Titans D Stops Jags 24-17

Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by goTitans.com, Dec 17, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. goTitans.com

    goTitans.com A living legend. Staff

    SUMMARY: The Titans defense stepped up and had turnover TDs of 83, 92 and 61 yards and beat Jacksonville 24-17 for their fifth straight victory. Despite having less than 100 yards of offense, the Titans generated 278 in return yards on the day. Tennessee (7-7) won for the seventh time in nine games, keeping its faint playoff hopes alive. The Titans' defense was on the field 44 minutes, 22 seconds but had five sacks and force four turnovers. Vince Young only had 85 yards passing on the day going 8-for-15 with only four yards rushing.

    What do you think about this article? Post your comments below.
  2. Titansfan10

    Titansfan10 Camp Fodder

    Wow...only thing i can say really, it feels os great to win, and especially to win 5 in a row, but i must say that was one odd game...our offense basicaly never touched the field!! Our D played well causing turnovers, and getting points too...i hope we can keep this going!
  3. Puck

    Puck Pro Bowler

    that was one odd game
    but I applaud the scheme
    I actually caught myself on an occasion complimenting JS and LT3 - absolute lunacy
  4. Jwill1919

    Jwill1919 Coach

    What scheme? I did not see any type of scheme at all. bend and break? Get the defense off the field.
  5. Vigsted

    Vigsted Starter

    Really? I can only remember one, the blitz by Fuller, that was a good call. But that was cancelled out by his number of horrible decision to go into his prevent cover nothing defence. Everytime Garrard was faced with a 3rd and long he'd just drop back and get zero pressure, although throughout the game it was clear that Garrard made bad decisions when pressured.
  6. Tackhead #9

    Tackhead #9 Harder, better, faster, stronger

    Seems a case of the players outplaying the scheme. To be put in a position where you have to make multiple goal-line stops, play nearly three quarters of the game and damn well fight your way to a win, it takes heart. No scheme should allow that kind of nonsense. Let's put it this way, the D is statistically the worst in the league, yet they have the talent to play like they did today; seems scheme-based. (I know I side with the players strongly, it's not like Schwartz was on the field himself and the players are the ones with the awful stats, but something seems fishy here)

    Looking forward to seeing Chris Hope in the Pro Bowl. It better happen..
  7. Smash

    Smash Soccer God

    I was screaming and yelling at our Dline. They had the chance to sack Gerrard like 42 times, but they overran it or missed a simple tackle way too often. I kinda scared the hell out of my buddy, with the bad language.

    I think my McNair jersey was jinxing Vince, I won't be wearing it anymore this season.
  8. Fry

    Fry Welcome to the land of tomorrow! Tip Jar Donor

    52% 3rd down coversion. 23 first downs. 202 rushing yards, 5.1 YPC.

    sorry, there are no great schemes here.

    the best thing the defensive staff did was get tulloch on the field.
  9. Gunny

    Gunny Shoutbox Fuhrer Tip Jar Donor

    It has to now.
  10. Soxcat

    Soxcat Starter

    There was a 3rd down situation where the "scheme" was to rush 3 DL leaving the middle bare. The Jags run a simple middle draw for an easy first down. This game proved we have better players than the scheme. We blitzed about two times on third down and had success. Bulluch needs to blitz more. Individual plays more than "scheme" is what won this game. Although I do think the defense was getting tired because of the defensive scores the Jags had a number of drives over 10 plays (at least 4) and one I think was 16 plays. Heck, the Jags did us a huge favor by throwing a fade in the end zone on 4th down (very dumb IMO). Garrard gave that game away. I give the players credit for making the plays but certanly the scheme wasn't anything special.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.