There are several factors that don't fit general statistics; for example, how we had one of the worst defenses in terms of yardage, points allowed yet we led the league in turnovers for the majority of the year. Those turnovers kept games close...but we had to be really freaking bad to still be one of the worst in yards given ON TOP OF steady turnovers. That's just one example- winning the turnover battle has a high correlation with winning, while high yards given have a high correlation with losing. The two don't go together on paper....yet it happened. The big question here is WHY it happened. For starters, our secondary is excellent. Did they make plays despite a bad scheme OR was it the scheme that let them capitalize on things? Several here quickly said "fire Burke" and it does appear that he's the main problem, but we also know that our front 7 played historically bad this year. Again, was it the scheme or the players that failed? I don't think it's as black and white as everyone makes it out to be. On offense, we led the league in long TD plays...that's the sign of an explosive offense. We also had the two top separation leaders which is absolutely insane. But once Grant and Wilson went down, there really wasn't too much more to talk about on offense....we were terrible. Do we blame the coach for not being able to replace them mid-season? Do we blame Stills, Amendola and the remaining receivers? Or do we just take the easy route and say it was all on the QB? Again, this isn't a black/white discussion....there are signs of greatness and complete failure in the same conversation. Personally, I see this as a math problem where we're trying to solve for x but there's too many other variables to actually get a conclusive answer. That's why I wanted to see Gase one more season with this exact same roster (hopefully with a rookie first round guard mixed in as well). That's really the only way we would have got a real answer- was it the coaching, the schemes or the players/injury?
3 and outs I don't know. You can get drive and 3rd down conversion here however (near the bottom) and can be downloaded in Excel: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2018/index.htm
For me, I don't really have an idea to what Miami's specific problems are, my line fo debate is more about the logic involved in all this and how people need to be clearer in their assessments and solutions, then just, "We're average, so fire everyone!!!!!" Having said that, TOs are traditionally a "luck" stat. They tend to be more based on randomness than a marker that shows how good a given unit is.
Well...I guess 3D% will give us a general idea. High: 48.6% Colts Median: 39.5% Chargers Low: 29.1% Cardinals Dolphins: 30.1% ranked 31 Number of plays: High: 1167 Ravens Median: 1044 Seahawks Low: 905 Dolphins Well...With number of plays and 3D% being so low, I would guess that our 3 and out % would be fairly high. This doesn't bode well for Gase and our offense (especially on 1st and 2nd down), and it also puts our defense in a bad way. Not that they were all that great on 3rd downs, either. Note: I know none of this really matters, I was just curious that's all.
I think even beyond the numbers, he had a laundry list of personality issues and certainly accountability issues. For whatever reason our locker room became toxic, and that’s bad even for good teams (see Pitt)
Rizzi could bring in Todd Bowles as DC and retain loggains or bring in another quality OC. He will noy command total control like gase did so I am sure he could find quality coordinators to work with.
I think Loggains goes, purely because he seemed to be brought in just to be with Gase. Of course, there are lots of scenarios where other things are now more important, and maybe he just doesn't have other offers, but I think Loggains is most likely gone. If Gase gets another HC job he might even invite Loggains over... PS - Every time I type Loggains I can't help but think of Loggins, i.e. Kenny. Adam 'Goose' Gase is gone, and Kenny 'Loggains' might follow - Miami's Top Gun era is over. If only it had been as cool as it sounds. Wish I'd thought of it earlier. Seems quite appropriate. Gase really did seem to feel the need, the need for speed with his superiors, and got into fights with his superior (I know, I'm mixing Goose with Maverick... just go with it). If Rizzi gets the job is he Iceman? Or Joker?
The biggest problem any team in the east has is Bill Bellicheck. He’s the nick saban of the NFL. Until he retires or he loses Brady, and Gronk any head coach here is going to be faced with an uphill battle. Until you can beat The Pats and win the division or be in the mix year in and out we’re going to be average. No rookie HC is going to be up to that task IMHO, so unless you bring in someone who’s already got the NFL down and is creative and a Master of coaching we’re going to be bottom feeders.
Defensively I think we saw just how damn dominant Howard and Fitz are. Ill honestly say, even though Fitz is a slot/safety and not a boundary, these two are our best combo since Madison and Surtain. I've never seen two guys just lock down like that with no pass rush. Burke was just awful. Granted players may be blowing assignments at times, but not covering a TE like Gronk at the marker repeatedly (not just him, but other players as well) and doing nothing to generate pressure showed me all I need to see from him.
Ugh talk about been there done that. Our defense hasn’t been good since we fired bates. I want fresh new ideas and not dolphin retreads
Am i the only one who thinks "Low gains" when i read Loggains? Any way that's just the feeling i get from the guy i wouldn't miss him one bit.
I simply stated my theory on your question regarding logic for his firing, not how you feel about it on a personal level.
Flores' only realistic qualifications for NFL head coach: 1. He will take the job. 2. Well, Sean McVay came out of nowhere, too.
Honestly it's not a huge deal IMO. If we are able to beat teams like the Jets and Bills, split with the Pats we are in good shape to compete with them. Brady will be leaving soon as you mentioned, he will probably end up playing one year too long or retiring on top if they win again in the future IMO so he's almost a non issue. Then we will see the genius of Bill without Tom and go from there.
I mean if you believe that about literally every first time coach, then sure. He's not what he was, but is still a massive and effective target, and still a great blocker. He's not going to be catching and running distance, but he can still be effective. The question soon will be effective compared to salary? BB doesn't tolerate players who aren't in line with salary. Can see Gronk retiring soon. Still, the Pats have shown a strong ability to rework their strategy quickly to incorporate new or different elements. Brady and BB are the two pieces that really make the machine run. Brady playing for significantly less than he needed to the past few years has been invaluable to that team.
To think Belichick wanted to trade Gronk and was asked not to do so by Kraft... now hes a shellof himself. Belichick knew it was time, and they didnt want to listen
Same with Brady. Jimmy G. would have played just as well, if not better, than Brady this season. Not because I think Jimmy G. will be some great QB in San Fran, but because he's the type of QB that can thrive in that system. I think BB will not take no for an answer on trading Gronk this year and Gronk will retire. I also think Brady will retire after this season. However, and until BB retires, the Pats will be the Pats no matter what happens to Gronk or Brady.
Well considering he wasn't a very good coach before Brady, not unbeatable at the VERY least, there is nothing to do but wait and see on that one.
I wouldn't be so certain of a Patriots decline even with Brady and Belichick gone. As long as Ernie Adams is there with his patented signal stealing operation, Josh Daniels will take over and the cheat will chug on.
I mean, the one year Brady missing significant time is the one year they missed the playoffs. That's not a coincidence. They still have the potential to be good, but you dont lose all time greats at your two most important spots and not see a dropoff. As for Adams, you'd think he might retire at the same time as BB.
OK I think I see where our philosophies diverge. In my world view: coaching > talent. As I understand your world view: talent > coaching In my experience of watching a variety of sports from all over the world the single most important predictor of long term success is coaching. Here are a variety of tools that different coaches use to attain continued success including, but not limited to: discipline, tactical innovation, adapting to their players strengths, game planning for opponents, motivation, developing young talent. Successful coaches bounce back from poor years quickly. So for me Gase’s ability to win more games than statistics project consistently by having a verygood record in ine score games for 3 years is a strong indicator that he is good at close game management. The fact that the offense regressed in 2017 with Cutler is kind of plausible, but does speak to a lack of prepardness for what would happen if Tannehill was injured. The fact that the 2018 team was just as bad on offense as 2017 is a bad indicator. The fact that the D regressed in 2017 and 2018 is not consistent with a good HC. In my view the fact that the Dolphins had the statistical production of 4-11-1 (by point differential) in 2017 and 2018 points not to a lack of talent, but a lack of coaching ability in the basics.
That's not my world view. I think coaching and talent are pretty equally yoked and I'm actually not sure how i lead you to that conclusion about what I said.
They won 11 games that season and Cassell, up to that point in Brady's career, put up nearly identical numbers as Brady. They also missed the playoffs when Brady played a full year. 2002
The bigger stat is 2000. The Patriots finished last in the AFC East (among 5 teams) in 2000 with a 5-11 record. That was with Belichick as coach and Bledsoe at QB. They start 2001 with Bledsoe at QB, a guy they had just given a 10-year contract extension to earlier that year, and go 0-2 with him before an injury forces Belichick to put Brady in at QB. And the rest is history. The story in 2008 as well as the few other times since then where NE has done really well without Brady is powerful evidence Belichick is a key factor in NE's success (and obviously that's true for their defense). But you can't ignore how all this started with Belichick + Bledsoe having a 5-11 record while Brady + Belichick the very next year had a 11-3 record (0-2 with Bledsoe) and won the SB. Anyway, the sample sizes for both 2000 and 2008 are too small to make too much out of either because you can definitely get lucky (good or bad). What we really need is a few years of Belichick without Brady because it would help settle this question of how important Brady really is. That's speaking from a statistician's point of view though. As a Dolphins fan I hope they both retire really really soon.
With regards to turnovers. There is a long established belief that turnovers cause winning. However if you go to “splits by win probability” on this page: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2017/splits.htm#all_tm_wp_splits At 0-19% win probability teams passed for 126 TDs and threw for 215 INTs. (1.7 INTs per TD) At 80-99% win probability teams passed for 295 TDs and threw 44 INTs (0.15 INTs per TD) Something similar happens with fumbles, with teams in winning positions fumbling less than teams that are losing. Yes turnovers are very important. It’s just that at least in some circumstances losing causes turnovers and winning causes you to avoid turnovers. The next tables I’d like to look at are “splits by down & yards to go”. The only downs where the INTs exceed TD are 1st and more than 10, second and and 10+, third and 10+, fourth and 7+ and fourth and 10+. What really causes interceptions therefore seems to be long passing situations.
For me coaching is much more important than talent, except talent available at the start. Good coaches make theit available talent better.
Because after being fired from Texas Tech, he applied for the offensive coordinator job for the Rams, but Mcvay didn't need him. That's when Kliff signed on to be the USC offensive coordinator. I am shocked he got a NFL head coaching job after just being fired in college.
I think coaching can get you to the playoffs most years but if you want to be SB caliber you need elite talent or at least for your players to play at an elite level during the playoffs which means they have to get hot ala Joe Flacco/Eli Manning. You'd be hard pressed to find a SB winning roster without elite talent somewhere.