Jump to content

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


KingTitan

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, KingTitan said:

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.

Well what got him to the AFC Championship game was really our defense. Held the opposing teams to 13 and 12 points. We only scored 14 points in one of them, so the offense wasn't exactly doing much. In the other game, all 4 of our scores came off of turnovers created by the defense, with 3 of those drives starting inside Ravens territory.

But I do agree with the bolded. I don't think we can sit back and count on our running game and defense to carry this team, which I think other people might think is our best COA. The only time our offense has been a threat in the last 20 years is when Ryan Tannehill got it going through the air. The running game was certainly a part of that, but it wasn't what carried the team to the post-season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TitanSS said:

Well what got him to the AFC Championship game was really our defense. Held the opposing teams to 13 and 12 points. We only scored 14 points in one of them, so the offense wasn't exactly doing much. In the other game, all 4 of our scores came off of turnovers created by the defense, with 3 of those drives starting inside Ravens territory.

But I do agree with the bolded. I don't think we can sit back and count on our running game and defense to carry this team, which I think other people might think is our best COA. The only time our offense has been a threat in the last 20 years is when Ryan Tannehill got it going through the air. The running game was certainly a part of that, but it wasn't what carried the team to the post-season.

I know your argument, but a lot of what you are saying is to me a matter of perspective. And without being in there you can't say it is 100% fact. And could be said for the counter argument.

Henry was the productive part of the offense in the playoff wins. By design or by error Tanny didn't get 100 yards passing. But the argument is to get rid of Henry (production) and rely more on the part that didn't produce in the wins? 
And the picture painted is that Tanny was the only reason we got going and that's just not true. 
With not wanting Henry seems like the way to do that is to downplay his impact. I personally am not downlplaying Tanny's impact on the offense, but seems like we are saying Henry is just some by product of Tanny's play.  When that just isn't the case. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, KingTitan said:

I know your argument, but a lot of what you are saying is to me a matter of perspective. And without being in there you can't say it is 100% fact. And could be said for the counter argument.

Henry was the productive part of the offense in the playoff wins. By design or by error Tanny didn't get 100 yards passing. But the argument is to get rid of Henry (production) and rely more on the part that didn't produce in the wins? 
And the picture painted is that Tanny was the only reason we got going and that's just not true. 
With not wanting Henry seems like the way to do that is to downplay his impact. I personally am not downlplaying Tanny's impact on the offense, but seems like we are saying Henry is just some by product of Tanny's play.  When that just isn't the case. 

Most running back results are a by-product of the offensive line. You certainly need talent at the RB position, but Derrick Henry isn't the only talented RB option we have. 

Edited by TitanSS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TitanSS said:

Most running back results are a by-product of the offensive line. You certainly need talent at the RB position, but Derrick Henry isn't the only talented RB option we have. 

Like any other position it's not totally a matter of options, it is what is the best option for the team. And that is where the philosophical difference will present itself.

Are we going to be a team that places a premium on the RB or are we going to feel like our system and line can produce any RB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KingTitan said:

Like any other position it's not totally a matter of options, it is what is the best option for the team. And that is where the philosophical difference will present itself.

Are we going to be a team that places a premium on the RB or are we going to feel like our system and line can produce any RB. 

If our emphasis is on winning games and not just having the best possible RB we shouldn't consider the RB a premium position. Especially one that doesn't contribute in the passing game in a passing league.

What historical examples are there of RBs leaving their environment and producing the same success? Or a team losing a successful RB and not being able to have a sustainable running game in his absence?

What historical examples are there of new RBs coming into a already successful environment and producing the same or similar success?

That, and the statistics behind it, is where my view on the matter comes from. I have seen far more of the latter than the former.

Edited by TitanSS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2020 at 11:15 AM, TitanSS said:

If our emphasis is on winning games and not just having the best possible RB we shouldn't consider the RB a premium position. Especially one that doesn't contribute in the passing game in a passing league.

What historical examples are there of RBs leaving their environment and producing the same success? Or a team losing a successful RB and not being able to have a sustainable running game in his absence?

What historical examples are there of new RBs coming into a already successful environment and producing the same or similar success?

That, and the statistics behind it, is where my view on the matter comes from. I have seen far more of the latter than the former.

Again that only works for teams with Franchise Eilte passing QB’s what makes you think Tannehill is capable of carrying the entire offense on his plate. He’s good don’t get me wrong but you play to his strengths he’s thrives as a game manager

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TitanRedd said:

Again that only works for teams with Franchise Eilte passing QB’s what makes you think Tannehill is capable of carrying the entire offense on his plate. He’s good don’t get me wrong but you play to his strengths he’s thrives as a game manager

None of what I said applies to an elite franchise QB in any way. No idea how you're trying to flip what I said.

It's talking about historical examples of RBs who left and the running game production stayed with the RB and not the OL.  It never happens. 

So the argument is that Tannehill can be the same dude and we can have similar rushing success with a guy like Jonathan Taylor. Can even add a cheap FA in there so that if our RB has an injury we don't have to hand it off to guys like Dawkins.

Henry will have less success if he goes to a place where their OL isn't very good and we will have continued rushing success because we have a good OL. 

Whether or not you believe Henry should stay, it is undebatable that the run-blocking is more important to rushing success than the RB himself. So then it's just about finding another talented RB. 

Edited by TitanSS
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Titans fan 617 said:

Just passing along what I hear in NE

Albert Breer is on my morning radio show and they asked him about Brady of course

Bert thinks the Titans... 

Could be worst than him and maybe could be better than him. 

I think he gives you the most known commodity/production. We can make a safe assumption of what he will produce.  Maybe more maybe less.

Tanny gives you a greater reward, based on what he did this year. But also come with more long term risk and long term reward.

Brady might give you a greater short term reward, but no long term answer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, KingTitan said:

Could be worst than him and maybe could be better than him. 

I think he gives you the most known commodity/production. 

I’m just going to sit back and let it play out

The right thing morally to do is sign Tannehill 

Sometimes right doesn’t mean what is best 

Can Brady get us over the hump next year or the year after?

I don’t know the right answer 

All I will continue to say signing Brady intrigues me because everything will change for the 2 years he is here 

No more TNF game against the Jags

Titans definitely get a SNF and MNF game

A few games in the 4pm window that most of the nation will see 

Also I doubt we see the Titans run out of the tunnel 1 by 1 at home games Brady is big on running out on a team

I know none of those guarantees wins and Championships but as a fan that’s the fun stuff I look forward too

Yes Brady is less mobile compared to Tannehill but I still feel Brady is a more accurate passer and would be able to elevate Humphries Davis and even Jonnu Smith 

Either way I’m happy with either guy but would be fun with Brady 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2020 at 2:04 PM, Titans fan 617 said:

I’m just going to sit back and let it play out

The right thing morally to do is sign Tannehill 

Sometimes right doesn’t mean what is best 

Can Brady get us over the hump next year or the year after?

I don’t know the right answer 

All I will continue to say signing Brady intrigues me because everything will change for the 2 years he is here 

No more TNF game against the Jags

Titans definitely get a SNF and MNF game

A few games in the 4pm window that most of the nation will see 

Also I doubt we see the Titans run out of the tunnel 1 by 1 at home games Brady is big on running out on a team

I know none of those guarantees wins and Championships but as a fan that’s the fun stuff I look forward too

Yes Brady is less mobile compared to Tannehill but I still feel Brady is a more accurate passer and would be able to elevate Humphries Davis and even Jonnu Smith 

Either way I’m happy with either guy but would be fun with Brady 

I had no idea this was a moral dilemma!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, titanrick said:

I had no idea this was a moral dilemma!

It’s not 

The guy did kind of help us get to the AFC Championship game 

Not the sole reason but a reason

Titans need to figure out what is best

Is gambling on a 43 year old GOAT the way to go?

Giving it a go with Tannehill?

Or taking a chance on someone else?

I don’t know the right answer 

But the guy did play very well here so ya again the moral thing to do is pay him 

But if they feel Brady Rivers or who ever else is the right thing to do then you what’s right over what moral

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...