Only 8 messages are we sure WhoopsTitans isn’t Titans4Ever in disguise ? Sure sounds like his normal diatribe of “MM should have never been benched and Arthur Smith and this offense are awful” ? I have a short attention span so I didn’t read all of it, but think i got the gist ... lost me at this coaching staff weren’t qualified to bench MM.
I guess this is my new role here, forum username historian. Titans4Ever is actually a formerly banned member named TitansWillWin2 who came back with an equally lame username. TitanWhoops is a recent member named Senor Mariota who said a weird farewell no one listened to and came back with a new username after smoking a bunch of meth out of a broken lightbulb in a warehouse.
Oh Marcus just go to bed and get some rest, the team needs you this week. You need to cut some ribbons for Habitat for Humanity while the players on the team go over the gameplanning.
I would like to say that I have confidence in this offense like I do the defense but how can I? The Texans turned the ball over twice in the redzone or else the game wouldn't have even been close.
The Broncos were playing pass first practically much of the game. Other teams also struggled with their defense. Fact is we were shut out and didn't have an answer. Tannehill's stats were not good enough to even put three points on the board, nothing to write home about.
Belichick did not have the players that we have.
The Titans offense is custom made for Tannehill, it never fit Mariota's style of play. But even while the deck was stacked against him, Mariota should have been 4-1 prior to playing the Broncos, problem was we didn't make our FGs.
You have to admit though that many of the important games Tannehill won were actually games that the opponent lost. Whereas with Mariota, two of the three games that the opponent won were games that we lost. I'd rather have that scenario then the other way around.[/QUOTE]
The Broncos were playing pass first practically much of the game. Other teams also struggled with their defense. Fact is we were shut out and didn't have an answer. Tannehill's stats were not good enough to even put three points on the board, nothing to write home about.
Belichick did not have the players that we have.
The Titans offense is custom made for Tannehill, it never fit Mariota's style of play. But even while the deck was stacked against him, Mariota should have been 4-1 prior to playing the Broncos, problem was we didn't make our FGs.
You have to admit though that many of the important games Tannehill won were actually games that the opponent lost. Whereas with Mariota, two of the three games that the opponent won were games that we lost. I'd rather have that scenario then the other way around.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I knew about the name change for Titans4Ever. but figured maybe he ducked out again and came back reanimated as this person. I’ve lurked here for years and had a different name several years ago as a member myself, but lost my original Comcast Emil acct and was locked our ans only came back fairly recently so I don’t know much on the history of many of the members here. Just sounded like him/her and I wondered ...
[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to respond to you any longer. Your posts are nearly complete gibberish now. Maybe someone else can make enough sense out of them. I can't now.
What are all my usernames
[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry just want to double check, are you making an argument for Mariota over Tannehill?
Don't want to scroll back 20 pages to see lol
Man BB was pissed about the series we ate the clock up with penalties.
Lol so you all think his decision to go for two when they were up 7 was smart?!!???!!
Yep. A 2-point conversion ends the game and we were still up 7 if we failed.
And if you think the Pats would have gone for 2 to win if they tied it up, then you gotta ask yourself:
What is more likely?
1. Getting a 2-point conversion with Henry and our offense or
2. Stopping the crafty Pats on their attempt
I'd rather see our offense give it a shot.
2 point conversion was the right call leading by 7.
here is why.
should the pats have score off the restart. They would not have gone the 2 points to risk losing if we were leading by 7. If we take the kick and lead by 8. The pats still have a shot at overtime.
So either way if the pats score we go to overtime should the pats do what Brady is capable of. If we get the 2 the game is over.
it was a no risk shot at ending the game, with overtime the worst case should they fluke a score.
hard to explain typing it out. But correct play call.
here is why.
should the pats have score off the restart. They would not have gone the 2 points to risk losing if we were leading by 7. If we take the kick and lead by 8. The pats still have a shot at overtime.
So either way if the pats score we go to overtime should the pats do what Brady is capable of. If we get the 2 the game is over.
it was a no risk shot at ending the game, with overtime the worst case should they fluke a score.
hard to explain typing it out. But correct play call.
Yes. 2 points ends the game, not getting would have still taken a miracly on their part. Vrabel has had some questionable calls, that wasnt one of them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
