Left Tackles don't win games. QB's do. QB over a LT when you don't even have a QB worth blocking for in the first place is perhaps the easiest decision one could possibly make in football.
If we had a QB like Matt Ryan, we would of never had to use the Wildcat in the first place since the Wildcat was only used as a gimmick to help out our bad offense.
This is true. Chad Henne sucked, because he sucks. Chad Henne was always destined to be at best, a good backup/average starter in the NFL. He had a low ceiling from the start. he started 4 years in college and was the same exact player as senior that he was as a true freshman. He made the same mistakes as a senior that he made as a true freshman. There isn't much hope for guys who do that.
If Tannehill shows franchise QB material, that's a different story. But with the garbage he has around him, the chances of that happening as a rookie are slim and none, and slim just left the building. QB is too important of a position in today's NFL. You keep drafting them until you're sure you've found one.
See the aforementioned John Beck. Incidentally, Vernon Gholston was not that popular around here. I remember some people liking him, but not many. Personally, I hated him. I couldn't stand the thought of him being the #1 overall pick. I liked Chris Long, Jake Long, Glenn Dorsey and Matt Ryan. And yes, I tossed Matt Ryan out of that group based on not needing a quarterback, even though I had him rated far ahead of John Beck.
Right, but to look back and find a mistake they made doesn't necessarily mean we have to be experts who didn't make the same mistake ourselves. These guys are the ones getting paid to do this job, not us.
But obviously Parcells and Ireland weren't as sold on Beck, since they drafted Chad Henne in the 2nd round. If your stance on John Beck is that shaky, you probably ought to be drafting a quarterback in the first round.
I agree, but I will admit that my urgency about the quarterback position sharpened considerably (and understandably) post-2008. That period is when it started to become more apparent that the NFL Championship is one high stakes poker table with only a select few invited, plus one free roll picked randomly from amongst the main tables, who might make a little noise but never wins. And even the main tables feature guys that lean mercilessly on those with smaller bank rolls.
Pennington was still statistically better than Ryan. He gained over a full yard more per attempt than Ryan. TDs aren't a measure of efficiency, because they depend on a lot of other things, namely playcalling. The measures of efficiency have Pennington as statistically better. Matt Moore had a QBR last season of 87 vs. Ryan's 91. This was with Matt Moore having 5-weeks to get acclimated to the system. I don't think its unreasonable to believe that had Moore been the starter since the 2011 offseason started, his numbers would have been even better. Either way, my intent wasn't to start a debate of Ryan vs. Pennington/Moore. Matt Ryan is a very good QB. But Miami has shown that it can get QBs that are near that level or even slightly better. Unfortunately that ability has been overshadowed by their continued support and failure to cut-bait on Chad Henne.
That's fine. I'm sure there were a few others. But certainly you'd agree that the vast majority of FH posters at the time wanted someone other than Ryan, right? In fact, I'd say he was a distant fourth among FH posters behind the two Longs and Dorsey. Even Gholston may have been more popular than Ryan.
Not only did the majority want JLong they expected it and the vast majority considered it a Parcells pick.
That's true, but it was the lower ceiling part that made most people unwilling to use the No. 1 overall pick on him. Not just here or at FH, but I think also among the Rams (who also passed on Ryan) and the numerous QB-needy teams behind the Falcons who seemed wholly uninterested in trading up for Ryan even though the dolphins made it very clear they would have liked to have moved back to get some extra picks.
My recollection is that Chris Long was the popular choice among Dolphin fans. A lot of people believed Parcells had a huge fetish for ends and backers (LOL) and did not believe in OLs high in the first round. Regardless of what was in Ireland's contract about final say, nobody believed that Parcells would truly cede control to Ireland on his first major act as czar.
So Ireland needs to go b/c Parcells, Henning, Sparano, and Ireland all believed together the difference between Ryan & Henne was too slight at the time to take Ryan #1? Have you watched every Falcon game Ryan played in or are you just quoting stats, b/c you're talking him up like he's a HOF QB rather than a guy who's lucky to crack the top 10 despite having a HOF TE, an All Pro WR, and an All Pro RB to lean on since his rookie year. Your judgement is clouded to believe Sparano, Henning, no ground game at times, and a poor supporting cast wouldn't have done a number on Ryan. Heck, just having Ryan's ground support drop from #2 in the NFL in '08 to #15 in '09 caused his QB rating to drop to 80.9 his 2nd year. What do you think would've happened on a team that had trouble running out of its base offense and needed the Wildcat?..... how about with the worst rushing team in the NFL in 2010?....... how about an offensive line that allowed 66 more sacks, 45 more pressures, and 42 more tackles for a loss?
I don't think it was Henne vs Ryan in their minds. I think it was Long/Henne vs. Ryan/whoever else. They probably had Ryan rated higher than Henne. Its just if Long = 100 & Henne = 79 while Ryan = 85 and then they'd have to find a 94 or better at Henne's draft spot in the second to make it equal, for example.
I have to agree with those talking about foresight. What is this team built upon? Where is the roster foundation? What do they hang their hat on? Is it depth in the trenches? Is it good skill players? I can't find one thing to point towards a positive in any aspect. It looks like throwing crap at a wall and seeing what sticks. There has been entirely too much turnover in all areas for there to be a semblance of consistency. The blueprint of the newest, greatest thing is a recipe for disaster in many walks of life, and football is no exception to that. If we are going to build, then damnit built already. Get a stud at every level, hang your hat on something and do some damn work.
I think its bizarre to be talking about foresight with the benefit of hindsight. This hasn't been a long process. You build with a QB. Last year was Henne's 3rd year as the season starter. He wasn't Beck bad his first year or two. He was good enough to get a bit more time. It didn't pan out, they wasted no time moving forward from there.
It's commonly referred to as 'evaluation'. Happens all the time. At least, in my business it does. In my business how your portfolios performed over time is constantly evaluated. What do you think that is? It's using hindsight to judge how consistently you demonstrate foresight.
I think it is equally weird that you didn't answer the question posed in the post. What do the Doplhins hang their hat on? What consistency has there been? Look at the '08 roster and look at today's. Who is still here? I agree with your hindsight point, however, what else do we have to go on? We are basing arguments for and against Ireland based off of track record, and it really doesn't look good.
But its not being executed properly. You can't say a team didn't plan ahead when they drafted a LT & QB, 1 & 2. It was widely considered a stellar draft that was going ot set us up for the future....the epitome of planning ahead.
Not a lot, but that was a roster that no one thought would go 11-5 and had just went 1-15. Why would there be a lot of people left over? That's the thing I don't understand, people are saying we've done nothing to improve but at the same time we should have less turnover.
You're not getting the whole grading thing. If you're in that position, you're paid to be right, not paid to do what everyone hails as awesome at the time.
You're not getting what I'm saying. I didn't say they didn't make a mistake. I'm saying right or wrong they were in fact planning for the future.
Yes you are correct. I'm not sure who would put forward the theory that they did not even view themselves to be planning for the future when they did what they did in 2008 but if someone posed that hypothesis and I didn't see it or misunderstood it, I'm right there with you, it's wrong. They absolutely viewed themselves to be planning for the future. However, the case can easily be made that they did it poorly and that their priorities were not in order. Those of us who did not necessarily want Matt Ryan, at least most of us can say it's because we still had (misguided) hope in John Beck. They on the other hand, did not. They just thought they could outsmart the market with a 2nd round quarterback that turns out to be better than everyone thinks. Kudos if you try that and it actually works. But it's make or miss and if you miss, you're questioned, and rightfully so.
That's what I gathered was being discussed with all the talk about foresight. I may have misread/misunderstood it. Drafting a QB high doesn't bother me even if you have a QB on the roster you think has a chance. They are too important. But you're right I doubt they were thinking like me at the time and weren't really into Beck. I don't honestly know if Henne went Atlanta and Matt Ryan went here (as others have suggested) if the results would be different. I do think Henning was determent to Henne's development. Not saying Henne would have succeeded without him, but I don't see how he helped.
I was about to post something along the lines of........... " theres no getting through to haters, they require a scapegoat at all times " but this post pretty much sums it up........... (A.K.A..... your absolutley right....... but that just doesnt work for me.) If you follow the team you may have noticed the entire coaching staff was replaced..... QB too. Problem for haters is they're not around to complain about anymore....... Some people ( all women ) just need (or look for) things to complain about, and someone to complain to. That's my assessment of the situation, because I agree with the people in charge that kept Ireland around. I don't see the reason behind *****ing about the guy who's done quite well. Some dont agree, but they're not really thinking rationally. I've seen alot of good arguments for the GM..... while every single thread calling him out has been pretty moronic, to say the least.
It's not just development, it's system fit. The range is huge. I don't think we ever hear of Montana if he ends up in the wrong system, but he ends up in the perfect system and he's in the argument for best ever. Rich Gannon was an afterthought that nobody wanted but gets in the right system and makes four consecutive SBs. Reality is that there are tons of QBs with enough talent to be distributors in the right system, but just never land in the right spot at the right time.
I would say the threads that defend a guy who has been in charge of a team that may be the least talented in the league are pretty "moronic" poor attempts of sugar coating reality.
Well certainly the crux of the argument here is that we aren't the "least talented" in the league. There is no sugar coating.
You're clearly not qualified to declare any team most or least talented nor are you qualified to call anything moronic, after you basically admitted you don't care what the truth is you just wanna blame someone and have an internet fit.
I'm as qualified as you to say Ireland is bad as you are to say he is good. And the Internet fit is in the laps of you and a few others who dedicate your time and energy to convince people who watch as much football if not more that in essence water isn't wet. These attempts to convert people is a liken too johovas witnesses on their ten speeds going door to door trying to get people to follow you and your beliefs by SUGARcoating the obvious "bar" that is Ws and Ls. I'm just the bored guy at home who isn't afraid to answer the door and listen to your guys laughable attempts at making Jeff Ireland sound like a folk hero.
For the 1000th time to the 1000th hater, I didn't say Ireland was good. I've only said we should judge Ireland by last year and this year, and last year isn't looking good. Try again. Rational people take the time to understand the opposition. You clearly haven't done that. The only conclusion I can make is that your stance isn't rational.
Either way, it's hard to justify Matt Ryan as a #1 pick. It's taken him 4 years to emerge to where he might be a top 10 QB (but it's hard to accurately tell considering he has Julio Jones & Roddy White to help make him look good. IMO that's not what a #1 pick is about. If he were a Matt Stafford or Andrew Luck type and we passed on him, then I'd understand, but when it's about a QB who still can not consistently win games when his running backs don't go over a hundred yards, I simply can't get on board with those posters calling him a QB who would've miraculously made us a playoff team. That's ridiculous. Even in Matt Ryan's 4th season, he was 2-6 last year when Atlanta didn't have a successful ground game for him to lean on (I'm not counting Atlanta's win vs Carolina's 98.3 QBR pass defense b/c a team with Julio, Roddy, and Gonzalez shouldn't have to lean on the run vs a defense that terrible in coverage). Ryan's 2011 stats in 8 total games where Atlanta's rushing offense was unsupportive 76.2 QBR, 59% completion, 8 TD, 8 INT, 6.4 avg. 2-6 record. Now, compare that to what great QBs can do without a supportive ground game Eli Manning (32nd ranked YPG & YPC rush offense)...... 92.9 QBR, 61.0%, 29 TD, 16 INT, 8.4 avg. SB victory! Matt Stafford (29th ranked YPG rushing)........................ 97.2 QBR, 63.5%, 41 TD, 16 INT, 7.6 avg. 10-6 record. Aaron Rodgers (27th YPG, 26th YPC)..............................122.5 QBR, 68.3%, 45 TD, 6 INT, 9.2 avg. 15-1 Peyton Manning 2009 (32nd YPG [80.1], 31st YPC)..... 99.9 QBR, 68.8%, 33 TD, 16 INT, 7.8 avg. 14-2 Kurt Warner 2008 (32nd in YPG [73.6], 31st YPC)....... 96.9 QBR, 67.1%, 30 TD, 14 INT, 7.7 avg. Near SB victory! **Schmooliot, do yourself a favor and please don't compare Matt Ryan to Peyton Manning again** You can take this dichotomy one step further by looking at it through the course of one game vs GB where Atlanta jumped out to a quick 14-0 lead thanks to 64 yards rushing (5.3 avg) & 1 rushing TD during Atlanta's first 2 drives. The run opened up the pass, and Ryan's stats were 8/10, 80 yards, 1 TD, 133 QBR. HOWEVER, the remaining 43 minutes saw only 31 rushing yards (3.1 avg), and with no run support to lean on, Ryan stunk up the field going 10/22, 87 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT, 18.6 QBR, and Atlanta of course lost the game. Sure, he's the one who has carried the Falcons team since '08.
Sorry, I thought you were on the Ireland is good team. And IF you want to judge him by the last two years then good. Unfortunatly for us, the results will likely be the same as they have been. And in 5 months it will be interesting to see who retracts their statements and who doesn't.
I won't have to retract any of my statements. Seeing as how I've only said Ireland deserves this year (and Ive even said and stick by him deserving next year) because of the acquisitions I know are his, I like them. I can't credit or discredit anything he did with Tuna in town because who truly believes BP didn't impact decision making?
That's logical. In a way I'm in the same boat, difference is I'm not afraid to say he hasn't shown Dolphins fans much at all in his tenure. That seems to feel like a knife in the chest to some of Jeff's relatives around here and their Gdamn 10 speeds.
I posted this in a cowboys forum I belong to and this was the response from a member called jester who spent an hour on this and totally annihilated the validity...read: Okay, now after delving a little bit into this stat, looking at specific examples of players, etcetera, I can without a shadow of a doubt in my mind state that this "metric" means absolutely nothing at all. Let me kinda explain how it works. It takes games started, games played, points scored (for offense), points allowed (for defense), puts it all into an algorithm and spits out a number that is supposed to compare all players at all positions to one another. Alright, with me so far? Seems fairly straight-forward, if complicated. Now let's look at some results, keep in mind the higher the # the better: First, I'll compare QB's on the list 1 - Dan Morino - 152 2 - Brett favre - 149 3 - John Elway - 141 4 - Peyton Manning - 138 5 - Steve Young - 133 6 - Joe Montana - 124 7 - Boomer Esiason - 111 8 - Terry Bradshaw - 109 9 - Drew Bledsoe - 108 A ways down the list, # unknown... Troy Aikman - 102 Vinny Testaverde - 102 ... ... yes, same as Aikman. Oooookay. Let's examine this for a moment, shall we? So let's rank Steve young 9 points higher than Montana? Really? Montana in his prime or Young in his prime... no one takes Young. Also, Aikman and Testaverde have the same value? The same value? Really? See how out of whack this grading system is? If you are an average player that is average for a very long time, you will get a much higher grade than if you were the best at your position for half as long. There are other travesties on here, also. Junior Seau is ranked higher than Tom Brady (135 vs 95, respectively). Is there anyone on the planet that knows what a Quarterback is and what a Linebacker is that would ever, ever, say that Seau was more important on the Patriots epic 16-0 season? No. No one. Ever. Or anyone who knows anything about football who wouldn't trade their Junior Seau to acquire Tom Brady? Seau is ranked #12 on this list and Brady is ranked #95, and I would trade Seau for Brady in a heartbeat. This is a completely worthless ranking that means less than nothing when you look at it for longer than 10 minutes and use some common sense. The approximately 10 minutes I spent looking at it, then 20 minutes analyzing it, and another 20 minutes writing this has been a waste of my time when I could be killing stuff in Skyrim. I seriously hope the guy who came up with all this gibberish didn't spend a lot of time on it... actually, on second thought, I hope he spent MOOOONNNNNTTTHHHHSSSS on it. It would only serve him right for wasting nearly an hour of my time. 1. Falcons -- 243 2. Eagles -- 227 3. Packers – 226 4. KC – 224 5. Denver – 222 Okay, I cut it off at five. Now, what really got me looking into this ranking is how KC, who is one of the absolute worst teams in the league, is above say, THE REIGNING SUPERBOWL CHAMPS. Not only above them, but at #4, while the Giants are at #26. Seemed hard to believe. I found out why. See, what the Chiefs do is acquire talent at the end of its career (Joe Montana anyone?) and try and squeeze just a little bit more juice out of them, whereas the Giants are young, and very good, literally in their golden years, while KC is old, and looking back on their glory hole days. (lol I amuse myself) I really hope that my last two posts (although I do actually compliment the Giants, which I hate doing) put some people at ease about this stupid ranking system.
Rational people don't throw out the results of his first 3 years as a GM. That's one of the dumbest things I continue to read from Ireland's apologists.
