No1TitansFan Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 They'll only overturn on a spot challenge if it's an egregious error and that will usually only show up on an out of bounds spot. I don't remember ever seeing a middle of the field scrum spot get overturned in a pro game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle021 Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 36 minutes ago, No1TitansFan said: They'll only overturn on a spot challenge if it's an egregious error and that will usually only show up on an out of bounds spot. I don't remember ever seeing a middle of the field scrum spot get overturned in a pro game. I have one time and it was Whisenhunt that won the spot challenge. on a QB sneak Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle021 Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 Posters on here hated that he challenged the spot bc of the reason Vrabel gave today. the thing I don’t agree with was preventing the run off. The challenge I understand. He is a damn good coach and is still learning. He is learning with the team and the team bailed him out today. He owes them. They know it. They bailed him out bc they love playing for him. It’s one of those problems you never want to see again from him, but also know that you’ll never be in a situation like that again and if for some reason you are, I highly doubt he will make that error again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishTitansFan Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 There is no point challenging the spot, if the titans had stopped the chargers on 3rd down or the chargers got a quick TD you’re gone need 3 timeouts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 I agree he should have challenged the spot....and he had the flag in his hand, so he was clearly considering it. Converting that first down effectively ends the game...and with all three time-outs in his pocket, he had very little to lose. Sure, it was a long shot....but the potential reward justified the risk, IMO. Vrabel has caught a lot of heat for going for it on 4th down.....but I think going for it was the correct decision. I know a lot of folks feel he should have punted and forced the Chargers to go the length of the field.....but the fact is, the defense was struggling badly in the fourth quarter as the Chargers were moving the ball at will through the air. The Chargers' two previous possessions were a 6-play 50+ yard drive for a FG and a 75-yard TD drive that took only four plays....so it was hardly a slam-dunk to assume the defense would hold them. Any doubts Vrabel might have had in the defense were quickly validated as Chargers once again drove 50 yards down to the one-yard line in only six plays. The goal-line stand was obviously tremendous and legendary....but it helped everyone overlook the fact that the defense was absolutely shredded by the passing game in the fourth quarter. OILERMAN, and Justafan 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaOiler Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 10 hours ago, WG53 said: Honestly, I don't remember who all was available in that coaching change cycle. I do know that I think we need a more offensive minded coach. But one that will have a good DC with him. Unlikely we get Pees if we didn't get Vrabel. I was against the idea of McDaniels at the time. As far as the future goes at some point Lincoln Reilly is going to get a shot in the pros. I'm also keeping an eye on Leftwich and Kris Richards. Although Richards is a defensive guy. I'm not saying we should necessarily hire these but they do intrigue me. I wasn't high on Lafluer or McDaniels, but knowing what we know now, Frank Reich should have been higher on the list. I also like Reilly, but I think we are stuck with Vrabel unless we miss the playoffs this year and next. DCTitan 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 The replay clearly showed the spot was wrong, they actually had him losing yards. The refs def move the ball up and the respot. There is a greater chance they are winning with the replay then getting the ball back after a SD score and winning Thrill, and Justafan 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
japan Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, OILERMAN said: The replay clearly showed the spot was wrong, they actually had him losing yards. The refs def move the ball up and the respot. There is a greater chance they are winning with the replay then getting the ball back after a SD score and winning But the replay angle was not down the line. They wouldn’t have overturned. He still should have attempted in my opinion. Edited October 21, 2019 by japan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishTitansFan Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 20 minutes ago, OILERMAN said: The replay clearly showed the spot was wrong, they actually had him losing yards. The refs def move the ball up and the respot. There is a greater chance they are winning with the replay then getting the ball back after a SD score and winning The tv angle means there’s no way they overturn it. I believe spot challenges had an 8/9% success rate either last year or the year before and most of those are out of bounds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcibiades Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 12 hours ago, OILERMAN said: Also totally exposed starting Mariota the 1st 6 weeks I agree he's made some bad calls. REALLY should have challenged the spot on the Tanny sneak. But starting Mariota wasn't a bad call. He had to in week one. He's all over the programs. Then, we win...then a couple of bad games. Then we win again. Hard to pull your starting QB at 2-2, really. But then...2 in a row where the guy just wouldn't throw the ball, and it cost us games. Had to pull him and finally had enough reason that almost anyone could see it. There's almost no way he could have played Tanny from the start, even if he considered it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Alcibiades said: I agree he's made some bad calls. REALLY should have challenged the spot on the Tanny sneak. But starting Mariota wasn't a bad call. He had to in week one. He's all over the programs. Then, we win...then a couple of bad games. Then we win again. Hard to pull your starting QB at 2-2, really. But then...2 in a row where the guy just wouldn't throw the ball, and it cost us games. Had to pull him and finally had enough reason that almost anyone could see it. There's almost no way he could have played Tanny from the start, even if he considered it. If this is true then this team has no interest in winning on the field. He's on the programs......lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcibiades Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, OILERMAN said: If this is true then this team has no interest in winning on the field. He's on the programs......lol You know what I mean by that. I mean the person paying Vrabel wanted to see Mariota succeed. Being on the programs shouldn't matter, but it does, and you know it. Every team wants to win, but they also want to make money. It sucks that in this case, those two interests were in conflict, but they were. japan 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzTitan Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, OILERMAN said: If this is true then this team has no interest in winning on the field. He's on the programs......lol I think it's 100% safe to say now that the organization was caught up in promoting a franchise QB they didn't have. Cart before the horse and all that. They had interest in pushing the "Marcus for the next 15 years!" narrative above all, which is $ as long as it washes for long enough. Of course football decisions have to trump that but I wonder how many orgs really do make that call in those circumstances. The Titans may be a bit unique in that they really have built a good team around the failed franchise QB, where as most teams in this situation would probably suck too much for a change at QB to matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 Just now, OzTitan said: Of course football decisions have to trump that but I wonder how many orgs really do make that call in those circumstances. Long winning well run teams don't care about that stuff, perineal losing teams care about that stuff. I do think some people are promoting this idea vs Robinson and/or Vrabel are buffoons and were too stupid to start the right QB. BudsOilers 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzTitan Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 1 minute ago, OILERMAN said: Long winning well run teams don't care about that stuff, perineal losing teams care about that stuff. I do think some people are promoting this idea vs Robinson and/or Vrabel are buffoons and were too stupid to start the right QB. No arguments there. I wonder if a real similar situation has been handled differently by a better org, but then perhaps they don't find themselves entering year 5 of a 1st round QB who doesn't have an extension, but who they still promote like he's a top 5 QB. No wonder the casuals are up in arms, they were sold a lemon after all. It was destined to fail like this. I want to believe the football people were hamstrung on this but it's hard to imagine they'd let it get as far as it did. Even Bud was convinced about VY, surely they could have done better than week 6, year 5 on MM. TNTitans, and OILERMAN 2 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.