Huston Posted August 19, 2018 Report Share Posted August 19, 2018 Superhorn @Super_Horn 4h4 hours ago It’s just preseason, but Taywan’s play last night just reinforces issues with previous Titans staff. Good coaches find ways to get good players the ball. Coaches often unnecessarily complicate this issue. Bottom line, it’s their job to find a way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted August 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2018 Just now, Huston said: Superhorn @Super_Horn 4h4 hours ago It’s just preseason Should have stopped here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huston Posted August 19, 2018 Report Share Posted August 19, 2018 1 minute ago, OILERMAN said: Should have stopped here Didn't stop you from posting a clip of Jimmy G in preseason tying to show how good he is lol, cuts both ways. 1yardshort, and Cam. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleEye Posted August 19, 2018 Report Share Posted August 19, 2018 9 minutes ago, OILERMAN said: Also Mularkey got nothing out of Dion Lewis! Silly boy! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans_Win_Again Posted August 19, 2018 Report Share Posted August 19, 2018 Problem with Mularkey wasn't his system. He was just too stupid to manage a game. japan 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Posted August 19, 2018 Report Share Posted August 19, 2018 And way to stubborn . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
big2033 Posted August 19, 2018 Report Share Posted August 19, 2018 (edited) I'm optimistic we'll have a better offense than it was under Mularkey. However, I'll continue to occasionally troll by painting things with the same wide brush many painted Mularkey. At the time, the thinking was, running-team identity = bad and archaic. When it's great for a team with a young QB and young players trying to rebuild. Also there are plenty of teams who found success starting from this foundation. Mularkey's ability to adapt from there was always the question, the original plan was a good one for the team we had at the time. We all know why he got fired in year two. Mularkey had problems, deserved to be fired, but the attitude that he squandered a Super Bowl team with a run-first identity is ridiculous. Edited August 19, 2018 by big2033 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
socaltitan Posted August 20, 2018 Report Share Posted August 20, 2018 I don't know why people would think we're not going to emphasize running the ball. LaFleur learned under Kubiak, Shanahan, and McVay. Arian Foster, Todd Gurley, Devonta Freeman, etc didn't get all those rushing yards out of nowhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted August 20, 2018 Report Share Posted August 20, 2018 2 hours ago, OILERMAN said: Why weren’t Davis, Taylor and Smith 2nd year players last year under Mularkey? Terrible player management!! Also Mularkey got nothing out of Dion Lewis! These excuses are great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
japan Posted August 20, 2018 Report Share Posted August 20, 2018 2 hours ago, OILERMAN said: Why weren’t Davis, Taylor and Smith 2nd year players last year under Mularkey? Terrible player management!! Also Mularkey got nothing out of Dion Lewis! No doubt Taylor didn’t know what he was doing last year on the field. I still wonder how much he knows of this new offense. But I think Superhorns point is that with the lack of speed on offense last year, you insert Taylor for simple no brainer plays. Get him the ball in space on a handful of plays during a game. Maybe he pops one or two then you can use him as a decoy or something. Mularkey just had the guy running intermediate option routes where several times he wasn’t even looking for the ball. titanruss 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
japan Posted August 20, 2018 Report Share Posted August 20, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, big2033 said: I'm optimistic we'll have a better offense than it was under Mularkey. However, I'll continue to occasionally troll by painting things with the same wide brush many painted Mularkey. At the time, the thinking was, running-team identity = bad and archaic. When it's great for a team with a young QB and young players trying to rebuild. Also there are plenty of teams who found success starting from this foundation. Mularkey's ability to adapt from there was always the question, the original plan was a good one for the team we had at the time. We all know why he got fired in year two. Mularkey had problems, deserved to be fired, but the attitude that he squandered a Super Bowl team with a run-first identity is ridiculous. Good points but who’s been maintaining that this LaFleur offense was going to be throwing the ball all over the place? Strawman? We all discussed that the Shanny system produces huge running games. Old man Shanny used to pull guys off the street and they would be having monster games running the ball. Edited August 20, 2018 by japan titanruss 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
big2033 Posted August 20, 2018 Report Share Posted August 20, 2018 (edited) 58 minutes ago, japan said: Good points but who’s been maintaining that this LaFleur offense was going to be throwing the ball all over the place? Strawman? We all discussed that the Shanny system produces huge running games. Old man Shanny used to pull guys off the street and they would be having monster games running the ball. This is more about the original thinking. People tried to paint Mularkey's original idea for the offense as a disaster waiting to happen. When they were really just coming from a place of being angry and biased regarding a mediocre hire. Which it 100% was. Without bias, the original plan and foundation was a good one, deserved some optimism, and equaled success: It opened HUGE running lanes as well. The problem was the transition to year two and if we could expand past our foundation. Now that our hire is a bit more interesting and "young" suddenly this foundation seems to make sense. Suddenly bunch formations aren't so bad. Suddenly splitting Fluellen out wide is inspired. Suddenly Mariota predominantly under center makes sense. Anyway ... I definitely like LaFluer's thinking and believe they'll bring a lot more nuance to the run-first foundation as time goes by. Edited August 20, 2018 by big2033 wiscotitansfan 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huston Posted August 20, 2018 Report Share Posted August 20, 2018 Recapping Matt LaFleur’s play calling against the Buccaneers https://www.musiccitymiracles.com/2018/8/19/17756568/recapping-matt-lafleurs-play-calling-against-tampa-bay Nothing earth shattering big2033 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
titanruss Posted August 20, 2018 Report Share Posted August 20, 2018 10 hours ago, big2033 said: This reminds me of someone ... Or like every head coach in the history of football IsntLifeFunny 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
titanruss Posted August 20, 2018 Report Share Posted August 20, 2018 2 hours ago, big2033 said: This is more about the original thinking. People tried to paint Mularkey's original idea for the offense as a disaster waiting to happen. When they were really just coming from a place of being angry and biased regarding a mediocre hire. Which it 100% was. Without bias, the original plan and foundation was a good one, deserved some optimism, and equaled success: It opened HUGE running lanes as well. The problem was the transition to year two and if we could expand past our foundation. Now that our hire is a bit more interesting and "young" suddenly this foundation seems to make sense. Suddenly bunch formations aren't so bad. Suddenly splitting Fluellen out wide is inspired. Suddenly Mariota predominantly under center makes sense. Anyway ... I definitely like LaFluer's thinking and believe they'll bring a lot more nuance to the run-first foundation as time goes by. Youre still mostly off and creating strawmen like he accused you of. No one said it was a disaster waiting to happen. It was given decent opportunity once they admittedly altered things after the first 4 games of 2016. But It was just a straight disaster outside of 20% of the games over 2 years. People weren’t as upset about the hire as they were the search. They had 4 months and used none of them. No one was afraid of an offense that featured the run game. They were afraid of an offense that used trick plays and an offense that “enforced their will and forced their identity” regardless of its success doing so. ... And we were right. Huston 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.