State of the Titans: Part 1 of 3

Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by goTitans.com, Nov 9, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TNThunder

    TNThunder Guest

    The first year Volek got to play was 2003, and he only started one game. He came off the bench and passed for 545 yards, and had 4 TD's verus 1 int, and finished with a QB rating of 101.4. His second year he started 8 games, played in 10, had 2,486 yards passing, 18 TD's versus 10 int's, and finished with a QB rating of 87.1. Why you think Volek isn't a decent QB is beyond me.
    Vince has played in 7 games, started 4 this year, has 762 yards, 5 TD's versus 7 int's, and has a QB rating of 53.3.
    #21
  2. Gut

    Gut Starter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,993
    How?

    Defenses play better usually when they aren't on the field for long drive after long drive. The Titans usually give up a big play so we're not tired from 20 play drives. And the big plays both from passing and rushing are what's killing us...and THAT is what will keep us at the bottom of the league in defense because it is a symptom of other real problems.

    Tell the Eagles they can't have a good D playing so much. Next theory?

    Gut
    #22
  3. Gut

    Gut Starter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,993
    The stats say otherwise...

    Your contention is that we're so tired from playing so many plays we can't expect not to give up a ton of points in the last quarter and a half?

    Here are the stats skewed in YOUR favor...

    Vs the Jets we gave up 13 first half points. That's on pace for giving up 26 points (just about our avg).

    Vs SD we gave up 20 first half points. That's a pace of 40 points for the game...MUCH worse than over avg!

    Vs Miami we gave up 3 first half points, but 10 in the second half. We did not allow our opponent to run an inordinate number of plays as Culpepper had 26 passes and R.Brown has 26 carries. That means we played one good half of football defensively and were simply BAD the second half.

    Vs Dallas we gave up 14 first half points for a projection of 28 points over 4 quarters. Sure we may have gotten tired in this game leading us to give up another 14 or more points in EACH of the last quarters, but the defense was already playing at a worst D in the league level in the first half (28points per game).

    Vs Indy we gave up ZERO first half points...a second good half defensively. Unfortunately, Peyton made the adjustments to score 14 in the second half (again a terrible avg for a half (28ppg avg)). But was THIS caused by Indy running too many plays against us in the first half? After the first 5 possessions of the game, we ran MORE plays than they did AND had a longer TOP. Nope, the theory didn't work here either.

    Vs Washington we gave up 14 first half points for a projected total of 28 points over 4 quarters.

    Vs Texans we gave up 3 first half points though we gave up 19 points in the last 2 quarters (an abyssmal avg of 38 points per game). Was this due to them killing our D with top in the first half? This is the ONLY game your argument could be made as they ran a gazillion plays on us. I would even counter your argument though based on this...of their 12 drives, they ran 7-11 play drives on 7 of those 12 drives! That's better than 50%. 3 of the 7 were in the first half. Carr and Sage Rosenfels passed for about 75% complete and Lundy - their rookie RB ran for over 100 yards on less than 20 carries. Even though we gave up 3 points in the first half, our performance was not as good as that number would indicate (though I'll take it!).

    Vs Jags we gave up 20 first half points for an avg of 40 over 4 quarters.

    You can see your theory has ZERO correlation to this D being bad since we gave up about our league avg or WORSE in 5 of the 8 games we played this year. I've also shown in the second half of some of our games, we weren't losing TOP but still reverted to giving up a ton of points in the second half (not because the D was tired).

    I don't mind this coaches speak excuse stuff IF it is applicable. At best you can argue 1 game. That is not good enough to be a reason this D is terrible. Nice try though...

    Gut
    #23
  4. Gut

    Gut Starter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,993
    Um...

    If we had a good scheme, better coaching (demanding accountability in executing the scheme) and better defensive playcalling....absolutely we'd be a much better D!

    Gut
    #24
  5. Gut

    Gut Starter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,993
    Context my friend...context!

    Stats without context are meaningless.

    For example...if your team goes down by 4 TD's and the defense against you plays prevent for a half....you, me and anyone who plays catch on Sunday's could come out with good yards and a 100+ rating.

    To put this into better perspective...let's take a look at the great Billy Volek in 2005...his most year playing.

    He threw one pass against Pitt...and INT.

    Against arizona he completed 56% for 198 yards for 1 TD, 1 INT and 1 fumble. We lost 20-10.

    Against Indy he only had 8 passing snaps. He went 4/6 for 30 yards (a 5 yard avg) with no TD's and no INT's. He was sacked twice in 8 plays though. We lost that game 35-3.

    Against Miami he completed only 58% of his passes for 132 yards and 1 TD. He was sacked 4 times. We lost 24-14.

    Against the Jags, he completed 56% for 114 yds and 2 garbage TD's. We lost 40-13.

    Voleks stats for the year look like this...completed 57% for 474yds 4 TD's and 2 INT's and a QB rating of 77.6. I hardly call this good. When you add in his 3 fumbles, he has 5 turnovers compared to 4 TD's.

    Not exactly a dream QB.

    While VY's numbers are lower...I expect them to be. Volek has not only been in the league for SEVEN years, but he already had a year in this offense. VY will get better...a lot better. BV will not. Hence the change...

    Gut
    #25
  6. avvie

    avvie Ke ali'i o na okole Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2003
    Messages:
    8,662
    :nono:
    Those defenses gave up points right and left. Volek put up awesome numbers.
    HE did not lose those games.
    #26
  7. avvie

    avvie Ke ali'i o na okole Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2003
    Messages:
    8,662
    And during that time we also argue about what a godawful O-line we had.
    The only thing that I don't know about is whether or not he had trouble finding receivers.
    #27
  8. A.D.

    A.D. Thank you, Bud. R.I.P. Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,844
    Did you see the Bears game? 19-17 Bears. They scored on a Volek interception and sacked Volek in the end zone. The D was not to blame for that loss, Volek was. He didn't exactly burn it up in his last start either.
    #28
  9. TNThunder

    TNThunder Guest

    As this team went downhill so did Volek. He just didn't become bad all of a sudden. McNair could do no better the last few years. Volek has NEVER been our starting QB, and had a chance to get into the flow of doing that. He has always had to wait and see if Steve wanted to play. I don't believe he has ever been given a fair chance here, and I was really looking forward to this year to see what he could do given the starting role. Obviously that was never going to happen. Believe what you wish, but I think he would have done pretty well. He kept Carr on the bench at Fresno St.
    #29
  10. fltitan

    fltitan Guest

    And I thought Volek was in SD all this time. He is, was and always will be no better than an average back up. The real problem with this team (besides the DC) is the youth and lack of quality veterans caused by poor cap management and poor draft picks. How many poor draft picks have these caches been saddled with in the last 3 or 4 years and how many good if not great players have been let go because we couldn't afford them, Reese got us here and it will take a little longer after he is gone to get us out of this mess.
    #30
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.