You know, I always thought that if I dredged up an old thread to try to prove that I was right and another poster was wrong, that I would be the one that looked like an #######. Turns out that's exactly how it looks.
Couldn't disagree more.
Now is when we find out who was right and who was wrong.To that point I don't really see this as "Mort was right" by some people in this thread. In his first two seasons Young has a record of 16 wins and 11 losses in games where he passed the ball 15 or more times. Plenty of people would love for a QB that young to put up a record like that with the #1 pick in the draft let alone the #3 pick. And I'm sure there will be a lot of "but they're winning DESPITE him" responses but let's not forget how TEN got the #3 pick in the draft before he got there. The Titans were 4-12 before Young got there, and 5-11 the year before that. Anyone not recognizing Young contributing to the turnaround of the Titans is trying really hard not to. Call it "polished" or not, but if you're my #3 pick in the draft and my team goes from 9-23 to 16-11 then I'll be grateful for the unpolished change in fortune.
The prediction was that it would take 3-4 seasons for VY to become a polished QB. He's had 2 seasons. That makes it still too early to say whether either side on this question is right or wrong.
Unless you believe that a QB needs a certain amount of polish to turn a 9-23 team into a 16-11 team in his first two years in the league. I happen to be of that opinion.If people want to debate just exactly how much his upside is or whether he'll ever be an mvp candidate.... I wouldn't argue with whatever point of view they had. To me the guy has been a solid starter that been a huge part of a major turnaround for a franchise despite the fact he didn't have much time to sit and learn the offense from the bench like so many had predicted. That's polished to me.
I hope you would agree that saying what amounts to "They are winning more than before him" doesn't really give any evidence to dispute the statement of "but they're winning DESPITE him". It just agrees that they are winning, it doesn't give any evidence as to why they are winning. I don't know what the answer is, but I should think there are a few things we could at least check to try to see what aspect of the Titans game improved, stayed the same, or got worse. Things like rankings within the league for offense and defense.
So looking at their offensive and defensive rankings should probably be at least somewhat meaningful. Here is what PFT has for the Titans:
Offense Pass Rush TotalYEAR PT YD PT YD PT YD2004 9 10 16 14 15 112005 9 18 28 23 21 17 2006 30 30 10 5 16 27 2007 32 27 5 5 21 22So the Titans passing game saw a big drop off. In 2004 and 2005 was 9th in points both years, 10th and 18th in yards. With Vince all four rankings dropped to bottom 5. 30th and 32nd in points, and 30th and 27th in yards.The Titans running game saw a big improvement. Average in 2004 (16th in points, 14th in yards), and bad in 2005 (28th in points, 23rd in yards). It went to 10th in points and 5th in yards in 2006, and 5th in both categories last year.
Total offense with those rolled in together is extremely comparable in points. 15th and 21st pre-Vince, 16th and 21st post-Vince. Yards were better pre-Vince, though total offensive yards is normally dominated by passing yards enough that I would tend to consider it the least meaningful of the 6 stats since we're talking about a major improvement and drop off in both the passing and rushing games... the yardage change will be dominated by the passing change even though one can argue a more equivalent worth of both types of offense than the volume of yards indicates. So I think total points is much more meaningful for this kind of comparison, and those are a wash.
So net result would seem to be that the passing game is a lot worse, the rushing game is a lot better, and overall the two have seemed to have balanced each other out.
Ok, so let's look at defense.
Defense Pass Rush TotalYEAR PT YD PT YD PT YD2004 25 26 27 18 30 272005 32 17 16 32 21 17 2006 25 27 31 30 31 32 2007 14 10 14 5 8 5The pass defense was bad from 2004 through 2006, spanning VY's arrival. 2004 and 2006 are almost identical, pre and post Vince. But in 2007 the pass defense was markedly better, going to average in points and top ten in yards.The rush defense was poor pre-Vince... bad in points and average in yards in 2004, and average in points and bad in yards in 2005. 2006 it was atrocious, bottom 3 in both categories. 2007 it then made a phenomenal improvement... average in points but top 5 in yards.
Overall rankings follow the trend we saw on offense of 2004 pre-vince and 2006 post-Vince being close to a wash with only rushing yardage differing and being worse in 2006 though total points was still a wash. But I'd say the dominant change for defense is that 2007 is a light year better than any other year... 8th in points, 5th in yards.
Ok, so what does that suggest overall? 2004 and 2006 are very similar both offensive and defensively despite one being pre-VY and one post-VY. Offensive points were comparable and defense was comparable. Biggest difference in these units was that one could pass and not run and the other could run but not pass. I would hypothesize that other factors than the quality of offense and defense would be responsible for the change in record.
Without digging deeper, some things that could play a role might be things like strength of schedule, or the special teams game. I would probably place good money that special teams was a bigger differentiator between 2004 and 2006 than was Vince, the offense, or the defense, as I know Pacman had multiple kick/punt return TDs. A quick glance shows me Tennessee went from 28th in 2004 to 2nd in 2006 in return yards, and the difference in yards between those years is pretty significant. The magnitude of the kick return yardage difference is enough to take a team from 27th to 16th in total offensive yards. That's a significant jump, and I'd say a bigger factor than anything involving Vince.
While 2004 and 2006 are parallels offensive and defensively and it appears their improvement came from elsewhere and notably special teams, 2005 and 2007 are also similar offensively, but defensively they aren't in the same ballpark. 2007 had a top 10 defense, 2005 was just outside the bottom 10. Since I checked the kick return game for the other years, I looked at it for these too and it is pretty much equivalent so probably not a major factor.
So based on what the different units have done, it appears that the offensive results, especially scoring, haven't really changed since Vince showed up. The change is that what they are getting done is happening on the ground now instead of through the air.
The factors that appear to have fueled the team's improvement the most are the improvement of the defense and special teams units, with the possibility other factors like strength of schedule may have also played a role.
So trying to take an objective look at what the team's results suggest the difference between the seasons was, I'd have to say the results seem to favor that the offense is not the unit that has been responsible for the team's improvement. I'll give them some credit that the better running game may have helped the defense, but I think better players on defense have helped the defense more.
(Quick gut check on the offense staying on the field... checked rank in total offensive plays to see if the offense is doing a better job holding onto the ball and staying on the field... 2004: 4th, 2005: 13th, 2006: 29th, 2007: 8th... so those don't seem to support that the post-VY offense is doing this better than the pre-VY offense did... if anything the opposite. 1st downs gained not signicant either, 12th and 22nd pre-Vince, 27th and 17th post-VY).
