Episode 130 - Titans Survive Bears, Bye Upcoming

[japan]

10 hours ago, TitanDuckFan said:

I know they could.  But at this stage in his career and development, I don't think that would be what's best for him, or best for the team.

The part I find nagging, is this team still hasn't figured out a way to win without Marcus having an all-pro level day. 

When the Titans can win with a <100 passer rating day out of Marcus, they will be on the right track.  Mularkey doesn't have them there yet, and it remains to be seen whether or not he can get them there.

Right.  Because the day is going to come when Marcus throws another INT.

[Jamalisms]

Just now, japan said:

Right.  Because the day is going to come when Marcus throws another INT.

He's not allowed to and if he does then he's the reason the team lost.

[OILERMAN]

You need a good defense to win as well as quality QB play. Obviously the better QBs have shredded the defense

[Jas]

19 hours ago, TitanDuckFan said:

And if they were, we wouldn't be losing every game where Marcus doesn't have a >105 passer rating.

We won against DET and he had a < 105 rating - 102.8.  We won because Stafford had a 72.9.

In the 6 wins, we have a positive passer rating differential -

            MM     against   diff
DET    102.8    72.9      +29.9
MIA     117.5    62.3      +55.2
CLE     132.6   105.3    +27.3
JAX     148.1    97.5     +50.6
GB      149.8    79.8      +70
CHI     126.4    72.8      +53.6
 

In the 6 losses, the passes rating differential was negative in 4 of them -

           MM    against  diff
MIN    86.5     77.3      9.2
OAK   46.8     79.3     -32.5
HOU   54.1     82.5     -28.4
IND     95.8    123.1    -27.3
SD      88.6    117.6    -29
IND    106.2    94.6     11.6

We lost to MIN by 9 and gave up a INT for a TD, and fumble for a TD and a 61 yard kickoff return for a FG.  The mistakes were disastrous and too much to overcome.  The last IND game, we just weren't as good as normal at staying on the field on 3rd down and our defense couldn't get them off of the field letting luck complete 3-10+ multiple times.  Even so, if Cox knocks the ball down on 4-1 to prevent that TD and/or if we convert on 4-1, the result likely would have been different.

This team just isn't going to win without Marcus outplaying the opposing QB until the ST and defense improve as much as the offense has.  Sure, I guess you can blame Mularkey for that as he is the head coach and ultimately it is his responsibility.  DLB and Robinson deserve just as much blame for overestimating the existing players and not bringing in better talent on defense and ST.

 

20 hours ago, TitanDuckFan said:

I think Jacoby Brissett and Jimmy Garoppolo showed that this year under Belichick. 

Brissett and the Pats crushed the Texans 27-0 this year in week 3, and Brissett's passer rating was 72.9 on 103 yards through the air.  While Blount averaged less than 4.5 YPC and went for 105 yds total.

Mularkey hasn't figured out how to do that (yet).  And until he does, AFAIC the jury is still out on how good this coaching staff really is.  So far, Mularkey's scheme is completely reliant on Marcus having all-pro numbers to win.

In my mind, that's neither a sign of a great coach nor a great scheme.  That's a QB carrying the franchise.

How many games have the Pats won with < 105 passer rating?

Garoppolo had a 106.1 against ARI and 135.4 against MIA.  That is hardly winning in spite of poor QB play.  Brissett put up a 86.2 against BUF and they lost 16-0.

Sure, they won against the Texans when Brissett put up a 72.9, but their offense basically did nothing the entire game.  They recovered two kickoff fumbles and had two 20-30 yard touchdown drives, one a single play 27 TD yard run by Brissett.  Their 3rd and only other touchdown was a 2 play 47 yard drive with 6 and 41 yard runs by Blount.  

So you're saying that Mularkey hasn't figured out how to get two ST turnovers to get two easy TDs, have his QB struggle and offense do very little and have his defense pitch a shutout?  I guess I hope he figures that out soon too.

By the way, Brady has had two < 100 rating games this year (89.2 and 90.1) and they are 1-1 in those games (2-2  with < 100 rating with all QBs).  His other games have been 114.6 or higher.  Last year, they were 4-4 when Brady had < 100 rating.  So, it looks like one of the premier teams in the league with arguably the best NFL head coach of all time, is a .500 team when their QB has less than a 100 rating.

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Jas

[Jamalisms]

We beat the Lion's because half the team got injured in-game and then Marcus had two flawless drives. And we lost more often when the defense played well.

Otherwise, there's some truth to that post.

[OILERMAN]

16 minutes ago, Jas said:

This team just isn't going to win without Marcus outplaying the opposing QB until the ST and defense improve as much as the offense has.  Sure, I guess you can blame Mularkey for that as he is the head coach and ultimately it is his responsibility.  DLB and Robinson deserve just as much blame for overestimating the existing players and not bringing in better talent on defense and ST.

I'm not sure they overestimated the talent as much as the limits on completely rebuilding the roster in one off season.

Takes more than one off season to cleanse the Webster stink

[Jas]

6 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

I'm not sure they overestimated the talent as much as the limits on completely rebuilding the roster in one off season.

Takes more than one off season to cleanse the Webster stink

I wouldn't argue with that.  The other thing working against them is that not every FA wanted to go to a team that had won 2 and 3 games over the past two years and with a bit of an unknown at QB.  Now that the team is winning some and with how Marcus is playing now, I suspect more FAs will be interested in the TItans.

[Jas]

30 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

We beat the Lion's because half the team got injured in-game and then Marcus had two flawless drives. And we lost more often when the defense played well.

Otherwise, there's some truth to that post.

I'm not exactly sure what you are refuting.  Yes, Marcus played well, the Lion's had some injuries and lots of drops which affected Stafford's passer rating.  I said we won because Marcus had the better passer rating than Stafford that day.  Change some of the injuries and drops and the passer ratings likely change and then the outcome may have changed as well.

What do you mean we lost more often when the defense played well.  We've lost 6 games.  Are you saying the defense played well in 4 or more of those losses?

[OILERMAN]

Stafford actually had time to mount a game winning drive, the defense stopped him

[Jamalisms]

Just now, Jas said:

What do you mean we lost more often when the defense played well.  We've lost 6 games.

We were 2-3 in the first 5 games when I'd say the defense played well. Starting with the collapse against Cleveland (Cleveland's second highest score), they've played poorly and we've gone 4-3.

[Jas]

38 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

Stafford actually had time to mount a game winning drive, the defense stopped him

Yeah, oddly enough, that was a play where Cox dropped off of his receiver to step in front of Searcy's guy and make an INT.

[Jamalisms]

Between Andre and Cox, both saviors of the Lion's game (excluding the QB, of course) are gone.

[TitanDuckFan]

34 minutes ago, Jas said:

We won against DET and he had a < 105 rating - 102.8.  We won because Stafford had a 72.9.

<SNIP>
 

No, what I'm saying is, there are a number of teams with very respectable win/loss records, yet their QB's avg passer rating isn't anywhere near Marcus'. Looking at how many teams are in contention with avg PRs way lower than Marcus has, I'm saying this team, and Mularkey, (and JRob) still have a ways to go.

KC, 8-3, PR-89.7

NYG, 8-9, PR-90.1

SEA, 7-3-1, PR-93.9

MIA, 7-4, PR-94.7

DEN 7-4, PR-89.2

Now, it would be simpler if we could put it all on the defense, but that doesn't work either.  There are plenty of defenses ranked in the top 10 (accounting for ties) that have records no better than ours, and some worse.  A few with better rosters than ours as well, although that may be disputable by some.
Among them are MN, PHI, HOU, PIT, BUF, LA.

The bottom line is, the team and the scheme and the coaching and the playcalling (offensively and defensively) still has a ways to go.

There are still a number of people here on TR that like to point the finger at Mariota when the Titans lose, and he has made mistakes that clearly cost them the win in a couple games.  But there are plenty of teams that manage to win despite their QB making those same types of mistakes.

My fear with Mularkey is, he has history with building pretty productive teams, that are pretty damned efficient, but don't win much.  I'm hoping this team gets over that hump.  We'll see.

But so far, it's a pattern that appears to be repeating itself.

[OILERMAN]

14 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said:

There are still a number of people here on TR that like to point the finger at Mariota when the Titans lose

Yea, especially when he loses games

[Jas]

21 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said:

No, what I'm saying is, there are a number of teams with very respectable win/loss records, yet their QB's avg passer rating isn't anywhere near Marcus'. Looking at how many teams are in contention with avg PRs way lower than Marcus has, I'm saying this team, and Mularkey, (and JRob) still have a ways to go.

KC, 8-3, PR-89.7

NYG, 8-9, PR-90.1

SEA, 7-3-1, PR-93.9

MIA, 7-4, PR-94.7

DEN 7-4, PR-89.2

Now, it would be simpler if we could put it all on the defense, but that doesn't work either.  There are plenty of defenses ranked in the top 10 (accounting for ties) that have records no better than ours, and some worse.  A few with better rosters than ours as well, although that may be disputable by some.
Among them are MN, PHI, HOU, PIT, BUF, LA.

The bottom line is, the team and the scheme and the coaching and the playcalling (offensively and defensively) still has a ways to go.

There are still a number of people here on TR that like to point the finger at Mariota when the Titans lose, and he has made mistakes that clearly cost them the win in a couple games.  But there are plenty of teams that manage to win despite their QB making those same types of mistakes.

My fear with Mularkey is, he has history with building pretty productive teams, that are pretty damned efficient, but don't win much.  I'm hoping this team gets over that hump.  We'll see.

But so far, it's a pattern that appears to be repeating itself.

Wins generally come from winning the passer rating differential.  Take KC for example, while you quote their low passer rating, they won the passer rating differential in 6 of 8 wins.  They won at IND with a passer rating of 87 because they held Luck to 79.5.  There are always going to be a few anomalies like our game against MIN and KC's win against DEN a few nights ago where Siemian outplayed Smith, but the team lost because of turnovers, ST scores, etc.  When the passer rating against our defense goes down, then obviously our passer rating required to win will go down as well.  Unfortunately, the offense is ahead of the defense right now, so Marcus is going to have to play great to win.

Franchise QBs are always going to get criticism when the team loses, some of it fair, some of it not.  It is the nature of emotional fans and the QB position.  

Whether Mularkey will ultimately succeed or fail is unknown, but I guarantee you it has nothing to do with his previous HC results.  There is no pattern that is repeating at this point.  We're 12 games into a rebuild and things are looking up.