Why did the Titans let it come to this?

Collins needs to be signed today and Young needs to hit the road today. I can go either way on Fat Albert.

Pete

 

1. The average score of the winning team in the history of the Super Bowl is 31 points.
2. Except for the Giants win 2 years ago with 17 points, no team has won the Super Bowl in the last 30 years with a score less than 20 points.
3. The Titans playoff score average since 02 (couldn't find earlier) is 20 points/game. (It is 8 points/game over the past 2 years)

My point is that Fisherball just doesn't produce enough points to statiscally improve our chances of obtaining a Super Bowl victory. You simply can't rely on your defense to generate those points.

Under Fisher, we have been predominantly staffed (aside from Mason) with average WR's at best. A premium possesion WR and/or a legitimate downfield threat would undoubtedly improve our scoring capacity in the playoffs. (My point is not who specifically, but simply that we need to improvel the caliber of those roles). I totally agree that having an intelligent QB with a good arm is a requisite.

 

really?

It was at least a 10point swing in score - minimum. The Cards would have had at least a FG or more likely a TD. Instead the Steelers score a TD. A 14 point swing has a huge impact on the game (not to mention momentum)...especially when the game was close.

Gut

 

Yeah...

Again, you're arguing the philosophy needs to change...but your evidence is the results which are the result of non-scheme issues. So you need to argue execution...not philosophy....and yet you're arguing scheme. If you can provide a reason why our scheme caused us not to win (not just give me our scoring), I'm happy to continue. If you're just gonna keep saying Fisherball doesn't work because we haven't won a Super Bowl...I'll agree to disagree with you.

Gut

 

What I have said is that Fisherball doesn't score enough points to win a Super Bowl. Obviously, until he does win one, then I'll continue to support that argument.

I think your scheme versus execution distinction isn't accurate. Scoring directly quantifies scheme productivity. To say it doesn't supports the notion that the final score is not a sum of all events of the game. Fisherball, in the context that I am referring to, is conservative offensive play with a solid run stopping defense.

 

Um...

Why? I've given you specific examples of why we didn't win games that have nothing to do with scheme. How do you counter those in your argument besides ignoring them?

Scoring is NOT the sum of all events in a game.

More importantly, scheme is somewhat less important than a team's ability to run it and use it effectively against another team's. Proof? Which is a better scheme...4-3 vs 3-4? Man vs Zone? Attack or bend don't break defense? Teams have won with super conservative running attacks and great D and won with serious offensive firepower and lesser D's. You CAN win with any of these schemes. However, inherent in certain schemes is less risk and more payoff than others...which is WHY the majority of teams who win the Super Bowl use this strategy.

Gut

 

This probably sums up the differences in our philosophies. I believe that it is.