Week 10: Broncos @ Titans

[Mesa_Titan]

2 minutes ago, TitanSS said:

In every one score game, the losing team could point to a single play or hypothetical reason they should have won the game if it had gone differently.

We just happen to be one of very few teams who consistently stay on the winning side of one score games.

I don't agree. Not in the same way. You could maybe go, hey if Russel Wilson hits a TD to end the game instead of throwing a pick they win, but that was affected by the opposite team. Not having your starting QB and missing a FG that the other team didn't block or impact at all are not the same thing.

[Titansfan]

3 minutes ago, TitanSS said:

In every one score game, the losing team could point to a single play or hypothetical reason they should have won the game if it had gone differently.

We just happen to be one of very few teams who consistently stay on the winning side of one score games.

I do get this but let’s be honest this is just Titans football. I’m only going off memory but I seem to remember last year being fairly similar. This team just doesn’t win big. 

[TitanSS]

2 minutes ago, Titansfan said:

I do get this but let’s be honest this is just Titans football. I’m only going off memory but I seem to remember last year being fairly similar. This team just doesn’t win big. 

I do think that part of the reason we see so many one score games and are able to win so many of them is because of Vrabel's gameplan/philosophy.

[TitanLegend]

7 minutes ago, TitanSS said:

In every one score game, the losing team could point to a single play or hypothetical reason they should have won the game if it had gone differently.

We just happen to be one of very few teams who consistently stay on the winning side of one score games.

But that's goes with my original point that no one's opinion should be so simplistic as to look at a W/L record and conclude their analysis 

I think it was a few GDTs ago, but I posted a tweet that pointed out how nuts our record is in 1 score games under Vrabel the past few years. It definitely defies all analytics/history on how teams usually regress to the mean in 1 score game outcomes, but it's getting to the point where you start wondering if it's just another aspect of Vrabel's brilliance or just dumb luck. Given I don't know of any other coach who has pulled off such a successful run of 1 score game outcomes, it leads you to believe dumb luck, but you also don't usually see teams winning period with the number of injuries we have.

We already know Vrabel is very good. But he might just be special/all time great level.

[TitanSS]

3 minutes ago, Mesa_Titan said:

I don't agree. Not in the same way. You could maybe go, hey if Russel Wilson hits a TD to end the game instead of throwing a pick they win, but that was affected by the opposite team. Not having your starting QB and missing a FG that the other team didn't block or impact at all are not the same thing.

Which kicker in the NFL is kicking 100% on FGs? You act like those points were guaranteed and we were robbed. 

It's all hypothetical. We don't have to agree.

[deeluxx3]

47 minutes ago, TitanLegend said:

I think it was a few GDTs ago, but I posted a tweet that pointed out how nuts our record is in 1 score games under Vrabel the past few years. It definitely defies all analytics/history on how teams usually regress to the mean in 1 score game outcomes, but it's getting to the point where you start wondering if it's just another aspect of Vrabel's brilliance or just dumb luck. Given I don't know of any other coach who has pulled off such a successful run of 1 score game outcomes, it leads you to believe dumb luck, but you also don't usually see teams winning period with the number of injuries we have.

We already know Vrabel is very good. But he might just be special/all time great level.

And every year the experts call out how our close game record is unsustainable (rightfully so) and we keep pulling out wins 

 

Other than BB in present day (and who really fears the pats now), Vrabel is truly as good as any head coach

[-Hope-]

8 minutes ago, deeluxx3 said:

And every year the experts call out how our close game record is unsustainable (rightfully so) and we keep pulling out wins 

 

Other than BB in present day (and who really fears the pats now), Vrabel is truly as good as any head coach

i can't put him on the same level as tomlin/reid/harbaugh/mcvay until he gets a ring. he's in the very next tier, no doubt, but i need us to transcend being lovable losers in the postseason for him to really be in that elite group. fingers crossed he gets it together on offense and brings one home to nashville because i'll have no problem making the case for him as tops in the league at that point

[deeluxx3]

4 minutes ago, -Hope- said:

i can't put him on the same level as tomlin/reid/harbaugh/mcvay until he gets a ring. he's in the very next tier, no doubt, but i need us to transcend being lovable losers in the postseason for him to really be in that elite group. fingers crossed he gets it together on offense and brings one home to nashville because i'll have no problem making the case for him as tops in the league at that point

I get it and that's fair, but Vrabel does so much with so little (a la Tomlin) that...in the context of a single game....he's as good as anyone at getting a team prepared to win regardless of opponent and injuries, talent, etc

[KingTitan]

1 hour ago, TitanLegend said:

I think it was a few GDTs ago, but I posted a tweet that pointed out how nuts our record is in 1 score games under Vrabel the past few years. It definitely defies all analytics/history on how teams usually regress to the mean in 1 score game outcomes, but it's getting to the point where you start wondering if it's just another aspect of Vrabel's brilliance or just dumb luck. Given I don't know of any other coach who has pulled off such a successful run of 1 score game outcomes, it leads you to believe dumb luck, but you also don't usually see teams winning period with the number of injuries we have.

We already know Vrabel is very good. But he might just be special/all time great level.

Just like players who tend to always shine when the pressure is on, coaches are the same. 
Do they call timeout? Do they make a level headed call? Do they take the FG instead of being emotional and go for it? 
There are a couple examples, one that comes to mind is last years Bills game when he let McDermott sweat at the end and not call timeout. 
Winning close games can be a skill and a skill you teach when your players always believe they are going to come out on top. 

 

[KingTitan]

Again, look at the scores across the league and see how many games are one score games. Look at the betting line and see how many games are double digit spreads.

Looking at the Eagles, they won 3 one score games, 4 if you count last night before the fumble score. So they could be 4-5?  or their wins should be discounted because they were one score games?

8 of the 14 games this weekend were one score games and 5 more games were 19 or 10 point games.

Over half the games will be 1 score games. And it is rare just to blow out a NFL team. 
So to have a coach that can continually find a way to win the close games is a good thing.

And a team shouldn't be knocked for it. 

It would be more important to watch the whole game to see how the game went. 
Like the Colts game  we won "only" 19-10 might as well be 40-12 with the way we dominated them. 

 

[deeluxx3]

magnificent player

[TitanSS]

21 minutes ago, KingTitan said:

Again, look at the scores across the league and see how many games are one score games. Look at the betting line and see how many games are double digit spreads.

Looking at the Eagles, they won 3 one score games, 4 if you count last night before the fumble score. So they could be 4-5?  or their wins should be discounted because they were one score games?

8 of the 14 games this weekend were one score games and 5 more games were 19 or 10 point games.

Over half the games will be 1 score games. And it is rare just to blow out a NFL team. 
So to have a coach that can continually find a way to win the close games is a good thing.

And a team shouldn't be knocked for it. 

It would be more important to watch the whole game to see how the game went. 
Like the Colts game  we won "only" 19-10 might as well be 40-12 with the way we dominated them. 

 

I'm not sure I follow your logic in the bold. 

The point isn't that you should consider all one score games as losses. The point is that one score games, for nearly every team that isn't coached by Mike Vrabel, generally trend towards a coin-flip over time.

[KingTitan]

1 hour ago, TitanSS said:

I'm not sure I follow your logic in the bold. 

The point isn't that you should consider all one score games as losses. The point is that one score games, for nearly every team that isn't coached by Mike Vrabel, generally trend towards a coin-flip over time.

Just not discounting victories because they are one score games. There was some debate earlier in the thread that one score games are viewed as a negative for a team, even against teams with a losing record. 

[Daniel]

51 minutes ago, KingTitan said:

Just not discounting victories because they are one score games. There was some debate earlier in the thread that one score games are viewed as a negative for a team, even against teams with a losing record. 

I think it’s because normally, when a team has a lot of one score victories, that margin regresses to the mean most of the time. It’s usually a reliable indicator of win totals reducing, or increasing if it’s the other way.

[Mesa_Titan]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

I think it’s because normally, when a team has a lot of one score victories, that margin regresses to the mean most of the time. It’s usually a reliable indicator of win totals reducing, or increasing if it’s the other way.

Not in football it isn't. They play 17 games. How could that ever be a big enough sample size to extrapolate any kind of meaningful data in this instance? Even if it was 50 games it would still be difficult.