A few thoughts

[wiscotitansfan]

5 minutes ago, Little Earl said:

 

Burrows went down towards the end of the game.

Bengals were winning when he went down. Try again

[IowaOiler]

2 hours ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

So, that’s a no. 

 

That is correct.

[IsntLifeFunny]

2 hours ago, IowaOiler said:

 

That is correct.

I don’t know too many 8-3 teams who aren’t good. That’s especially so if we go 8-3 with our top CB, LT, ILB out. 

 

2 hours ago, wiscotitansfan said:

Bengals were winning when he went down. Try again

Wasn’t it at the start of the 3rd? 

[IowaOiler]

33 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I don’t know too many 8-3 teams who aren’t good. That’s especially so if we go 8-3 with our top CB, LT, ILB out.

 

That's because you're analyzing record without context.  It's like an undefeated college team not making the CFP over a 1 or 2 loss power conference team.

[wiscotitansfan]

45 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Wasn’t it at the start of the 3rd? 

Yeah, and the score was 9-7 at the time. Washington followed up with 13 more points while the team without a starting QB was shut out the rest of the game.

[IsntLifeFunny]

38 minutes ago, IowaOiler said:

 

That's because you're analyzing record without context.  It's like an undefeated college team not making the CFP over a 1 or 2 loss power conference team.

Cool story. 

[rns90]

I had forgotten what an idiot IowaOiler is.

[IowaOiler]

34 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Cool story. 

 

Not a story...just the facts. 

 

17 minutes ago, rns90 said:

I had forgotten what an idiot IowaOiler is.

 

Then it would be easy to disprove my arguments, right?  I'll wait...

[rns90]

1 minute ago, IowaOiler said:

 

Then it would be easy to disprove my arguments, right?  I'll wait...

Sure.  Your argument is that they're not "good".  They have a winning record and have beaten some winning teams.  And your record is generally a reflection of what you are. And they are a good team.  Flawed yes, but so is everyone in the NFL.

[IowaOiler]

Just now, rns90 said:

Sure.  Your argument is that they're not "good".  They have a winning record and have beaten some winning teams.  And your record is generally a reflection of what you are. And they are a good team.  Flawed yes, but so is everyone in the NFL.

 

So, in your opinion, is record the ONLY indication of how generally good a team is?  Or can there be other ways to judge, such as level of competition, skill of units, injuries, etc.?

[rns90]

8 minutes ago, IowaOiler said:

 

So, in your opinion, is record the ONLY indication of how generally good a team is?  Or can there be other ways to judge, such as level of competition, skill of units, injuries, etc.?

I pointed out that they did beat other winning teams.  They are in the top 10 in  offense in PPG.  They are 18th in PPG allowed on defense.  That's less than other good teams such as Buffalo, Seattle, etc.

 

Looking closer at this the Titans strength of schedule is .491.  That is higher than Arizona, Indinapolis, Clevland, GB, MIA, PIT, NO, KC, LA Rams, Seattle.  So yeah, they've also played a tougher schedule than one would think.  So your argument that they've played weak teams is full of shit.

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by rns90

[IowaOiler]

Just now, rns90 said:

I pointed out that they did beat other winning teams.  They are in the top 10 in  offense in PPG.  They are 18th in PPG allowed on defense.  That's less than other good teams such as Buffalo, Seattle, etc.

 

 

Ok, so I assume you are indicating that yes, there are other ways to evaluate whether a team is good.  If that isn't the case, please feel free to clarify and I apologize in advance for misrepresenting your opinion.

 

I am arguing that we are not good, because we've been beat badly by teams that a good team would at least compete with...and we've barely squeaked by opponents that a good team would have throttled.  You argue we've beaten good teams...and so we have.  Buffalo and Baltimore are good teams...but both of those games came off extended breaks where we had a significant advantage over the opponent.  We were embarrassed against a 2-7-1 team and at home against a division rival in a very important game for both teams.  Our defense can't get teams off the field, and that's against competition with a combined W/L of 49-50-1...and 10 of those wins are from one team. 

 

Special teams has been a shit show, injuries continue to mount, and we have an offense whose playcalls can be predicted by someone only knowing the down and distance. 

 

The guys out there deserve some kuddos, as they are having to go through a lot.  COVID, injuries, bad coaching decisions, and bad personnel decisions have created a shit storm of extenuating circumstances.  Regardless, they simply aren't good by the definition that is used to judge professional teams unless one ONLY believes record determines a teams ability.  You and I agree it does not, but we've drawn different conclusions.  That's fine, right?  Or do we just use the term 'idiot' to reference someone that draws different conclusions?

[rns90]

4 minutes ago, IowaOiler said:

 

Ok, so I assume you are indicating that yes, there are other ways to evaluate whether a team is good.  If that isn't the case, please feel free to clarify and I apologize in advance for misrepresenting your opinion.

 

I am arguing that we are not good, because we've been beat badly by teams that a good team would at least compete with...and we've barely squeaked by opponents that a good team would have throttled.  You argue we've beaten good teams...and so we have.  Buffalo and Baltimore are good teams...but both of those games came off extended breaks where we had a significant advantage over the opponent.  We were embarrassed against a 2-7-1 team and at home against a division rival in a very important game for both teams.  Our defense can't get teams off the field, and that's against competition with a combined W/L of 49-50-1...and 10 of those wins are from one team. 

 

Special teams has been a shit show, injuries continue to mount, and we have an offense whose playcalls can be predicted by someone only knowing the down and distance. 

 

The guys out there deserve some kuddos, as they are having to go through a lot.  COVID, injuries, bad coaching decisions, and bad personnel decisions have created a shit storm of extenuating circumstances.  Regardless, they simply aren't good by the definition that is used to judge professional teams unless one ONLY believes record determines a teams ability.  You and I agree it does not, but we've drawn different conclusions.  That's fine, right?  Or do we just use the term 'idiot' to reference someone that draws different conclusions?

This makes no sense at all.  They have a winning record in a league with only 32 teams.  You measure teams by W/L and other stats, like PPG allowed.  They're a good team which means they are better than average and will make the playoffs with a winning record.  Oh as for that we've been beaten badly by teams that a good team would compete with bullshit..they lost by 3 to the Steelers and led into the 4th quarter before the meltdown on ST against the Colts. As for the Bengals loss, the Colts also lost against the one win Jags.  It was one of those shit happens games.

 

You must have a different definition of what the word "good" means.

[FRT]

10 hours ago, Little Earl said:

 

Yeah, it's hard to fathom how bad they played against the Bengals, especially after they easily lost to Washington on Sunday.

Hmm, it is all about the QB.

[Cajuntitan]

On 11/23/2020 at 12:05 PM, Yoshimitsu said:

I think Arthur Smith is incredibly lucky to have the players that we have on offense. 

Lol 25 year fan here man, we are all lucky to have these monsters on offense!