The Anti-Jeff Ireland Thread

Well..if that is the criteria, then half of the ones I posted qualify. The better half with the most success...save for Earl Thomas. (who should have been a Dolphin and team captain.)

 

The evidence is his personnel moves. GMs that have to "win now" act accordingly.

 

Which is nearly exactly what I said.

So let me get this straight... You didn't actually know what was being discussed or why, and accused me of somehow both baiting and waving a white flag while simultaneously somehow agreeing with me?

That explains so much about your previous posts in this thread.

 

Not quite. It's an assumption based on interpretations of actions taken. I don't interpret any move Ireland made as a "let's forget about winning now and stockpile for later" move. I think Ireland did as much as he could about winning now with the position he moved himself into (no cap space).

 

I don;t agree with you.

You alluded to Safety being damn near irrelevant. I posted circumstantial evidence that says that it's not.

In fact, what can be considered "ball hawking" safeties contribute to more turnovers than the more sound, non-gambling types. So "ball hawking" safeties absolutely contribute to more wins.

 

Creating cap space this past offseason would have been very easy. What moves did he do that were "win-now" moves? Hiring a new HC? Drafting a QB in the first round? Only move I see that made us better immediately was signing Richard Marshall.

 

Well no, I never said safeties were irrelevant, or anything even close to that. I said there has been no revolution that suddenly makes them more valuable than any other non-quarterback position.

There are generally good safeties on playoff teams. This is not a rule, or even a particularly strong correlation. That goes even less so for "ball hawking" safeties. There are certainly some in the playoffs, and it's certainly a good thing, but you absolutely don't need it to be successful.

 

I think he could actually use that to his advantage, though. Joe Philbin seemed to be onboard with the idea of trading Davis and may have had a great deal to do with getting rid of Brandon Marshall. I think Ireland could certainly tell Ross those moves were made with the idea of helping shape the roster the way Stephen Ross' handpicked coach would like to approach it.

 

but good secondary play absolutely correlates to team success and Safeties do play in the secondary.

 

When you've got over 15 million in dead cap, then creating space isn't exactly easy. I also don't think Ireland particularly planned on Egnew and Miller being inactive for week 1 and Vernon being a pretty much non factor. In addition, bringing in Chad Johnson isn't exactly building for the future, either. Also, signing Garrard (while retaining Moore on the roster) despite drafting a first round QB clearly suggests that Ireland was looking for a vet starter immediately, which usually translates to more wins now.

 

I don't have any argument at all with that.

Claiming that the Dolphins not drafting a ball hawking safety is somehow a notable probable cause for firing Jeff Ireland is silly. It's not the latest fashion accessory for the '12 season, it's a nice thing to have and claiming it's a must is someone taking their own beliefs and somehow making it a mandate.

 

Signing short-term veterans to fill needs and build up depth under is building for the future. Garrard and Johnson themselves are not for the future, but signing them to single-year deals is clearly a concession to the future.

 

It's a concession to not having enough cap space to sign a young (and thus expensive) FA.

 

I don't think anyone here is arguing that Ireland has provided answers to what ails this team. The issues, rather, are: (1) whether he ought to be given more time to provide them, and for the personnel he has obtained to develop; and its corollary, (2) whether (a) a proven GM candidate is available, and if not, (b) whether Ireland is so bad that we should gamble the next draft and free agency on an unproven, up and coming scout being likely to do better.

This needs to be thought through, and I'm sure Ross is thinking about it. My bet is Ireland gets the chance to do the next draft and free agency.

 

What young expensive FA did we want to sign but didn't have a enough money?

 

How would we know. there are probably lots of FAs we don't even look at because of the cost.

Mario Williams for example.

 

Chad Johnson and David Garrard are bottom-of-the-barrel FAs, that were accompanied by no future risk. Expecting 3rd and 4th rounders to be immediate contributors is not realistic. Trading those picks for veteran plays would have indicated some type of desire to win-now at the expense of the future.

Creating space is very easy when you have a lot of open space in future years.

 

Right, those guys certainly were cost-prohibitive, but not because Miami couldn't fit them under the cap.

 

Except that nobody claims that Ireland is in win-now mode. I'm only saying he's not in "let's rebuild" mode. And that's two different things alltogether.

Creating space is very easy when you've got a highly paid veteran with several years left on his contract to restructure. The only one fitting that bill on the roster is Karlos Dansby, and I'm not quite sure throwing more money at him is wise.

 

I was asking because the accusation was made.

 

They could have very easily reduced cap numbers in 2012 for guys like Richard Marshall, Paul Soliai, Kevin Burnett, etc. by guaranteeing more future money.

 

Reduced? Yes. Significantly reduced? No - not unless you want to guarantee Burnett a roster spot for the next 3-4 years.

 

Exactly. They certainly could have reworked enough guys to create enough room for someone like Vincent Jackson if they wanted to. The team would be in a bad spot in 2014+, but they would have definitely won more games this season. At least Ireland's record would improve though?

 

So the fact that Ireland didn't want to guarantee a future roster spot to Kevin Burnett signifies that he's in rebuild mode?

 

No, I'm saying that if he felt he needed to win games this season to keep his job, he'd have made moves that helped him this season.

 

But we've already established that he doesn't need to feel like that and still get fired regardless. I'm feeling like we're moving in a circle here.

 

If it is established, how does he not feel it? He either has to win a certain number of games to retain his job or the wins are irrelevant.

 

So you're saying that every NFL owner tells his GM how many games he needs to win prior to the season? If Polian won 4 instead of 2, he'd still be GM? If Mueller would have just won 3 more, Huizanga wouldn't have hired Parcells?

 

I would hope that every owner lays out his expectations for his GM. Certainly expectations for the current season as well as future seasons would be necessary for any GM in order to approach their job, especially if a GM doesn't have absolute job security, which is very rare. In this case, its very likely that Ross told Ireland that clearing cap space for 2013 is the #1 priority, or drafting a QB.

I'm not sure how Huizenga is any type of good example of being an owner.

 

In which case we should have just Stephen Ross assume GM duties

I'm not sure how he can possibly be qualified as anything but an outstanding owner.

 

Its a shame we cant ask Ireland what he plans to do with those Draft picks and next yrs cap regarding Free Agents and getting Tannehill weapons on Offense. If his plans are to get him help then I might support him bit I actually think he would screw that up. Its vital that we get it Right next yr.

 

Why would the record of a team reflect poorly on the GM but the record of team across multiple GMs, coaches & players not reflect poorly on an owner? If the first is an example of incompetence, why isn't the other as well?

 

No, because there is a lot more to being a GM than providing guidance. There is the actual administration required to achieving whatever goals are set forth. The owner absolutely will say "I need to win this season so we can sell overpriced PSLs", but he isn't the one thats responsible for executing. Just as he could say "I need a young QB and I need a lot of cap space next offseason", but he's not the one deciding how that could be achieved. Stephen Ross right now could very likely be more concerned with securing stadium funding in 2015 than he is winning games in 2012.

Huizenga? Really? the guy would regularly bend over for whatever big name he could find, ceding total control of the organization in the process. He got stepped on by almost every one of those big names.

 

He hired knowledgable people to oversee the football operation. I really don't know how that even remotely qualifies as being "a clown". A clown is someone who doesn't have any idea about how to build a successful sports franchise telling people who do how to do their jobs.

 

There are many forms of bad owners. Sticking your nose in things you shouldn't is one form. Ceding total control to coaches is another.

 

So you're saying that Huizenga should have kept total control despite knowing absolutely nothing about how to properly build a sports franchise? I'm not sure if that even makes an ounce of sense, honestly.

 

No. He should have implemented an infrastructure in which executives reported to him and the head coach reported to the executives. Giving a head coach carte-blanch over an organization does not work. These guys had no reason to build for the future because they could always just leave at the drop of a hat.

 

The Pittsburgh Steelers under Bill Cowher, the New England Patriots under Bill Belichik, the Miami Dolphins under Don Shula or the 49ers under Harbaugh would like to disagree. It's certainly not the only way to do it but I genuinely don't see how you can claim that "it does not work" with a straight face.