Jump to content

Tanny "King of the" Hill- Should he be the future?


KingTitan

Recommended Posts

Random thought. 

The problem I have with not signing Henry back is that can we trust our passing game and passing concepts. 

I mean we saw Art Smith grow with his calls but passing wise, he needs some more growth. I am not confident in our ability to win without heavy run game. 

Not bringing Henry back and relying on Tanny and a lesser RB isn't the recipe in my opinion. 

Our passing game needs to improve at the foundation. It needs to become more aggressive outside of play action shots. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a firm believer in keeping this core unit together. I don't want to move on from Tannehill this year for "similar production" from another FA QB. The Tannehill/Henry combo proved to be very effective, and I think as we add more wrinkles to the offense and actually get a full season of Tannehill as the starter we have a real chance to win the division and compete for homefield advantage in the playoffs. This brand of football that we're building works. Especially later in the season. Make some tweaks to give the passing game a little bit more creativity, add a good pass rusher or two on the other side of Landry, more overall team speed through the draft, and we have the pieces in place to make another serious run. I think there's something to be said for keeping the core "family unit" of this team together and making another run at it together. The team chemistry factor is important. This team rallied behind Ryan, and he was a major cog in our remarkable run. It just feels like we'd be taking an unnecessary risk by moving on from Ryan at this stage and disrupting all of the team chemistry that we built with him at the helm this year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KingTitan said:

Random thought. 

The problem I have with not signing Henry back is that can we trust our passing game and passing concepts. 

I mean we saw Art Smith grow with his calls but passing wise, he needs some more growth. I am not confident in our ability to win without heavy run game. 

Not bringing Henry back and relying on Tanny and a lesser RB isn't the recipe in my opinion. 

Our passing game needs to improve at the foundation. It needs to become more aggressive outside of play action shots. 

Then you fix the passing game/make it more aggressive/whatever. That's a far more reasonable thing to do than shell out 14 million to a running back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, TitanLegend said:

Then you fix the passing game/make it more aggressive/whatever. That's a far more reasonable thing to do than shell out 14 million to a running back.

Lord 🤦🏽‍♂️ & who is Ryan Tannehill to put your faith in RT over Derrick Henry is beyond me.. Again RT isn’t a a high volume passer he’s not a QB you want throwing 35-50 times a game he’s a game manager you want him to play off a run game that’s not his strength 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TitanRedd said:

Lord 🤦🏽‍♂️ & who is Ryan Tannehill to put your faith in RT over Derrick Henry is beyond me.. Again RT isn’t a a high volume passer he’s not a QB you want throwing 35-50 times a game he’s a game manager you want him to play off a run game that’s not his strength 

You don't have to throw 35-50 times a game. Running backs not named Derrick Henry exist. Running backs not named Derrick Henry can get 4-5 yards per carry behind this o-line.

And whether it's Ryan Tannehill or somebody else, the answer to a problem(which in this case is the passing game isn't good enough) isn't another problem(paying an RB way too much money).

If you're not satisfied with Tannehill, you draft one, trade for one, sign a different one in FA, make whatever changes you want/need to your scheme, whatever it is you need to do.

This franchise and this fan base really needs to get out of 1999.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TitanLegend said:

You don't have to throw 35-50 times a game. Running backs not named Derrick Henry exist. Running backs not named Derrick Henry can get 4-5 yards per carry behind this o-line.

And whether it's Ryan Tannehill or somebody else, the answer to a problem(which in this case is the passing game isn't good enough) isn't another problem(paying an RB way too much money).

If you're not satisfied with Tannehill, you draft one, trade for one, sign a different one in FA, make whatever changes you want/need to your scheme, whatever it is you need to do.

This franchise and this fan base really needs to get out of 1999.

Where does this RB/QB tree that you speak of grow? By the sounds of it, guys like Henry and Tanny just grow on trees. If I can find it, I have a shot at becoming a GM.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, deeluxx3 said:

Where does this RB/QB tree that you speak of grow? By the sounds of it, guys like Henry and Tanny just grow on trees. If I can find it, I have a shot at becoming a GM.

..What?

I'm not the one short changing Tannehill. Redd said he doesn't think he's good enough to run the offense without Derrick Henry. So my response to that is, if the FO/team felt the same way, you go out and look for a QB who can. To me Tannehill showed during the 3 games where Henry was either hobbled or out entirely that he can run the offense just fine, and the only argument I've heard against that so far is "but our record!" because QB wins are a thing I guess. The offense is predicated on play action passing, which all evidence shows is pretty much equally as effective with a ****ty run game as it is a good one.

And capable RBs practically do grow on trees. And I've posted god knows how much evidence and god knows how many articles that support that but the only thing I hear in return is "Henry is really good!", which I've never said he's not, and on top of that does nothing to refute my point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TitanLegend said:

Then you fix the passing game/make it more aggressive/whatever. That's a far more reasonable thing to do than shell out 14 million to a running back.

Yes. Obvious answer is fix it. 

But that is where my concern is....can they. Are they able too. 

I guess we will see. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we move on from Henry, we're going to likely need to invest some draft capital in a RB. Looking around the league, the highest consistent performers are (usually) drafted in the top 3 rounds. I am not against that, but I'd prefer Henry on a mutually-beneficial deal (I think we'd all agree on that). We don't have a Shanahan or McDaniels or Doug Pederson or Andy Reid running and designing this offense, so nobody should be acting like we can pick up a 5th rounder and get serious production from him. Art Smith improved much as a PLAY-CALLER this season, but his play designs leave a lot of room for improvement. Let's not get that twisted.

If we had a true franchise QB, then our need for a productive RB isn't as significant. 

Regarding Tannehill -- I am still not convinced that he can win games for us if/when the running game isn't chugging along. Can the guy drop back and pick apart a defense? Because ultimately you're going to need that to win a SB. Frick any Foles argument, because with Pederson, he was able to do that. We don't have Doug Pederson designing this offense.

I still think franchising Tanny is the right move. If we get Brady for 2 years, I'm fine with that, too. Either way, I think I'd prefer to spend that 2-3 round pick on a QB instead of a RB if Henry walks. But that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, KingTitan said:

Yes. Obvious answer is fix it. 

But that is where my concern is....can they. Are they able too. 

I guess we will see. 

If they can't, then need to find people who can.

We can't just stay stuck in this same cycle.

Getting to the AFC title game this year might have very well screwed this franchise if it makes Vrabel and Robinson think Fisherball is the answer to winning super bowls. I'm holding out hope with Robinson cause I don't want to believe a guy who spends multiple high end draft picks and a large FA contract on WRs(+ a 3rd rounder on Jonnu despite already having Delanie on the roster) is content staying with a stone aged style of playing football.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, TitanLegend said:

If they can't, then need to find people who can.

We can't just stay stuck in this same cycle.

Getting to the AFC title game this year might have very well screwed this franchise if it makes Vrabel and Robinson think Fisherball is the answer to winning super bowls. I'm holding out hope with Robinson cause I don't want to believe a guy who spends multiple high end draft picks and a large FA contract on WRs(+ a 3rd rounder on Jonnu despite already having Delanie on the roster) is content staying with a stone aged style of playing football.

Unfortunately, I'm starting to believe that Vrabel believes in the conservative "establish the run" crap. He played at the end of that era.

That 4 minute drive at the end of the first half was ugly.  2 runs for no gain, a screen, and a punt back to Patrick Mahommes.

But before that we had been alternating runs and play-action passes pretty well, so maybe it's a lesson learned about not chasing points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TitanSS said:

Unfortunately, I'm starting to believe that Vrabel believes in the conservative "establish the run" crap. He played at the end of that era.

That 4 minute drive at the end of the first half was ugly.  2 runs for no gain, a screen, and a punt back to Patrick Mahommes.

But before that we had been alternating runs and play-action passes pretty well, so maybe it's a lesson learned about not chasing points.

Does Vrabel believe in that or is that what he felt was best for this team this year?

as far as the 4 minute drive I just think they got caught trying to play the clock and weren't aggressive enough to get the ball down field and play the clock more once they got into KC territory

We'll never know what Vrabel believes but its just tough when you know Henry gets more than 20 carries we win so the offense is geared to that but when henry isn't breaking big runs like last week we see its tough for Tannehill to consistently beat good defenses with his arm.

Im not bashing Art Smith, I did a lot early in the year but he clearly got better with Tannehill at QB but Firkser was having a good game and we should have taken more advantage of the matchup and didn't until it was too late

If the Titans get Brady Vrabel and Brady will suit the offense for whats best for Brady but outside of the bootlegs I don't see the offense changing that much. Brady loves throwing to pass catching TE's and if Firkser and Pruitt are both here along with Jonnu and who ever else Brady will utilize them. When Brady and the Pats won their last SB leaned on the running game which Brady will have no problem doing with Henry.

Overall im not concerned with the team for which ever, Tannehill or Brady are under center, Titans need to take care of their D problems for us to win it all anyway

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TitanLegend said:

If they can't, then need to find people who can.

We can't just stay stuck in this same cycle.

Getting to the AFC title game this year might have very well screwed this franchise if it makes Vrabel and Robinson think Fisherball is the answer to winning super bowls. I'm holding out hope with Robinson cause I don't want to believe a guy who spends multiple high end draft picks and a large FA contract on WRs(+ a 3rd rounder on Jonnu despite already having Delanie on the roster) is content staying with a stone aged style of playing football.

I don't see any reason for them to believe otherwise seeing how it got them to where they were.
Unless it's a drastic change in personnel (players and coaches) outside looking in, why would they say let's lean on a QB more next season? 

I've been screaming for them to go to a more "modern" approach and have a QB dependent system, but don't seem like they want to do that. 

It will take me seeing it to believe it. 
I don't have faith that they will drastically change our passing game approach. It will be a run heavy, play action system. 
Smith seems to be a disciple of that run game centric style. And again, it got them to the AFC championship.

Let's really just think about it and put it in perspective.  
Last year the Chiefs lost in the AFC championship game maybe things could have flowed differently in the game if they ran the ball more, same for the Saints. They didn't change what got them there and turn to a run first system.
Even the Ravens, do we feel they are going to adjust too much from what they did this year, simply because they lost? It is their belief system and philosophy. 

I think this is Vrabel/Robinson's MO.  They hired Lafluer from the Rams who's offense really depends on the run.  Hired Smith who showed us this year, he depends on the run. I think this is what they want. 
Now, I can't imagine they want to run it 40 times a game, but I think the run game/RB is going to be the engine to make their offense go. So if that is the case, I can't see them not investing in their engine (Henry and Offensive Line). So I think Conklin will probably be back, along with Henry.  Then they will just tag Tanny. 

Run first approach made Tanny tops in the league. It propelled us to the AFC Championship. Why change that? What motivation would they have?  

So again, my fear is we won't innovate our passing game mainly because why would they and secondly do they have the knowledge and skill to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, TitanSS said:

Unfortunately, I'm starting to believe that Vrabel believes in the conservative "establish the run" crap. He played at the end of that era.

That 4 minute drive at the end of the first half was ugly.  2 runs for no gain, a screen, and a punt back to Patrick Mahommes.

But before that we had been alternating runs and play-action passes pretty well, so maybe it's a lesson learned about not chasing points.

This is my point mainly. Vrabel and company got to the AFC championship game and had fairly good chance to win it. Why would he change from what got him there? 
I think we need to evolve our passing game if we want to be a threat. Play-action can't be our only passing threat. It was neutralized in the playoffs. 
Better pass concepts is what Art needs to work on. If he can do that, then I'd have more faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...