No, you’re missing the point… Name another QB who has done what Brady is doing at his age. Some guys are just built different.
Drew Brees was still playing at a high level just last year at age 42. Philip Rivers was 39 last year and was still playing at a high level. Both could have easily kept going if they wanted to. Brett Favre nearly won an MVP at age 40.
Lots of QBs could play into their 40's if they wanted to. But they generally don't want to.
Tom Brady is 44 years old. He’s not just 40 or near 40. And he might win MVP this year.
Phillip Rivers was not playing at a high level last season. Dude could barely throw the ball 10 yards downfield.
Again go ahead and show me another QB who is playing at an MVP level at 44 years old. #builtdifferent
I didn't say River's way playing at Brady's level. But he still played well with 4k yards and a 97 QB rating.
And again, it literally doesn't matter what a QB does. You're talking about 2 completely different positions. Hell Morten Anderson was still making FGs when he was 47, do you want to throw him in there as well?
None of what you say disproved my fact that father time is undefeated. Even if you believe Henry is "built different", hits add up and literally no one is impervious to it.
“Father Time is undefeated” except for Tom Brady. He is literally doing what no one else has done. At 44, almost all QB’s do have “father time” win, except TB. So yeah, it literally does refute the “Father Time” comment. I’m not comparing QB’s to RB’s. I’m comparing football players to Father Time because that is the statement you made.
Where are you getting this?
Taylor is 5’10” 226lbs and went for over 2,000 yards all 3 years at Wisconsin. That is exactly the kind of back he is.
How exactly does that refute what I said? Do you think Brady will play when he's 48? 50? 55? Or does he play for infinity years?
This is literally the dumbest post I've read on this forum. Congrats.
It is quite possible he continues to play that long.
Your argument is we should monitor Henry’s workload because of “Father Time”. But if he plays at a high level up to age like 30 or so why would we care? Are we really thinking 50 less carries is going to make him more effective at 32 years old? That’s dumb.
He’s in his prime. Let’s win a Super Bowl. Best way to do that is on the back of 22. Period.
My argument is that Father Time (i.e. skill sets degrading as we get older) combined with an increased amount of hits will shorten his career. And it's literally backed up by the entire history of NFL RBs. And it isn't just helping him lengthen his career that I'm worried about. The more a player gets hit, they higher chance they have of getting injured. And the more hits they take, the higher toll it takes on their body in general. Hits add up, even to freaks like Henry. I would prefer him to not take unnecessary hits and risk losing him for the postseason, or risk his effectiveness going down in the post-season.
Your argument is "Well Tom Brady is able to play at high level at age 44, so you are wrong!" And there couldn't be a worse argument made.
Not only does Tom Brady play a different position, but the reason he can still play at age 44 because he has managed to stay healthy. Part of that is luck. Part of it probably good health management on his part. But the most important aspect for him staying healthy has been avoiding hits. Because you know the number 1 cause of QBs not being healthy? Getting hit.
Last edited by a moderator:
You have to make the postseason first. Our best chance at winning every week is with 22.
You are still missing the point. I’m not saying Henry will play until he’s 44. But have you read what Henry does to keep his body right during the week? It’s crazy. Plus you are comparing RB’s who aren’t the size of LB/DE’s when you look at RB’s who break down after a lot of carries in a season.
This was supposed to be the year he slowed down, or at least that’s what “history” told us.
I guess you forgot you are witnessing history. Sit back and enjoy the show.
At no point did I say we should change our offense in a close game (unless of course, what we're doing isn't working). The point is, we should absolutely limit his carries when available. You know, like last week when we were up by 24 with 8 minutes left to play. There's no reason to give him unnecessary carries.
Ok cool so you limit his carries in the 4th quarter last week. So now he has 4 less attempts on the season. Glad you just added years onto his NFL life by doing that… if only it were that easy.
For one, the unnecessary carries add up over the course of a season. Guess who was taking every snap late in the game vs Jax with a 12 point lead? Why it looks like Derrick Henry again. There's another 5 extra carries.
More importantly, there is simply no reason whatsoever to needlessly expose him to an injury. No one is immune from random injuries. Even Derrick himself missed a game late in 2019 with hamstring issues.
Even if we have 5 “blowout” wins where we can pull Derrick from the game. That’d be like 20 carries total. You really think 20 carries is going to be the difference in him being “fresh” in the postseason?
It’s very clear we want to get Derrick the record and he deserves it. Plus it’s our best chance to win games. We limit his workload on 2nd and longs and most 3rd downs. Sure we can nitpick times when maybe he can be on the sideline but let’s not act like we can cut 100 or even 50 carries out of his season.
Again he’s in his prime. I’d rather have 450 carry Derrick at 26-27 than a 350 carry Derrick at 34. Use him while we got him. He’s our best chance at winning too. Let’s go win now.
Yes. I do. He's averaging 27 carries per game, so an extra 20 carries is essentially an extra game worth of carries on his body. That's significant over the course of a season. And again, it isn't worth the potential injury risk. There is literally nothing to gain by running Derrick out there with the game wrapped up.
Hell if it doesn't matter, why not run Derrick 40 times a game? 50 times? His linebacker body can handle it right?
Last edited by a moderator:
On Wednesday, the team designated three players to return from IR in inside linebacker Jayon Brown, outside linebacker Derick Roberson and backup guard/center, Aaron Brewer.
You beat me to it
although he’s not showing it now i worry he will be fatigued by the time playoffs come. Hope they start throwing the ball more like last week instead of chasing records. The Titans have a history of running running backs into the ground, and although it’s not showing now it will eventually catch up to him.
Not sure fatigue, getting wore down, or getting overworked is in Henry's vocabulary
View attachment 18823
View attachment 18823
The Titans are now 3-0 when Taylor Lewan plays less than 50% of the snaps in a game with wins against the Seahawks, Bill's, and Chiefs. 2-2 with Lewan.
I made a similar post last week as a joke. Now, I'm wondering if there might actually be something to it. No, I don't think it's about Lewan. I think it's about our game plan to cover for his absence. We seem to run more quick passes, screens, and pitch-outs when he is out and the other interior guys are banged up. When he is in the game our "identity" is to bully the other team between the tackles, which is so predictable it gets stuffed often.
Same thing happened on defense this week. Our secondary is so thin we signed "Bob, the Wal Mart night stock guy" on Tuesday and he was on the field in the 1st quarter. Yet, somehow, we managed to miraculously find a 4 man pass rush that was so effective that even Bob looked good. (No offense to the player we actually signed, just jokes).
So both our offensive and defensive game plans seem to actually be better when we are covering for injuries, than when we are healthy and trying to force our will/"identity" on the opponent.
I think, if we keep mixing things up to keep the opponent off balance, we can run the table, or at least come close. BUT... I fear we will be stubborn, and go back to predictable when healthy and end up losing games we should win.
I made a similar post last week as a joke. Now, I'm wondering if there might actually be something to it. No, I don't think it's about Lewan. I think it's about our game plan to cover for his absence. We seem to run more quick passes, screens, and pitch-outs when he is out and the other interior guys are banged up. When he is in the game our "identity" is to bully the other team between the tackles, which is so predictable it gets stuffed often.
Same thing happened on defense this week. Our secondary is so thin we signed "Bob, the Wal Mart night stock guy" on Tuesday and he was on the field in the 1st quarter. Yet, somehow, we managed to miraculously find a 4 man pass rush that was so effective that even Bob looked good. (No offense to the player we actually signed, just jokes).
So both our offensive and defensive game plans seem to actually be better when we are covering for injuries, than when we are healthy and trying to force our will/"identity" on the opponent.
I think, if we keep mixing things up to keep the opponent off balance, we can run the table, or at least come close. BUT... I fear we will be stubborn, and go back to predictable when healthy and end up losing games we should win.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
