That could be part of it. Time in the pocket is key, as always.Hambone wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:39 pmSince Jennings took over back in 2015 he's never been shy about airing it out when he recognizes one on one coverage. The big difference yesterday was that he hit them. We really haven't seen that sort of accuracy on the deep ball out of Jennings this year. I can think of at least a few earlier in the season where receivers were behind coverage and Jennings missed the target. I can think of 2 sure TDs to Williams on deep routes behind coverage that wound up incomplete on overthrows. Maybe his shoulder wasn't 100% early on and is finally back to where it needs to be?WestCoastJoe wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:14 am
"When we had one on one coverage downfield we hit them."
Without good check downs, oftentimes our deep receivers this year were double covered. With no time in the pocket, no check downs readily available, Jennings chucked it up deep anyway. It needed better planning.
Having check downs. When check downs work, the defence has to come up. Coming forward opens up the deeper stuff.
Time after time this year, I would see Jennings in the pocket, with the pocket collapsing, with the receivers well covered, not getting separation, and with no receiver looking back to Jennings, or coming back to the ball. That is a formula for failure.
Plus we have not featured rollouts. The QB could be found right in the heart of the pocket.
As with a few bloggers here, this fan does not fault Jennings for the failures of our passing game. As noted a few times, IMO, Bo Levi Mitchell would look like a failure, having to play under the circumstance facing Jennings this year.
Injured shoulder? That could have affected his confidence. Plus, as Blitz points out, there may be a tendency for our QBs to eventually suffer from repeated hits, hurries and sacks.
Some tend to criticize Jennings. Not this fan. Fans are entitled to criticize players or coaches as they will. I do not wish to debate. People can have different opinions. And they will have different opinions.
IMO, in this game, we did a much better job of game planning. Jennings still took 4 sacks and a number of hits and hurries. But we had enough quick hitters to keep the defence somewhat off balance.
As Blitz notes, our receivers do not always do their best getting separation. Routes not run cleanly. Guys not working back to the QB when Jennings is in trouble, as he oftentimes is with receivers well covered.
As a fan, I used to get annoyed with Dickenson when he would take a sack instead of throwing it away. I thought he was protecting his stats. JJ will throw it away. Sometimes better to just take the sack. No tipped ball, etc.
It usually comes down to people looking at the QB. In good times and bad.
IMO Jennings has a very special ability to throw very, very accurate passes, if he is given time in the pocket.
IMO it is not just one thing that needed correction. It was not just that Jennings was messing up, having a "sophomore jinx," or not living up to his results of last year. O Line. Receivers. Game planning. Et cetera ...
And looking at last year, defences this year had a better book on Jennings. Since the defences adjusted, we needed to adjust.
Lulay is a different matter. IMO he was so much better in his short time this year than even in previous years, including his MOP year. Better arm. Better reads. More confidence. And he has always had his extreme mobility and running ability to put defences back on their heels. Defences had not yet figured out this year how to slow him down. But they would. And we would have to adjust once again.
Just IMO. Not a critic of Jennings. Biased in his favour? One could say that. I think he brings one helluva lot to the table. As we saw this game. If I thought he was doing poorly I wouldn't speak on his behalf to such an extent. And then there is the patience factor, if one sees an upside.
If we do not bring enough to help the QB, whether that is Dickenson, Printers, Pierce, Lulay or Jennings, my bias is in support of the QB. We have seen the pounding they take in our offence.
Just IMO, Hambone.