Guest viewing is limited

Welcome To The HFBM Boards
Hockey, Football, Baseball & MMA

Status
Not open for further replies.
GoT said:
Dyson railing on Whylie... saying NOT a coaching issue but a player not understanding his responsibilities issue

rarely hear this sort of criticism
Click to expand...

I'd say both. EVERY team has rookies playing special team trying not to get their kicker killed. The coaching staff needs to have game planned and practiced every scenario they would face and clearly that didn't happen. What was worse the second time was that watching it on TV, you could see how Stonehouse was going to get killed BEFORE the ball was even snapped.
 
My beef IMHO was how the colts came out in the 2nd half, controlled the ball for something like 7/8 minutes. Titans get the ball back and what do they do on offense? Run on 1st against a stacked box, and don't change the play at the line! Run on 2nd (whiff), and then an obvious 3rd down passing situation where they went 3 and out and gave the ball right back. Your defense was out on the field for a long time and they needed the offense to get a few first downs, and due to play calling IMHO it didn't happen.

The Titans are allergic in being electric. Since they don't do it so few regular games, they usually can't execute. They are afraid to push the pedal to the floor unless the "have to". If the Titans get a lead they sit on it and play the percentages. It's like if the Titans defense holds a dangerous team to a few field goals in the 1st half, they automatically think the D is going to continue to hold, and time and time again this season it hasn't happened.

Very frustrating.
 
HurrayTitans! said:
Why would you want to play competitive to tank?
and they didn’t play well on both sides of the ball.
And tanking is still a failed experiment with zero track record of success.

so basically, if you’re in favor of tanking, you have no clue about anything so literally any type of play on the field should be right up their alley as long as winning isn’t involved.
Click to expand...

1. I don't think you understood what I posted.
I said if you are rooting for tanking, then this is sort of best base scenario for you. Play relatively well, but still lose.

2. We did play relatively well on both sides of the ball. 381 yards of total offense. Nearly had two 100 yard RBs. Defensively we had 3 sacks, 2 fumbles (1 returned for a TD), and held them to 3/14 on 3rd downs.

3. Tanking has plenty of cases of success, though it's a strategy that's had a bunch of busts as well. Bengals tanked into Burrow. Colts tanked into 2 of the best QB prospects of all time. Jags tanked into T-Law. Etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Carp said:
1. I don't think you understood what I posted.
I said if you are rooting for tanking, then this is sort of best base scenario for you. Play relatively well, but still lose.

2. Tanking has plenty of cases of success, though it's a strategy that's had a bunch of busts as well. Bengals tanked into Burrow. Colts tanked into 2 of the best QB prospects of all time. Jags tanked into T-Law. Etc.
Click to expand...
You may have also missed what I was saying.
I wasn’t accusing you specifically, I was accusing everyone that roots for tanking. so, maybe I was accusing you, are you rotting for tanking?

2. BS on your examples of “successful” tanking, nevermind 3 selections over 25 years counting is nothing more than coincidental.

Trevor Lawrence was the what like 10th top 10 pick the jags had in 11 year period? Even more, their 3rd 1st round QB over the same stretch.
Burrow was also the Bengals 3 top 5 pick over a 4-5 year period. Loooong tanking I guess.
Indy didn’t tank before picking Manning. The same QB that had them playoff bound just a year earlier had a god awful D and if I recall got hurt.
In 2011, you saw the results of just the QB removed from a SB contender with no alternative available. That was literally lucky.
But even If I conceded the 2012 colts pick, again, zero success outside coincidental success from “tanking”.
 
HurrayTitans! said:
You may have also missed what I was saying.
I wasn’t accusing you specifically, I was accusing everyone that roots for tanking. so, maybe I was accusing you, are you rotting for tanking?

2. BS on your examples of “successful” tanking, nevermind 3 selections over 25 years counting is nothing more than coincidental.

Trevor Lawrence was the what like 10th top 10 pick the jags had in 11 year period? Even more, their 3rd 1st round QB over the same stretch.
Burrow was also the Bengals 3 top 5 pick over a 4-5 year period. Loooong tanking I guess.
Indy didn’t tank before picking Manning. The same QB that had them playoff bound just a year earlier had a god awful D and if I recall got hurt.
In 2011, you saw the results of just the QB removed from a SB contender with no alternative available. That was literally lucky.
But even If I conceded the 2012 colts pick, again, zero success outside coincidental success from “tanking”.
Click to expand...

Texans with Stroud. Panthers with Cam. Lions and Stafford. Giants with Eli. Again, plenty of examples of it working. I'm sure history suggests this odds are against it. But that doesn't mean it also doesn't work.

Also, what's the alternative? Win some meaningless games and get a pick in the 10-15 range rather than a top 5 pick?

That's why I said this is sort of best of both worlds for a team with zero playoff hopes. Play relatively well and see your young players improve while also getting a better pick in the upcoming draft.
 
Carp said:
Texans with Stroud. Panthers with Cam. Lions and Stafford. Giants with Eli. Again, plenty of examples of it working. I'm sure history suggests this odds are against it. But that doesn't mean it also doesn't work.

Also, what's the alternative? Win some meaningless games and get a pick in the 10-15 range rather than a top 5 pick?

That's why I said this is sort of best of both worlds for a team with zero playoff hopes. Play relatively well and see your young players improve while also getting a better pick in the upcoming draft.
Click to expand...
These are “tanks”?
Like when Houston won their last game to move from #1 to #2.
Like when the Giants were actually #3 and lost for Eli manning to the Chargers but he was able to pull a “my daddy was famous” card to get traded.
Lions, like Jags, your definition of “working” seems pretty skewed especially since Detroit got nothing out of Stafford.
And Panther using their failed 2nd round QB (Clausen) in the effort to tank. So tanking after an early round waste of a pick on QB seems pretty redundant.

the alternative is to always play to win. There is zero historical evidence that shows teams drafting top 5 have any advantage and even more, there is statistical proof that the teams consistently drafting bottom 5 of the draft are the teams consistently in the playoffs. I’ve posted all this before, I’m sure it’s in the random stats thread but I’ll see.
Playing “relatively well” but losing is either actually hoping to win or counterproductive to the idea of tanking because they may “accidentally” win.
The team doesn’t have to be competitive to see what the young guys have to offer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top