OTA's and Mini Camp Discussion

[Righteous]

12 hours ago, OzTitan said:

 

Honestly that's among the least alarming beliefs some here have to contort their idiot opinions into frame.

 

The top one is still they don't trust Tannehill enough to add more balance to the 1st down run/pass ratio even if it's just to the extent it isn't 1st in the league in favor of run by a fair margin, but don't mind putting him into obvious passing 3rd downs more as a result. I need to take sick leave from work  any time I try to comprehend that one, it's dumb enough to give you cancer.

Perhaps, but here is what the numbers say.  Of all active QB’s, Tannehill has the 5th most interceptions thrown on first down.  He is only behind M. Stafford, Andy Dalton, Kirk Cousins and Derek Carr.  And we all know that ain’t a group of world beater/most trusted QBs.  Of every QB that has played the game since 2000, he is ranked 33 out of 233 QBs.  And most QBs with more ints on first down have had over 15-year careers. Now I can not speak to the trust of the coaches but the numbers show he is God-awful passing on first down. But of course, the facts don’t align with some people's feelings.

Edited May 28 by Righteous

[FireInTheHole]

22 minutes ago, Righteous said:

Kid, stop with the childish comments.  Either talk about football or move on.  Your kiss-ass style is not endearing you to anyone on the Board. At least try to have an original thought.  You sound like a child in search of attention.  Not a good look.

I was talking football in my post. I hope you don’t think consider your baseless stats as talking football, old timer. You seriously can’t see the o-line has been built with a focus on the run because of the philosophy of MV? It’s dummies like you who have consistently given TR a bad name. You show up every so often to talk things other than football (you recently were spewing political bullshit in another thread) and then fill this board with incorrect, irrelevant information because you still - after YEARS of watching football (or so you say) - can’t seem to grasp or understand what you see. 
 

My best advice is to just shut up, keep to yourself so you’re not embarrassing yourself, and take off the tin foil hat. Your posts are embarrassing and filled with undertones of things this board doesn’t promote. 
 

You old timers need to get a clue. You’re just like Joel. Both delusional. 

[Righteous]

17 minutes ago, FireInTheHole said:

I was talking football in my post. I hope you don’t think consider your baseless stats as talking football, old timer. You seriously can’t see the o-line has been built with a focus on the run because of the philosophy of MV? It’s dummies like you who have consistently given TR a bad name. You show up every so often to talk things other than football (you recently were spewing political bullshit in another thread) and then fill this board with incorrect, irrelevant information because you still - after YEARS of watching football (or so you say) - can’t seem to grasp or understand what you see. 
 

My best advice is to just shut up, keep to yourself so you’re not embarrassing yourself, and take off the tin foil hat. Your posts are embarrassing and filled with undertones of things this board doesn’t promote. 
 

You old timers need to get a clue. You’re just like Joel. Both delusional. 

Haha!  3/5 of the OL is gone.  Seems like they weren’t built for shit.  If the OL was built to run, and MV wants to run, he would bring the run-blocking aficionados back, right?  I mean they were blasting manhole-size holes for Henry, right?  Our 274 lb LG was manhandling DT’s all season.  Hohaha!  Your shit is laughable.  Tell me again which OL was road-grading holes and being regarded as a great run blocker in NFL circles?  Your shit makes no sense.  The entire OL was shit!  Period.  And whether they were “built” to run (with a 274 lb G) or built to pass, they were not good at either.   Anyone trying to argue otherwise is plain childish and stupid.  Little kid, learn this and learn this fast.  Your feelings aren’t thoughts.

 

Henry was able to perform with a shit line and Tannehill was not. It's really that simple.  

Edited May 28 by Righteous

[nine]

18 hours ago, Jmac959 said:

Exactly, Derrick is not an inside zone guy or a “create something out of nothing” talent.

 

Derrick earns his money on boundary runs, and at the 2nd level. He’s actually not as valuable as people probably think in short yardage/goal line due to getting chopped down at the legs.

 

He’s mainly a limited talent who’s boom or bust & feast or famine based on how the OC uses him

 

 

In the red zone last year,  30% of Henry's rushing attempts resulted in touchdowns.  This was the NFL's #2 highest RZ success rate among all running backs.   (Zeke Elliott was #1 with 34%).

 

Inside the 10-yard line,  58% of Henry's carries resulted in TDs...which was the NFL's #1 success rate by a fairly wide margin.    (Cordarrelle Patterson ranked #2 at 50%;  the rest of the league was at 42% or lower.)

 

Inside the 5-yard line,   66% of Henry's carries produced TDs.... which ranked #3 in the league behind Patterson and Austin Ekeler. 

 

Henry and Patterson were the only players who ranked  top five in all three categories.

 

Say what you will about Henry's limitations in other areas.....but there's absolutely no question that he's one of the most effective goal line/short yardage runners in the NFL and a huge asset in the red zone.

[TheBukafax]

1 hour ago, Righteous said:

Who gives af?  You jumped into an argument about OL metrics only to switch to this bullshit.  Seems you are too emotionally attached to Tannehill’s dick to correctly follow a simple thread.  

Amazing argument.

[FireInTheHole]

1 hour ago, Righteous said:

Haha!  3/5 of the OL is gone.  Seems like they weren’t built for shit.  If the OL was built to run, and MV wants to run, he would bring the run-blocking aficionados back, right?  I mean they were blasting manhole-size holes for Henry, right?  Our 274 lb LG was manhandling DT’s all season.  Hohaha!  Your shit is laughable.  Tell me again which OL was road-grading holes and being regarded as a great run blocker in NFL circles?  Your shit makes no sense.  The entire OL was shit!  Period.  And whether they were “built” to run (with a 274 lb G) or built to pass, they were not good at either.   Anyone trying to argue otherwise is plain childish and stupid.  Little kid, learn this and learn this fast.  Your feelings aren’t thoughts.

 

Henry was able to perform with a shit line and Tannehill was not. It's really that simple.  

It’s unreal you don’t see the o-line WAS constructed as being more run-centric. The pass protection was all-time awful. 
 

The bottom line is the o-line was bad, just less bad when it came to run blocking. Sorry you didn’t evolve with the game, grandpa. The world is going to be a much better place when you and your ignorance no longer occupy it. 

[FireInTheHole]

43 minutes ago, TheBukafax said:

Amazing argument.

It’s amazing how absolutely fucking retarded this old, dumb, racist mother fucker is. 
 

Brain cells must have deteriorated over time if there were any to begin with. 

[OILERMAN]

Righteous and Big are unworthy of true debate

[titanruss]

it kinda feels like most of the run blocking succes came because the defenses would be like "they are stupid enough to run it again"... and we would.

[Mythos27]

The idea that Henry had adequate, let alone good running room is misguided. Yeah, the pass pro was somehow worse but Henry was getting absolutely swarmed damn near every time he got the ball. The predictably made things even worse.

[BudsOilers]

4 hours ago, Righteous said:

Perhaps, but here is what the numbers say.  Of all active QB’s, Tannehill has the 5th most interceptions thrown on first down.  He is only behind M. Stafford, Andy Dalton, Kirk Cousins and Derek Carr.  And we all know that ain’t a group of world beater/most trusted QBs.  Of every QB that has played the game since 2000, he is ranked 33 out of 233 QBs.  And most QBs with more ints on first down have had over 15-year careers. Now I can not speak to the trust of the coaches but the numbers show he is God-awful passing on first down. But of course, the facts don’t align with some people's feelings.

 

First down passing is a huge problem for Tannehill......Wrong.....

 

 

 

 

[BlueThunder]

4 hours ago, nine said:

 

 

In the red zone last year,  30% of Henry's rushing attempts resulted in touchdowns.  This was the NFL's #2 highest RZ success rate among all running backs.   (Zeke Elliott was #1 with 34%).

 

Inside the 10-yard line,  58% of Henry's carries resulted in TDs...which was the NFL's #1 success rate by a fairly wide margin.    (Cordarrelle Patterson ranked #2 at 50%;  the rest of the league was at 42% or lower.)

 

Inside the 5-yard line,   66% of Henry's carries produced TDs.... which ranked #3 in the league behind Patterson and Austin Ekeler. 

 

Henry and Patterson were the only players who ranked  top five in all three categories.

 

Say what you will about Henry's limitations in other areas.....but there's absolutely no question that he's one of the most effective goal line/short yardage runners in the NFL and a huge asset in the red zone.

I would assume this has to do with most teams using a different defense in the red zone to stop slants and short outs. Maybe someone can investigate. 

[BudsOilers]

3 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

The idea that Henry had adequate, let alone good running room is misguided. Yeah, the pass pro was somehow worse but Henry was getting absolutely swarmed damn near every time he got the ball. The predictably made things even worse.

 

No blocking metrics (ESPN or PFF) support this at all....by each one run blocking was above average to average and pass blocking was bottom of the league....

 

Henry sure wasn't swarmed when he racked up almost 25% of his yards against the Texans 32nd run defense....

[TerryBoats]

5 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

The idea that Henry had adequate, let alone good running room is misguided. Yeah, the pass pro was somehow worse but Henry was getting absolutely swarmed damn near every time he got the ball. The predictably made things even worse.

The sample size was very small, but Hilliard was the only decent RB otherwise on the roster and he averaged 6.6 YPC.  I don't think the run blocking was bad at all, considering how predictable the play calling was.

[titanruss]

21 minutes ago, BudsOilers said:

 

No blocking metrics (ESPN or PFF) support this at all....by each one run blocking was above average to average and pass blocking was bottom of the league....

 

Henry sure wasn't swarmed when he racked up almost 25% of his yards against the Texans 32nd run defense....

 

its as simple as yards before contact. Henry was 8th in the league for lowest YBC for RBs with over 100 carries.

 

fuck off with stupid ass pff blocking metrics judged by college kids without understanding playcalls or responsibilities or probably even football most of the time... a website you pay for so automatically the stats mean more to you.