2013 AFC South Preview

[IsntLifeFunny]

Titansab and I joked around for half of this thread I so get a clue.

Aa far as adding to the discussion, there is nothing to see here. I already explained why there are reasons to not be overly optimistic: pass rush, secondary, passing game. I am taking a wait and see approach in our DLs ability against the run but not too optimistic there either.

I think we will be more competitive in games than last year but doubt our record reflects it.

I disagree, but I can understand the sentiment. They are all question marks for sure. I think the upgrades throughout the roster will make us much more competitive than we were last year.

[WG53]

HA! Indeed I do. Okay, I was just fucking with you, but you know I'm right that you said 3 deep man and cover 3 were both cover 3, which would only be true if my earlier post was correct.

You like to leave stuff out huh? I never said it was the same. I said three deep man or cover 3 man is a variant of it. You just do not comprehend what you read.

Just like Cover 2 man is a variant of cover 2.

Edited August 15, 2013 by WG53

[IsntLifeFunny]

This is true.

Isntlifefunny=N00b

[Guest]

WG53 is a great poster, his only problems are he doesn't take up for himself enough and often lets people attack him without putting up a good fight

 

His other problem is when someone puts up a good case that he's wrong on an issue he just rolls right over and admits he wrong way too fast

 

He's also way too civil to the fellow board members, especially Jamal

 

Pure brilliance.

[IsntLifeFunny]

You lile to leave stuff out huh? I never said it was the same. I said three deep man or cover 3 man is a variant of it. You just do not comprehend what you read.

Just like Cover 2 man is a variant of cover 2.

Meh, like you said "semantics". I don't believe 3 deep man* is a variant of cover 3. That's where we disagree.

 

ETA: I also don't believe cover 3 man exists, as that is not its name. You are yet to show it does.

Edited August 15, 2013 by IsntLifeFunny

[CMJ]

Titansab owned me for half of this thread...

[OILERMAN]

The fact they were 9th in sacks is enough to disregard any sentiment that they were terrible in the pass-rush category. The fact that Morgan and Wimbley (especially Morgan) were very good at getting pressures when they had a terrible secondary furthers my point.

 

No it's not, as I said the 3 games against terrible opposition inflated their overall numbers, their leading sacker had 6.5 sacks.

 

A good pass rush doesn't allow a 93 passer rating or the 2nd most TD passes, no matter how bad the secondary

[WG53]

Meh, like you said "semantics". I don't believe 3 deep man* is a variant of cover 3. That's where we disagree.

ETA: I also don't believe cover 3 man exists, as that is not its name. You are yet to show it does.

Have yet to prove it?

I do not have to prove shit to you. I know it is called that. What the preference of different coaches in reference to the name of the play is irrelevant.

[IsntLifeFunny]

No it's not, as I said the 3 games against terrible opposition inflated their overall numbers, their leading sacker had 6.5 sacks.

 

A good pass rush doesn't allow a 93 passer rating or the 2nd most TD passes, no matter how bad the secondary

I didn't say it was a good pass rush. I merely pointed out that we were 9th in the league and had 2 DEs with good pressure numbers. Every team's numbers are inflated over a few games. It doesn't mean they have a terrible rush. That's all I'm saying: The Tennessee Titans did not have a terrible pass rush in 2012. In fact, they were above average.

Edited August 15, 2013 by IsntLifeFunny

[TitansAB]

This is true as well... lol I kid. Kinda.

[WG53]

I love getting gloryholed by Soxcat

[CMJ]

lmao

[TitansAB]

WG only hurts the ones he loves.

[WG53]

WG53 is a great poster, his only problems are he doesn't take up for himself enough and often lets people attack him without putting up a good fight

His other problem is when someone puts up a good case that he's wrong on an issue he just rolls right over and admits he wrong way too fast

I am too humble. I know.

He's also way too civil to the fellow board members, especially Jamal

My civility is legendary.

[IsntLifeFunny]

Have yet to prove it?

I do not have to prove shit to you. I know it is called that. What the preference of different coaches in reference to the name of the play is irrelevant.

Welp, until you prove it, it is bullshit. You are correct that you don't have to prove anything. But, until you prove it, you don't really have a leg to stand on in terms of the veracity of your statements. We are rehashing. Once again, I've seen a lot of playbooks and am yet to see a 'cover 3 man'.

 

I'll just drop it and hope you prove me wrong. I said it in the other thread that I really was interested to see an actual play with that designation. I'll ask one question and drop it: Are you saying cover 3 man exists as a concept or actual play-call, or both? In terms of concept, yes it exists in terms of underneath coverage (definitely not outside coverage in terms of an actual play-call, even if pattern reading), but I've never seen a play with that designation.