Why did the Titans let it come to this?

I normally like your posts, but Riverman's statements are nothing like what you suggest above.

Several problems with these statements? When did he prove he had Superbowl worthy teams TWICE? I mean, 99 Season is a given. But I could see an argument that we had more than two superbowl worthy teams. In reality we had ONE worthy superbowl team, since that's all that made it.


I also think calling Fisher a good or bad coach is simply opinion and subjective. I see flaws in his strategy, even in our last loss.

I think the best that can be said, is Fisher's low risk/ low reward offense attitude provides us with many playoff teams.

Playcalling would've made a difference. Why did we use CJ more than LW so early in the game? Why did we throw the ball as much as we did in the first half?



Bottom line, getting a Superbowl victory WOULD make Fisher a more respected coach. It would change my opinion. Which is as of now, moderate to good overall, Risk-averse offense, system dependent defense with inability to change schemes regardless of results, favoritist towards players, double-talker, and playoff choker.

 

Fisher's postseason record since that Super Bowl run..2-5. How can you all defend him? A 13-3 season doesn't mean anything when we lose the first playoff game we play.

 

i cant believe we r letting our best player go....for two years in a row...what bout all the B.S. bout sign your good players, dont let them out.....they shoulda given him the contract he wanted....im very dissapointed in the team this offseason w/ 30M the team is being too stingy.

i'd actually offer albe a contract in the range of 4 years w/ jared+ money if thats what it takes....and if not than giv him his six yr XXm.

 

If you are fine with a few playoff appearances, most which have been one and dones, then I see why you don't have any problem with Fisherball. The ultimate goal is to win the Super Bowl. Yes-Fisherball has done well to put up regular season wins by letting the win come to you- but in the playoffs EVERY team is playing with dire necessity. The odds of winning a playoff game conservatively are much less than winning a regular season game.

We can debate why until the cows come home but the bottom line is that we haven't put up points well enough in the playoffs. Yes- we need to maintain our defense.

I've said it before in another post- This organization is committed to winning, I just don't know how committed this organization is to doing what is necessary to win the Super Bowl.

 

I saw in the Tennessean today where the reporter listed one reason to keep AH was to quell the perception that Bud (Titans) are cheap. To a degree, I have to believe this is a valid perception that the organization has earned. Think back to Runyan and others we've developed and then refused to provide the payday.

The technique works well (staff with the draft) to win games because we have good coaching, but at some point there has to be some willingness to fully spend the cap- and do so in a responsible way. Reese simply extended our core guys to ridiculous amounts that we couldn't keep. could this be the same situation that we are trying to avoid by not breaking the bank for Albert? I dont' think so. We have a lot of cap room and the difference in the quality of the defense without Albert probably isn't worth it.

My point on this is, we NEED to wisely spend the available cap his departure would create to generate some points in order to win- especially in the playoffs.

 

River...

Why do you repeat your perception that a strong defense and a strong running game doesn't work in the playoffs? The vast MAJORITY of teams that win the Super Bowl are built around this concept and tend to be conservative as much as they can be. WHY? Because it leads to fewer turnovers and fewer penalties and more top...all of which help you win! We got beat by a much more conservative team playing more Fisherball than we play. The Steelers are built around a devastating defense and a strong rush attack. What don't you understand?

And we didn't play 'fisherball' in our playoff loss and yet you still include it as your reasoning for us not to play that style of offense. So Fisher's bad if he is conservative and bad if he opens it up?

I guess you just don't like the style of football since it is less exciting, but it is a winning formula in the NFL. And you'll have a hard time proving that Fisherball doesn't work in the playoffs since that style isn't what lost us those games. Individual mistakes, bad breaks, or both cost us. Players who rarely fumble end up fumbling. Players who normally pick off lollipop passes fall down and the WR catches it. A kicker who's knickname was clutch kicks a FG into the line so the other team returns it. Which of these things has anything to do with Fisherball? And in the Superbowl, the gamewinning TD was accomplished because Kearse crushed Warner forcing a well underthrown ball but their WR made a better adjustment on it and our backup safeties couldn't stop the WR from scoring. Any of that have to do with Fisherball? The answer is no.

If you want to point out a flaw in this philosophy, please point one out and be specific. Saying it doesn't work is clearly wrong when so many teams have used it to win SUPERBOWLS!!!

I want to win - not as much as anybody - but more than a lot of people. I took my savings and flew from Alaska to Georgia (a big chunk of money) and scalped a ticket to that game for the rest of my savings at the time. I went to that game so don't tell me you guess I don't mind Fisherball because I don't mind us not winning a Super Bowl!

And, what you're suggesting is that we have a better offense...and throw the ball more...while the defense gets worse. Having a more pass happy offense will lead to more turnovers, less time of possession, fewer 10minute drives and less rest for the D. Having a worse defense will mean that we will let other teams control the game as they WILL be able to drive the ball for 10minutes against us and we will have fewer short fields and force fewer turnovers. So, in effect, you want to get into a shootout. Ya might notice that the players you wanna shootout against in the playoffs have better QB's (Manning and Brady for starters) and better WR's (Moss, Wayne, ect.) no matter who we trade or sign or draft. How is THIS a better winning formula???

Gut

 

Well...

In what year have we not 'fully spent the cap?'

The Titans have spent a LOT of money so it's hard to say they're cheap. And when they were rebuilding, they overpaid players...and still are.

I think re-signing AH to quell this idea is silly. If you think he's worth the money, you sign him. If not, you don't.

Again, the problem with your theory is that the offense will improve and score more points than the new d is gonna give up. Most of the time, it doesn't work out this way. Several teams have tried this figuring if they could just score 3 more points a game. Problem is, the Offense scores 3 more points while the D gives up another 3-7...

Who do you think they should get to satisfy your desire for a 'premiere' possession WR and a 'legit' deep threat. Who are these players???

Gut

 

I'm so tired of that crap. Nothing that happened in the first half ever won any game. The Cardinals had the lead in the 4th quarter, long after that int return. To say that that int return 'won the game' is sheer lunacy. It definitely turned the momentum and took the wind right out of Arizona's sails, but it was far from the game winning play.