Jacksonville Jaguars week

[Downtown]

Or these guys can start implementing a quick passing game to help out the line. Give Levis the ability to check out of bad situation. There are other things that can be done. 

[ctm]

I read a similar version of the Vrabel defense last week:  we shouldn't fire Vrabel became it could get worse.

 

And a few days later we scored 6 points against the Bucs.

[rns90]

43 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

 

 

Chig and Burks looked like potential success stories and then they started to regress. Does the staff deserve credit for making them look like breakout candidates or blame for the regression? Seems mutually exclusive to me. At first everyone praised the coaching staff for getting Levis ready to play and for him playing much better than we even saw at Kentucky, now it seems we're revoking that credit because the OL can't keep him upright. Gibby is not a great player at all but I think the staff deserves credit for turning him into even a starting caliber LB in just one year. Teiar Tart is an undrafted nobody, I think they get credit for developing him. McCreary has played very well save for the 2nd half vs the Buccs. Here's another little nugget: did you know that Chris Hubbard is having the 2nd best season of his 10 year career and best since 2020? To what do we attribute that? I'm not saying they're amazing talent developers, but I am suggesting that the issue isn't as black and white as it gets presented. Bad players, who will go on to be bad players, DON'T ever develop. It's why they suck forever. Holding coaches responsible for such players seems unreasonable. 

 

All I know about the NFL and really sports at the highest level, is that coaches either carried by their talent or buried by it. Belichick didn't forget how to coach; being a bad GM just finally caught to him in addition to losing Brady. We know Vrabel can coach. We have years of evidence he can. Not too long ago we were all lauding his ability to lead us to wins we had no business getting. We also know this roster is ass and have no evidence that better coaching would fix anything. Occam's razor tells me the problem is talent and rather than lose a good coach because he's not managing bad talent optimally, it's much smarter to demand that the GM do his job and give the good coach acceptable talent.  

Chig is not on staff or FO, that's on him.  He can't catch this year.  So, I'm not going to blame them on him sucking this year.  No clue about Burks.  He might just be injury prone.

 

They have done better on defense and just developing guys (IDL, CB, LB).  The problem there is the scheme.  I even give them a little break because of the shuffling DB's.  But the pass rush being weak without Schwartz points to scheme.

 

I just don't think if you're working in a young qb, he's the best fit for that.  He needs a vet laden offense who can function in his offense.  This isn't us at this point.  He'd be better off with the Chargers or Cowboys.  The Pats don't really fit as they have a lot of the same issues we have.

[Mythos27]

26 minutes ago, Titans279 said:

I’ve had gripes with Vrabel going back to his initial hire… but it seems that a lot of people are simply going all in on blaming Vrabel (even though I agree with all the criticisms) because they wrongly predicted that this team as currently constructed was a contender and need something to blame. 
 

Is the roster bad or not?
 

 

This is what it comes down to for me. I have decided that this roster (really morseo the OL) is so bad that's unreasonable to expect the coaches to bullshit their way to victories. That doesn't mean I won't criticize anything stupid they do but I won't forget the underlying problem is when I do it. It's like how even though Tannehill was struggling and not every decision he made was good; I never forgot that the underlying problem was the OL. Failing to make the best out of a bad situation isn't fireable to me. 

[Mythos27]

9 minutes ago, oldschool said:

 

I honestly believe his issue with Radunz is that he's not a good run blocker.

I know this has become board lore but he plays Radunz at RG which is traditionally where you play your better run blocker no? My uneducated guess is that he views him as a physically weak player. Maybe he blows assignments like Quinton Spain used to. Who knows?

[rns90]

Just now, Mythos27 said:

This is what it comes down to for me. I have decided that this roster (really morseo the OL) is so bad that's unreasonable to expect the coaches to bullshit their way to victories. That doesn't mean I won't criticize anything stupid they do but I won't forget the underlying problem is when I do it. It's like how even though Tannehill was struggling and not every decision he made was good; I never forgot that the underlying problem was the OL. Failing to make the best out of a bad situation isn't fireable to me. 

I guess my issue moving forward is what is his ultimate upside?  Is it AFC south Championships but one and done in playoffs?  My problem is that his philosophy on how to win football games doesn't change.  Good talent, bad talent it's the same. If you feel like he will always cap your talent on his coaching decisions it's time to move on.

[Mythos27]

6 minutes ago, rns90 said:

Chig is not on staff or FO, that's on him.  He can't catch this year.  So, I'm not going to blame them on him sucking this year.  No clue about Burks.  He might just be injury prone.

 

They have done better on defense and just developing guys (IDL, CB, LB).  The problem there is the scheme.  I even give them a little break because of the shuffling DB's.  But the pass rush being weak without Schwartz points to scheme.

 

I just don't think if you're working in a young qb, he's the best fit for that.  He needs a vet laden offense who can function in his offense.  This isn't us at this point.  He'd be better off with the Chargers or Cowboys.  The Pats don't really fit as they have a lot of the same issues we have.

I've heard a lot about the schematic drop off since Schwartz left but I've seen very little analysis about what changes have actually happened. An interesting thought I heard on a podcast is that in actuality nothing has changed and that the problem is that we kept the scheme exactly the same on defense and have been figured out because of it. No idea if it's true but intuitively it makes sense given how much success we had early least season and how conservative people tend to think if it ain't broke don't fix it. 

[titanruss]

Hard to look at OL in a vacuum when they are surrounded by inferior talent. They are often trying to make up for lesser guys and things as simple as switching become difficult because the depth is thrown off.

 

 

[Mythos27]

5 minutes ago, rns90 said:

I guess my issue moving forward is what is his ultimate upside?  Is it AFC south Championships but one and done in playoffs?  My problem is that his philosophy on how to win football games doesn't change.  Good talent, bad talent it's the same. If you feel like he will always cap your talent on his coaching decisions it's time to move on.

If I thought he was going to just continue to do the same shit he was doing the last few years, I'd be all set with him too. But IMO, it was clear to me that at least at first, he completely handed Tim Kelly the reins of the offense. I am seeing formations and personnel packages that I haven't seen in years. I didn't think this was possible. I see the effort to push the ball downfield and the attempt to integrate a dynamic back like Spears into the offense. I also see a willingness to reduce Henry's carries when possible and run less on first down which was a deal-breaker. I think the easiest thing for Vrabel to do after the Pittsburgh loss would've been to turn to Tannehill but he didn't. I even see a little innovation in pulling Brewer to try to help Dillard in pass pro. In short, I see a willingness to change and evolve and I'm willing to see where it can go without an OL that absolutely wrecks the game. We saw what the offense can look like when teams aren't getting pressure on every snap when Levis killed ATL. Let's see if there is more of that in store. 

[Mythos27]

5 minutes ago, titanruss said:

Hard to look at OL in a vacuum when they are surrounded by inferior talent. They are often trying to make up for lesser guys and things as simple as switching become difficult because the depth is thrown off.

 

 

Do you mean individual OL or as a unit?

[oldschool]

7 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

I've heard a lot about the schematic drop off since Schwartz left but I've seen very little analysis about what changes have actually happened. An interesting thought I heard on a podcast is that in actuality nothing has changed and that the problem is that we kept the scheme exactly the same on defense and have been figured out because of it. No idea if it's true but intuitively it makes sense given how much success we had early least season and how conservative people tend to think if it ain't broke don't fix it. 

 

Its the same with the OCs though. @tgo swears the offense changed scematically from Lafleur to Smith to Downing to Kelly. I don't see it. Its the same offense scheme wise, the play callers just have different tendencies. 

[tgo]

15 minutes ago, oldschool said:

 

Its the same with the OCs though. @tgo swears the offense changed scematically from Lafleur to Smith to Downing to Kelly. I don't see it. Its the same offense scheme wise, the play callers just have different tendencies. 

 

....dude there's been article after article that literally documented that they changed the verbiage to Erhardt/Perkins this offseason. The only staple that is the same is outside zone being the foundation of the run game but it's a totally different system under Kelly than under the others which were variations of the Shanahan scheme.

 

The changes between Smith and Downing were more subtle, with no verbiage changes. LaFleur to Smith was comparatively subtle as well, but of course Smith retained the Shanahan verbiage and protection schematics.

 

The one consistent between all the coordinators is outside zone as the foundational staple of the offense.

Edited November 14 by tgo

[oldschool]

5 minutes ago, tgo said:

 

....dude there's been article after article that literally documented that they changed the verbiage to Erhardt/Perkins this offseason. The only staple that is the same is outside zone being the foundation of the run game but it's a totally different system under Kelly than under the others which were variations of the Shanahan scheme.

 

The changes between Smith and Downing were more subtle, with no verbiage changes. LaFleur to Smith was comparatively subtle as well, but Smith retained the Shanahan verbiage and protection schematics.

 

You have articles this time? Let me see them. Honest ask.

[Mythos27]

15 minutes ago, oldschool said:

 

Its the same with the OCs though. @tgo swears the offense changed scematically from Lafleur to Smith to Downing to Kelly. I don't see it. Its the same offense scheme wise, the play callers just have different tendencies. 

I feel like it was most similar from Lafleur to Smith until Art started to put his own little flavor on it. I feel like the change to Kelly was the most drastic. I'll go back and watch but it felt to me that we were using way more 11 personnel and even going empty more often than I remember vs the Saints. Then the following week after Tannehill had a rough game we went right back to riding Henry and won, which is what I mean by we keep dangling booze in front on an alcoholic. As soon as I saw those back to back false starts from Radunz I knew he's wasn't going to start again. Vrabel is apprehensive about change and when he makes any change if it isn't successful he reverts to what he knows best. 

[tgo]

4 minutes ago, oldschool said:

 

You have articles this time? Let me see them. Honest ask.

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/titans/news/titans-players-talk-brand-new-offense-under-oc-tim-kelly

 

https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/nfl/titans/2023/05/03/tennessee-titans-offense-tim-kelly-ryan-tannehill-offseason-playbook/70176661007/

 

Here are a couple