Yeah, but that 23% greater effect assumes that you are improving the efficiency equally? I think the question that needs to be asked, is how much of an improvement getting enough speed on defense to even consider playing cover-2 or cover-3 (which I don't believe we've seen at all this season) would have in comparison to adding a WR. Because when it comes down to it, your passing game will be as good as your QB. Sure, WRs will help the QB, but if the QB isn't making good decisions it just wont work. And I also think this team may be one of the exceptions in terms of passing vs. running. When we had Ronnie we were able to get big plays out of the running game. Big plays are really whats important, whether running or passing.
There's actually a greater range for improvement at WR than there is on defense. We add one one #1 WR and our level of improvement will probably outpace any ILB we add. ILBs just come out a lot more in nickel and dime packages. You get more bang for your buck at the WR than at ILB.
Yeah, I'm not necessarily big on getting an ILB. But I think the safety position needs to be addressed, because you can't trust either of those two with any deep zone responsibility.
I agree with you in premise but not the timeframe. I don't think a rookie LB makes a big difference this year. However, long term the pick would shorten our needs list and increase our ability to become a good solid team quicker. Now we still have one more hole at a key position to fill in this years draft because we picked a project player at a position that wasn't a need high up in the draft last year. All your picks have future ripple effects on your timeline to become a legit contender. The Pat White pick put us back a step IMO. I like what I see out of Henne for the future. WR is a no brainer huge need as is LB, Safety, TE and IMO interior OL as well.
I would take Berry over anybody except maybe Suh in the draft, but I don't see much chance of him falling anywhere near our pick. Other than him I don't see anybody else I'd take in the first. (IMO Mays is over rated). I also don't know of any FAs that are worth pursuing. Finally, I see more potential in Clemons being our FS than I see in any of our WRs being a #1.
none of our current WRs are capable of being a dominant WR (aka #1) .... most agree that Clemons has great potential at S .... and his ability to take over as FS next year goes a long way to improve our S situation. while stats may show that ILB is not a significant improvement against TEs and the passing game -- ILB is essential to the mental toughness of your defense and the ability to stuff the run. it is rare to find a top defense without solid ILBs. i will stand firm on the need for LBs, LBs, LBs to improve this defense. Find our Merriman / Ware for OLB, and Pepper Johnson for ILB, plug in Clemons at S and this defense gets much, much better.
Why does everyone seem to insist we need a #1 receiver to be competitive? We didn't have one in the year we made it to the playoffs. If a #1 Receiver can prevent the opposing team from wracking up 7 pts per game, I'm on board that train. Or if we were at a low point per game total. But the majority of our games we're scoring 20+ points. That's a pretty good average. But with the way our D has performed, especially in the final stretch, we're not winning any playoff games/superbowls if we don't make some important fixes. We've player SB caliber teams this season, and they all had their way with us, and seemed to pull points at will. We haven't gotten points as willingly, but we've definitely been able to keep with most teams in an offensive shootout I personally just do not trust the talent we have on the defensive side of the ball. I guess it's just agree to disagree, but I really just don't think that potentially having a #1 offense would alleviate having a ranked #25 defense unfortunately.
Actually a #1 WR would help the defense too. Just look at a team like the Saints. They don't have great defensive talent. In fact, our team's defensive talent is arguably better. But the Saints won a ton of games b/c their offense made playing defense easier. Defenses thrive when they can just pin their ears back and pressure. That's when the TOs come easy. Our D is already a decent pressure team. I haven't checked the numbers recently, but a week or so ago we were top 5 in sacks and top 10 hurries. We also may already have the FS we need in Clemons. If it were a better year for FSs I would advocate doubling up there too, but it just isn't. And I don't think the Saints are all that great of a team either. I think their offensive balance is a mirage with running yards racked up in garbage time or on draws when the D is expecting pass. I don't think they can dominate on the ground if they need to. If our team could add a #1 WR (a receiving TE would be nice too), then we could do both. Then our opponents defense would be the ones having to think out there instead of just react. And if you look at our last four games we're not averaging 20+ points. We're at 20 exactly. That would be good for 20th in the league. On defense during that same span we're allowing 21.25. That would rank 18th. Obviously, both need to get better but the D is a little closer. A top 10 offense most years scores about 24 points per game. A top 10 defense most years allows about 20 points per game. That seems to be the tipping point for each side of the ball. And frankly due to the league rules you're not going to get much better than that on D. The best Ds usually allow about 16 points. On offense you have a higher ceiling as the best teams will score in the 30s. And if you look at where we're weakest on offense it's our inability to throw for TDs in the red zone. I checked the numbers a few weeks ago and at that point our WR TDs were tied for 28th in the league. And what's worse is that we don't have much on the roster that gives us any hope we'll improve there. At least on D we have a young secondary that gives us reason to hope. We have a couple of CBs who have top 5 potential, two guys who could be solid SSs and FS who should at least be serviceable (Culver) and a FS (Clemons) who flashed top 10 potential in preseason. On O we have a #3 WR in Bess who could be a top 5 player, two guys who could be lower end #2s in Hartline and Cam and that's it. Unless of course you have faith that either Ginn will become that #1. (I'm not even going to mention Turner until he can get on the field or at least flash some talent in a preseason game). The way I see it we're not going to be a credible SB threat until we can score at least 24 per game and hold our opponents to about 20 per game. Both of those need to happen. If we just upgrade the D then the best we can hope for is a return to the Wanny years when we were a top 5 D and a top 5 running offense and we couldn't make the playoffs. So we need upgrades on both sides of the ball to reach our goals. But at least on D we may have some of those upgrades in house. The key is the FS position. All the other spots can be filled in FA (whether there's a CBA or not) or with 2nd day draft picks. On O the cupboard is bare. The key is finding a #1 WR or a great receiving TE. If there's no CBA then both of those positions are dead in FA unless we trade for Boldin. In the draft there should be a few options for us in the first and maybe second rounds. So the only plan that gives us almost no shot is waiting on getting the WR.
Unfortunately if he does get it, it could mean it was because of the same fate we saw this past week.. I hope not though.. We really need to end the season with a win
I see where you're coming from a bit more I suppose. I agree that WR is a need, and I'm not blowing that off by any means, I just differ with you on the priority. If our D is one key position away from a paradigm shift (FS like you're suggesting), then yeah, that does make this a different equation. It's true that there's at least the prospect of Clemons picking up and playing FS for an upgrade, whereas there really is no hope of an upgrade to a #1 WR on the Offensive side. The other thing I was thinking while reading over your post too was the fact that some of our defensive play was limited by turnovers. There's not much you can do to prevent points when you have 3+ turnover games (of which I believe we had at least 3?). So that kind of pads the stats to make the defense look a bit worse. A #1 WR would hopefully open things up so that Henne isn't forcing bad throws. Wouldn't help with the fumbles though. I still think the defense, as a unit, needs a lot more improvement than the offense. But I think I can understand/can see the point behind going for a stud WR before a back. My only concern is the bust ratio on WRs versus other positions. We've got enough "serviceable" WRs that if our pickup comes from the draft, and flops, it'll be a big time waste.
The bust ratio for WRs is high. Here is a breakdown, I don't know what criteria they used to determine a bust, but the numbers seem similar to what I've seen before: First-Round Bust Percentages QB -- 53 percent RB -- 49 percent WR -- 45 percent DT -- 33 percent OL -- 31 percent DE -- 31 percent CB -- 29 percent LB -- 16 percent S -- 11 percent So yes, there is a risk with taking a WR early, but unless we get one in FA or in a trade, I don't think there's another option. I see it almost like the QB position where if you don't have one you have to keep trying to get one. It used to be that you could get by with any WRs, but that becomes less true every year. I saw a correlation study that looked at which positions the Super Bowl winners had pro bowlers at. As you would expect, the highest correlation was at QB with 95%. That means that 95% of the teams that won the SB had a pro bowl QB. It is clearly the most important position on the field. It's not impossible to win a SB without a pro bowl QB but you're clearly up against the odds if you don't have one. I don't think many would advocate a strategy that would pass on a QB b/c of the high bust rate. What was surprising was how highly correlated WR was. It was the second highest correlated position at 84%. That means that 84% of the SB winners had at least one pro bowl WR. Obviously it's possible to win a SB without a pro bowl WR but again you're up against the odds. It's probably no coincidence that the last 5 SB MVPs were either QBs (2) or WRs (3). BTW the third highest correlated position was S at 81%. And the last SB MVP who wasn't a QB or WR? Dexter Jackson S for TB. I never saw one for the LB position and I'm feeling too lazy to comb through SB and pro bowl rosters right now. But the main issue I have with going for the LB first is that it is very unlikely that we'll see much improvement in our record. Our team this year already was a top 5 sack team so it's not like we'll bring in an OLB and end up with a ton more sacks. And as I posted above the coverage can only improve so much as well. If we bring in a top 10 LB we'll defend a few more passes but probably no more than 6 or so over the course of the year. So while the improvement is needed and should be sought, the reality is that if we bring in a pro bowl LB we probably won't see much improvement in our won/loss record. It will be like the Wanny years where we kept drafting defense and our D improved, but we never got any closer to the SB. And one more thing about those bust percentages. One thing that is pretty consistent is that bad teams draft badly. This is hardly shocking news, but it does affect the percentages. If you believe in this FO then you have to think that the odds of drafting a bust in the first are slightly better for us.
Very well said. Simply put, a great offense can really help a defense. But a great defense can't do much to help a struggling offense. I really think gone are the days where a team can lean on a defense for wins. The NFL is a changing landscape where even the best defenses can't stop, but only contain the league's most potent offenses. The only way to consistently beat these teams is to outgun them. I think the teams that continue to rely on the old philosophies of pounding the ball and defense are going to get left in the dust and struggle in mediocrity.
I was thinking they could package him in a deal for a Mike or WR in a trade. Package him with what I'm not sure but he's either our #2 or we need to make a move.
young football team henning is old ricky still has it henne is a keeper activate turner sunday run hilliard outside linebackers are old wake cant pick up his hand merlings butt is huge cant run a screen davis will dominate ultimately starks ! polite ..... hartline steal need a true FS carey is still eating padre 31 is a homer sick is a funny man
The SD fumble was credited to Pennington because Ronnie never got the ball. But it Ronnie's own words he took blame, he said he clenched his arms too early. That's what I recall. http://www.nfl.com/videos/miami-dolphins/09000d5d812f466c/Brown-fumble Pennington doesn't look like he does anything wrong. holds the ball out, and the way Ronnie hits it hard enough to fly that far kinda places the blame on him yeah?
Hennes? I believe one of the sports casters said with RBs, you cannot/should not throw it that high. Sure some of the better ones wll catch it, but with RBs you need to put it in their breadbasket. They are RBs, not WRs. he should have caught it AND henne should have thrown it lower or a touch softer. Hmm, I'm showing 10 for Ronnie, 8 lost. And possibly the unattributed San Diego one. But Ronnie's fumbles are indeed much less. For fun, Ricky has about .4 fumbles per game, .245 lost per game. AP has .4444 per game, .2888 lost per game. Does he have smaller hands?
We Dolphins fans are experts on what the "bottom end" looks like, and no way Henne is there. I agree his rating isn't great, but its not like his receiving corps is chicken salad.
Playmaker/WR, Stud-ILB, another starting calebre NT & a Guard not so much... doable in the off-season
He's playing good yes....great is a little stretch...he will get there. He needs to learn the touch pass ASAP. That rocket arm of his is amazing. A little too amazing at times
Dude he is the bottom of the NFL with the games he's played. Here is the link. See for yourself. I'm not making it up. There are only 4 QBs in the league who have played equal to him that are below him. I'd have to say being 26th out of 32 counts as the bottom. Hard to believe......yes. Fact....yes http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...263-s=PASSING_YARDS&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-n=1 I like Henne. He is going to be a very good QB. He still has a lot to learn. Some receivers wouldn't hurt either Loosing the #3 running attack to injury didn't exactly help his numbers either!!
You can say that he ranks in the bottom half based on those statistics, and the way they are compiled, which I agree do tell quite a bit about how a player has performed, but it doesn't tell the whole story. I think when you factor in the rest of the story which includes his age (he's young), the playmakers surrounding him (not many), the fact that he's basically a rookie, some great plays he has made under pressure, 4th quarter comebacks, leading the team to a winning record after an 0-3 start, room for improvement, or potential, etc. you can get the idea that Henne, IMO, does not rank quite as low as that list would indicate. I think to really answer this question, you have to ask yourself, who on that list would you take over Henne at this point in time? My list - Definite: Peyton Manning Drew Brees Tom Brady Aaron Rodgers Philp Rivers Ben Roethlisberger (close) Tony Romo (close) Eli Manning (close) Too early to tell, or too close to call: Matt Ryan Carson Palmer Jay Cutler Better now, but too old: Donovan McNabb Brett Favre Kurt Warner Of course, this list isn't based on anything more than my humble opinion, but I tried to be as objective as possible. But I think even if you add a few more names to the list, you can see that Henne would rank in the top half of QBs in the NFL based on simply asking the question, "Who would you take on your roster right now?" and not just looking at numbers.
Are we going strictly by passing yards? I'm not sure that's indicitave of one's success. In this particular instance I think QBR rating is a pretty good mark as to how he has been performing in relation to the rest of the league's starters. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...d-447263-s=PASSING_PASSER_RATING&d-447263-n=1 He's 22nd. I think that is pretty accurate and fair (somewhere 20-24th). He's not in the bottom quarter, but he isn't in the top half either. I think being at 22nd with what he has to work with, and his experience, he's pretty good and not bottom end.
Actually, that's an inaccurate stat. Your link lists him at 20th not 26th. So no, I wouldn't say "bottom of the NFL". Not that I think yards is a meaningful measure. I agree with Stitches that the QBR ranking of 22 is appropriate. And factoring in age and that he's a first year starter, there aren't 10 QBs in the league I'd trade him for.
