Pass-happy Dolphins have thrived most when they run

I think the problem is because our OL is so inconsistent with blocking, and in some cases just can't run block, we are forced to pass more. Being one dimensional makes it easy to gameplan against us and puts Tannehill in bad situations. Now you takeaway play action fakes, you take away read options and ultimately our drives stall. When our drives stall consistently, our defense gets worn out eventually and then opponents really have us where they want us.

The game is and always will be won in the trenches. QB's get the glory and are the most important position on the field but only when their guys up front do their jobs so the QB can do what they do best.

 

The only problem is that's not true.

Lazor has PLENTY of good opportunities to run the ball, particularly on early downs in the 1st half, yet he continuously has elected not to do that.

I certainly don't think an increase in attempts is going to have Miami remain the #2 team in ypc, HOWEVER it might get them out of these huge holes they put themselves in early and it might help keep the defense fresh as they head into the 2nd half.

 

I think it's a combination of both. There are times where we can't block a hole open. That 5.1 YPC is aided GREATLY, particularly because of small sample size, by the 85 yarder against Houston. Maybe those holes would open up, even still, if Lazor stuck with it instead of going pass-only. Or is he calling run plays and RT is choosing the pass option instead on a lot of them? I think more the former, maybe a few of the latter. All things being equal, if you're two scores down or less, there's NO reason to abandon the run, unless it's very late in the game.

You'd think with a coordinator that is showing to be pass-happy, your offense would have a clue in running a clock-tight drive (last drive before half last week says otherwise). The entire offense from the OC down to the RG don't have a clue about maximizing clock in a crunch...that's my biggest complaint, after balance, on this offense.

Couple that stuff with a few of his comments lately, and it's not looking too great for Lazor IMO.

 

These stats are a bit misleading. Miller had 49 rushes/targets in the 1st 4 games. Since Campbell took over he has 72.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MillLa01.htm

I think the insertion of Billy Turner was key to the running game improving dramatically. I consider wheel routes and screens extensions of the running game.

 

Lazor is pass-happy bottom line. Last in rush attempts in the league which leads to the bottom of the pack in t.o.p. Which leads to your d eventually getting worn down, it's a domino effect and lazor is to blame. With ajayai in the mix now we need to commit to giving Miller and him the ball. It only makes sense. Or we can keep starting the game in empty set and spotting the other team 2 pts off the bat cos that's worked real well.

 

Our offense always looked better when we gave the ball to Ricky instead of letting Fiedler throw.

 

Lazor promises to run more...

In lazors mind the wr screen IS a run.

 

That's a big problem, no doubt.

 

Theres no confidence in the run and therefore much less runs

 

How long have I been saying this?

 

It's pretty amazing how poor both Tanneill and Miller are in the 4th qtr this season
Miller has a 2.6 yard per rush average and Tannehill has a 56.3 completion %

Another interesting stat is Miller has 4 receptions inside the opponents 50 yard line
while he has 23 receptions on his side of the 50 yard line

Makes you wonder what the heck happens in the 4th qtr?

 

We're generally playing from behind, so we have to pass even more and the defense knows its coming.

 

It's tough to stick to the running game when your offense is pitiful on 3rd down. It's easy to say run the ball more but when you can't pick up a 3rd and 5 it makes that difficult. If we re going to continue to throw behind the Los or only 2 yards past the line we might as well run the ball in those spots. Between the pitiful passing game leading to few conversions on 3rd down and the defense giving up plays left and right and not being able to get off the field and then throw in Lazor and thill love fest for 0 yard passes and it adds up to what we re seeing.

 

I'm all for running more, especially on 1st down. It puts you in a great position for 3rd and short where the defense still has to honor the run.

The problem is our run blocking ranks 29th in the NFL. I don't think we have the type of blocking where we can line up and run the ball down a defenses throat when they expect us to. I think they've been forced to use the short passing game as a run equivalent.

That's the problem when you go up against good DL's like we face against Buf and NYJ. I think that's why we'll also continue to struggle against those teams until we can put together even an average OL.

 

Exactly. When Lazor was the OC at UV his offenses were pretty balanced. I don't think he's pass happy. I just don't think he trusts the run game. Hopefully, Ajayi can change that.

 

Not sure why that would be. Prior to the game against Philadelphia, the Dolphins were second in the league in yards per carry.

 

The running game is the strength of this offense. If they wish to win anymore games this year they better continue to commit to it.

 

How can the running game be the key to winning, when QBs are responsible for wins and losses?

 

Solid answer and wonderful defense of your main argument.

 

I don't need to defend anything. Your spouting your nonsense at me again in hopes of sparking yet another wasted internet spat.

Anyone with a brain would understand what I was getting at. If we want to win while Tannehill is back there, the only way to consistently increase the level of his play and keep defenses honest would be to run the ball more. It is what it is. He's not a guy with a back you can strap an offense to.

 

Of course that's the answer in the real world. You've essentially argued against it many times in the past, by asserting that W/L record is a QB stat. So why the change?

 

And they continue to argue themselves into a corner.

 

No.

What I argued was the impact of a QB upon his team is higher than that of any other, which is why you commonly see starting records when QB's are discussed. I'm starting to think I need to put it in my sig so that you don't forget and we can avoid this recycled conversation.

 

And you continue to mindlessly lump arguments together. It's like stereotyping ...... it's quicker and more convenient for you, but still dishonest nonetheless.

 

Oh wait, so you think Tannehill's record as a starter is not a reflection of his ability?

Geez my bad, I could have sworn you've repeatedly said that he's not very good and gave his record and lack of playoffs as reasons.

 

BOLFR
burst out laughing for real
still laughing...

 

When the argument is "Show me a franchise QB without a winning record," you are attributing the wins to the QB. You are not arguing impact of the QB. You ate saying that franchise QBs possess some magical ability to win, no matter what.

That's dishonest. Unless that magic sack I keep referring to actually exists.

 

The only magic "sack" going on here is for that sticky icky you're smoking while reading other peoples' opinions.

 

It's part of what reflects his ability, but does not comprise all of it.

 

WADR, you've never argued that. Not even once.

 

LOL. Well since you patrol this site 24/7 and it's probably not beyond reason to believe you save posts of the people you tail on here ..... then show me where I said the Win/Loss record defines the QB's entire abilities.

 

What is with you guys? To a man, the members of the Tannehill Hate Club, always deny positions they've taken.

Its bizzaro world.

 

No, it's called the real world where you have to show proof behind your never ending blasphemous claims.

 

The corner kicked them out, it couldn't pick a side.

 

Well, he could just check your post history and thus skip the whole stalker thing, which really has been played out to death.

 

You mean my balls? Yes they do exist.

They're not magic, it's the motion in the ocean.

 

Because Tannehill is in the tier of QBs that need a strong team around him, including a strong running game.

Not the answer you expected?

Alex Smith needs Jamaal Charles (Charcandrick West is doing well in his place). Tom Brady doesn't.

And nobody has argued QBs are responsible for wins and losses. Wins and Losses over time will be used to judge them. QBs CAN (not always do) but can have the greatest effect on wins and losses compared to any other single player.