Dolphins Claim RB Steve Slaton off Waivers

That's asking quite a bit from Tony Sparano and Brian Daboll to recognize how best to use Reggie Bush. It also cuts into the reps of Davone Bess and Clyde Gates if you're going to play Bush in the slot. As for returning punts, I'm pretty sure that was talked about heavily when we first traded for him. His career #'s were no better than Davone Bess if I remember correctly...so what's Bush bringing to the table again?

 

They have to counter teams doubling Bess on 3rd down conversion attempts, the quickest way to do that is to move Bush into more of a slot role, which means you need another Rb.

BUT, Slaton will need some time to learn the offense, which means this weekend there will be a heavy dose of DTrain, after the bye Slaton will be up to speed.

There are reasons why this move makes sense.

 

As I said, it wouldn't surprise me if Steve Slaton outlasts Reggie Bush here in Miami. I think he's a better running back than Reggie Bush; can't do as many other things as well as Reggie Bush - not that we're best utilizing Reggie Bush anyways.

 

Where are we getting this $1.2M number from? I've seen different numbers.

 

I'm not knocking signing Steve Slaton. I was never a fan of the Bush trade in the first place, and I think you're asking a lot of Tony Sparano and Brian Daboll to best figure out how to use Reggie Bush. It's been nearly a quarter of the season and they haven't figure out you have to use him like Sean Payton did in New Orleans. Aren't Sparano and Peyton cronies from their days in Dallas under Parcells? They usage of Bush shouldn't have been an issue from day one, but clearly it is. But in the Reggie Bush move, it makes it more obvious there's a disconnect between what the front office and coaching staff are thinking (Darlington's article from yesterday - Bush immediately came to mind), and I think it shows negligence on the part of the front office and more incompetence on part of the coaching staff.

I do get Steve Slaton covers the bases - but this whole mess could've been avoided months ago by not trading for Reggie Bush. In the end, it's just going to come down to Tony Sparano finding new ways to divide up snap counts.

 

Andrew Brandt and Evan Silva.

 

FWIW:

http://boards.houstontexans.com/showthread.php?t=7421

I don't have a scout.com subscription, so I can't see the original Caplan article, but those numbers make a lot more sense.

 

I was a fan of acquiring him and remain one, the main reason for RB's lack of touches as a back is DTrain is going so well, the season kicked off and 3rd down conversions are a problem that they recognized and are adjusting to, hence Slaton freeing Bush.

To me, Bush should have 70 catches this yr.

Have to have some playmakers R4, Bush can make plays, and Sparano and Daboll will have to adjust the touches pie that is a part of making adjustments though.

 

http://twitter.com/#!/adbrandt/status/119145779242876928

http://twitter.com/#!/adbrandt/status/119147723273404416

Unless I read something wrong.

 

It's funny that when Irish makes a move, people *****
When Irish doesnt make a move, people *****

Translation, most fans enjoy *****ing.

 

There are other considerations at play, such as skillsets and snap obligations. Its quite possible that they correctly identifued Ahmad Bradshaw as a better back than Bush all along, but other factors pushed them towards Bush.

They said all along they wanted someone with a different skill set than their primary back when they picked someone up, and Sparano specifically cited Jahvid Best. Bradshaw is a fine contributor in the passing game, but he's one of the best in pass protection, and not really in Bush's league as a receiver. If they wanted a compliamentary back, and wanted to break out of the overkill pass protection calls of last year, Bush makes sense.

While Bradshaw has a bit different running style mechanically than Thomas, its not really all that different in terms of what they do well. Bradshaw isn't a scat back despite his size, and the plays Thomas would excel at, Bradshaw would likely do the same, and eat into his carries. And frankly right now, Daniel Thomas is outperforming Ahmad Bradshaw. Right now, given what both have done, Ahmad Bradshaw shouldn't be eating into Thomas' snaps.

They clearly liked Thomas. A lot of other people did not, but they appeared to have been correct in their assessment with him, and consequently they also could have felt like they were in a position to gamble on Bush.

 

I understand what Brandt said, just curious as to where he got the numbers from.

 

Well, thinking about this a bit, a #2 pick, in his 4th yr, is pulling down 1.2 million?

Hmm, when White was waived he had 2 million or so in guarantees, but he was in his second yr of a 4 yr deal.

 

Slaton was a 3rd I believe.

 

There more I look into it, the harder it is for me to believe he's making $1.2M this year. Third round picks should be pulling in somewhere between $600k-$800k in the final yr of their rookie contract. Although to be fair, I don't have his contract, so I can't see exactly how it was structured. But I just don't see how it could be that high.

 

Not so bro...

Educated fans want to see moves that make sense.
Claiming a RB off waivers in the middle of a season to cover up a hole in the RB stable created by ignoring the position when most Front offices make their moves... see offseason.... is not "making a move". It's at the least a legitimate debate to how well or poorly Ireland built the team for success by the moves made and not made.

You can't just dismiss legitimate issues worthy of discussion with "no ones ever happy" talk.

 

Once again. We did not ignore the position. We may have no added guys you liked, or signed the right compliment, but we far from ignored the position.

 

IMO it should not have been a decision between bringing in Bush and keeping one of our vet backs or bringing in another FA back.
We all know what Bush is.
He's an additional weapon that isn't meant to be used in the traditional RB role because he can't handle the traditional RB role.
To consider the choice comparable is what makes me question Irlelands mind set from the beginning.

Whether or not to acquire Bush and spend the additional dollars of cap space for a weapon like Bush should have been an independant decision from what they were going to do with the RB rotation.

Now you seem to forward a belief in the use of one single primary back rather than using a carry split when you mention "someone like Bradshaw shouldn't be eating into Thomas' snaps". It's fine if you prefer a single primary back. Although that strategy goes directly against what many NFL personnel dept.'s have been moving away from. Still if you favor the one primary back role don't you have to go into a season with a known commodity at that position? Going into a season with having one primary back in mind and setting the responsibility of that role on a rookie knowing the growth process and the very real issue of rook's hitting "the rookie wall" at some point in the season...... that's just neglect IMO.

Maybe it works out but the fact that we've bringing in every RB we can for tryouts and now have resorted to picking up a RB that basically fills the same role as Reggie Bush does makes me really wonder about Irelands effectiveness at building this team position by position.

 

Completely disagree.

There are two distinct categories of RB's in the NFL now.
You've got your meat and potatos backs that you use to establish a traditional running game. The ones that hit it between the tackles. You also have that specialized back that you want to get involved in the passing game and into space to utilize the threat of speed. You simply can't include the two together unless you have a very special RB.

We don't have a very special RB that fills both those roles.
Seeing that as true, we absolutely did ignore the RB position.

It's great we got drafted a rookie RB. To leave the entire success of our running game in his hands was neglect. To think Reggie Bush was going to sufficiently fill the role in a carry split with the rookie like Ireland apparently did is even worse. That's not neglect, it's hysterical.

 

Bush wasn't signed to carry the ball. He was signed to be the RB in a spread offense. Whatever runs he has fall under the constraint theory.

 

He wasn't signed to carry the ball? The RB in a spread offense still runs the ball. He sucks as a RB, that's it. That's all there is to it.

 

The Detroit Lions, whom many regard as one of the better teams in the league, have a starting RB (Best) that averages 2.9 YPC. As long as he's forcing defenses into certain coverages, and keeping passing lanes open, Best is doing his job.

 

Or maybe Best isn't doing his job and the rest of the team is still playing very well, especially their really good young quarterback.

How do you explain Miami's passing success then with Daniel Thomas on the field versus Bush, not to mention often times in the same formations.

 

That is an interesting question. Does Miami have the same passing success with Daniel Thomas as they do with Bush?

EDIT: I take it back, that is not a good question. Even if it was, both Thomas and Bush could be helping for different reason. Your question does not provide the answer you are looking for.

 

Last I heard he was smart enough to be employed by a NFL team, so tell me CK, what team (other than a fan forum), do you work for? I'm not going to bash you, that's not what this response is about. My response was that fans are never happy no matter what the team does.

 

I have no idea what you just said. Miami has had better passing success with Thomas than they have with Bush. They have run the ball better with Thomas than Bush and they've been doing it out of the same formations often times. They could be helping for different reasons? Whatever the reasons or what not they're doing, Miami has had great offensive success with Thomas. There isn't much else to it.

Steve a lot of stupid people, get some great jobs. In every industry especially in the who do you know NFL is that true.

 

Or maybe Detroit has no interest in averaging 4 YPC vs 3 YPC when they are able to pass the ball for 8 YPA? The point is that they are sacrificing running efficiency for passing efficiency.

Limited sample size?

Reggie Bush has had 29 rushes, 78 snaps as a receiver, and 24 as a pass blocker.

Daniel Thomas has had 41 rushes, 15 snaps as a receiver, and 16 snaps as a pass blocker.

Its pretty clear that they use Bush and Thomas in different ways. Thomas has been used much more as a blocker in the pass game. They don't use him to open the rest of the passing game. But then again, if they used our RB as pass blocker in ~50% of their pass plays, would people complain that we aren't giving the QB enough targets?

Probably would also be prudent consider that teams have likely been scheming for Bush, especially for passing downs. As Thomas gets more snaps (which he should), I'm sure you'll defenses make the appropriate adjustments.

 

If he's playing this many snaps the defense will have already made adjustments. Thomas is a balanced power runner, you account for that. Cleveland saw the Houston tape and yet Thomas was still effective. I could care less about Detroit and Jahvid Best. There's no proof whatsoever that their running Best is the reason they get success, nor is their proof otherwise. Maybe it works for Detroit? Maybe defenses actually scheme to stop Best more than they do Bush? Limited sample size? It doesn't matter whether Thomas is doing the hoola hoop in the backfield, point is that teams respect the run game with him in it and it's proved successful. They can scheme as much as they want for Thomas, you either respect the run or don't. If they scheme to stop the run, they lose something elsewhere.

Thus far Reggie Bush hasn't provided improved offensive production for Miami as compared to a traditional running back. Whether it's in spread formation, long, short whatever the case is. He hasn't been a plus. Can this change sure? Are there some themes that have been established? Yes, absolutely.

 

Please, reference these numbers on the RBs in certain formations, and every down and distance. Thanks in advance.

Also, would be nice to see our YPA when Bush vs. Thomas is in the game for the season so far.

 

Sparano pretty much said they will look at Slaton over the Bye Week but feels he is a good football player.

 

Where is the proof? Do you know the stats to back it up?

 

If I can find them for Cleveland, I'll give them to you. In the Houston game the difference was dramatic.

 

The most prudent numbers would be the ones from our best offensive performance, which was NE.

 

The most prudent? How are they the most prudent if Thomas wasn't even in the game. How are you to compare the use of a traditional RB to Bush if they didn't use a traditional RB in that game? How are they the most prudent when New England has been the worst defense in the NFL? Maybe Henne had a good game because New England's defense sucks balls.

 

Because it was Chad Henne's best performance. The point behind using Bush is to make things easier for the QB.

 

And to be clear, I think this team has no business running a spread offense. I would much prefer to see them focus on controlling the clock and controlling the ball.

 

What does formation have to do with how much I run or pass the ball? I can run the ball on every down out of spread if I wanted to.

If anything I'd argue that so called ball control offense can make bigger plays since the pass can come out in seven step drops and is often times a deep pass. Miami did some of that with Gates and Marshall and they immediately went deep over the top.