Guest viewing is limited

Titans Talk - Home for all things Tennessee Titans

Status
Not open for further replies.
Have to mention the positive with the negatives...One would have to be blind not to see they were playing their guts out. This was the turn around game for them, and thought they had a good game plan. It's too bad it went the way it did. Hand it to the Colts who also played very hard.
 
My beef IMHO was how the colts came out in the 2nd half, controlled the ball for something like 7/8 minutes. Titans get the ball back and what do they do on offense? Run on 1st against a stacked box, and don't change the play at the line! Run on 2nd (whiff), and then an obvious 3rd down passing situation where they went 3 and out and gave the ball right back. Your defense was out on the field for a long time and they needed the offense to get a few first downs, and due to play calling IMHO it didn't happen.

The Titans are allergic in being electric. Since they don't do it so few regular games, they usually can't execute. They are afraid to push the pedal to the floor unless the "have to". If the Titans get a lead they sit on it and play the percentages. It's like if the Titans defense holds a dangerous team to a few field goals in the 1st half, they automatically think the D is going to continue to hold, and time and time again this season it hasn't happened.

Very frustrating.
19 plays
70 yards
over 10 minute drive
 
back to back blocked punts... I think I heard someone say 1 of them was changed to a fumble. I don't care. 2 blocked punts.

On a positive... I like how Levis moved around the pocket, including some plays that included sprint right to get him out of the pocket. The one thing I wish Levis would do or could do better is extend the play.
 
These are “tanks”?
Like when Houston won their last game to move from #1 to #2.
Like when the Giants were actually #3 and lost for Eli manning to the Chargers but he was able to pull a “my daddy was famous” card to get traded.
Lions, like Jags, your definition of “working” seems pretty skewed especially since Detroit got nothing out of Stafford.
And Panther using their failed 2nd round QB (Clausen) in the effort to tank. So tanking after an early round waste of a pick on QB seems pretty redundant.

the alternative is to always play to win. There is zero historical evidence that shows teams drafting top 5 have any advantage and even more, there is statistical proof that the teams consistently drafting bottom 5 of the draft are the teams consistently in the playoffs. I’ve posted all this before, I’m sure it’s in the random stats thread but I’ll see.
Playing “relatively well” but losing is either actually hoping to win or counterproductive to the idea of tanking because they may “accidentally” win.
The team doesn’t have to be competitive to see what the young guys have to offer.

Yes, they are tanks. When you trade your franchise QB for a shit ton of picks and run out Davis Mills as your QB1, you have waved the white flag on the season.

Detroit got a decade + out of a likely HOF QB. I fail to see how that wasn't a successful pick.


There is overwhelming statistical evidence that players drafted in the top 5 are far more likely to turn into stars than players drafted outside the top 10.

And LMAO at the other parts of the post. Teams consistently drafting in the bottom 5 are consistently in the playoffs....... No shit. That's literally where playoff teams pick.

You seem to be arguing something completely unrelated to what I am talking about. The players and coaches don't play to tank. I am simply stating from a fan point of view, if you want the team to lose to get a higher draft pick, then this is the best possible outcome for you.
 
Yes, they are tanks. When you trade your franchise QB for a **** ton of picks and run out Davis Mills as your QB1, you have waved the white flag on the season.

Detroit got a decade + out of a likely HOF QB. I fail to see how that wasn't a successful pick.


There is overwhelming statistical evidence that players drafted in the top 5 are far more likely to turn into stars than players drafted outside the top 10.

And LMAO at the other parts of the post. Teams consistently drafting in the bottom 5 are consistently in the playoffs....... No ****. That's literally where playoff teams pick.

You seem to be arguing something completely unrelated to what I am talking about. The players and coaches don't play to tank. I am simply stating from a fan point of view, if you want the team to lose to get a higher draft pick, then this is the best possible outcome for you.
You clearly didn’t understand my point about the teams that drafted bottom 5.
I’ll find the post to help you out.

12 years in Detroit, the QB problem solved, and they have 3 WC playoff exits over that stretch as proof their tanking worked?

and for Houston, you can say all that about trades and Davis Mills or whatever, but if the goal of “tanking” is to get the lowest pick possible, #1 ideally, then how can you suggest the team tanking winning their final game and removing themselves from #1 overall is even tanking?

your statement about whether a top 5 pick ends up better than a bottom 5 pick is not at all what I was saying nor does that really have any bearing on the tanking idea.
Tanking doesn’t work because it’s a goal to get 1 player. Yes, statistically that too 5 pick will be better than bottom five and that gap is not that large yet alone when compared to say 6-15 picks.

a “successful” tank would require the team throwing in the towel at some point the season prior to the draft, then the resulting draft selection improve the team (by record) to a point of competition that same year or at least a giant step forward towards 2 seasons.
I certainly wouldn’t call drafting top 5 back to back years or a 1 year improvement to drop right back in to the top 5 as successful in any way.
This is why dumpster fire franchises like NYJ, Jax, Det, Chi, have many many top 5 picks and teams like Balt, GB, SF, pit are always picking way late first round if not trading out entirely.
But you tell me, which of those group of franchises has been waaaay better over the past forever vs “tanking”?
 
here’s my previous post from the random stats thread.

Top 5 draft picks 10 years
Teams that earned a top 5 pick (before any trades)
7x Jax
5x Hou
4x Cle/ LV
3x Det/ was/ nyg/ nyj
2x TB/ TN/ chi/ SF/ IND/ Den/ ARZ/ Cin
1x KC/ Phi/ LAC/ LAR/ Dal/ Mia/ ATL
0 - NE/ Buf/ Balt/ Pit/ NO/ Car/ GB/ Min/ Sea

Actual picks top 5 last 10 years
7x Jax
4x NYJ/ Hou (2 this season)
3x Cle (2 in 2018)/ LV/ NYG/ SF/ Det
2x Cin/ Mia/ Was/ TB/ TN/ Phi/ LAR
1x KC/ IND/ Sea/ ATL/ ARZ/ Den/ Chi/ Dal/ LAC/ Buf/ Car
0x - NE/ Pit/ Balt/ NO/ GB/ Min

The flip side would be teams earning the 28-32 draft pick spots (27-31 in 2016) and which teams are picking late, if at all.

Bottom 5 earned positions by record
7x GB
6x NE
5x KC/ SF
4x Den
3x LAR
2x Phi/ Cin/ Jax/ Balt/ Pit/ ATL/ Car/ Sea/ NO
1x Mia/ Buf/ TN/ LAC/ Min/ Dal/ ARZ/ Ind
0x NYJ/ Cle/ LV/ Hou/ NYG/ Was/ TB/ Det/ Chi

Of those teams that earned a bottom 5 draft slot, these teams chose to trade and did not pick in the first round:
3x KC
2x NE/ Sea
1x GB/ LAR/ Mia

3x the pick was traded before they finished a bottom 5 pick
2019 NO
2022 SF
2022 LAR
2023 SF

Teams that traded up.
2013 ATL - moved up to 22
2013 SF - moved up to 18
2015 Den - moved up to 23
2016 Den - moved up to 26
2017 ATL - moved up to 26
2019 GB (was NO) - moved up to 21
2020 GB - moved up to 26
2020 SF - moved up to 25
2022 Det (was LAR) - moved up to 12


Take this for what’s it’s worth and extrapolate whatever you want but the overwhelming trend is teams with top 5 picks repeat as top 5 picks and teams that earn bottom 5 picks typically to the late round picks.
Apply this to the idea of tanking. Top 5 is more likely to net another top 5 pick than it is GOAT and it’s not close. Statistically, picking bottom 5 is just as likely to get that GOAT.
 
You clearly didn’t understand my point about the teams that drafted bottom 5.
I’ll find the post to help you out.

12 years in Detroit, the QB problem solved, and they have 3 WC playoff exits over that stretch as proof their tanking worked?

and for Houston, you can say all that about trades and Davis Mills or whatever, but if the goal of “tanking” is to get the lowest pick possible, #1 ideally, then how can you suggest the team tanking winning their final game and removing themselves from #1 overall is even tanking? It was without a doubt worth it for them to have the opportunity to draft Stafford.

your statement about whether a top 5 pick ends up better than a bottom 5 pick is not at all what I was saying nor does that really have any bearing on the tanking idea.
Tanking doesn’t work because it’s a goal to get 1 player. Yes, statistically that too 5 pick will be better than bottom five and that gap is not that large yet alone when compared to say 6-15 picks.

a “successful” tank would require the team throwing in the towel at some point the season prior to the draft, then the resulting draft selection improve the team (by record) to a point of competition that same year or at least a giant step forward towards 2 seasons.
I certainly wouldn’t call drafting top 5 back to back years or a 1 year improvement to drop right back in to the top 5 as successful in any way.
This is why dumpster fire franchises like NYJ, Jax, Det, Chi, have many many top 5 picks and teams like Balt, GB, SF, pit are always picking way late first round if not trading out entirely.
But you tell me, which of those group of franchises has been waaaay better over the past forever vs “tanking”?

Let's break this down piece by piece shall we?

1. The Lions are poorly run. But they weren't lacking talent over Stafford's tenure there. Megatron, Tate, Galloway, Suh, Ansah, Slay, etc. Hell, Megatron and Stafford themselves should have got them to 8-9 wins annually. But they've made poor hire after poor hire at head coach.

2. The players and the coaching staff don't tank. It's the GM/ownership that tanks by purposely not fielding a good team. The Texans won 3 games last year after trading away their franchise QB and starting Davis friggin Mills. If you don't think that is tanking, I don't know what to tell you.

3. The gap is in fact massive. And I don't know why you're brining up picks 6-10 like they are relevant. I specifically mentioned the alternative to tanking as being a medicore team with a pick outside the top 10. Yes, the is no discernable difference between pick 5 and 6 (shocking information).

4. Did I say tanking was a surefire strategy? No. In fact, I said it's a mixed bag. But again, I will ask how does us winning meaningless games this year and having a lower pick in the draft help us going forward? You still haven't answered a simple question.
 
Let's break this down piece by piece shall we?

1. The Lions are poorly run. But they weren't lacking talent over Stafford's tenure there. Megatron, Tate, Galloway, Suh, Ansah, Slay, etc. Hell, Megatron and Stafford themselves should have got them to 8-9 wins annually. But they've made poor hire after poor hire at head coach.

2. The players and the coaching staff don't tank. It's the GM/ownership that tanks by purposely not fielding a good team. The Texans won 3 games last year after trading away their franchise QB and starting Davis friggin Mills. If you don't think that is tanking, I don't know what to tell you.

3. The gap is in fact massive. And I don't know why you're brining up picks 6-10 like they are relevant. I specifically mentioned the alternative to tanking as being a medicore team with a pick outside the top 10. Yes, the is no discernable difference between pick 5 and 6 (shocking information).

4. Did I say tanking was a surefire strategy? No. In fact, I said it's a mixed bag. But again, I will ask how does us winning meaningless games this year and having a lower pick in the draft help us going forward? You still haven't answered a simple question.
So no, tanking didn’t work for Detroit, regardless of the reasons

Yes, winning the final game to remove you from the coveted #1 pick, is the very definition of not tanking

the comparison for 6-15 to 1-5 being a small gap (doesn’t matter you overestimate the difference between later and top 5) is at the very argument of Tennessee winning any games this year vs losing out and where their draft position ends up.

The answer is it doesn’t nor does it hurt. You haven’t explained to any great detail how losing out for that lower pick helps. The only proof you’ve suggested is a team that was consistently a bottom feeder and another team that just took place that failed at doing what you want TN to do by losing out the rest of the season.
 
tank season

tannehill still somehow losing us games even when not starting. truly impressive. his commitment to losing is legendary.
 
Hahaha!! Not with this head coach. He can’t fire his grill much less an inept position coach

What's more shocking at Craig Aukerman being fired, is that a bunch didn't jump on me for calling it a kick... I'm shocked because nothing says on-line forum than jumping in to correct someone else ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top