IDEAL COACH

[SerenityNow]

On 11/27/2017 at 9:07 AM, KingTitan said:

I will hold strong and say Murlakey is the best fit for this team and city.  However, he needs to do something more with his OC and even DC.  Defense has looked better down the line here, but it doesn't have a long term outlook. Can't rely on Lebeau for any more than what 2 more years, at best?

I want him to make Micheals the OC. Younger mind, fresher ideas, but still with the overall philosophy of running game first. Just not doing it from almost a wishbone set all the time. 
Murlakey is the right HC, I believe. I think he needs new play callers.  I'm not for having the HC being the OC/DC. I just don't think that works out best long term.   

I agree that Jason Michaels is probably our best bet for our next OC. Still keeps the overall philosophy in place and gets an actual full year with more talent to adjust and add some new things to the offense. It's funny to think that he became our OC when Mularkey initially took over as interim, and I still remember thinking that he called a great game against the Saints that year. Even though the team was still really devoid of talent at the time, we played great offensive football in that game.  I was surprised he didn't get the shot that offseason to be our full time OC, but to his credit he stuck around after basically being demoted back down to QB coach. I think it's time to give him his fair shot. Especially with our current situation. I don't think we could get a better OC with Mularkey's current situation.  Another big factor is the fact that Michaels has been with Marcus throughout his entire career. He sees first hand every day what Marcus thrives at.  So, all we can do is hope and pray if he ends up being the next OC that he spreads the offense out more for Marcus and puts him in better positions to succeed.

As for DC, I have no clue what route we'd go. I've always figured we'd just promote Lou Spanos, but I really don't know. I think our defensive scheme is good. It's just a matter of making the right playcalls and allowing our best corners to shadow the opposing team's best receivers. As long as our next DC is aggressive and runs a pressure based defense similar to what we're running now I'll be fine with whoever it is.

[KingTitan]

2 hours ago, SerenityNow said:

I agree that Jason Michaels is probably our best bet for our next OC. Still keeps the overall philosophy in place and gets an actual full year with more talent to adjust and add some new things to the offense. It's funny to think that he became our OC when Mularkey initially took over as interim, and I still remember thinking that he called a great game against the Saints that year. Even though the team was still really devoid of talent at the time, we played great offensive football in that game.  I was surprised he didn't get the shot that offseason to be our full time OC, but to his credit he stuck around after basically being demoted back down to QB coach. I think it's time to give him his fair shot. Especially with our current situation. I don't think we could get a better OC with Mularkey's current situation.  Another big factor is the fact that Michaels has been with Marcus throughout his entire career. He sees first hand every day what Marcus thrives at.  So, all we can do is hope and pray if he ends up being the next OC that he spreads the offense out more for Marcus and puts him in better positions to succeed.

As for DC, I have no clue what route we'd go. I've always figured we'd just promote Lou Spanos, but I really don't know. I think our defensive scheme is good. It's just a matter of making the right playcalls and allowing our best corners to shadow the opposing team's best receivers. As long as our next DC is aggressive and runs a pressure based defense similar to what we're running now I'll be fine with whoever it is.

You can't discount that bond too, with Michaels and Mariota. That familiarity only helps call a better game. 

[titans0021]

On 11/22/2017 at 2:34 PM, titans0021 said:

Well, this tweet ties into this post nicely:

 

These three tweets, in succession, are quite possibly the most damning thing I've seen in regards to the coaching staff.

[-Hope-]

stupid, stupid, stupid.

[ragevsuall17]

so wait... Were running it at almost the same level as the Rams... About 33%... With less success(but still 7th overall)... And that's damning.

According to those stats... We've taken 25 less snaps than the Rams... If we keep the same ratio of 32%, we'd have 227 snaps in trips formation... 9 less than the Rams in what would be the same amount of total snaps.

But that's damning information?

[titans0021]

1 hour ago, ragevsuall17 said:

so wait... Were running it at almost the same level as the Rams... About 33%... With less success(but still 7th overall)... And that's damning.

According to those stats... We've taken 25 less snaps than the Rams... If we keep the same ratio of 32%, we'd have 227 snaps in trips formation... 9 less than the Rams in what would be the same amount of total snaps.

But that's damning information?

Yes?

The Rams number means nothing, it was only thrown into the tweet as a comparison as to where our percentage is compared to the offense that runs trips the fifth fewest amount in the league. They have a back that has 1,344 yards from scrimmage on 5.6 yards per touch. They've been successful out of almost any formation this year and McVay is calling audibles before the helmet mic cuts off, so their offense is likely far more diverse. They've also had more than three quarters of football this year where they've firmly been in control of a game, so it's understandable they'd have more snaps from power formations.

The fact that we run trips (a formation that we're averaging six yards per play) at the fourth lowest rate in football while running out of 12 personnel at the highest rate in football despite having almost no success out of it is the damning information. We're well over halfway through the season and we're continuing to use formations that haven't worked all year while failing to consistently operate out of sets that we've actually managed to have success with. So yeah, I'd say that's a fairly significant indictment.

Basically, how I read the above (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the numbers back up what almost every poster has said. The offense functions better when things are spread out and Marcus can operate with an entire field to work with. But we're only actually taking advantage of that 32% of the time. Meanwhile, the numbers also suggest that the run game is absolutely incompetent out of 12 personnel. But we're running out of those sets more than any team in football.

[TitanRedd]

19 minutes ago, titans0021 said:

Yes?

The Rams number means nothing, it was only thrown into the tweet as a comparison as to where our percentage is compared to the offense that runs trips the fifth fewest amount in the league. They have a back that has 1,344 yards from scrimmage on 5.6 yards per touch. They've been successful out of almost any formation this year and McVay is calling audibles before the helmet mic cuts off, so their offense is likely far more diverse. They've also had more than three quarters of football this year where they've firmly been in control of a game, so it's understandable they'd have more snaps from power formations.

The fact that we run trips (a formation that we're averaging six yards per play) at the fourth lowest rate in football while running out of 12 personnel at the highest rate in football despite having almost no success out of it is the damning information. We're well over halfway through the season and we're continuing to use formations that haven't worked all year while failing to consistently operate out of sets that we've actually managed to have success with. So yeah, I'd say that's a fairly significant indictment.

Basically, how I read the above (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the numbers back up what almost every poster has said. The offense functions better when things are spread out and Marcus can operate with an entire field to work with. But we're only actually taking advantage of that 32% of the time. Meanwhile, the numbers also suggest that the run game is absolutely incompetent out of 12 personnel. But we're running out of those sets more than any team in football.

Now that’s some stats for your A$$ preach brother ?? 

[TitanSlim]

The fact that the coaching staff is stubborn to adapting to the strengths of this team this season is very concerning to me. Everyone sees the proof in the the stats and film, yet they're still running things/playing guys like last season, when we're obviously not having the same success as last season.

Between giving Murray the same or more carries than Henry, to not running more outside zone plays, to not spreading our offense more, to even something minute like running a screen for Decker (our slowest WR) and not Taylor(our fastest WR) or Davis(come into the league known for his YAC ability), all irritate me to no end.

My biggest concern is that this short term success(playoffs this year) is going to affect our long term outlook (development of Marcus and this offense).

[renndawg37]

[TitanTuff]

8 hours ago, titans0021 said:

Basically, how I read the above (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the numbers back up what almost every poster has said. The offense functions better when things are spread out and Marcus can operate with an entire field to work with. But we're only actually taking advantage of that 32% of the time. Meanwhile, the numbers also suggest that the run game is absolutely incompetent out of 12 personnel. But we're running out of those sets more than any team in football.

 

I see your point here. I think the coaches are more concerned about keeping Marcus from the brutal hits is why we don't spread out. Keeping bunched in gives Marcus max protection.

[TitanRedd]

7 hours ago, renndawg37 said:

Caption this ? Run It again 

[TitanRedd]

2 hours ago, TitanTuff said:

 

I see your point here. I think the coaches are more concerned about keeping Marcus from the brutal hits is why we don't spread out. Keeping bunched in gives Marcus max protection.

Exactly, but aye that’s why you should’ve got a guard in FA last off-season we had over 50 mill in cap space. 

Max protection is shrinking the field & hindering Marcus.

[ragevsuall17]

11 hours ago, titans0021 said:

The fact that we run trips (a formation that we're averaging six yards per play) at the fourth lowest rate in football

That's where interpretation or comprehension comes into play... and helps distort opinions, I guess.

Nothing in that graphic says we're running trips at the 4th lowest rate... It says we're running it the 4th fewest times.  We're also bottom 10 in total snaps... so it makes sense we'd be lower than most, and why I pointed out that we're not really far behind or asked if it really was that "damning" when comparing us to the Rams, who have the most success (used the Rams only since that's all the numbers they shared). 

We've ran trips 19 less times than the Rams... in 25 less snaps.  I don't see that as daming in any way?  We're running it at about the same rate as the team who's had the most success running that? 

I can spin it and say that it's more damning the Rams aren't running more trips than they're currently running... I mean... their yards per play comparison is more drastic than ours... they get 7.4 ypp out of that formation while averaging 5.2 on non trips formations... over 2 yards less per play!!... the Titans get 5.9 ypp from that formation and 5.0 on non-trips snaps (a difference of less than 1 yard).  In other words, the Rams outgain the Titans by 0.2 yards on non-trips plays... and 1.5 yards on trips plays... and they run it about the same amount of times as us... what kinda ignorant, backwards offensive scheme are they running over there?!?!? 

There's stuff to complain about, of course.  But sometimes it seems some want to make mountains out of mole hills... or misconstrue stats to fit some angle they're trying to get across.

Again... we're 7-4, currently the 3rd seed.  We're a Mariota-less game from being 8-3, and tied for best record in the AFC.  What really matters other than that?  We've won 5 of our last 6 games... although people would not know that reading the boards the past month and a half. 

I see people complaining that we're not winning pretty (paraphrasing, of course)... people complain that we've beat up on bad opponents.  But it's the NFL... it's the schedule that we have... and we're 3-1 against teams that are currently slated as playoff teams.  There'll be some outside perspective that agrees with those of you that we're an abomination of an offense, no doubt... but there's also plenty of opinions that don't agree.  Florio... a historically non-pro Titan opinion... posted this in their most recent power rankings: "The Steelers and the Patriots should not want to face them in January."  There's a set of 3 teams they view the same... but it still holds true.  There's plenty more opinions/stats that agree we're a team getting better, and will be a hard out in the playoffs.  It's fruitless to post those, cuz some posters don't want to see that... they want opinions that justifies that woe-is-us/doom-and-gloom mentality... and it usually just becomes that same played-out, tiring argument.  

 

[titans0021]

I'll say that I agree with probably a majority of your post, but I'll hit on a couple things.

3 hours ago, ragevsuall17 said:

We've ran trips 19 less times than the Rams... in 25 less snaps.  I don't see that as daming in any way?  We're running it at about the same rate as the team who's had the most success running that? 

Again though, the Rams offense has been wildly successful. Fourth in yards, second in points. Comparing how often we run what is usually a passing formation to a team that has played nearly twice as many snaps with the lead just seems silly to me. They've had significantly more opportunities to chew the clock this season, so their percentage has a fairly obvious reason as to why it's not higher. What's our excuse exactly? We haven't had firm control over a football game since what, Week 3?

Results matter in this conversation. The Rams don't need to be looking to make any changes to their offensive system. Why? Because their offense is working better than anyone possibly could have expected it to. Can we say the same? Can we say the offense has performed at anywhere close to expectations this year? The team that has high draft picks across the offense and is sitting in the bottom half of the league in points and yards probably should consider adjusting the scheme to use sets and plays that they've actually had success with.

But really, these trends are seen across the board. Robiskie calls plays that lean towards our weaknesses rather than strengths.

I don't want Mularkey to be fired. I've been more positive in recent weeks. I absolutely want a change at OC though.

To throw out a few more numbers, and if you think I'm misconstruing stats, let me know. I don't really want to be negative, and I'm more than happy with the record, but I can't pretend the offensive performance hasn't been pretty surprising in a bad way.

Titans offensive plays under center:

Running - 233 attempts, 892 yards, 3.8 yards per attempt.

Passing - 65-93, 69.9% completion rate, 906 yards (9.7 ypa), 7 TD, 1 INT, 121.5 QB rating.

Titans offensive plays from shotgun:

Running - 70 attempts, 375 yards, 5.4 yards per attempt.

Passing (these numbers stun me and, despite what I said above, may serve to argue against the pure no-huddle, spread offense that a lot of Titans fans want) - 153-256, 59.8 completion rate, 1,370 yards (5.4 ypa), 3 TD, 13 INT, 56.9 QB rating.

Don't these numbers point to something? Like obvious and easy trends that virtually any NFL defensive coordinator will pick up on? When we're under center, we're running 2.5 times more often than we're passing. Despite the run game being below average in power formations and Mariota having huge success in the PA game from under center. When we're in shotgun, we pass nearly four times more than we run. Despite the run game actually having success while Mariota has struggled spectacularly out of the gun. 

And I know the obvious argument here is that all of the runs under center have set up the PA pass when Marcus is under center. But is it worth the set up when you're running something you're struggling with 21 times a game to set up nine passing plays?

One of my main problems with Robiskie comes from the basic idea (I want to use the word fact here, but I won't) that we run an impressively predictable offense that doesn't take advantage of the things we're good at. We try to hide the predictability with a lot of motion and a ton of different looks, but none of that really matters when you can guess run when we're under center and be right 71.4% of the time or guess pass and play coverage when we're in shotgun and be right 78.5% of the time.  

I'm going to compare these to last year. Last season, 73% of our run plays came from under center (76.8% this year) and 79% of our pass plays came from shotgun (74% this year, 75.1% when Marcus is playing QB). 

So virtually nothing has changed. No adjustments have been made. We're having less success running from power formations, yet an even higher percentage of our run plays come from under center. Our young quarterback is having far and away his most success with PA passes from under center, yet only 24.9% of his pass attempts come when he's under center. I don't know, I just want better from the offense. Maybe I'm being greedy, but I'm just tired of repeatedly doing the same things that haven't worked for 44 quarters and somehow expecting everything to click.

[ragevsuall17]

So we agree that changes are needed... We just disagree that those trips stats are/are not the proverbial needle that broke the camel's back? 

The stats you shared are good... But like all stats, they fail to paint a complete picture. It stands to reason that most teams pass out of shotgun formations more often than they run, and run more from traditional power formations than they pass. It also stands to reason that there will be circumstantial scenarios that will skew those stats slightly, yet dont necessarily make them more successful (ie, there may be a couple of 3rd and long situations that saw us come out in shotgun that were runs... May have resulted in good yardage but still failed to convert or even get close to converting... And in turn, there's definitely more than a handful of plays included in snaps from under center that yielded small gains, yet were successful enough to yield first downs).

I'm not trying to say that everything's peachy or perfect... Far from it... I think I  was the first to mention Michaels as a potential candidate a few weeks/months back... mentioned him again recently, and the idea has picked a little steam on the board... I also mentioned Sumlin as a more appealing yet unlikely OC target, one that would move the needle a lot more towards what this area I think most posters on here want to see (surprisingly, there was no traction on that suggestion).

I also pointed out (last year I believe) that the type of RBs and line we were putting was contradictory to where Mariota's percieced strengths as a QB seemed to lay. I'm slightly surprised, same as you, that Mariota's stats from under center are that much better than in the gun... Maybe an anomaly.

But I also don't fall for the hype of stand a lone stats. Unfortunately, I'm very familiar with the old adage of lies, damn lies, and statistics.