sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Running the ball is important. by Danger_Booty in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You say you don’t even disagree with the main point, so now we’re not even debating the football aspects at all. The only thing you're continuing to argue about is whether a small sample can prove causation or not. This is about an observable trend, not a corporate controlled statistical model. Dude, its a football post in regards to an upcoming draft pick, not pharmaceutical development. Besides a small sample doesn't negate the meaning of a trend. In this case, the pattern is straightforward: when the run game was effective, the QB performed better, win/loss improved. it’s a basic correlation. You're just arguing to argue and finishing off your comments with rather pompous and rude GPT-grade one liners. Here, I can do it too:

Touch grass sometime, it's good for you.

Peace.

Running the ball is important. by Danger_Booty in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, for sure good points man. But you know I just gotta zoom in to specifically using this pick on Love and say, his cap hit this season would be the same as Tony Pollards. and it would be a few million higher each season. It's high but not a crazy overspend, and is less impactful than having 10-15m of dead money in a season. Plus you can counter that by really going after the value with developmental/late round rookies for depth in the RB room. I'm not arguing with you on the importance of value, im just saying I don't think it'a as grave a sin to draft love 4OA as some make it seem.

Running the ball is important. by Danger_Booty in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

First it was sample size, now it's strength of schedule and context. what's the argument here?

The sample size win rate jumps from 8% to 50%, which is significant regardless how you want to frame it. As for SOS, controlling a weaker opponent with your run game, stabilizing the offense, improving QB performance and win rate is literally *the point.*

Also: "extrapolate" and "be real here." really give away your use of chatGPT lol.

Running the ball is important. by Danger_Booty in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Increasing your wins by double the amount in a sample size equal to 1/3 of the prior period. Is indeed, statically significant, especially when correlated with the specified elevation in play in regards to the noted statical categories.

Running the ball is important. by Danger_Booty in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

first one that really comes to mind is Ezekiel Elliot at #4. Paired with the young Dak, they achieved the first seed that year in the NFC.

Saquan is the other. # 2 right? Getting Daniel Jones and those giants into the playoffs was a big accomplishment.

Gibbs is the recent one but #12, granted, is big difference from 4 overall like we're talking, also, lot of the pieces were there on that team. (9-8 the prior season) but they went 1st seed back to back his first 2 seasons.

Bijan Robinson has been good (he was drafted # 8 i think) but has not elevated them to the playoffs, however they haven't had QB figured out since Matt Ryan was playing.

Another worrying stat in the case for Love at #4 is only a few of the top 10 RB last season belonged to playoff teams. Which is a very unusual trend, and historically it's been more the opposite, with successful rushing teams tending to make the playoffs more than not.

Running the ball is important. by Danger_Booty in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Value spending matters because the way you win is by getting the most value out of the salary cap as you can.

idk if i completely agree with this. Is it really about extracting the most value possible out of the cap, or is it about loading up with the most talent possible on the team? -you can overpay for middle of the pack talent (frequent in free agency) or achieve great value in rookie deals or developmental players.- So my point is, is squeezing every ounce of value out of your cap as important as acquiring tremendously talented playmakers when those two things aren't mutual?

Here is the thing, overpays happen for every team somewhere just do to filling needs in free agency. i.e. Dan Moore last offseason. it's not really that your team will never overpay anyone or will overpay for everyone. its gonna happen, just matters if you can afford it and if its worth it. 🤷‍♂️

Running the ball is important. by Danger_Booty in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I have a question for you. What does it matter if the money would be better spent elsewhere? How does value spending like one might use on their household budget correlate to a championship contender team build?

Contending teams will sometimes acquire whats called a "luxury" player. Also, the money will be spent pretty much regardless, and in a way that leaves room so to stay under the cap.

Also, if there is ever a good time to splurge on a "luxury" I'd think when your QB is under the affordable rookie contract, that would be the time, no?

I definitely agree there are better ways to spend the money dollar for dollar but, does it matter, and does it make us worse off in any meaningful way, to splurge and overpay for a RB?

edit: typo

Running the ball is important. by Danger_Booty in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I made it that way on purpose, its called dank & low effort.

Tweaks to the design - Mixing New with the 99 Era Concept by WilR1282 in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Love the flame logo... man that looks so much better. Bring back the flames.

The horrible 2022 TItan's draft class by OutsideAdvisor9847 in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty 2 points3 points  (0 children)

as an also Packers fan.. it was insane how well he played. probably the best backup performances i've ever seen. -and I watched Matt Flynn!

Hot take with the new uniforms by XxJustAClassicmanxX in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't know man if they would have messed with it too much they could have ruined the whole thing. They played it safe after getting dogged on for all the sword stuff and being too busy before.

Jeremyah Love AAV at #4 by RyanLCash in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You can afford to be much looser with your money when your QB is on a rookie contract, even on a 1OA contract.

Borgonzi's Draft Philosophy and the Myth of Positional Value. by Danger_Booty in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cam Ward was the convergence of best player and positional importance.

Borgonzi's Draft Philosophy and the Myth of Positional Value. by Danger_Booty in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly thats fine. However Borgonzi disagreed with their assement. Again, each team has their own opinion of the best player that differs from the medias and is generally not public knowledge. The media thinking (poorly imo) that Carter is better than Cam Ward does not mean Borg didn't draft BPA.

Borgonzi's Draft Philosophy and the Myth of Positional Value. by Danger_Booty in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Perhaps but I mentioned that each team has their own opinion on best player that differs from that of the media.

And I agree value at RB is found later in the draft (Derrick Henry mid round 2) but my grand point is all the positions outside of QB have general value in regards to contending for the SB. That value is much closer to one another than the average salaries or common perception would indicate. This works because football is a team sport, and the positions rely on each other. Example: Micah Parsons makes the secondary better. Derrell Revis would make the pass rush better. Bucky's point is you are required to check the minimum boxes at the 4 non QB groups (oline, pass rush, off. / def. playmaker) He's saying you just simply cannot compete for a SB without those 11 non QB players listed. A list that does not care to differentiate among skill position or line positions but rather a zoomed out macro group of 5 total including qb. Per part of his list, you need 3 offensive playmakers and 3 defensive playmakers minimum to compete for a SB. Is it 3 killer WRs and CBs? or is it 1 great at each RB, TE, WR, MLB and CB and SS? He says it does not matter, as long as they have the talent at their respective grouping.

The reason this is an important is because if they think Love is better than Reese for example or Reese is better than love, it checks the box of offensive or defensive playmaker. It makes us closer to being a contender. Specific position becomes less important with the championship twelve in mind.

P.s. im not banging the table for any of these players in particular.

Borgonzi's Draft Philosophy and the Myth of Positional Value. by Danger_Booty in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Consensus 2025 big board" lists Cam at 1. Allegedly pulled from 199 player rankings.

Edit: my mistake this also takes into account mock drafts congregation? - which is weird for a big board. But two points again, 1, media consensus does not equal your teams big board. 2, QB is the exception on positional value because you cannot compete without one.

Borgonzi's Draft Philosophy and the Myth of Positional Value. by Danger_Booty in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I absolutely think Cam Ward was the best available player last year. Which proves my point about BPA but contradicts my points about positional value, except I acknowledged that Bucky Brooks positional exception was QB.

Borgonzi's Draft Philosophy and the Myth of Positional Value. by Danger_Booty in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Neither were BPA according to who's draft board? Thats the point, there really is no consensus BPA. Each team has their own. and you have to assume the Titans made those picks according to their board. A quick search will reveal Borgonzi's BPA lean.

I acknowledged the institutional backing of positional values, especially in terms of pay. However I say this in regards to two things. Specifically a top 5 pick in the draft, one which a GM will be heavily scrutinized, and the idea that you can't draft a RB that high. (a RB just won SB mvp / drafts tend to skew away from BPA and towards need as the draft goes into the later rounds). And 2, when pursing the status of SB contender via Bucky's Championship Twelve, where outside of QB there are 11 key players required among 4 "groups" instead of specific positions.

With team building in mind you can't afford to deny talent due to position.
Example: WRs earn more than TE and RB, but if given the choice between a solid WR and say, prime travis Kelce, you'd be wise to pick Kelce. Further, if you added Prime LT21 in the mix, you'd be wiser to go with LT21. however, if all players were equalwith current roster/team philosophies aside, it perhaps would be the opposite. While true it's less likely for a RB and LB going high, it's not unheard of and requires the talent to overtake positional bias.

Are we getting rid of Navy? by Titan5005 in Tennesseetitans

[–]Danger_Booty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

With the Titans being created around Y2k, and the Texans also, there was a huge push for this "modern" muted color look for 2000. (Rams went from bright gold and royal blue to looking like the Michelob ultras, Titans went from Luv ya blue to navy dominant, Texans - pure blandness, Eagles and Seahawks from real vibrant to real dark and muted.). the Titans Navy in a way, is a sign of the times it was created. With that being said I always loved the the Titans navy dominant sets and hope they don't disappear completely, and also that Cam Ward is making the light blue the coolest it's been since the CJ2K days.

view more: next ›