how valuable is haynesworth?

Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by Fry, Feb 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PhiSlammaJamma

    PhiSlammaJamma Critical Possession

    8,305
    663
    479
    Or you could say, even Betty Crocker burns a brownie every once in a while.
     
  2. Because Gregg Williams relies on an aggressive, blitzing. We don't. It is common knowledge. Just because there are no published stats to prove it doesn't make it not true. I haven't seen you provide any stats that would prove me wrong...

    Yes, whether I'm write or wrong about Washington, it still supports my point that the Titans shouldn't be overly aggressive without the right personnel.

    True, but Washington's D was never the point itself, merely an example to prove my point. That's why it supports me either way either way.

    No? Even now you intentionally left out my point about how the Pats had the superior front 7. This just goes to show that having the right personnel up front is key, and you don't want any part of it...

    And how many times was that exactly? No, I don't expect you to actually answer that any more than I can answer it with Washington. But that's not the same as me saying you are wrong...

    Not at all. Their front 7 was great. They had the personnel up front to bring the blitz very well. I've been very clear that the front 7 has to be good enough at getting to the QB in order to blitz consistently.

    I'd take theirs over ours. Yes, we have a better nickelback in Finnegan that they did in Troy Brown, but Brown actually played pretty well in an emergency role. As for their starting secondary, I'd still take their over ours this year even with Gay at CB. Was he really that much worse than Hill? As for the other 3 starting DBs, I'd give them the clear edge.

    If we blitz consistently, as in the days under Gregg Williams, yes.

    Uhhh... no. You should either check your math or read closer. I specifically said "over a quarter of our sacks came from non-DLinemen". That still leaves over 70% of our sacks coming from defensive linemen.

    My argument hasn't changed at all. Again, just go back and read what I have said. It's not about NEVER being able to blitz. It's about doing it consistently. The more often you do it, the more likely you are to get burned. Unless you have the right players, it's not a good risk to rely on too many blitzes. That's why we don't.

    First off, I disagree that he blitzes a ton of people all that much. Secondly, I also disagree with him tipping his hand every time. They often line up like they could blitz but don't.

    First off, I haven't seen any evidence that we don't ever get burned when we blitz. So I don't accept your premise to begin with.

    That said, the more often you do it to more risk you take. This is my point about how you have to have the right personnel to do it consistently versus just doing it on occasion to keep defenses off balance.

    Actually, I'd like to blitz more. I've never suggested otherwise. My whole point is that we need to improve our defensive personnel to the point where we can do it successfully.

    And that would be great if we could get consistent pressure even with a blitz. But we don't. This is why adding a good pass rushing DLineman would change things significantly.

    I disagree with your suggestion that Hill and Thompson don't get burned deep on blitzes.

    Simple, it's the difference in blitzing occasionally and blitzing consistently. If you blitz consistently, offenses gameplan differently to take advantage of it. When you only throw in a few blitzes to keep offenses off balance, they don't gameplan to make you pay as much.

    I'm all for more variety on D. But that alone isn't enough with our roster.

    I have already answered that it was relative. I guess I'll have to quote myself and perhaps you'll take note this time:
    What can I say, I don't know of a better analogy about a chain having the most weak links. But you have intentionally ignored my past comments describing the situation (too many personnel holes) and focused on just the 1 analogy.

    I've never said you can't cover up holes. My point is that you can't use blitzing to cover up holes if it going to then expose more holes. We just have too many holes to cover up that way. And that's why it's all about personnel at this point.

    I'm not suggesting the coaches are blameless. I just happen to agree with them in this particular decision about defensive scheme.

    Funny, that's my part of my point. The difference is that we disagree on what best hides or exposes those flaws.
     
  3. Also, that's it for me in this debate, at least with these long drawn out posts. It's too time consuming to bother going round and round any more. If my argument isn't clear by now (whether you agree or disagree), that isn't going to change...
     
  4. TitanJeff

    TitanJeff Kahuna Grande Staff

    30,461
    11,489
    1,769
    What I don't understand is the criticism Schwartz without throwing Fisher in the mix. If anything, Fisher is MORE responsible than Schwartz if he allows his defense to continue to under-perform due to a bad scheme.
     
  5. SupDawg

    SupDawg Guest

    Jeff, I agree that Fisher bears some blame as well. Fish has a lot of good qualities. But my biggest complaint is he is too loyal to his coaches and players. In that regard if we had another coach that just dropped a goose egg this past year with the lowest ranked anything, I truly believe almost any coached would be canned spam.

    If we lost Fisher I wouldn't be heartbroken.
     
  6. Gut

    Gut Pro Bowler

    8,052
    2,249
    669
    Sk...

    I'll try to sum up to avoid the long posts...(nearly impossible for me...)

    Your analogy of WASH to make your point, is a bad one when you claim one thing (they were killed due to blitzing without the personel) but then admit you don't know if it's true or not.

    No one should be 'overly aggressive' without the right personel. Perhaps your definition of overly aggressive is very different from mine. I think we can 'blitz' more while covering the weaknesses of our current players. You just think their bad - period. And because you think they can't do anything well, we should sit back and rarely blitz (minimize exposure). However, sitting back has also exposed their flaws because he STILL puts them in positions (even in 3 deep coverages) to expose their weaknesses and we have been burned SEVERAL times when we shouldn't have been because of how Schwartz CHOSE to play those coverages. If he protected the players more, we could be more creative on D...yet you give this idea lip-service but you don't blame Schwartz for not doing it.

    And the point of us blitzing successfully vs unsuccessfully is a debatable one since neither of us has statistics, but I think we do know that we were burned far too much playing a shell D than should realistically be possible...even if Hill and Thompson are as bad as you say. Schwartz's job is to change things up that aren't working and yet he keeps sticking the same players in the same positions. How come you don't blame him for not changing personel or at least putting them in positions where they can hurt us less??? And if you think offenses can gameplan more effectively for an aggressive D, how do you think they gameplan for a team that is in the same 5 coverages for 90% of the game and the players who are weaker will be in KNOWN positions meaning the offense can call plays, get the matchups THEY want and attack the weaker players MORE. The difficult thing with teams like the Ravens and Pats are that they do so many different things on D (in alignment and how many different things they do all over the field), it's hard to get the matchup you want and dictate anything. Yes, some of that is certainly personel, but a huge chunk is also coaching...which seems to be what most of us are trying to point out. If you gave all the teams equal personell, a lot of the top defenses would remain the top defenses while the poorest defenses would remain the poorest. And we are one of the poorest defenses!

    I pointed at the Patriots for 2 reasons. First, even you admitted that Brown played well as an emergency player. Why? Yes, they had an excellent front 7, but they protected him and Gay for the most part. We're not doing that with Hill and Thompson.

    The second reason was to get you out of your...you're only as good as your weakest link theory. You now agree that that isn't so. If you have a lot of holes, the tougher it is to overcome but even significant holes CAN be overcome (even if they're on one unit like the secondary). Since all teams have players that excel at one thing and are poor at another, the best defenses cover up those weaknesses as much as possible. How often is Bruschi asked to man up a Reggie Bush? Probably never. They alter the D to accomadate that weakness. In light of that, Bruschi is considered a Great MLB instead of a 2 down run stuffer.

    The better Schwartz can learn how to minimize our players weaknesses, the fewer perceived holes we'll have and the more agressive our D can be. I assume our GM will add the personel, but so far Schwartz is NOT doing his part (neither in covering up players weaknesses nor in being creative defensively to keep OC's from dialing up plays against us).

    I've given you and everyone else a healthy dose of what Schwartz COULD do to lessen the exposure of our weakest players and their flaws.

    Gut
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  • Welcome to goTitans.com

    Established in 2000, goTitans.com is the place for Tennessee Titans fans to talk Titans. Our roots go back to the Tennessee Oilers Fan Page in 1997 and we currently have 4,000 diehard members with 1.5 million messages. To find out about advertising opportunities, contact TitanJeff.
  • The Tip Jar

    For those of you interested in helping the cause, we offer The Tip Jar. For $2 a month, you can become a subscriber and enjoy goTitans.com without ads.

    Hit the Tip Jar