Levis named the starter moving forward

[MadMax]

17 hours ago, OILERMAN said:

 

The remake with Jeff Bridges is actually really good. The Coen Brothers did it

I loved it.  I had no idea that was Matt Damon until the credits.  I shit you not. 

 

They used no contractions in that movie.  Did anyone else notice that?  It was so odd sounding and added a cool ambience.

[Jamalisms]

1 hour ago, japan said:

Derp

 

You shut your dirty whoreish mouth.

[Thrill]

6 hours ago, tgo said:

It's not about entertainment, never has been.

 

It's about perennial nihilistic self-punishment.

Not only the titans fan experience summed up but also the titans report experience summed up. 

[BudsOilers]

5 hours ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

That's because Wilson was a little bitch. 

No.  It was pure jealousy that he got some of the credit and that as a QB he got treated differently than other positions 

[IsntLifeFunny]

2 hours ago, BudsOilers said:

No.  It was pure jealousy that he got some of the credit and that as a QB he got treated differently than other positions 

I'm going to go with Marshawn Lynch's account.

[Mythos27]

10 hours ago, Number9 said:

I take it back.  I just see you as a leader.  I don't ever mean things that personal.  You are one of the nicest guys on here.  

 

my bad

 

 

We're good bud.

[TerryBoats]

On 11/8/2023 at 4:12 PM, big2033 said:

 

We were never going anywhere this year. So if our QB plays well that's one big issue solved and you'll see a jump in offense next year.

 

But if our QB continues to play well we'll score more than 16. It's unlikely that we won't.

Last year, people thought that surely the offense will show up in the second half at some point.  That is was highly unlikely they'd continue to be shut out every game, as they were fine in the first half.  But they were. And it's entirely possible that the offense never shows up in away games this year.

Edited November 9, 2023 by TerryBoats

[big2033]

Just now, TerryBoats said:

Last year, people thought that surely the offense will show up in the second half at some point.  That is was highly unlikely they'd continue to be shut out every game.  But they were. And it's entirely possible that the offense never shows up in away games this year.

 

Keep praying for that buddy. I'm sure it'll make you feel better.

[OILERMAN]

Unless they shore up the pass protection the offense won't improve much. That's not a QB issue

[Justafan]

9 hours ago, big2033 said:

 

And? He was traded for a 4th because he was no longer considered a franchise QB. For example Stafford got traded for two  firsts and a third  despite struggling with Detroit for years.

And he had success before Derrick Henry, whether you want to admit it or not. Henry did not have success before Tannehill. He was a game away from being traded. Also, the offense changed for Tannehill. The OC. The HC. The talent on the field around him.  The only thing that changed for DH was Ryan Tannehill.

 

Lastly, I'll reiterate that history is littered with QBs who went to a new situation and thrived. I challenge you to point out the times in history that an RB has carried a QB from average to great.  I can point out many, many examples of QBs elevating an RB. Still, outside of Goff, I can't think of a single instance where there was this narrative that the QB was capable of elite play only because an RB - and even with that one, Goff has had success in multiple places - the dude threw for 29 TDs last year!  History isn't on your side, and ALL of the evidence, stats, and even the circumstance says you are wrong about Henry elevating Tannehill.

 

Stafford's contract has nothing to do with Tannehill. They were different situations. That's hardly evidence of Derrick Henry elevating Ryan Tannehill's passing numbers. 

[big2033]

38 minutes ago, Justafan said:

And he had success before Derrick Henry, whether you want to admit it or not. Henry did not have success before Tannehill. He was a game away from being traded. Also, the offense changed for Tannehill. The OC. The HC. The talent on the field around him.  The only thing that changed for DH was Ryan Tannehill.

 

Lastly, I'll reiterate that history is littered with QBs who went to a new situation and thrived. I challenge you to point out the times in history that an RB has carried a QB from average to great.  I can point out many, many examples of QBs elevating an RB. Still, outside of Goff, I can't think of a single instance where there was this narrative that the QB was capable of elite play only because an RB - and even with that one, Goff has had success in multiple places - the dude threw for 29 TDs last year!  History isn't on your side, and ALL of the evidence, stats, and even the circumstance says you are wrong about Henry elevating Tannehill.

 

Stafford's contract has nothing to do with Tannehill. They were different situations. That's hardly evidence of Derrick Henry elevating Ryan Tannehill's passing numbers. 

 

Jesus Christ you serious? If you don't believe Henry was doing well before Tannehill we've got nothing to talk about. You probably think the playoff win over the Chiefs was largely due to Mariota.

 

You probably believe DeMarco Murray wasn't the MVP of our team when Mariota had his best year. It was all Mariota.

 

And outside of Goff? Tannehill. The guy I actually compare to Goff funny enough. Although his recent run puts Goff ahead. Baker Mayfield's best years in Cleveland was largely due to the run game. 

 

Tannehill struggled to carry the Dolphins and when he was added to the Titans, proved he could thrive in an environment where he didn't have to shoulder the load. That load went to the RB. And we ran it with Henry the most since DeMarco Murray in Dallas (2014) - look it up. We leaned on the run. 

 

And suddenly Tannehill became the most efficient QB in the NFL and had the lowest sack rate of his career by far. He also top 3 in 3rd and short situations. 

 

I know this bothers you, because you want to believe you had a franchise QB who suddenly became a star then suddenly declined. But we didn't, we had a franchise RB. And our run-first style helped Tannehill have the best 1.5 seasons of his career. So if you want to give credit to our style and not Henry that's fine too.

 

Anyways, I'm tired of this. You can think what you want. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by big2033

[TerryBoats]

1 hour ago, big2033 said:

 

Keep praying for that buddy. I'm sure it'll make you feel better.

Tell me what my angle is here?  That I want a rookie and potential franchise QB to fail just so I don't lose face with some anonymous guys on a football forum?  Who cares about that shit? 

 

[Justafan]

11 minutes ago, big2033 said:

 

Jesus Christ you serious? If you don't believe Henry was doing well before Tannehill we've got nothing to talk about. You probably think the playoff win over the Chiefs was largely due to Mariota.

 

You probably believe DeMarco Murray wasn't the MVP of our team when Mariota had his best year. It was all Mariota.

 

And outside of Goff? Tannehill. The guy I actually compare to Goff funny enough. Although his recent run puts Goff ahead. Baker Mayfield's best years in Cleveland was largely due to the run game. 

 

Tannehill struggled to carry the Dolphins and when he was added to the Titans, proved he could thrive in an environment where he didn't have to shoulder the load. That load went to the RB. And we ran it with Henry the most since DeMarco Murray in Dallas (2014) - look it up. We leaned on the run. 

 

And suddenly Tannehill became the most efficient QB in the NFL and had the lowest sack rate of his career by far. He also top 3 in 3rd and short situations. 

 

I know this bothers you, because you want to believe you had a franchise QB who suddenly became a star then suddenly declined. But we didn't, we had a franchise RB. And our style helped Tannehill have the best 1.5 seasons of his career. 

 

Anyways, I'm tired of this. You can think what you want. 

This is 100% conjecture. The evidence tells a different story.  Henry did not have success before Tannehill. He averaged 36, 42, and 66 yards per game the 3 years before Tannehill got there. The year Tannehill arrived? 102.7. The first six games of that year, he had 3.6 ypc and then Tannehill took over and shot up to over 7. 

 

Goff is debunked because Goff has found success without Gurley. 

 

Baker Mayfield is doing fine on a bad run team in TB. Same stats he put up prior.

 

Please show me ANY other situation in NFL HISTORY where you can point and say the QB play was elevated, clearly, because of the RB. Until you can do that, your entire premise has nothing but conjecture to base it on. 

 

Is it possible that Tannehill was more efficient and took less sacks because his offensive line was good for the first time in his career? Because he played in an offense that took advantage of his biggest strengths?

Edited November 9, 2023 by Justafan

[LongTimeFan]

We're still having debates about a starting RB vs a backup QB?

[scine09]

1 minute ago, Justafan said:

Please show me ANY other situation in NFL HISTORY where you can point and say the QB play was elevated, clearly, because of the RB. Until you can do that, your entire premise has nothing but conjecture to base it on. 

Scott Mitchell?