1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

1st Post - Sharing some perspective...

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by DolphinGreg, Dec 7, 2014.

  1. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    this is good stuff, from fineas as well.
     
  2. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,521
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    It's funny that you say that because Bettis was a disaster in that game. He had 17 carries for 46 yards, an average of just 2.7 ypc. More notably, he fumbled at the Colts 2 yd line with about a minute left and the Steelers up by 3 and in position to ice the game. The Steeler defense had just sacked Manning on 4th down at the 2 to get the ball back to the offense with a lead and the clock ticking down. The only thing Bettis had to do was not fumble the ball. He did. It was one of the "smallest," least clutch plays I have ever seen and if Vanderjagt had made that 46 yd FG at the end and the Colts won in overtime, it would probably go down as one of the 2-3 most pathetic blunders in NFL history. So no, I don't think for a minute that Bettis' statement was backed by how he himself played. It was a "thank you" for bailing him out of being one of the biggest goats in NFL history. Not sure if he similarly thanked Vanderjagt, but he should have. In fact, he should probably still be sending Vanderjagt Christmas presents every year.

    Players can do their job and similarly realize the gravity of what they are doing. They aren't morons (at least most aren't). That doesn't mean they are "taking it upon themselves to win the game," it means they are great players who, as great players, make great plays. And they happened to do it in that situation. The prior week, or the following week, they might have fallen short. Studies have indicated that "clutch" likely doesn't really exist, as it has never been established in any scientifically significant way. What we call "clutch" is mostly just great players being great, but not really any greater than in non-clutch situations. There is also a small sample size issue, random chance and lot of selective memory involved (where we tend to forget a player's failings in "clutch" situations once they have entered our consciousness as "clutch" based on early career performances that are likely just the random distribution of good performances at a fortunate time).
     
  3. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,521
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    Not at all. I do believe in leadership and I see the benefits of it in my work. But it doesn't really come from rah-rah speeches and I don't think just being great at what you do makes one a great leader. There's a lot that goes into it and unless one is in the room, one can't really say who is, or isn't, a great leader. As mentioned before, there is a time/place/circumstance component to it too. Some people can be a great leader in a certain place at a certain time and with a certain group of people, but a disaster in another. There is a lot that goes into it. I do agree that one has to at least be good at what one does to be a leader among others doing the same basic things. But just being great isn't enough. Leadership is about human interaction and for it to be sustainable and meaningful it has to happen over a period of time and be based on respect, communication, trust, hard work, etc.

    I'm a lawyer. Assembling a trial team and preparing for trial is a lot like assembling a sports team and preparing for a big game. I've done it myself and been part of others' teams many times and there are definitely differences in how people do it and there are corresponding differences in how the team performs. One of the most important things is that the leader has to be himself and has to be true to himself. If what he's doing is perceived as phony, it won't work and there will be backlash. So what works for one person won't necessarily work for another. You also have to understand the psyches of the people you are working the psyche of a given group of lawyers and paralegals may be very different from that of a group of football players. You have to communicate and interact in a way that reaches the people you are working with. For me, that generally means the following: (1) create a sense of confidence, excitement and fun -- "we will win this if we work together and do it right"; (2) make all team members feel important and that their roles are important; (3) show trust and confidence in your team members; (4) create a sense of cameraderie both in and out of the workplace; (5) work hard and show the team that you are working hard; (6) make everyone on the team feel invested in the job/project/trial/game; (7) praise people for good, hard work and let them know it is appreciated; (8) if you see someone slacking don't let it go -- either get them off the team or communicate it to them in a constructive way; (9) do a good job and show the team that if they do a good job we will acheive the result we desire. Etc. At least that's what I believe works (for me) and that's how I try to do it. I've seen others do it differently (not necessarily on purpose) and have seen it fail miserably despite that "leader" being a good lawyer, working hard and personally performing well. But, at least with lawyers, yelling, publicly shaming, making them feel small or insignificant, withholding praise, etc. don't seem to work well. I've seen pre-trial "pep talks" and have even given some, but they are of very limited value. Much of the work that determines if we will win or lose is in the prep over weeks or months leading to the big trial/game. By the time we are there, the pep talk has very limited ability to change anything. And even if it does give a surge of adrenaline, that is long gone by the time the jury is empaneled, let alone the actual trial.

    There is no doubt that some players/coaches are better leaders than others and it can make a difference. But without being in the room or on the sideline, none of us really know who is who.
     
    djphinfan likes this.
  4. Fins Hipster

    Fins Hipster Banned

    272
    92
    0
    Nov 7, 2014
    Ah yes, "that" Jerome Bettis game. My memory failed me there. True, he had a poor game, though since we're talking about a Hall-of-Famer here, I think we can probably say with some certainty that his weight and credibility as a leader with his teammates withstood his performance in that game.

    It's certainly possible that what you're saying about "clutch" play is true, though I have to think that the "Michael Jordan" (and Dan Marino) trait of seemingly dialing up the effort and intensity when one's team needs it most is alive and well. And perhaps it exists much more for the players who have the most talent, and so perhaps there is a great deal of overlap in that regard. I have to think that dialing up effort and intensity in the clutch, such that there is a significant result over and above that for other players, would have to be strongly related to one's self-efficacy in having such an impact to begin with. Certainly Jason Trusnik might not take it upon himself to have as much of a playmaking impact in the clutch as would Cameron Wake, perhaps because Trusnik (rightfully) might not believe he could even have such an impact, no matter how hard he tried.

    I think what we're looking at here is a combination of talent, belief in oneself (self-efficacy), perhaps a heightened awareness of the team's need for an impact play, and a commitment to giving maximum effort at those times. I think of Dan Marino's long 4th and 1 TD pass to Irving Fryar in his first game back. He seemed to have that certain something about him that made him dial things up at those times and make a play.
     
  5. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013

    I don't know, I guess I have a different take on our QB situation.

    Year 1 - Every analyst out there said he was a project and not NFL ready. We started him knowing that the team around him was going to have to cover for a lot of growing pains.

    Year 2 - We stuck him behind a historically bad O-line. This usually destroys promising QBs not makes them better. Jeff Ireland came pretty close to ruining Tannehill by putting him behind that O-line and then giving him Mike Wallace as his fix for the Offensive problems. No young QB was going to take that team deep in the playoffs. Even if we had Andrew Luck on our team it wasn't going to happen.

    Year 3 - Lots of promise. (Kudos to our new GM by the way) talent selected to advance our offensive mindset. Tannehill gets a chance to grow like he should have gotten last year. His stats right now are as good or better then Matt Ryan's from the Falcons. I would argue that Falcons line is slightly better and their offensive weapons are a tick above ours. Most analysts say Matt Ryan is a Franchise QB just doesn't have enough pieces around him. t would trade our entire WR roster to get Julio on our team (except Landry I'm really liking this guy).

    So if you were to ask me, this year would be the 1st year that Tannehill has had any chance of going anywhere. Its fair to say he didn't get it done this year, but he also did things that most people didn't think he could do. Walk off the field with less then 2 minutes left in both the GB and Detroit game with a lead. Beating the Broncos in Denver going into the 4th quarter. Playing lights out against what most people thought was a very good SD team.


    Personally I think people need to remember how bad Ireland was, and anyone that thought we were going to put together a dominating team the year after he left were fooling themselves. Our new GM got a ton of pieces this last off season, and the truth is we are still razor thin at a lot of positions. If we had a good GM the last couple of years then we would see "next man up" mentality on this team. I'm willing to give the coaching staff another chance, getting rid of Ireland was the right move, and honestly we need time to get a good look and evaluate where we are now.

    Just my 2 cents
     
  6. CashInFist

    CashInFist Well-Known Member

    10,069
    2,624
    113
    Nov 30, 2007
    West Virginia
    Just like the past 15 years, all we've got is time, right?
     
  7. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    I don't think we drafted a QB in the first round in the last 15 years. I think that puts us in new territory. But even if it doesn't is there honestly nothing about this team that feels different to you this year? I'm not even saying better, just different.
     
  8. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    I will agree with you that the leaders of the team do not have to be the rah rah type, and that that stuff only goes so far, great leadership can transcend that stuff, it can come in a quiet assassin like package and accomplish the same result..

    what i will disagree with you on is that we have to be in the room to identify the intangible.. I believe there are some men when i study them, they way the talk, their presence, their ability to communicate, they way they teach, its obvious they have it.
     
  9. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    really good 2 cents..makes me think
     
  10. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,521
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    I think what you are seeing in them is charisma, not necessarily leadership. Someone can look the part and say the right things publicly, but not really be a good leader. Some can simply fake it, which may not be apparent to the casual observer or fan, but may be quite obvious to the guys in the locker room/foxhole, etc. And, as mentioned before, some may have "it" on one team and in one circumstance, but not in another.
     
  11. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,521
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    Guys like Marino and Jordan dialed things up at those times and other times. They were great players. But were they really any more great in the "clutch" situations? Not really. They had plenty of instances in which they failed to dial it up in those situations. For instance, Marino's career playoff numbers are worse than his career regular season numbers. That doesn't necessarily mean he was worse in the clutch, as there are other factors going on and a small sample size, but it doesn't support the notion that he really turned it on in the big moments. Same for guys like PManning, Brady, and Rodgers, all of whom have lower career playoff passer ratings than their regular season career passer rating. For most good QBs, you do see the appearance of "clutchness" in 4th quater and comeback play, but a lot of that is how defenses play in those situations (prevent, etc.) and how OCs call the games at those times. For all practical purposes, Michael Jordan's playoff performance level was the same as his regular season performance level. Sure, he had some memorable and great playoff moments, but he also had those (at about the same rate) in the regular season, but those aren't remembered as well. In basketball, over a meaningful period of time, there are no players that are actually better in "game winning shot" situations than they are in non-game winning shot situations. I haven't specifically seen those kinds of stats for football, but I'd be willing to bet they show the same thing.
     
  12. dolphin25

    dolphin25 Well-Known Member

    6,338
    2,400
    113
    Nov 22, 2014
    I could and would play for Philpin if I were a player. I dont think I would need a rah rah coach. If I respected him as a man and he showed appreciation of me I would be all in.

    Of course each player is different.

    I think we were headed in the right direction until all the injuries. I still find it interesting to see how the defenses play us the last 3 games without any concern or worry about going over the top.
     
  13. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    I think I'm pretty good at identifying the right qualities and spotting a poser.
     
  14. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,521
    113
    Jan 5, 2008

    You may be. But from I have seen about you, you have enough humility to know that you don't know everything. Assessing those kind of personality traits is not that easy, which is why there are a lot more bad/mediocre coaches hired than there are great ones. And the truth is that with any of these guys we see very little of them that is not fairly well scripted. The world is full of posers, charlatans, phonies, etc. and some of them are quite good at it.
     
  15. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    absolutely not, in football terms, its about being right more than the other guys cause were all gonna be wrong.

    take jameis winston, that is a complex case of what leadership is in a locker room.
     
  16. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,521
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    But none of us here have any personal downside to being wrong. That isn't true of NFL GMs. There might be someone out there who can make the right choice 70% of the time, which would be an outstanding record. But if his first two coach or QB moves are wrong ones, he may never have a chance to show that he's that good.

    Winston is an interesting case study on leadership. It will be interesting to see how that/he pans out. What is your best guess?
     
  17. Fins Hipster

    Fins Hipster Banned

    272
    92
    0
    Nov 7, 2014
    Fineas tell me what you think of this stat:
    http://www.advancedfootballanalytic...stats/stats-explained/win-probability-and-wpa
     
  18. Patssuck

    Patssuck Well-Known Member

    1,160
    432
    83
    Dec 2, 2012
    M.I.A
    so what is your plan?
     
  19. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,521
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    It's interesting. As they say, however, it is not predictive nor is it really an individual stat. I'm not sure what the threshold is for a player "taking part" in a given play. Does that just mean he was on the field, or does he have to have touched the ball, etc? I don't think it tells us who is, or appears to be clutch, because that assumes that "clutchness" is a characteristic or state of being. If WPA is not predictive and doesn't measure the true ability of the player or team, then it can't really view "clutchness" as an inherent characteristic or state of being. But it can be interesting in a retrospective way in terms of identifying who made key plays at key times in a particular game that already happened. What I think you'll see with that stat is that the players witht he highest WPA are the same as the players with the best stats overall. There will be some variation, but I don't think you'll see a lot of guys with high WPAs but otherwise mediocre numbers, which is what you would see if there were guys who weren't great players but were just "clutch." Generally speaking, great players make great plays more often than non-great players and that is usually reflected in production (although not necessarily all stats). The guys with the highest production overall will also tend to have the highest production at key times, which will tend to giev them the higher WPAs.
     
  20. Fins Hipster

    Fins Hipster Banned

    272
    92
    0
    Nov 7, 2014
    Thanks. I think you do see a lot of overlap between general quality of play and WPA. What's interesting to me is when there is a bit of a difference between them, however, like when Matthew Stafford for example is generally considered slightly lower than a top-tier QB based on overall production, but is 3rd in the league in WPA, right behind Rodgers and Manning. That suggests to me that we might say about him that although he might not be on their level overall, he plays about as well as them in the clutch, and more often than other QBs makes plays that increase his team's chances of winning. This is the sort of play that I found to be missing for the Dolphins against Baltimore, and in a rather stark way at that. And coming back to Stafford, we saw that earlier this year against us, when Miami was ahead in the 4th quarter, and Stafford led the game-winning drive. His WPA for that game was 0.76, meaning that, of his team's 1.00 probability of winning (since they actually won), he was involved in more than three-quarters of it. Much of that happened on that game-winning drive. Likewise, Aaron Rodgers's WPA against us this year was 0.93 (almost the entirety of the team's win probability), and much of that came on the game-winning drive he led.
     
  21. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,521
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    Of course, I think most NFL fans would characterize stafford as a guy who puts up big numbers but isn't clutch -- at least not on the level of the elite QBs. And in previous years he was reallyof-the-pack more middle-of-the-pack in terms of WPA. So did he suddenly become "clutch?" I think a lot of NFL fans would say Tony Romo is not clutch, but he's always had good WPA numbers (mainly because he's always had good numbers overall).
     
  22. Fins Hipster

    Fins Hipster Banned

    272
    92
    0
    Nov 7, 2014
    True. Stafford just vaulted up near the top this year. Romo has been near the top more often than not, and is 4th this year. It certainly isn't a predictive stat.
     

Share This Page