Does Munch Have The Guts To Fire an Old Friend? (OL)

Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by The Hammer, Oct 14, 2013.

  1. JiminyBillyBob

    JiminyBillyBob Starter

    What the hell is your problem? We are currently second in the AFC South with a 3-3 record and we can still make the playoffs. We have a D that is improved significantly from last year and our offense will get better when Jake comes back from injury.
    We have been in each game this year, and we have played some pretty good teams. Your whining is pretty annoying.
  2. TitanJeff

    TitanJeff Kahuna Grande Staff

    Nice call-out. You still don't get it. I don't give a flip who is technically responsible from a management standpoint. For me, "responsible" is used the same as the word "fault" when discussing why the OL isn't playing well.

    It's how I've used the word from the start.

    I'm not saying Bruce is not technically "responsible". He is. Loggains is. Munch is. Webster is. Etc. But changing out any of these "responsible" people does not keep Turner from whiffing this Sunday.

    What me and others are trying to get you to understand is if the goal is to find out the reasons (and hopeful solutions) to the problems, then address who is at fault (thus truly responsible) for what we are seeing on the field.

    If you blame Bruce, then we disagree.
  3. Deuce Wayne

    Deuce Wayne #CoachKegstand

    Here's how I see it-

    Munchak has a pretty good thing going. We're not firing him.

    But Munchak does have elements of his team that SHOULD be staples- and they're failing miserably.

    What do you do when something isn't working? You fix it.

    What has been the common denominator in our OL sucking?

    Bruce Matthews.

    He also seems to be the reason the Texans' line was sucking. It's not coincidence.

    An example of Bruce Matthews in any other circumstance...

    Say a team has 2 top 10 paid defensive tackles in the NFL, just drafted a "sure fire" DE to add to the rush and 1 DE that is just ok.

    If this unit got no sacks, no pressure, and performed like one of the worst DLs in the NFL.... what would happen?

    So why should Bruce be treated differently?

    The guy was a great player. He's a nice guy. But that doesn't save him from business. He sucks as a coach. The "buddy-system" is killing us on this one.

    And firing him may not be immediate improvement. But this OL isn't going to get any worse with him gone... they can't.
    • High Five High Five x 2
  4. TitanJeff

    TitanJeff Kahuna Grande Staff

    Right. They went from 30th to 7th in rushing in one season with Bruce coaching the OL. The pass offense dropped from #1 to #4.

    I'm willing to do a one-month sig bet that the Titans OL will go from being #17 (currently) to #12 or higher by the end of the regular season.

    Want you some? :brow:
  5. RockyTop Fox

    RockyTop Fox Offensive Coordinator

    It seems like that is commonly a drawback of promoting someone within your organization who excels at their job to head coach.. that person can no longer excel at their job. Munch was a great O-line coach, but once he became head coach he could no longer do his job. One of our biggest strengths became one of our weaknesses. Is it worth it?
    • High Five High Five x 1
  6. UrbanLegend3

    UrbanLegend3 Pro Bowler

    Thank you TJ. I'd rather find out what is actually wrong and fix it than just fire some one because they're "accountable" even if I'm not sure it will solve my problem. If after truly evaluating everything it turns out that Matthews is the cause then fire his ass like you would anyone else. But what if we hire someone new and nothing changes?

    What I am saying is that absolutely no one this board (myself included) knows what the day to day operations on that team are and can accurately evaluate the totality of Matthew's coaching ability. All we can do is look at tape and in my opinion most of the tape suggests that the bulk of the problem lies with the players themselves and likely the predicatbility of our play calling/lack of a passing threat.

    I can agree that Matthews should get some of the blame though. Those missed assignments you see on tape? That's coaching. Matthews does need to make sure that guys know their stuff well enough that they don't s*** the bed when crunch time comes. If the guy can't get it down then bench him.

    And for the record the reason Williams gets credit for the defense playing faster/more aggressive is because his scheme is condusive to playing this way. The way his plays are drawn up allow the players to play this way and it's more fun for them. He's not "motivating" them to success, he's putting them in positions that allow them to be aggressive. That's not exactly as easy to do on the O-line. That aggression has to come from within. No amount of scheme or "coaching'em" up is gonna produce that.
  7. Riverman

    Riverman That may be.... Tip Jar Donor

    Our difference is that I don't equate "fault" with responsibility. I've illustrated the difference numerous times in course of our dialogue. There is nothing "technical" about the context I use the term responsibility. I've been very clear it isn't about "blame" or "fault" with me as opposed to you. The concepts of "blame" and "fault" are rarely productive in developing solutions.

    And we agree that ultimately the responsbility ascends to the higher authorities in the organizational structure.

    As I've said before, it isn't my responsibility to "fix" the problem. Nor is it yours. It is incrementally each individual in the Titan's organization. It is Bruce Matthews' primary responsibility to fix the OL. And until it is fixed, it is Bruce Matthews who is responsible to see that it happens. When he can't, it then becomes Munchak's and ultimately Webster's. That is the essence of the structure of organizational leadership.

    You are smarter than to infer I "blame" Matthews. But let's do be real. Munchak had to increase his involvement with more "direct" supervision of the OL last year when we were having problems. If that wasn't an indictment that his subordinate (Matthews) was not meeting his responsbility to have a functioning O-line, I don't know what is.

    I'll further add that Matthews gets a pass on being "responsible" for his unit because he was such an excellent O-lineman for the organization. I take exception with that because it indicates that there is an arbitrary standard of accountability for the organization. And accountability is an essential element for any organization interested in improving.
  8. TitanJeff

    TitanJeff Kahuna Grande Staff

    As I've used the term "responsibility" throughout this thread, it means "fault".

    Check out Webster:

    You see "responsibility" as:
    The state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone. A thing that one is required to do as part of a job, role, or legal obligation.

    I'm using it as:
    The state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something. The opportunity or ability to act independently and make decisions without authorization.

    We're discussing the problems with the OL, correct? We talk every day about various problems and offer opinion. That's what we do here. We try to pin down the issues and offer opinion as to how to fix it.

    To me, the problem has little to do with Bruce and focusing on him is IGNORING the problem.

    I think you're reading into it. Why wouldn't Munch want to work with an OL which has three new players on it and is key to the success of his offense? It's where his experience lies. He'd do the same if he were an ex-QB working with Locker/Fitz. He obviously had some strong feelings for the choice of Warmack so wanted to be a part of his development.

    No one here has said Bruce should get a pass on anything. I have no clue where you came up with that.
  9. Riverman

    Riverman That may be.... Tip Jar Donor

    I'd prefer not to resort to semantics but if you insist on taking the dialogue in that direction then I'm confused. If you're using responsibility as "blame" as you indicate, then you have said in prior posts that Matthews is "technically" responsible but does not bear any blame. Which one is it? Either he is responsible and is to blame or he isn't. By your context, you are giving Matthews a pass on being responsible or to blame when you say he isn't at fault.

    I've been consistent in how I've expressed the elements of responsibility and how that relates to blame and fault.

    And you've lost your mind if you believe EVERY head coach gets routinely gets involved with micro-managing a well functioning unit. The ONLY reason Munchak did that was because his subordinate wasn't meeting his responsibility.
  10. TitanJeff

    TitanJeff Kahuna Grande Staff

    He bares little to no blame for what we're seeing on the field. I've said this repeatedly.

    Where I can assign blame to Munch is if Warmack does not begin to improve soon. That should be the gauge as to whether or not Bruce is doing his job.

    That's quite a jump to go from Munch to EVERY head coach in the NFL. Obviously, a few head coaches do. Some play a big role with the coordination of the offense or the defense. If Munch was wanting to protect Bruce, don't you think he'd done this on the sly instead of saying he would be doing this? Munch loves the OL. He's good friends with Bruce. They have a good relationship. And he's excited about Warmack.

    That's all it is, IMO.
  • Welcome to

    Established in 2000, is the place for Tennessee Titans fans to talk Titans. Our roots go back to the Tennessee Oilers Fan Page in 1997 and we currently have 4,000 diehard members with 1.5 million messages. To find out about advertising opportunities, contact TitanJeff.
  • The Tip Jar

    For those of you interested in helping the cause, we offer The Tip Jar. For $2 a month, you can become a subscriber and enjoy without ads.

    Hit the Tip Jar