Yes, the facts are extreme homerism, apparently. You made a suggestion that no decent offense would score so little against the terrible Jets in an attempt to belittle the Titans offense (which is terrible regardless) - a team you happen to dislike. When it's pointed out that just 7 days earlier, your own team did something virtually identical, it wass horrible luck and an extreme outlier - meaning, in fact, that a decent offense CAN score that little against the terrible Jets. If it can be bad luck or an outlier (which it can), why make a silly statement like "no decent offense would score 10 points against the Jets"? Why not just say good offenses score more than the Titans do on a regular basis? That at least is a defendable position. You made a whacky claim that was proven wrong and then you started making excuses for it. Sounds a lot like your standard justifying everything your team does while belittling every team you dislike. Homerism, indeed.
I don't care for the Titans, but Vince was a ROOKIE last year. He'll get better with time. Quit acting like he's a 10-year veteran.
Cutler has lead the Broncos offense with far more talent surrounding him to 6 more offensive points than the Titans this season (and the Titans offense has not been good). Against the Chargers tonight, he had something like 150 yards and 3 turnovers - about what VY did 2 weeks ago against them (150yds, 2 turnovers). Until 4th Q garbage time, Cutler had something like 50 yards passing and the Broncos scored 3 total points, and that was on a turnover deep in San Diego territory. I'm not sure the Titans offense would be much better with the receivers they have, though it would probably be more consistent. That said, Cutler is going to be a very good QB. He's got a lot of the basics down - he's still learning to turn stats into points and wins - but that's normal for a 2nd year QB. He's probably exactly where you'd project him to be at this point and should be poised to have a breakout 3rd year in the league. Of the QB's drafted in the last two years, VY and Cutler obviously are the top two in the bunch so far (Leinart gets an incomplete, unfortunately, but could be very very good in that system). This year's bunch hasn't done anything yet, but they were all projects anyway. Given VY's lack of progression this year, I'd say Cutler has a better chance to be a good QB than VY, while VY has the better chance to be great. It all depends if VY ultimately figures out how to properly mix the running and passing. If not, he's below-average. If he does, he could be great. He does need to figure it out next year, though.
What? When did I act like he was a 10-year veteran? I'll quote myself on this one, from one of my first posts in this thread. This season, he's regressed and the defense and coaching staff has carried him. Is that to say he can't be a good quarterback in time? Absolutely not, it's only his second season. Is that to say I won't give him credit if he develops into one? Absolutely not, I was one of his biggest fans this time last season. Vince absolutely has time to turn it around. But he hasn't yet, and he certainly hasn't earned the smack talked on his behalf. The Titans as a team have, but he has not. The Patriots are my team? I made a "whacky" claim that was proven wrong in a game coated with snow and 30 mile per hour winds. While I agree that the more telling statistics are over the course of a season, I certainly don't believe that original claim to be "whacky" as you do. The Browns scored eight points last week... Green Bay scored seven points this week, and both of those teams have very good offenses. Conditions are a big factor this time of year, and you still haven't addressed that. For your sake, I'll modify my initial claim. Decent offenses don't score only 10 points against the Jets as long as there are remotely decent playing conditions. I figured the latter qualifier to be generally assumed, but since it's apparently not in your case, I'll add it. Happy? The problem I have with this logic is that the Jets game wasn't really an outlier in Tennessee wins, either for Vince or for the Titans... whereas the Buffalo game clearly was for Romo and Dallas. If we assume, as you have, that the author wasn't attempting to correlate the larger item of VY leading his team to within one game of the playoffs to being responsible for Sunday's win, then by extension you would have to eliminate around half of Tennessee's wins this season in which VY has had very similar production to what he had Sunday. And if you decide he's not responsible for four or five of those wins, then the entire argument of "leading" his team to within one game of the playoffs becomes completely ridiculous. As a result, I disagree that it's nonsense. They may not be the majority, but there are desperate and rabid Horn fans out there who see a W for the Titans and automatically chalk it up to Vince and his greatness, regardless of how the game was actually played. Obviously it's not something I can prove either way, but it's certainly the gut read I have and there's definitely a logical case to be made for it.
Major, you make good points about cutler. another thing i will add is that the broncos were a playoff team in 2005 (and won a game vs the pats) with plummer as their QB. in 2006 they flopped and cutler took over with ~6? games left. this preseason they were huge players in the offseason signing t-hen, stokley, and graham and were heavy favorites to make the playoffs. on the other hand, the titans lost pacman, their leading rusher and 2 leading receivers and many tv experts and bbs experts predicted a 4-6 win season for the titans. the point is, lazy fans will look at the stats and infer their opinions. people want to see development continue consistently upward when the reality is that it is a roller coaster for a QB. so i ask the question - what is more important? cutler's 90.8 QB rating or that vince and the titans are in position to control their own destiny? something can be said for a QB who has a team that no one believed in fighting for every win. while the other qb on the team has been out of it for a month now, but atleast he has performed on the stat sheet. the cat- it seems that you and major have a personal thing going on so i wont meddle. but by reading your posts, you make a lot of inferences about what the other side's message is. you claim that titans fans will sweep a bad game by vince under the rug when you have essentially done the same thing by highlighting an arbitrarily picked "big" game that vy did not do well in. while a superficial fan will say that last year was the same as this year, it was not. the titans needed 3 teams to lose that day, so while it eventually reduced to a 'win and you're in' situation, the 2 scenarios are very different.
the cat- i agree, there is a lot of nonsense on BOTH sides when it comes to VY. He is a very polarizing athlete and its generally why i stay away from vy threads. you call horn fans desperate and rabid, but it is just because you and other "vy-haterz" do not understand. tinman gets a lot of flak for being overzealous but at the risk of sounding like him - VY brought GLORY to my team. i sat and watched espn run polls for weeks of USC defeating the nazi army, all the while confident that my team will win the rose bowl. fast forward to the game. like a heavyweight fight, the two teams start sloppy as they feel their opponent out. the 2nd half starts and the punches start to fly. 6 minutes left, horns down by two scores. i begin to have doubts, we need a score-stop-score. finally, keith jackson delivered the last play of the last drive beautifully. "4th and 5 - the national championship on the line right here..." everything from then was a blur, but ill always remember the image of VY standing statue-esque in a sea of confetti pointing at the fans. im sure all the vy-haterz are reading my post shaking their heads thinking, yup this guy is crazy. but i guarentee that every horn fan remembers it like i remember it. and that is why hornfans will always follow vy with blind faith, and thats why vy-haterz will always continue to think they are crazy.
I remember well, and while that's slightly different from a fan perspective, I don't see how it could possibly impact what happened on the field. The bottom line is that the Titans' season was over if they lost that game, whereas they could continue on had they won. Yes, the result of a win is more defined this year as opposed to a season ago, but the consequences of a loss are the same and thus I think the comparison is valid. Also, I understand that I arbitrarily picked a "big" game that he did not do well in... the purpose was to show that that particular logic can go both ways. I'll also clarify that I have no problems with Titans fans. The particular fans whose logic I'm inferring are the Vince Young-only fans who seem to think he can walk on water and do no wrong, and that victories generated through outstanding defense and coaching should be credited to him. I have no beef with Vince Young. I was at both of his Rose Bowls. I have his #10 Tennessee jersey in my closet. I supported him like crazy a season ago. A few friends of mine from school call me the biggest Vince Young homer on the planet (little do they know, lol). I'm not some jealous Sooner or Aggie here. But he's regressed significantly from year 1 to year 2 and he hasn't played well, and to use Tennessee's record as a reflection on him (as many are doing) is an absolute joke and an incredible disservice to the Titans defense, coaching, and rushing attack. I know that's not the point of this thread, but I wanted to clarify my position on him and the Titans since it has somewhat been brought into question.
I think it's a serious stretch to say that comment implied that the poster was giving credit to VY for that win, but fair enough. You should note, though, that later in the thread - well before our discussion ever started - the same poster you quoted stated: I dont see where anyone in this thread said VY won the game and not the defense? anyone who watched half of the titans game would be foolish not to give credit to the defense. ive said all year long that D-line is one of the scariest in the league and without them the titans would be 6-10 at best. So I'm not sure how you could interpret him to be claiming that VY deserves credit for that win.
We've probably been on opposite sides of virtually every football argument on this board since Major Applewhite and Chris Simms were at UT (except maybe the VY arguments during the 2005 UT season). It's great fun.
You're the one who demanded I quote you one comment (there are others I could have used) and made one particular quote into a big deal -- not me. My issue is the larger principle of people attempting to define Vince Young through team success. If you don't think anyone, here or elsewhere, is crediting VY (at least in some way) with "winning" this weekend, I have to disagree. As I explained, his production Sunday was quite comparable (and in some cases, actually better) to what it was in several other Tennessee wins. If you don't think fans are crediting him for the win Sunday, then by that same logic I don't see how they can credit him for several other Tennessee wins... and if that's the case, then the entire premise of defining him through team record falls apart. Yet, in this and a couple of other threads in recent days/weeks, there are repeated references to "W's and playoffs" in an effort to defend him individually. Can I prove that this mentality exists among a number of posters fans? Of course not. It's an issue of logic by extension, and one in which we apparently disagree on. But I think the evidence is out there to support that case, both for this week as well as the season as a whole.
for someone who doesn't like Titans and VY, you sure like talking about them. and you really really really do care too much about what other people think. you're like the UNITED WAY of Clutchfans.
Let's also not forget all the fun Taveras arguments. Have we been on opposite sides in the Colts/Patriots debates of the past few years? I know Scar and I have been, but I can't remember you specifically. I'll also add, in the Christmas spirit , that it's definitely not personal at all. Like you said, it's all in fun.
I've stayed out of the Pats/Colts stuff for the most part, but if I were to join, it would definitely be anti-Pats. I thought the Steelers had a legit shot to beat them but that was very disappointing. I will be rooting against the Pats in all the playoff games, though. And yeah - if anything comes across as personal, it's not meant to be at all. My posting style has gotten much less tactful over the years. Merry Christmas! Now I must sleep, so maybe we'll continue this later in the week!
I actually feel University of Texas fans pain. I remember how long it took me to come to grips with the fact Andre Ware and David Klingler just weren't very good NFL quarterbacks. Course I had a slightly easier time because my heroes weren't good enough to hold NFL starting Jobs for long. Btw....I hate to scare ya'll but David Klinglers only full season at the helm in 93 was comparable to this years VY season. In fact Klingler was more efficent RUNNING than VY is this year. Just food for thought.
Did Klingler or ware ever defeat the greatest college football team ever? Did either of them win ROY of the year or go to the pro bowl. Did any of them lead their team to the playoffs. VY has a chance to do this this weekend. Lets see if he steps up.
I think the Titans will win because I bet Dungy benchs his players early. Maybe after 2 touchdowns or the 1st quarter.
Yep, Peyton Manning and most of the starters will not even finish the 1st quarter, so the Titans win, Peyton will play 2 or 3 offensive drives.
For the record Cat I do enjoy your extreme positions and you as a poster. I think you add to the BBS. I was being a bit of an as* to pile on there, sorry. Above said, I think your memory is fuzzy on the Colts-Pats. I didn't guarantee the Colts would beat them or anything--though I thought they would win that game. I still think a healthy Colts team would have beat them in week 7 or whatever, and have had home field. But none of that happened and they lost, though they still had the Pats on the ropes in that game (with basically 1 WR who was getting any reps available the 2nd half). Additionally, my condition on feeling really good about the Colts at the Pats in the playoffs was also on health, with Harrison still not playing a down for months and Freeney on the IR, obviously we won't see the best Colts team this year so I don't feel as good about the Colts chances if they get to Pats part II. (Though far from hopeless, see below). Above said, I think anyone who thinks the Pats are a shoe in for the title is not a student of the game. The 13-0 Colts team 2 years ago (who looked as dominant as the Pats until stepping off the peddle with home field sown up) had a bad game and lost in the playoffs. An incredibly explosive 15-1 Vikes team lost in a dome (can't blame weather). A 14-2 defending superbowl champ Packer team lost. The Greatest Show on Earth team lost (to Brady and the Pats). These teams were a whole lot more similar than dissimilar to the current Pats. Now none of these teams had Tom Brady (thought the Pack had a Farve in his prime and Warner was incredible that year), but then Tom Brady, the best clutch QB of the current era, has exited the playoffs the last 2 years as well, with him being a major reason why in the Broncos game--he is human. And it isn't like the Pats didn't nearly lose to the Colts, Eagles, & Ravens this year, and the refs and the Ravens coaches clearly saved the Pats more than the Pats themselves in that one. If they were merely 14-1 right now would people/media see them as so much more vulnearable? The Pats are the best team in the league right now, I won't argue with that, and didn’t prior to/after the Colts game, but the idea on any given day they couldn't fall to the Colts, Jags, Chargers, Cowboys (who were ahead in quarter 3 with a team that didn't have all its parts on defense) and possibly the Stealers (though their defense has looked more suspect of late and no Willie Parker--I say real outside chance here) or Packers (really outside chance, but not no chance)--would be foolish thinking. Further, a bad weather day in NE certainly isn't going to help them versus the Jags or Chargers, I don't think the Colts either (yes I know we disagree--I think the Colts are a better running and superior/quicker/greater stamina defensive team now than the Pats, my opinion). The more the weather takes a major hit to both teams passing games, the more these teams get closer to a 30 or 40% shot of knocking them off, even in NE. Call me crazy for thinking this, but no I don't think the gap is as wide as people think. The Pats are not near a perfect team, they do lack offense balance (though they are running better versus their recent sucky competition—Marouney can be a load if he can stay healthy) and I think the lack of speed/age in the middle of the Pats defense (Brusci, Seau, Harrison) could be exploited by the right team. They are smart and tough and handle poor offenses easily—but I think they could be burned and worn down by some. This is not a team like the early 90s Cowboys and 49ers that was so loaded, balanced and deep everywhere nobody has a chance against outside of each other—they are more like those later 14-2, 15-1 type teams in the hard salary cap era I mentioned.. A don’t let the scoring differential and such fool you, the Pats have played a lot of sucky teams and ran up the score extra—at worst at least 4-5 of the 15 games so far have been competitive through the 4th quarter, and 3 of those games they were on the ropes. In truth whether they were 15-0, 14-1 or 13-2 has some luck involved, but even if they were 14-1, they still would be the same team they are now and the favorites. Maybe if they were 14-1 folks would have a little better perspective, and maybe the Pats would have a little less pressure (we will see). Back on Young. Most VY fans like myself are not saying he is having a good year. But the truth is last year, and extraordinarily rare, rookie-of-the-year, year for a QB, helped the Titans to more wins than all but a handful of QBs would have done with that team--and everyone with a sense of balance saw that an absolutely lifeless team before VY started playing (check their 20+ games before) became competitive. Not all do to his part, but certainly he was a major part and the most important individual in that turn around. And yes, this year he has been much less effective and at times played poor. But even this year he is far from "one of the worst QBs in the league". Once you get beyond QB rating, if you think 20+ QBs at the helm would have improved on the Titans 9-6 record at this point (if they were in place of VY) I don't think you have a handle on how poor of weapons are on that team and the way Tenn has decided to play offense to be most effective. He isn't playing great, sometimes not even good, but he is making some plays and hasn't chucked away games for his team. Nor does he miss a lot of open guys because Tenn doesn't have a lot of guys in routine sets get open--no receiver gets much separation nor are they the kind of guys to throw jump balls to and assume they will win the battle. I can give you plenty of young and old QBs who have flat chucked away plenty of games for their teams and missed a lot of plays on the field than can be made--VY isn't one of the major ones. Anyone who has watched the Titans since VY took over would be very happy with his overall performance and prospects for the future—that isn’t homerism, that is having a bigger perspective on his overall contributions (people always stilt on what have you done for me lately), promise, and not being a hater. Further, VY still looks as promising/solid as any QB drafted the last few years—IMO at least. Now if someone wants to say Cutler is a surer bet, that is fine, but I have seen the Broncos a fair bit and I have many doubts on him in terms of leadership and clutchness, he is a guy, despite his rating, where his team hasn't gotten one bit better, or one bit more composed, since he has started. Jeff George had all the pro QB tools in the world as well, but I wouldn't take him over a guy with 3/4 of his tools but with a lot better instincts. Cutler may not be a Jeff Goerge, but he hasn’t proven he isn’t either. Some other folks with no affinity either way for VY have noticed some major concerns about Cutler too (see our resident Raider fan's comments). Finally, "Buyers remorse" for a guy having more downs than ups in year 2, following a rare for QBs rookie of the year season, and where his team is still winning and being in the playoff chase after being the worst team the 2 years prior to him becoming a rookie starter (he clearly isn't losing games for them), what I would say to that such argument is my behind. Peace!
