Jensen bandwagon

[Cawtious]

15 minutes ago, Filmstudy said:

That was a screen pass.  It will be on Jensen's career highlight reel, because he also knocked down a guy at the LoS.

If you're interested my OL article is now out.  Because the grades were so poor, I provided (Q, T) references for the main 4 culprits, so you can follow on Game Pass.

http://russellstreetreport.com/2016/10/05/filmstudy/ravens-raiders-offensive-line-grades/

Thank you for the correction!  I stand corrected !!

[Cawtious]

17 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

So basically, Jensen will succeed as long as he has a very good tackle playing next to him, doesn't have to go up against quality rushers, and has gotten many weeks of consecutive play (regardless of performance) under his belt?

Well good luck finding those moments happening very often. I guess since its unlikely any of those things will happen all at the same time, we are on the same page that Jensen shouldn't be given a starting role like some sort of charity case. 

Me personally, I would think the circumstances you described would be the perfect opportunity for Jensen to show his value by playing even better, but I guess we just see things differently in that regard.

Moot point obviously, because Lewis has done nothing to warrant a benching, and Jensen has done nothing to help his cause either.

Twisting my point. That is NOT what I am saying.  I am saying that anyone placed in that situation (struggling player that needs assistance) is not going to shine as brightly, or at all.  I am saying that comparing Jensen's overall ability to Lewis is not apples to apples, because he (Lewis) has not had a poor LT next to him and hasn't been tested by the best.....yet. 

Give Jensen a chance to settle into a position and I think he will be fine.

Jensen was asked to take on a task for which I think the result may have been very close to the same for Lewis......but we'll never know because chances are he'll not be playing next to the worst LT in the league facing one of the best edge rushers around.  At least the odds may be long that he will..........Judge the work based on a game that offers close to the same scenario as to who is better.  I don't think that is unreasonable.   

 

[The Raven]

34 minutes ago, Filmstudy said:

That was a screen pass.  It will be on Jensen's career highlight reel, because he also knocked down a guy at the LoS.

If you're interested my OL article is now out.  Because the grades were so poor, I provided (Q, T) references for the main 4 culprits, so you can follow on Game Pass.

http://russellstreetreport.com/2016/10/05/filmstudy/ravens-raiders-offensive-line-grades/

And again, I will strongly disagree with your grades. I'm not sure if it's your judgment or your system but it consistently differs from my opinion, as well as with PFF. 

I don't think there's any way anyone can reasonably give Zuttah an F for that performance. Jensen, I can maybe see an F. With Hurst, a D is generous. But Zuttah had his best game yet. Seriously? An F? And how did Jensen get an F but Hurst get a D? I realize there isn't much of a difference but c'mon... I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

I know, I know... you're very transparent or whatever and you have your own system... 

[ALPHA]

On 10/5/2016 at 6:10 AM, rmcjacket23 said:

Wouldn't the same be said for Lewis? After all, his sample size is only three games?

Would seem the sample size isn't big enough to make any changes on the Oline right now, which I suspect is precisely how the coaching staff is thinking.

I will also point out that Jensen started 6 games at LG last season, so his sample size is actually bigger than Lewis and has had more time to "gel" so to speak than Lewis has.

I guess the team needs to figure out where it averages out, if Jensen can't hit those high notes then we might as well give Alex the nod because he's year 1 into his rookie contract. 

[balfan23]

On 10/4/2016 at 3:27 PM, Gtown Purple said:

I saw lots of people clambering for Ryan Jensen the past couple of weeks. Just wanted to check and see how many people still think he should play in stead of Lewis?

It was kind of understandable as he looked pretty good last year. I was actually kind of surprised he didn't end up with the starting job, but I don't question who we should be playing .. the staff sees these guys hours upon hours, day after day. Then he played and, wow, the decision for the staff must have been a lot easier than I thought. 

I just don't know what happened. Zuttah was pretty bad in the first few games and he was not nearly that shaky last year. Then Jensen. Who knows what Urshel would look like. There seems to be a minor epidemic on the o line and it needs to get fixed. I still believe, if we had a well functioning o line this team would be a real contender. 

[frozen joe flacco fan]

I agree with earlier posts that its unfair to grade Jensen's play against Oakland just on the basis of his blocking assignments. He had to help Hurst is really bad. That being said, Hurst and/or Jensen would be starters if they were better than the two rookies. Wagner didn't play great either which puts more pressure on Yanda. Its not a pretty situation. If something isn't resolved soon, Joe will be on crutches. What happened to Bobby Williams?

[The Raven]

9 minutes ago, frozen joe flacco fan said:

I agree with earlier posts that its unfair to grade Jensen's play against Oakland just on the basis of his blocking assignments. He had to help Hurst is really bad. That being said, Hurst and/or Jensen would be starters if they were better than the two rookies. Wagner didn't play great either which puts more pressure on Yanda. Its not a pretty situation. If something isn't resolved soon, Joe will be on crutches. What happened to Bobby Williams?

Bobbie Williams has long since retired. He wasn't even good when we had him tbh

[rmcjacket23]

14 hours ago, Cawtious said:

Twisting my point. That is NOT what I am saying.  I am saying that anyone placed in that situation (struggling player that needs assistance) is not going to shine as brightly, or at all.  I am saying that comparing Jensen's overall ability to Lewis is not apples to apples, because he (Lewis) has not had a poor LT next to him and hasn't been tested by the best.....yet. 

Give Jensen a chance to settle into a position and I think he will be fine.

Jensen was asked to take on a task for which I think the result may have been very close to the same for Lewis......but we'll never know because chances are he'll not be playing next to the worst LT in the league facing one of the best edge rushers around.  At least the odds may be long that he will..........Judge the work based on a game that offers close to the same scenario as to who is better.  I don't think that is unreasonable.   

 

No, don't give him a chance at anything. Make him EARN a chance to have that role.

What, precisely, has Jensen done to EARN the starting LG job? Its a football team, not a charity case. Not about giving... its about taking.

[Gtown Purple]

On 10/4/2016 at 6:51 PM, The Raven said:

Not really. Plenty of zone teams are still doing just fine without the cut blocks. See: Cowboys (2nd ranked rushing team), New England (3rd ranked rushing team), Oakland (5th ranked), Panthers (8th), Texans (11th) and Steelers (13th).

All of those teams use a lot of zone, especially tight zone.

It's not "my logic on zone." It's fact. We're still running a lot of zone, and we primarily ran zone on Sunday, with more outside zone looks than previous weeks.

What you said about pressure and penalties is fair. But I haven't called for him to come in yet, have I? I think we should have a conversation about it, though. A reliable run game stalls a pass rush like nothing else.

I just don't see much similarity in our running game as when Kubiak was here and we were running the stretch play alot. Maybe they modified it some but my understanding of zone is that the running back has a choice of holes and the real goal is the cut back lane. The runs I seeing this year seem to have a predefined destination that the runner is going to. I don't think I've seen a cut back run at all this year.

 

I'm not trying to single you out on Jensen, my point in the post is similar to alot of other situations in that people call for the backup way to quick. I think it's obvious that Lewis has way more upside and that's why he is playing. 

[Gtown Purple]

On 10/4/2016 at 5:44 PM, usmccharles said:

Yea I hear ya.  I actually agree with the 'accepting the penalty' call, but not the two point conversion.  I think a lot of our flags were attributed to the new guys on the OL, haven't seen any stats though.   Starting slow Is our biggest issue in my opinion. 

All four games combined we are scored as  1Q-12pts, 2Q-29, 3rdQ-16, 4thQ-27. 

Our slow starts are going to be the death of us. I'm not happy with either the 2 point conversion and 15 yard penalty decisions. Harbiagh tends to chase points to early and that 15 yard penalty wasn't going to make their  field goal much harder. I don't think the Raiders go for on 4th down if we decline the penalty which was on a tackle for loss mind you.

 

Maybe I'm singling out Jensen a little unfairly but his mistakes were pretty darn costly. Both of his holding penalties nullified good gains and one nullified a first down on an eventual 3 and out deep in our end. If I remember correctly it was the drive right before we gave up that punt return to the 6.

[Gtown Purple]

18 hours ago, Cawtious said:

I'll play!

1.  Still on the wagon

2.  If we are going to associate poor edge skills by Hurst as a modicum to roast Jensen, let's apply the same consideration to Yanda when Wagner got beat.  Where was Yanda?  Oh.....he was taking care of his man....which flows to #3

3.  Jensen was asked to not only deal with the man in front of him, but had to bolster the efforts of Hurst.  Go back and look at the edge rush on Hurst where he was beaten badly by Mack and was headed for Joe's legs.  Who chipped his man, and backtracked 6 yrds to the inside to stop Mack from wiping Joe out?  Yep.

4.  Jensen played how many snaps with the 1's at LG during camp to prep him and get him into the flow?  Granted he played the position last year for 5 games, but was NEVER given the chance to improve at the position during camp.  He was shifted to Center.  They have not let him settle in.  They keep playing musical chairs with him.  It's not helping things.

5. I saw four bad plays from him.  Two penalties (Hold and False Start) not two holds as others have indicated.  He got badly beat to the inside resulting in a QB hurry and Flacco having to dump the pass to the sideline for an incompletion.  He was beat resulting in a hit on Joe.  Attributing all 11 QB hits to "The Left Side of the Line" is hyperbole.  I watched him look over his shoulder and get caught between dealing with his man and helping a completely overmatched LT on most every pass play.  You cannot parlay Hurst's failures as Jensen's failures.  See #2 once again.  If that's how we're gonna do this, then make sure there is sauce enough for both gooses.

6. Look at some of the people Jensen has had to deal with:  Avril, Mack, the Steelers DT's, Cincinnati..... 6-7 games he's started in.  What has Alex dealt with so far as far as comparative talent from edge rushers and pro bowlers?  I'll reserve judgment on him until he lines up with the poorest LT in the league to his left against pro bowl caliber DL's.  Then I'll decide if he's better or worse or comparative in a similar situation.

Jensen needs to be given a consistent look at a specific position.  Would you expect Wagner to play LT and expect a more effective game from him?  You might, but is it realistic?  Why is it realistic to expect a Yeoman performance from Jensen when he's lined up at LG without sufficient reps (in my mind) this season, placing him next to one of the poorest rated LT's in the game, and then blow his butt out of the water when it goes badly?  Bad reach block....yep.....bad.  Bad penalties?  Yep not good.........blaming him for the woes of the LT......not so much.

 

Sorry about the long read.  GO RAVENS!!!

I don't understand your logic here. I'm not saying Jesen needs to be blamed for Hurst sucking. My point was the left side of our line was the biggest liability in this game. The raiders got pressure regularly on that side. Jensen did get beat multiple times and his penalties really hurt us. His false start killed a drive and his hold wiped out a first down. Additionally the subsequent punt is the one that got returned to our 6 yard line and turned into a touchdown the next play. A first down likely changes that entire sequence of events.

 

Jensen has been here a heck of a lot longer than Lewis so your point about being given opportunity doesn't resonate with me. I'm sure if Jensen would have shown high capability then we wouldn't being playing a 4th round draft pick. The raiders have one of the weaker DT combos in the league. It was a real talking point in alot of the stuff I was reading and hearing on sat radio. Even with that Jensen allowed pressure up the middle. The edge rush is more on Hurst than anybody since he protects the blind side but we all know Hurst isn't great. He's the reason Flacco needed acl surgery. I'm more interested in seeing how Alex does against higher level DT's. Jensen has had his time to prove himself.

[Gtown Purple]

16 hours ago, jboy19 said:

I think it was a knee jerk reaction to begin with. At least they'll disappear.................. jk they're the same people calling for Tavon Young to start over Shareece Wright. Love those internet GMs. 

Putting a 5'9 guy on the outside just isn't going to work in today's nfl. I don't think even Darrell Green could play at the same level he did now as when he played. Too many tall receivers and much more downfield throwing. Tavon needs to stay in the slot and wipe out the opposing teams shifty receivers, although I'm interested to see what they do with him against the Pats later this year.

[Gtown Purple]

15 hours ago, The Raven said:

And again, I will strongly disagree with your grades. I'm not sure if it's your judgment or your system but it consistently differs from my opinion, as well as with PFF. 

I don't think there's any way anyone can reasonably give Zuttah an F for that performance. Jensen, I can maybe see an F. With Hurst, a D is generous. But Zuttah had his best game yet. Seriously? An F? And how did Jensen get an F but Hurst get a D? I realize there isn't much of a difference but c'mon... I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

I know, I know... you're very transparent or whatever and you have your own system... 

I'm going to have to agree with you here. I thought Zuttah played pretty well and only Yanda played better than him imho. Zuttah did have a couple penalties but that hold on the trick formation was ticky tack at best. Jensen and Hurst hurt us the most and Wagner got beat a few times as well.

[BmoreBird22]

16 hours ago, The Raven said:

And again, I will strongly disagree with your grades. I'm not sure if it's your judgment or your system but it consistently differs from my opinion, as well as with PFF. 

I don't think there's any way anyone can reasonably give Zuttah an F for that performance. Jensen, I can maybe see an F. With Hurst, a D is generous. But Zuttah had his best game yet. Seriously? An F? And how did Jensen get an F but Hurst get a D? I realize there isn't much of a difference but c'mon... I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

I know, I know... you're very transparent or whatever and you have your own system... 

I could be completely wrong here, and @Filmstudy can feel free to correct me, but it seems as if his grades start at 100 and then a player gets docked for a negative performance. I don't really see where the positives would come in. Like, there's no keeping track of pancake blocks or effective second level blocking, from what I can see, so it seems like a player can only go down.

PFF at least starts at 0.0 and has a grading scale that goes up and down, so it really allows the player to earn a positive or negative grade.

[ravenbran]

On 10/4/2016 at 3:34 PM, Gtown Purple said:

According to PFF Hurst and Jensen gave up 11 sacks\pressures and accounted for 3 penalties. That is simply unacceptable. Losing this game is going to come back and bite us come wild card time. This team is its own worst enemy at times.

May have been a few pressures  from the left side but the sack was from the right side of the line. penalties were from most lineman. If you listen to PFF you have a problem. They only write what people want to hear and that is pure hate and discontent. You had a pro bowler de on the left and the great off coordinator left them on the island by themselves. He just set them up. lets see how Stanley looks against one of those monsters. Or maybe he will be conveniently hurt again like last game....

[rmcjacket23]

48 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I could be completely wrong here, and @Filmstudy can feel free to correct me, but it seems as if his grades start at 100 and then a player gets docked for a negative performance. I don't really see where the positives would come in. Like, there's no keeping track of pancake blocks or effective second level blocking, from what I can see, so it seems like a player can only go down.

PFF at least starts at 0.0 and has a grading scale that goes up and down, so it really allows the player to earn a positive or negative grade.

 

16 hours ago, The Raven said:

And again, I will strongly disagree with your grades. I'm not sure if it's your judgment or your system but it consistently differs from my opinion, as well as with PFF. 

I don't think there's any way anyone can reasonably give Zuttah an F for that performance. Jensen, I can maybe see an F. With Hurst, a D is generous. But Zuttah had his best game yet. Seriously? An F? And how did Jensen get an F but Hurst get a D? I realize there isn't much of a difference but c'mon... I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

I know, I know... you're very transparent or whatever and you have your own system... 

Not taking sides here, but if you looks at the Good/Bad/Ugly thread from the Raiders game, FilmStudy and I discussed his differences in grading from PFF and he laid out in detail what his differences were, so that may help shed some insight.

Macro part of the short answer: FilmStudy isn't going to grade an OLineman high who had two drive-stalling holding penalties like Zuttah did. He grades harsher in those areas than PFF does, and it appears he puts a bit more weight in pass blocking vs run blocking compared to PFF.

[BmoreBird22]

2 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Not taking sides here, but if you looks at the Good/Bad/Ugly thread from the Raiders game, FilmStudy and I discussed his differences in grading from PFF and he laid out in detail what his differences were, so that may help shed some insight.

Macro part of the short answer: FilmStudy isn't going to grade an OLineman high who had two drive-stalling holding penalties like Zuttah did. He grades harsher in those areas than PFF does, and it appears he puts a bit more weight in pass blocking vs run blocking compared to PFF.

But PFF weights it differently, too, as far as I know. If you have a holding penalty that leads to a safety, I guarantee that's a -2.0 on their scale. If it's just a false start, I bet it's like a -.5 or what ever the "standard" is. 

I just don't see the opportunity to actually make up for a poor play in Filmstudy's scoring whereas PFF allows a lineman to make up for a mistake.

[rmcjacket23]

4 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

But PFF weights it differently, too, as far as I know. If you have a holding penalty that leads to a safety, I guarantee that's a -2.0 on their scale. If it's just a false start, I bet it's like a -.5 or what ever the "standard" is. 

I just don't see the opportunity to actually make up for a poor play in Filmstudy's scoring whereas PFF allows a lineman to make up for a mistake.

Correct, that's one of the differences it seemed from his analysis. 

I will say that I personally have found that PFF seems to appear at least to put more emphasis on run blocking vs pass protection, and I do agree with FilmStudy that the "higher leverage" situations in a game tend to lean much heavier towards pass plays.

In the end, really just comes down to a difference in opinion and a different perspective of looking at an individuals performance.

I personally thought Zuttah, when taking everything into account, was average to above-average. Thought it was certainly his best game of the year, though I acknowledge that's not saying much given how poor some of his other games were.

[JoeyFlex5]

1 hour ago, Gtown Purple said:

I just don't see much similarity in our running game as when Kubiak was here and we were running the stretch play alot. Maybe they modified it some but my understanding of zone is that the running back has a choice of holes and the real goal is the cut back lane. The runs I seeing this year seem to have a predefined destination that the runner is going to. I don't think I've seen a cut back run at all this year.

 

I'm not trying to single you out on Jensen, my point in the post is similar to alot of other situations in that people call for the backup way to quick. I think it's obvious that Lewis has way more upside and that's why he is playing. 

The inside or tight zone is closer to a gap scheme than a stretch zone. Stretch zone has the whole offense move laterally and the back finds the hole if/when it opens due to overpursuit or lack of gap integrity. Inside zone is based on playside steps and shield blocking and typically gives the back 2 possible lanes or a bounce out to the edge. It's hard to tell gap and inside zone apart in real time. Matter of fact I can't do it at all lol I need to slow it down to notice the difference.

[The Raven]

4 hours ago, Gtown Purple said:

I just don't see much similarity in our running game as when Kubiak was here and we were running the stretch play alot. Maybe they modified it some but my understanding of zone is that the running back has a choice of holes and the real goal is the cut back lane. The runs I seeing this year seem to have a predefined destination that the runner is going to. I don't think I've seen a cut back run at all this year.

 

I'm not trying to single you out on Jensen, my point in the post is similar to alot of other situations in that people call for the backup way to quick. I think it's obvious that Lewis has way more upside and that's why he is playing. 

That's because we're doing more tight zone -- or inside zone -- now. Why we aren't doing the stretch is blowing my mind.

It may look like only one hole because the  cut back lanes are, well, tighter in the tight zone.

2 hours ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

The inside or tight zone is closer to a gap scheme than a stretch zone. Stretch zone has the whole offense move laterally and the back finds the hole if/when it opens due to overpursuit or lack of gap integrity. Inside zone is based on playside steps and shield blocking and typically gives the back 2 possible lanes or a bounce out to the edge. It's hard to tell gap and inside zone apart in real time. Matter of fact I can't do it at all lol I need to slow it down to notice the difference.

Sort of, yeah. The big differences between stretch and tight and the aiming points for the running back and the footwork for the line.

In stretch, aiming point is your tackle or tight end's outside shoulder, depending on the alignment. Cut back lanes will be in the A or B, also depending on alignment.

In tight, the aiming point is the playside guard's outside shoulder. Cut inside to the A if the guard gets beat outside, and cut outside to B or C if guard beat inside. It's really complicated and dependent on the defensive alignment. Some schools of thought (which I agree with) say that 1. always run to the side with the most possible double teams and 2. try to run to the side opposite the 1 technique (playside 1 is tough for center to block in zone). Some teams will call inside zone and then pick a direction based on the alignment and where they have leverage.

The blocking rules are just about the same for both wide and tight, and you're always aiming for the defender's outside shoulder to seal him, but the footwork changes. With the wide zone/stretch, the first step is usually backwards or horizontal. With the tight zone/inside, the step is horizontal or kinda diagonal.

With the stretch, the goal is to wall off defenders. With the inside zone, you kinda-sorta have to simultaneously wall off and drive, because the holes are tighter. Stretch gets horizontal motion, while tight needs to get vertical and horizontal motion. 

All of that makes more sense in diagrams or videos.

[JoeyFlex5]

6 minutes ago, The Raven said:

That's because we're doing more tight zone -- or inside zone -- now. Why we aren't doing the stretch is blowing my mind.

It may look like only one hole because the  cut back lanes are, well, tighter in the tight zone.

Sort of, yeah. The big differences between stretch and tight and the aiming points for the running back and the footwork for the line.

In stretch, aiming point is your tackle or tight end's outside shoulder, depending on the alignment. Cut back lanes will be in the A or B, also depending on alignment.

In tight, the aiming point is the playside guard's outside shoulder. Cut inside to the A if the guard gets beat outside, and cut outside to B or C if guard beat inside. It's really complicated and dependent on the defensive alignment. Some schools of thought (which I agree with) say that 1. always run to the side with the most possible double teams and 2. try to run to the side opposite the 1 technique (playside 1 is tough for center to block in zone). Some teams will call inside zone and then pick a direction based on the alignment and where they have leverage.

The blocking rules are just about the same for both wide and tight, and you're always aiming for the defender's outside shoulder to seal him, but the footwork changes. With the wide zone/stretch, the first step is usually backwards or horizontal. With the tight zone/inside, the step is horizontal or kinda diagonal.

With the stretch, the goal is to wall off defenders. With the inside zone, you kinda-sorta have to simultaneously wall off and drive, because the holes are tighter. Stretch gets horizontal motion, while tight needs to get vertical and horizontal motion. 

All of that makes more sense in diagrams or videos.

Yeah I'll admit I had a tough time figuring it out when I first started to study it when Castillo came. It's a very odd concept and it can lead to disaster because it's similar to a power formation so everything is close and compact but you're also giving Windows for penetration. I'm not a fan of the scheme

[The Raven]

27 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

Yeah I'll admit I had a tough time figuring it out when I first started to study it when Castillo came. It's a very odd concept and it can lead to disaster because it's similar to a power formation so everything is close and compact but you're also giving Windows for penetration. I'm not a fan of the scheme

I'm not a huge fan either. It requires teams to have mobile maulers, and those are rare. Not a lot of Yanda's and KO's out there, but that's the kind of guy it takes to run it well consistently. I mean Jensen also fits the physical criteria, but he lacks the technique to be reliable.

Edited October 6, 2016 by The Raven

[Filmstudy]

3 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

But PFF weights it differently, too, as far as I know. If you have a holding penalty that leads to a safety, I guarantee that's a -2.0 on their scale. If it's just a false start, I bet it's like a -.5 or what ever the "standard" is. 

I just don't see the opportunity to actually make up for a poor play in Filmstudy's scoring whereas PFF allows a lineman to make up for a mistake.

There is a way to make up for poor play in the adjustment, but that is a maximum of .10.  That covers elements not in the system like the quality of opponents (above the replacement level), highlight blocks, and high value special plays (like Zuttah's fumble recovery).  Some people were very vocal when I began to add this adjustment, because they didn't think it should matter whether the opponent was Albert McClellan or JJ Watt, you still have to block him.  In the charts, I show the adjustment in red and raw score in purple.

I keep all of the information on pulls, pancakes and level 2 blocks.  If those are highlight blocks, it contributes to the adjustment.

Pass blocking is all about minimizing failure rate, so that's by far the most important component of score.

Run blocking isn't as important as pass blocking because there is less swing in win probability on those plays (lower leverage).  That is something I have discussed with PFF about including in their system, because the information necessary to calculate leverage is there.  The FO addage: "Teams run because they win, they don't win because they run" has never been more true in the NFL.

There are a number of ways to consider the costs of penalties, but win probability is probably the best.  Since the defense needs big plays to stop any drive (said otherwise, they can't stop any NFL offense by allowing their avg yards per play), chunk negative plays like penalties have a significant cost.  I charge -3 points per 5 yards of penalties, which I have considered reducing to -2.  If I made that adjustment for Zuttah, he'd have 4 more points and a D.

[Cawtious]

6 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

No, don't give him a chance at anything. Make him EARN a chance to have that role.

What, precisely, has Jensen done to EARN the starting LG job? Its a football team, not a charity case. Not about giving... its about taking.

I didn't say he had earned it. I ask you the same question about Lewis.......

You're just keying off of semantics.  Would "opportunity" be a better word or "look" or?  Your reply isn't covering any other base than just that?

Jensen wouldn't still be here if he was a charity case.......none of them would be.

[Cawtious]

5 hours ago, Gtown Purple said:

I don't understand your logic here. I'm not saying Jesen needs to be blamed for Hurst sucking. My point was the left side of our line was the biggest liability in this game. The raiders got pressure regularly on that side. Jensen did get beat multiple times and his penalties really hurt us. His false start killed a drive and his hold wiped out a first down. Additionally the subsequent punt is the one that got returned to our 6 yard line and turned into a touchdown the next play. A first down likely changes that entire sequence of events.

 

Jensen has been here a heck of a lot longer than Lewis so your point about being given opportunity doesn't resonate with me. I'm sure if Jensen would have shown high capability then we wouldn't being playing a 4th round draft pick. The raiders have one of the weaker DT combos in the league. It was a real talking point in alot of the stuff I was reading and hearing on sat radio. Even with that Jensen allowed pressure up the middle. The edge rush is more on Hurst than anybody since he protects the blind side but we all know Hurst isn't great. He's the reason Flacco needed acl surgery. I'm more interested in seeing how Alex does against higher level DT's. Jensen has had his time to prove himself.

Fair enough.  I'd agree if he went in as the C this year and struggled.  That's what he's been practicing and working at this season as the great majority.  Choose a position for him and stop cycling him around the line and I bet his play improves and stabilizes.

[rmcjacket23]

44 minutes ago, Cawtious said:

I didn't say he had earned it. I ask you the same question about Lewis.......

You're just keying off of semantics.  Would "opportunity" be a better word or "look" or?  Your reply isn't covering any other base than just that?

Jensen wouldn't still be here if he was a charity case.......none of them would be.

1. Who won the camp battle for the LG job? That person actually did something to EARN that job. I'll give you a hint... its Alex Lewis.

If you want to be technical about it, I don't even recall Jensen being an option at LG in the preseason. The presumption was that Lewis was competing with Urschel, and then Urschel got injured. As far as I know, Jensen was primarily competing for the Center job, which he also didn't win.

2. No, I'm going off actual words with meaning. There's a gigantic difference between giving something and earning something. "Giving" a player an opportunity, as so many fans advocate, reminds me of a 10 year old little league team, where the coach gives everybody a chance to bat and play shortstop. 

"Earning" an opportunity, as it appears that you are somewhat advocating for (though I'm not sure anymore) means that you actually do something that provides a coach with a reason to put you in the game over somebody else. 

As I referenced earlier, not only has Lewis done nothing to warrant considering putting somebody else in, but Jensen certainly hasn't done anything to warrant the coaches looking at him as somebody who should see more playing time. 

So it would appear the "Jensen bandwagon" is rendered moot until at least one of those things happen.

[Cawtious]

17 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

1. Who won the camp battle for the LG job? That person actually did something to EARN that job. I'll give you a hint... its Alex Lewis.

If you want to be technical about it, I don't even recall Jensen being an option at LG in the preseason. The presumption was that Lewis was competing with Urschel, and then Urschel got injured. As far as I know, Jensen was primarily competing for the Center job, which he also didn't win.

2. No, I'm going off actual words with meaning. There's a gigantic difference between giving something and earning something. "Giving" a player an opportunity, as so many fans advocate, reminds me of a 10 year old little league team, where the coach gives everybody a chance to bat and play shortstop. 

"Earning" an opportunity, as it appears that you are somewhat advocating for (though I'm not sure anymore) means that you actually do something that provides a coach with a reason to put you in the game over somebody else. 

As I referenced earlier, not only has Lewis done nothing to warrant considering putting somebody else in, but Jensen certainly hasn't done anything to warrant the coaches looking at him as somebody who should see more playing time. 

So it would appear the "Jensen bandwagon" is rendered moot until at least one of those things happen.

Right.  Lewis was given the opportunity.  Jensen, not....I thought he EARNED it with is play last year.  Apparently not.

Jensen score two near perfect games at Center in the last two preseason games.  Why didn't he win the starting job?  Not sure.  I thought he did enough to prove it, but I guess because he wasn't facing the 1's from the opposition it inflated his scoring.......we can talk circles around that I am sure.

I AGREE with earning it.  I believe he earned a chance to compete for the starting position at LG.  It didn't happen.

I believe he earned the starting Center job........but I wasn't the guy at practice or the coach that made the decision.  SOOO.... what I have is my opinion, just like you.

Think I've talked this out.  Gonna move on and give you the last word...

[Cawtious]

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 6:54 AM, Gtown Purple said:

Our slow starts are going to be the death of us. I'm not happy with either the 2 point conversion and 15 yard penalty decisions. Harbiagh tends to chase points to early and that 15 yard penalty wasn't going to make their  field goal much harder. I don't think the Raiders go for on 4th down if we decline the penalty which was on a tackle for loss mind you.

 

Maybe I'm singling out Jensen a little unfairly but his mistakes were pretty darn costly. Both of his holding penalties nullified good gains and one nullified a first down on an eventual 3 and out deep in our end. If I remember correctly it was the drive right before we gave up that punt return to the 6.

He had a hold and a false start.  Hurst had the other hold.

[Filmstudy]

The 6 Ravens OL penalties versus the Raiders resulted in 5 stalled drives.  The only penalty that was not classified as drive-stalling was Hurst's first hold, which was declined because it brought up 4th down.  That's a drive staller too, as I would define it.

That is one awful set of penalties.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Filmstudy

[rmw10]

Still like Jensen as a backup, but not confident in him as a full-time starter due to his pass blocking deficiencies.