Jamalisms

I feel like he goes round 1 or 2.

With the struggles of starter Chris Johnson and pending unrestricted free agency of oft-injured backup Javon Ringer, one position Titans fans are paying close attention to at the Combine is Running Back. As Combine results are reported, each fan develops a favorite... but will favorite players be available by the time the Titans are on the board? Over the past ten years, two-hundred and twelve* runningbacks have been drafted. These selections were fairly evenly dispersed throughout the draft. In total, twenty-nine rushers were selected in the first round, twenty-four in the second round, twenty-three in the third, thirty-eight in the fourth, nineteen were taken in the fifth, thirty-five more in the sixth round and a final forty-four were selected in the seventh round. Eight runningbacks were drafted in the top ten, where the Titans currently hold a pick, which averages to less than one per year. An additional twenty-three runningbacks were selected between picks eleven and forty, where the Titans are currently slated to pick in round two. In all, that’s thirty-one rushers taken in the top forty, or 14.6% of all runningbacks drafted, an average of slightly more than three per year. Averages for the past five years are about the same. Over that time, one hundred runningbacks have been drafted. The number of backs selected for each round one through seven was fifteen, thirteen, ten, thirteen, ten, twenty-one and eighteen, respectively. Three rushers, (again less than one per year), were taken in the top ten, while seventeen total, (a bit more than three per year), were selected in the top forty during this time. It is unlikely that the Titans look to draft a runningback with the tenth overall pick, but if you are among the hoping to draft a guy like Eddie Lacy in the second round, averages would suggest that three running backs will have to come off the board before him. Typically, the run on these guys occurs in the twenties, so hold your breath as the bottom third of the first round hits. In the past decade, fourteen runners were taken between picks twenty-one and thirty, including the Titans’ current starter Chris Johnson. Six of seventeen rushers taken in the top forty picks over the past five years were selected in the same range. No other team has drafted more runningbacks over the past ten years than the Titans, who have averaged one rusher each year. The Titans have taken a running back in eight of the past ten drafts, doubling up in both 2004 and 2006 while skipping the position in 2010 and 2012. The average draft spot of drafted Titans runningbacks is 133.5, or the tail end of the fourth round (depending on compensatory picks). Current starter Chris Johnson is the only runningback drafted in the first round (pick 24, 2008). LenDale White (pick 45, 2006) and Chris Henry (pick 50, 2007) were both selected in the second round. Chris Brown (pick 93, 2003) is the only draftee in the third round. Jamie Harper (pick 130, 2011) was a fourth round selection and is still with the team. Damien Nash (pick 142, 2005) and unrestricted free agent Javon Ringer (pick 173, 2009), who is recovering from arthroscopic knee surgery, were both taken in the fifth round. Troy Fleming (pick 191, 2004) was taken in the sixth round. Sean McHugh (pick 241, 2004) and Quinton Ganther (pick 246, 2006) are the final two backs, both acquired in the seventh round of the draft. Based on Titans history, both average pick and recent history, I'm not expecting a top forty pick like Eddie Lacy. I would expecting a mid-round runningback to be taken - maybe in the third but more likely in the fourth or fifth round. Someone like Javon Ringer, only less injury prone. Someone like Jamie Harper, only more immediately impactful. *This excludes seventeen individuals listed at fullback who were drafted over the last decade. See OG Draft History here See DT Draft History here See DE Draft History here Click here to view the article

Thanks to @Justafan for the contribution to the front page.

For lack of a better place to put it, and absent wanting to start a new thread... this guy has no shot at ROY, but Trent Richardson played 9 games with two broken ribs. The pain of that... ridiculous.

Favorable for RG3 is just the nature of the offense as compared to Luck. Favorable for Wilson is the nature of the offense and also includes the defense... which is why if you just look at favorable situations I would lean towards RG3. I don't think it's a coincidence that Wilson looked better when the defense started killing the opponent over the last four - five games.

Wilson looked much better as the season progressed. I'm not sure the others did. His situation was far and away more favorable than the others.

If I was pressed, Wilson is the odd man out for me. He's much like RG3, except 2x as many interceptions on identical attempts and a way, way better defense. If it's what was asked, it's Luck. If it's doing well with favorable, it's RG3.

Robert Grffin III, Russell Wilson, or Andrew Luck. One of these guys is going to win the Offensive Rookie of the Year award.I don't think the winner is clear. It's not cut and dry by any means. In fact, I don't know who I think should win the ROY award... but what drives an offense and what a QB is asked (forced) to do matters. Greatly. I see this consideration mentioned often, but then I see people dismiss Andrew Luck from real contention. This leads me to think that many observers haven't stopped to look at the facts very closely. It's more than just the simplification of the offense which benefits RG3 and Wilson. Way more. In fact, let's just look at things quantitatively and ignore the complexity angle, (which is itself more important than people care to admit). RG3 and Wilson might as well still be playing in college in terms of what is asked of them compared to Andrew Luck. Let's start by looking at the counter-balance to their respective passing attacks. Rushing Offense Rank: 1 - 2,709 yards, Washington 3 - 2,579 yards, Seattle 22 - 1,671 yards, Indianapolis Yards Per Rush Rank: 2 - 5.2 ypc, Washington 5 - 4.8 ypc, Seattle 23 - 3.8 ypc, Indianapolis Alfred Morris? Second leading rusher in the league. Marshawn Lynch? Third leading rusher in the league. Vick Ballard? Come on. Passing Attempts: 5 - 627 attempts, Andrew Luck 25 - 393 attempts, Russell Wilson 25 - 393 attempts, Robert Griffin III It's not even in the same ballpark. RG3 and Wilson passed 62.6% as many times as Luck. The important thing to note here is that it's not just that Luck passed a lot. He did, but Wilson and RG3 have meager totals. In fact, no full-time starter had fewer passes than Wilson... and RG3 and Wilson ranked 39th and 40th in attempts per game, respectively. Even if you add in rushes it is only 487 instances for Wilson, 513 for RG3, and 689 for Luck. That's still not even remotely similar... and, yes, Luck's passing atempts are remarkable. He wasn't just forced to pass a lot. He was forced to pass more often than any rookie ever. He passed the old mark by 37 attempts (and still won games). That's just passing attempts, though. Andrew Luck completed a low percentage, so how about offensive rank passing the ball? Passing Offense Rank: 7 - 4,128 yards, Indianapolis 20 - 3,422 yards, Washington 27 - 3,031 yards, Seattle The fact of the matter is that Seattle and Washington were not passing offenses. They were rushing offenses. Both teams put their quarterbacks in solid position by moving the ball running, forcing defenses to focus elsewhere, and then asked their rookie QBs to capitalize on favorable situations as infrequently as possible. Credit to RG3 and Wilson, they did a lot of capitlizing. Indianapolis, on the other hand, was a passing offense by necessity. They flat out struggled to run and asked Luck to find a way to keep the offense moving. Credit to him, he often did. It came with far more mistakes but consider this: Despite the major disparity in rushing attacks wielded by all three teams... Indianapolis' offense ranked tenth in the NFL, just 21 yards per game behind fifth ranked Washington and 12 yards per game ahead of seventeenth ranked Seattle. Sure, look at what Wilson and RG3 did when asked to do something. You can't dent their success, and they did what was worthy of praise... especially later in the season in Wilson's case. Accomplishments matter. These two guys are deservedly in contention for the award. At the same time, don't doubt for a minute that running backs drove the offenses in Washington and Seattle. Don't doubt for a minute the effect that has on how a defense game plans. Don't doubt for a minute how much easier that makes the game for quarterbacks. Don't doubt how stark and overwhelming the difference is, either... this most importantly. Is that enough to give the award to Luck, who passed with far less efficiency? I don't know. I am glad that I don't have a vote. This year is a tough one. Note: When you consider defenses as well, Wilson's exploits take a notable hit. Seattle surrendered the fewest points in the NFL, 143 fewer than Washington and 142 fewer than Indianapolis. Wilson's situation was remarkable. Best defense, third best rushing attack, pass less than anyone else? What more could a young QB wish for? Click here to view the article

At the same time, the quality of improved defensive play is readily apparent.

Some fluff from Rex Ryan: (on if he’s noticed an improvement in the Titans defense) Yeah, statistically, I don’t know where they’re ranked or whatever, not that high statistically, but if you look at the weeks that I see on the tape, the last four weeks, they’ve been playing well. It’s a young, talented group. I’ve really been impressed with the kid from UCLA, (Akeem) Ayers, and that (Zach) Brown kid, he can really run. But Ayers in particular, he’s all over the place. He can play the pass, he’s got four or five sacks, can be a nickel rusher. He’s all over the place with tackles. He’s been impressive. I like both of their ends, (Derrick) Morgan and (Kamerion) Wimbley. Then the two tackles inside, (Jurrell) Casey and (Sen’Derrick) Marks, they’re disruptive guys inside. This is a talented, young group.

They gave up ten points in the second half. The rest was on the offense... again. Also, I think, the lowest yardage for Indy all year. In terms of net scoring impact, they scored a TD and have up 17... ten points overall. In Indy. That's a pretty damn good game. Should have been a blow out.

The defense has definitely come around over the course of the year.

Style and tone depend on mood. Vocabulary, typically depends on what I've read recently. Language adapts, and mine more than most. I'm not sure why, but you'd probably find it humorous how many times I had to answer to this line of thought in school. Nobody likes a linguistic chameleon. If anything I write is boring, it's probably the Titansreport collective voice who is to blame. Then again, this was more just a post of fact so it was more academic and less whatever else you might think my "voice" is.

Predictions Sure To Go Wrong, written and illustrated in crayon by Titansfan.

Degree and frequency, which absolutely matter.

Assuming you of average intelligence, you also get my point... and the point of the thread itself. Discussing the topic and pretending the topic is something else... these are not the same thing. All teams don't face "this."

Define "this."

Don't make the mistake of confusing insistence on accuracy for conceit. I'm quite prone to error, but this is not such an instance.

This is what the absence of cliche looks like. Thanks, Tom. I forgot to email myself the document so I can't look at it tonight, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they are generally worse than last year... but they aren't nearly as bad as the points scored rankings suggests, nor has the ongoing "worst ever" discussion been overly valid.

You made a categorical appeal to sameness when the absence of sameness is the point being made. At best it was misguided.

The worst case scenario occurred in a bad situation. The defense deserves no credit for giving up a TD. At the same time, being placed in bad situations repeatedly is a disadvantage that will hit defenses to varying degrees... yet there is no adjustment accorded. Thus, it is a single look at a more complex matter and while actually quite useful does not address the specific issue discussed in the OP. In fact, it carries the bias inherently. Again, useful, but also somewhat divergent trains of thought.

More not making a point and just posting cliches that have no relevance to actual events, then popping off at the mouth (see: vomiting words on a keyboard) as if there was some substantial point made beyond exhibiting your own ignorance.

That's an interesting site. As they say, simplistic but still useful. I'd prefer seeing more examples for how they calculate things, but if their credentials are as they say... I'm more than comfortable. The problem that their calculations still have (assuming my reading of their calculation is accurate) is that they will actually penalize the Titans for giving up TDs on drives that start in the redzone... as the average would have to be less than a TD. Using their methodology does not put teams on an apples to apples basis with eachother, it puts them on an apples to apples basis with history. If a defense is put in bad situations frequently - our defense - and doesn't pull out some miracles, they will get negative scores.