Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I disagree with this assessment.

 

There's not going to be a large body of data to teach the model "don't go for it on 4th down after fumbling on 3rd and 2" or the value of "focus on what we can control, which right now is burning as much clock as possible"

 

These things matter when managing the teams focus but aren't gonna show up in the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, patsplat said:

"don't go for it on 4th down after fumbling on 3rd and 2"

This is the limitation of analytics. It ignores the context of the game. Tannehill was looking rattled, as evidenced by the dropped normal snap, which significantly lowered the likelihood of successful conversion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, patsplat said:

I disagree with this assessment.

 

There's not going to be a large body of data to teach the model "don't go for it on 4th down after fumbling on 3rd and 2" or the value of "focus on what we can control, which right now is burning as much clock as possible"

 

These things matter when managing the teams focus but aren't gonna show up in the data.

 

9 minutes ago, titaninpgh said:

This is the limitation of analytics. It ignores the context of the game. Tannehill was looking rattled, as evidenced by the dropped normal snap, which significantly lowered the likelihood of successful conversion. 

 

I would have went for it, but I was fine with the punt because of Kern. Hated draining the clock though. Hated it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, titaninpgh said:

This is the limitation of analytics. It ignores the context of the game. Tannehill was looking rattled, as evidenced by the dropped normal snap, which significantly lowered the likelihood of successful conversion. 

 

 

Exactly. Analytics are fine but they aren't the be all end all. I loved the strategy. It gets you closer to the finish line and you have your timeouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, wiscotitansfan said:

Our best chance was giving the Pats the ball the length of the field, having them punt and us try to run the clock out.... That requires us to run the clock out

 

I don't care what the analystics say, giving the Patriots what should have only been 1 drive instead of 2 was the way to go

Exactly this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, titaninpgh said:

This is the limitation of analytics. It ignores the context of the game. Tannehill was looking rattled, as evidenced by the dropped normal snap, which significantly lowered the likelihood of successful conversion. 

 

Right. He was so rattled he made a perfect throw to Davis with just over 2 mins left that got called back followed by the money through to Firkser on 3rd and 8 which sealed the game. This Tannehill was rattled because of a fumbled snap is crazy. Vrabel got lucky plain and simple. What he did was shorten the game to the point a long DPI or a missed tackle loses the game for you. Thank goodness the defense stepped up and Tannehill made a baller throw or the Pats would have gotten 2 out of the last 3 possessions with a chance to win the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that it was a long 4th down for a team struggling to get yardage aside from Henry and it would have been a 54 yard FG with a kicker you frankly don't know about.  Meanwhile, you have the best punter in football and the defense is stonewalling the anemic Patriots offense.  He hedged that the field position and defense would win that battle and he was right. 

 

If NE drives down and hits a game winning FG, he would have been skewered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, oldschool said:

 

Right. He was so rattled he made a perfect throw to Davis with just over 2 mins left that got called back followed by the money through to Firkser on 3rd and 8 which sealed the game. This Tannehill was rattled because of a fumbled snap is crazy. Vrabel got lucky plain and simple. What he did was shorten the game to the point a long DPI or a missed tackle loses the game for you. Thank goodness the defense stepped up and Tannehill made a baller throw or the Pats would have gotten 2 out of the last 3 possessions with a chance to win the game.

What he did was shorten the game with the lead, predicating an entire strategy on the defense getting a long DPI or a missed tackle leading to a 80 yard TD is no more nonsensical than saying you should be planning around a fumble trying to run the clock out.

 

The second half our defense destroyed the Pats, you take needing only 1 stop within basically a 50 yard span in that exact scenario any day of the week

Edited by wiscotitansfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wiscotitansfan said:

What he did was shorten the game with the lead, predicating an entire strategy on the defense getting a long DPI or a missed tackle leading to a 80 yard TD is no more nonsensical than saying you should be planning around a fumble trying to run the clock out.

 

The second half our defense destroyed the Pats, you take needing only 1 stop within basically a 50 yard span in that exact scenario any day of the week

 

It was playing not to lose to run that much clock and the team was one Tannehill conversion away from giving the Pats the ball twice in the last 4 mins which would  have defeated the entire strategy. Should they have gone for it on 4th down? I think they should have but I understand punting the ball. You will never convince me running 1:46 off the clock was the right move. If the Titans had lost Vrabel would still be getting killed over it 72 hours later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, oldschool said:

 

It was playing not to lose to run that much clock and the team was one Tannehill conversion away from giving the Pats the ball twice in the last 4 mins which would  have defeated the entire strategy. Should they have gone for it on 4th down? I think they should have but I understand punting the ball. You will never convince me running 1:46 off the clock was the right move. If the Titans had lost Vrabel would still be getting killed over it 72 hours later.

Of course he would have... He would have gotten killed if he went for it on 4th and failed.... He would have gotten killed if he held Brady to 8 completions and still lost

 

Using the media ripping Vrabel to shreds after would could possibly have been a loss is as retarded as it gets. C'mon now

 

 

So you really think he should have trusted the offense in the second half more than the defense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Titans Report Footer Logo

Titans Report is a fan operated website for the Tennessee Titans. The site includes a message board, blog, podcast, organized fantasy games,and a mobile site. The podcast has had on many prominent members of the media covering the Titans. Some names include John McClain of the Houston Chronicle, Jim Wyatt of the Tennessee Titans official website, Paul Kuharsky of 104.5 The Zone, Phillip B. Wilson of the Indy Star, Jonathan Hutton of the Titans Radio Network, Sal Capaccio of the Buffalo Bills Radio Network, Scott Wright of Draft Countdown, and others.

Official Website

Kuharsky's Blog

ESPN NFL Nation

104.5 The Zone

102.5 The Game

TITANSLINKS

×
×
  • Create New...