes and the Jaguars got the ball at the one. Jones-Drew then dove in on the next play, only for the ball to come out of his hands. The play changed the outcome of the game, and had it not been for him taking a knee instead of going in for a TD later in the game, the Jaguars playoff chances could've been dead right there.
Week 12 vs San Francisco: Garrard's fumbles
In a tight defensive battle with the 49ers, the Jaguars made several second half drives into the 49ers red zone. However, after seemingly each possession, it always ended the same way. The 49ers would be all over David, the ball would come loose, and Jags fans all over just wanted it to end.
There were far more examples than those, but I just wanted to try and hit the high points. If this team wants to become a playoff team, it will need to put points on the board when it didn't before. How will it remedy the situation?
1. Better offensive line play
The upgrades in the offensive line should be the most apparent here. Between the growth 2nd year tackles Eugene Monroe and Eben Britton should have, along with the various acquistions for the interior of the offensive line, it should be a much improved unit in 2010. This should hopefully cut down on MJD getting stuffed so often towards the line, along with hopefully decreasing the amount of hits Garrard took.
Honestly, that's the only key thing that I think will be noticeably improved as far as the Jaguars red zone possession goes. Everything else is dependent on things players should have been learning since Pop Warner, like ball security and scanning the field. If the line improves, everything else should improve with it.
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
yeah week 5 against seattle, morale evaporated so quickly, Garrard was told to whing it around and make some points, i never understood why they had like 10 yards rushing in the second half. The game was basically over in 2nd qtr in hindsight and they couldve ran it down and at least prevented a shutout w/ a FG
Waber-Jaguar
worst play all season for me was against the seahawks
they did a PA roll out to the right, short side, to pass and it was just pitiful. Garrard really was forced to run and the call just blew my mind.
sneak or MJD or GJ woulda worked all day
These walls are cavin in, WHUPS time to raise em then
this may be the goal-line play mentioned above
not sure
These walls are cavin in, WHUPS time to raise em then
And if they had run that one of those and it didn't work
people would’ve complained that the play calling is too predictable.
It’s all about execution.
Here's a little bit to think about
If you have to turn the ball over, the one place you would pick would be the redzone, right? I say that we are lucky to have had so many of our turnovers happen in a place where opposing offenses are uncomfortable. I would be willing to say that we would have lost at least one more game had some of those turnovers been at midfield. Our defense wasn’t great, but it still isn’t easy to drive the whole field from your own endzone. We need a better success rate in the redzone, but I see redzone turnovers as a “preferred” turnover. If we never lose a ball outside the 20 yard line this year, I’ll be thrilled.
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!
by DownTownJax on Jul 6, 2010 1:11 PM EDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs
I like the different thinking
In a broad sense, I would probably agree with your assessment. However, I must address a couple points: 1)the momentum factor and team morale and 2)endzone turnovers. If a team drives 60+ yards to the redzone and commit a turnover, a “wasted” drive feeling comes about team, and added pressure on the defense to get the ball back. Also, on the flip side, if the offense starts on the opponents 30 yard line, moves the ball 10-12 yards, commits turnover, a feeling of wasting golden opportunity occurs. Again, in those 2 scenerios, a well coached team would have little trouble in bouncing back and forgetting the turnover. And to my second point, the endzone is part of the redzone right (when it comes to turnovers)? So how many of those INTs and fumbles were recovered in the endzone and thus resulted in a touchback?
one more thing i just thought of. It seems to me from watching games over the years, that many INTs that are thrown within the 10 yard line go for sizeable gains.
???
Your opponent’s red zone is the worst place to have a turnover, because you’re all but guaranteed to come away with points by that point.
Big Cat Country, The #1 Jaguars blog on the net
by Jonathan Loesche on Jul 6, 2010 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
The way I see it
Turnovers in your opponent’s redzone are bad because you Could Have scored while turning over the ball in your own end zone is far worse because the opponent most likely will score. It is more of a question of results vs potential. We blow potential scores but make resulting points difficult. I’m ok with taking red zone risks because of the long field our defense would have. Converting more often will be key!
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!
by DownTownJax on Jul 6, 2010 2:58 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Correction
Red zone – not end zone
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!
by DownTownJax on Jul 6, 2010 3:11 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I understand the point you're trying to make
but I have to disagree.
A team only has so many drives in a game and when you get within scoring range, you need to score.
Sure, turning the ball over inside your own 20 is bad, but I’d much rather turn the ball over at mid field (anywhere between the 30’s) than inside the opponents 20 yard line.
I understand
The emotion behind missed points, but when a turnover happens, that scoring chance is gone. The field position then becomes far more important for the defense. The point I am trying to make is that your odds are better when the field is long. You feel disappointed to see such a close drive fail, but a failed drive is a failed drive. There is a reason that slot machines are programmed to show 77 and have the third 7 just one row off. You focus on how close you came to winning, not that you just lost your money. Failed possessions are best done deep in your opponent’s territory. It’s all about field position at that point.
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!
by DownTownJax on Jul 6, 2010 4:54 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Basically
I am saying that this is encouraging. We are getting close and dropping the ball. This is much easier to fix than not getting close. If we had issues turning the ball over in our own territory, we’d have trouble.
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!
by DownTownJax on Jul 6, 2010 5:29 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Looking for optimism
in a bad statistic is basically what your doing. It is encouraging, definately if you want to look at it that way. Hopefully with improved line play comes better play calling and execution in the redzone
Absolutely
If we get better protection and more push from the line, our red zone appearances are going to be much improved. Field position matters a lot in football, so if we can have good field position and low turnovers, the points will come.
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!
by DownTownJax on Jul 6, 2010 7:10 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I find nothing encouraging about it
There’s a time to be aggressive and a time to protect the ball. Turning the ball over inside of FG range when points are almost assured is not the same thing as turning the ball over in your own territory. It’s worse because it takes points off the board. Even if the other team gets the ball deep in Jaguar territory the D still has a chance to make the stop.
Turnovers are bad, I understand that
and the best teams in the league execute when it matters most, ie the redzone. Might it also be possible that the turnovers in the redzone statistic are magnified for the Jags because it seemed like the D rarely stopped the opposing offense on the ensuing drive?
by ScottyD4Life on Jul 6, 2010 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions
The odds
This really comes down to the odds of a given result based upon field position. The odds of getting the ball back with good field position keeps going up the closer the opponent is backed up to their own end zone. The odds of having a meaningful possession afterward on offense goes up too. Scoring chances are increased by good field position. Fixing goal line problems should be much easier than if we had to find a way to move the ball. We were getting good field position and making turnovers. We have the ability to get close, but when we get in goal line battles, we have issues. That says that we get punished in situations where there is a battle of the trenches. With just a little more protection and push, we are converting at a higher rate. It is basically showing that we can get over 80% of the way but have problems finishing. That’s not the worst thing ever. I’m optimistic about this!
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!
by DownTownJax on Jul 7, 2010 1:18 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Recomended by Paul Kuharsky
Nice job; Jon!
Life without knowledge is death in disguise
Follow me on twitter @iktriad
by Zoltan from Budapest on Jul 7, 2010 9:39 AM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Big Cat Country
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
