Titans too young to succeed in 2004....LIE!!

Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by RollTide, Jan 9, 2006.

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

    RollTide All-Pro

    Titans too young to succeed in 2005....LIE!!

    It's a lie that the titans were too young to succeed in 2004. We had loads of experience at numerous positions especially in key positions on the offensive line and QB.

    Fact-even with two rookie corners the entire titans starting defense averaged 3.6 years experience. The opening game starting 11 averaged 4+ years experience with beckham and woolfolk at corner.

    Fact- our entire starting offense averaged 5 years experience per man.

    Fact- we had 14 starting players who were in their 4th season or beyond!

    Fact- we had 7 starting players who were in year 6 or beyond.

    Fact- We had 4 players in year 7 or beyond.

    Fact- Our offensive line averaged 5 years experience per man and had 3 players with 7 years or more. 4 of our offensive lineman had played together as a unit for 3 years.

    Fact-Many key backup players were veterans. Our#2 QB was in his 6th season. Our #2 RB was in his 5th season. Our two top backup corners were in their 3rd and 4th season respectively(woolfolk-beckham). We had a backup linebacker in his 4th season(boiman).

    Fact-We had an 11 year veteran at the position that matters most QB.

    And this team was too young to succeed? Olson an 8th year player making $9M was too young to block anyone? Our two 4th year safeties were too young to tackle anyone?

    Another absolute fallacy is that our 2nd year players were too young to succeed. Fact is almost all our 2nd year players drafted in 2004 had significant playing time that year and had no reason to perform well this year. Especially on defense. Want me to tell you the number of second year players who made pro bowls?

    If all that isn't enough the titans were healthier up front this year than they ever have been. The entire offensive line missed one start! Albert hayneswoth a 5 year vet missed just one start this year and most of our D-lineman played in all 16 games!

    The titans didn't fail miserably this year because we were too young. We failed because the team had no motivation, no fire, no intensity. No veteran leadership. And that falls on every single one of those veteran players but most of all it falls on our head coach who did a miserable job in 2005!
  2. Jwill1919

    Jwill1919 Coach

    RCarie is going to jump all over this thread and say that we were still inexperienced and that we shouldn't expect them to succeed. I expect every football player to succeed, if they don't, it falls on one of two things; either they didn't work hard enough and shouldn't be on the field, or they weren't prepared by their coaches and instilled with the drive.
  3. Clearly being too young (and thus inexperienced) was a factor in this year's problems. Not the only cause, but a prominent one. Certainly you aren't suggesting that youth wasn't an important factor at all...

    I'd say starting 2 rookie CBs for the majority of the season is definitely not a good thing. How many NFL teams started even 1 rookie CB?

    We started 4 rookies for most of the season (Pacman, Hill, Roos, and the rotating WRs). I don't know what that number is for other teams, or how many rookies start for playoff teams, but I'd say we're well above the NFL average.
  4. user44

    user44 Guest

    You can't really judge a football team by its starters alone. To succeed you need depth (i.e. the patriots who always seem to be decimated by injuries) and our backups were extremely young across the board
  5. Fry

    Fry Welcome to the land of tomorrow! Tip Jar Donor

    28 out of 53 players with two years or less on the roster. thats young.
  6. Soxcat

    Soxcat Starter

    The Patriots are starting a rookie CB, Hobbs. Foxworth is a rookie CB that starts on Denver (two pretty good defenses). Certainly youth is a problem for the Titans but the Titans coaching staff is notoriously poor in getting production out of young players and has been that way for as long as the Titans have been in Nashville. The patriots also two rookies on the OL and have lost their starting LT and Center to injury. Imagine the excuses for a lousy season if that happened to the Titans. We had vets at two of the positions that stunk the most on defense, S and LB. It is obviously a combination of coaching and handling the CAP that made this team stink.
  7. RollTide

    RollTide All-Pro

    Nice try starkiller...

    Reynaldo hill was not forced into a starting role he played because people like woolfolk, beckham and waddell couldn't take that role. They sucked! None of our rookie WRs started until calico stunk it up and bennett got hurt. I'm not saying that being too young at some positions didn't hurt but we were 4-12!

    In typical starkiller fashion you want to compare this pile of crap organization to a playoff team. Hell we are not on par with teams like arizona and oakland much less a playoff team. That's the point! If this team was a competitive 7-9 i wouldn't be writing this.

    I did notice some 1st and 2nd year players in the pro bowl. Shaun merriman, de angelo hall and nathan vasher. And didn't jason witten and antonio gates make the pro bowl in their 2nd seasons? I remember a 99 titan team going to the super bowl with a 2nd year corner(rolle) and 2 rookie d-lineman. How did that happen?

    Playoffs? Playoffs?
  8. Fry

    Fry Welcome to the land of tomorrow! Tip Jar Donor

    merriman hardly deserved to go to the pro bowl this year.
  9. KamikaZ

    KamikaZ Ex-Hall of Famer


    You obviously didn't watch him play, because he actually did.
  10. RollTide

    RollTide All-Pro

    Sure bigtitan.....

    Meaningless numbers unless you break them down. Most of those 28 players didn't have a significant role on this team. Most who did have a significant role were 2nd year players not rookies. Your numbers don't take into account the experience level of those players who are not in their first or 2nd season.

    The one position that takes the most time to learn is QB. We had an 11 year vet there.

    Yes we had a rookie offensive lineman but wouldn't roos lack of experience be off set by the fact we had a 7 year guy, an 8 year guy and a 13 year guy on that same line? Hello? Wasn't the so called youth of odom and la boy off set by having a 5 year veteran at one end, KVB?

    Off course you and starkiller's brilliant analysis doesn't take into account the fact that we didn't have to play all of those rookies. Hill and pacman wouldn't have started had woolfolk, beckham, waddell or gardner been worth a damn. They were not.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.