Florio comments on Titans offense this AM

[Legaltitan]

1 hour ago, OILERMAN said:

I'd say early indications are it's being built fine based on personnel. Two big RBs, a great TE and 3 good(potentially) possession WRs, a power blocking OL and an accurate QB with a quick release

Hello!  This. 

I was totally deflated and embarrassed by the mularky hire but I don't get the handwringing. Seems to me mularky and Robinson are on the same page and they have a plan and are putting it in place. There is nothing crazy or unusual or overly conservative about the plan. It may or may not work but it seems to me they are designing a good plan for a young impressive accurate qb. 

Like o said if we lead the league in rushing that will be great news. 

[socaltitan]

I was deflated too. But I also agree with the notion that the other alternatives were equally uninspiring. I haven't seen anything from Gase, McAdoo, etc that's getting me excited. I didn't like Hue. People will get tired of his ego very quickly.

[Superhorn]

2 hours ago, NewsToTom said:

Because we've seen Mularkey as OC, before, direct as run-oriented an attack as you see in the current NFL. That seems to me to be his fundamental philosophy.

Mularkey's comments since January (and I've listened to every podcasted NSH radio hit; read the transcript and/or watched the video of everything the team has posted; and caught some but by no means all or even most of the non-NSH media interviews) make it clear to me that he likes to run the ball, that he believes running the ball can be a good way to be successful in the NFL of 2016, and run success will help the passing game succeed.

At the same time, Mularkey is selling to the media and his doubters that this doesn't mean that he's minimizing Mariota, that he doesn't believe in throwing the ball, or some of the more aggressive of the claims against him. Rather, his conception of his offense is one that includes an active and efficient passing game (not the best description, but I hope you get the gist).

Overall, I think an ideal Mularkey gameplan would feature the Titans running the ball 45 times and throwing it 25. That's in contrast to, say, a Whisenhunt gameplan, where he might have done just the opposite. Whether the 2016 Titans will actually be able to execute that sort of gameplan is a different question, of course.

 

Shifting topics a little bit, the Falcons from 2009 to 2011 ranked in the top five in the NFL in offensive plays run. For purposes of this thread, both the pass- and run-heaviness of their offense is therefore somewhat exaggerated by the raw numbers of passing and rushing plays (by the situational numbers I cited earlier for the 08 Falcons I quoted earlier, the 2009-11 teams were much closer to average in run pct.). This is a bit of an outstanding question for the 2016 Titans. The past two seasons, the Titans have run the fewest and third-fewest plays in the NFL. A lot of that's been because the offense has sucked so much, of course, but Mularkey is no Chip Kelly. The only mentions of pace and speed I recall have been more about what I'd call crispness, getting in and out of the huddle and to the line more easily, than expressing the idea of what I might call tempo (running plays as quickly as possible). Obviously we saw the successful no huddle drive against the Panthers, so that will probably be part of the offense at times, but I'd bet the Titans again rank in the bottom half of the NFL in total number of offensive plays again, which would mean they rank outside the top ten in both number of passing attempts and number of rushing attempts.

 

And while I'm rambling, going back to the OP, (1) Henry is obviously going to play some role in the offense this year. I think a 65/35 Murray/Henry split (roughly my expectations before training camp began and relatively unchanged since then) is consonant with what we've heard before and could be referred to as "sharing the load." (2) Mularkey has mentioned using Mariota's mobility more, which makes sense. It wouldn't surprise me to see his carry total go from 3/gm (34 in 12 last year) to more like 4-5/gm (60-80 overall?), less because of designed runs than because of more bootlegs, rollouts, and opportunistic scrambles. But I'd be really surprised if you see Mariota running, say, QB Power like Cam does or getting to 100+ carries like Cam's had every year.

First things first, my original comment was tongue in cheek. Hopefully that wasn't lost in text.

Second, I don't really disagree with anything here. I think probably my biggest fundamental disagreement is more of a philosophical one.  I believe the approach of looking establish the run game as a foundation is a solid one.  And, I think recent seasons have proved that type of offense can still be very efficient.  So we're clear too, I think that brand of offense can work independent of having an elite defense. 

Time will tell if it indeed will work with our players. At a minimum, we have some fun, young skill position players to watch along the way...

[Jas]

You really need to look at the percentage of passes to rushes instead of saying we want x number of passes per game.  Here are the numbers from his four years as OC in Atlanta.  I think you need to expect balance and whether the scale tips a bit towards run or pass depends on how successful we are at either.  Is Mariota better now than Ryan was as a rookie in 2008?

year  passing % / rushing %

2011  57% / 43%    passing 594 attempts, 4265 yards    rushing 453 carries, 1834 yards
2010  54% / 46%    passing 577 attempts, 3725 yards    rushing 497 carries, 1891 yards
2009  56% / 44%    passing 570 attempts, 3697 yards    rushing 451 carries, 1876 yards
2008  44% / 56%    passing 434 attempts, 3440 yards    rushing 560 carries, 2443 yards

[socaltitan]

7 minutes ago, Jas said:

You really need to look at the percentage of passes to rushes instead of saying we want x number of passes per game.  Here are the numbers from his four years as OC in Atlanta.  I think you need to expect balance and whether the scale tips a bit towards run or pass depends on how successful we are at either.  Is Mariota better now than Ryan was as a rookie in 2008?

year  passing % / rushing %

2011  57% / 43%    passing 594 attempts, 4265 yards    rushing 453 carries, 1834 yards
2010  54% / 46%    passing 577 attempts, 3725 yards    rushing 497 carries, 1891 yards
2009  56% / 44%    passing 570 attempts, 3697 yards    rushing 451 carries, 1876 yards
2008  44% / 56%    passing 434 attempts, 3440 yards    rushing 560 carries, 2443 yards

Stop showing numbers that suggest Mularkey will throw the ball.......

[Titans279]

I think those numbers lack some important context that demonstrates that Mularkey's teams run more than the average NFL team.

Those numbers put ATL in the bottom half of the league in passing play percentage each year (except 2011 where he's just in the top half). Even passing 57% of the time in 2011 was barely above average.

Passing 57% of the time would have ranked just 24th in the NFL last year. I would not be surprised to see them ranked in the bottom 10 in passing % if they have their way.

NFL Team Passing Play Percentage Rank

2011: 16th

2010: 20th

2009: 18th

2008: 31st

[Jamalisms]

Stop showing numbers that suggest Mularkey won't throw the ball!

[big2033]

Some people like to see their QB pass for 40 attempts, become the face of the league, bang models and end up on Jimmy Kimmel. I just want to win some games first.

All this comes down to is some believe Mariota can be all-Brady and this offense will hold him back. I say if it works who gives a shit?

No coach or philosophy can keep someone from being great.

The last time we believed our coach was hand-cuffing our QB that QB ended up out of the league when given more to do.

[Jamalisms]

1 minute ago, big2033 said:

I say if it works who gives a shit?

Nobody will.

But there will likely be varying definitions of "works" in both the short and long term.

[socaltitan]

4 minutes ago, big2033 said:

Some people like to see their QB pass for 40 attempts, become the face of the league, bang models and end up on Jimmy Kimmel. I just want to win some games first.

All this comes down to is some believe Mariota can be all-Brady and this offense will hold him back. I say if it works who gives a shit?

No coach or philosophy can keep someone from being great.

The last time we believed our coach was hand-cuffing our QB that QB ended up out of the league when given more to do.

Only 1 QB averaged 40 pass attempts a game last season (Rivers). 6 QB attempted 600+ passes. Only one of the 6 had a winning record (Brady)

[big2033]

2 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

Nobody will.

But there will likely be varying definitions of "works" in both the short and long term.

The last good QB I can think of that people believed was "held back" by coaching or an offense was Steve McNair ... and I think that's the forum thinking their fave QB was better than he was at the time.

There's just rarely any instances where a great QB is held back by coaching or philosophy.

[Jamalisms]

7 minutes ago, big2033 said:

The last good QB I can think of that people believed was "held back" by coaching or an offense was Steve McNair ... and I think that's the forum thinking their fave QB was better than he was at the time.

There's just rarely any instances where a great QB is held back by coaching or philosophy.

In the long run a QB won't be considered great if held back, so that's something of a self-proving prophecy. But generally I agree that a good QB would be expected to shine in most systems.

Yet still there are degrees of success and determining a QB's maximum potential and the degree to which it's fulfilled is a matter of judgement. Manning in an offense that he didn't have control of would have been a waste. Aaron Rodgers being held back to Philip Rivers (an upper end QB in his own right) would be a waste. Heck, many here say that the Rodgers we know is the result of him being held back. "Works" will be defined in many ways.

[big2033]

33 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

In the long run a QB won't be considered great if held back, so that's something of a self-proving prophecy. But generally I agree that a good QB would be expected to shine in most systems.

Yet still there are degrees of success and determining a QB's maximum potential and the degree to which it's fulfilled is a matter of judgement. Manning in an offense that he didn't have control of would have been a waste. Aaron Rodgers being held back to Philip Rivers (an upper end QB in his own right) would be a waste. Heck, many here say that the Rodgers we know is the result of him being held back. "Works" will be defined in many ways.

Mariota will either make it or he won't. Every thing else will be an excuse.

Manning got control of the offense because he could control an offense like nobody else.

When he went to Denver, they realized he couldn't throw and shifted the offense to more run heavy.

Mariota is 14-15 with 1 TD and 1 INT ... I doubt coaches won't allow him to throw if he misses one pass per game. They'll open things up the better he is. Or, he'll be so efficient our offense will be a well oiled machine.

But it's rare that coaches let a QB go 21 for 22, and lose the game don't think to open things up as a result.

[Jamalisms]

4 minutes ago, big2033 said:

Mariota will either make it or he won't.

Based on context, I'm not sure that we are disagreeing here and I think we're just using distinct language to express a similar view... but the language you're choosing is language I would never use because I disagree with it conceptually, so I can't really tell.

It's not a distance race with a finish line beyond which all further distance is null. There is no 'you made it' achievement. Success is a relative comparison between what was achieved and what might have been achieved.

No matter what was achieved, there is always more potential. How much more potential you think there is will drive your opinion on the need for change.

[big2033]

1 minute ago, Jamalisms said:

Based on context, I'm not sure that we are disagreeing here and I think we're just using distinct language to express a similar view... but the language you're choosing is language I would never use because I disagree with it conceptually, so I can't really tell.

It's not a distance race with a finish line beyond which all further distance is null. There is no 'you made it' achievement. Success is a relative comparison between what was achieved and what might have been achieved.

No matter what was achieved, there is always more potential. How much more potential you think there is will drive your opinion on the need for change.

No, I don't think we have a similar view. I think I want to win games by any means. I think you want to win in the coolest, most popular way possible ie. with flashy, superhero, hall of fame QB play. And it makes you cringe when you think about smashmouth for years and years ... 

Your way to feel comfortable with such a shallow need is that 'passing works' in the modern age. But from my perspective you just really want our new golden-boy toy unleashed, in a new modern way that will shown on ESPN Classic for years to come.

In my opinion that process is unnecessary. If we need Mariota to be better because we aren't doing well enough, he will have to step up and thus, become the QB-led offense you want anyway.

You weren't fond of Fisher, and were hoping for a new, Patriots-way philosophy with a talented QB. But we did it the "passing" way for a couple of seasons and had some of our worst seasons in history. It's time to establish (or perhaps go back to) the "Titans way."

It's toughness, it's efficiency, it's ball control, and an ass kicking. Like it or not it's the way this Titans franchise has been most successful and Mularkey pitching that probably go AA's attention. That will always be our starting point. What happens from there will be up to the players.