BTW, I'm sorry that I'm not looking for a ledge and offering a final judging on our young team that consists of a rookie QB, new HC, and 2 new schemes based off 1 game that saw 2 minutes of freak play.
That was Henning Ball, Philbin/Sherman want to push the ball down the field and score Td's. Don't expect to see much of the "3 carries and out" stuff now, we will be slinging the ball around the field.
It's statements like this that makes me wonder if you're even interested in any kind of discussion. Because if they're not aimed at people in this thread, why bring them up to begin with? And if they are - why would people genuinely want to debate with you when you have obviously made up your mind to the point of essentially calling them morons?
I think they're pretty accurately aimed at people in this thread. What schmolioot is complaining about has very little to functionally do with the outcome of the game, and a lot of it was flat wrong(Owen Daniels).
A healthy debate occurs when both sides offer new and objective information in support of their points, not when they just sling opinions around. Go read through my last several posts in this thread and you'll see that I've done that, while asking the other side to do the same. We have this point being made that the roster is devoid of talent, yet there is no objective information offered as to how the team's performance isn't better explained by only the deficiency at QB, nor as to how the talent on this roster overall differs significantly from the talent on any other. This is why the explanation of "the roster lacks talent" appears so misguidedly simple -- lots of people believe it, but nobody offers any objective support of it.
You're being too broad with your examination of the situation. Sure that is what the systems dictates as a whole. Three and out running the ball today wasn't going to be the outcome. We were having success. Sometimes you adapt to what the D is giving you. Sherman didn't do that today and that is where the blame falls. He failed to acknowledge it and put his QB in a bad place to succeed. That is so much like Dan Henning it scares the hell out of me.
So, by all means, tell schmolioot why he's wrong, in your opinion. Fair game. But chuckling about the ostensible idiots on the other side of the fence only makes you look like school boys who whisper to each other that Sue is really fat
Offbase, don't excuse the guy throwing the ball to low, he has to do better. Henning would have been 3 carries on out, Daboll would have went deep down the field. Cannot overcome that many turnovers in such a short period of the game, THill has to do better.
I find it ironic that most of the posters here thought we were going to get legitimately blown out for 60 minutes of the game, but they now seem even more upset than before despite the blowout stemming from 2 crazy minutes of play. So basically we exceeded expectations for 45+ minutes of play but for some reason the team looks even more doom and gloom than it did before the game. I really don't understand that.
Which, incidentally, is only true if you don't accept the rather objective argument of losing records. I'm in devil's advocate territory here, but when your team isn't winning under two different coaches (and yes, it's only one game, but if we ignore that one game, we might as well all go home and forget about this board until December) and in three years, then saying "it's not the talent!" begs a lot more proof than the opposite.
Thanks. Just trying to be realistic. Actually you can do 2. You can rep it first with the *, and then fist bump it.
That's a good point. This isn't the first time we've played generally well vs. a top team and blown a game they should of or were competitive in, and your excuses for those are limited. It's a little bit different when you can pin-point your mistakes down to literally 4 like plays, however. I don't think there's a good argument that talent lost the Dolphins this game without arguing that Ryan Tannehill isn't talented enough.
I would expect a veteran coach to adjust and put his young guy in a better situation. You tend to put all the blame on the rookie QB. It is a team game and the coaching responsibility to take care of him. Bush spoke of it during the week. Let your vets pick up the support and not throw the weight on Tannehill. It was working early on. Sherman apparently missed out on that logic.
Depends. If you just want to gang up on her (no, not that way), then I suppose you're dandy. If you actually want a "healthy debate" (copyright by Shous) then laughing at her might not be the best course of action.
That would be a pretty one-sided perspective, though. Houston played exceptionally sloppy at the beginning (I seem to recall three dropped passes) and we got lucky with two fumbles that bounced our way. The point being that we really didn't light up the christmas tree before we got to the meltdown point. We were somewhat lucky and, while arguably playing good defense, showcased some real weaknesses that Houston didn't take advantage of. My feeling, and I need to rewatch the game to call it anything more than that, was that we were playing pretty much up to what we're currently able, while Houston significantly underperfomed.
I could care less that we lost the game b/c, TBH, I'm excited to see the potential this offense is capable of with a few additions added, combined with Tanny, Martin, and the other young offensive guys developing. IMO the offense's potential looks night and day different than it has for a while. Aaron Rodgers has already lamented to the fact Greg Jennings might not be re-signed. What better place than a similar offense with his previous OC. Add in a bunch of high picks and it seems like the pieces could easily be in place to develop a high powered offense provided Tanny develops.
That's a little silly and I'm really alarmed we(you) are doing this already. The run-heavy play earlier in the game wasn't any more effective than throwing the ball heavily, and at the point the game is not winnable you might as well put it on the rookie's back. They don't realistically have to worry about ruining him at this point, I don't believe.
You can't really use the past as a baseline in the context of this year. The Texans dropping passes when throwing to non-Andre Johnson/Owen Daniels players I don't think is all that wacky or lucky. I certainly don't think you can characterize the Dolphins overall as lucky that game, either.
I totally understand "trial by fire" and its necessity. No way did I ever entertain the idea of ruining him. That's not the case. I would just like to see a coach identify what is working. We all will be looking for improvement against Oakland. Get better each week. Work in progress is a better gauge than a small sample size. I'll leave my opinions of Sherman in my previous comments but will have my eye on it. Everyone should.
Some posters have based their opinion on previous games and seasons , and as for a ledge I for one am not looking for that , however I am still looking to see the difference the acquired players from our GM are making. By the way serious question , do you work in any form for the Dolphins?
Again, my explanation for this is the lack of talent at QB, and again, the team had a 6-3 record last year when it had a QB performing at a high level and nothing to play for. How is that indicative of a roster devoid of talent? So I accept the objective argument of the team's record, but how do you account for those nine games, using the same objective standard?
The Dolphins were expected to lose today by a significant margin as part of a rebuilding process. That's exactly what happened and it took a very odd amount of bad luck with tipped passes to get to that point (Score would likely have been 23/26 to 16 or so otherwise). I'm not sure what people were expecting against Houston...
I didn't characterize Miami as lucky, I argued that, until the meltdown, we got some breaks while they didn't (or wouldn't). I completely get the point of saying, hey, let's not overrate the post-meltdown part; but let's not overrate the pre-meltdown part, either. We did good on some aspects; I liked the run blocking, I liked Bush, I generally thought the pass blocking was a-okay in the first half (with some exceptions), I love the run stuffing DL. But yet, I still think safety is a talent issue as is LB in so much as the current group being too slow (the safeties don't help, though). I also think that outside WR is a grave talent issue as it forced Tannehill to work the middle way too often, which is neither his strength nor necessarily a good idea with rookie QBs. And we do sorely lack another rusher opposite of Cam Wake because outside of Starks and Soliai, there just was no rush today.
I'll grant that they exceeded expectations for twenty minutes of play, buta large part of the second half was certainly the Texans bbeing conservative against an offense they knew couldn't move the ball. They could afford to sit on their lead.
The obvious answer would be that they achieved their wins against teams that had nothing to play for either.
The passes to Owen Daniels and the TD pass to Andre Johnson weren't big plays? C'mon now, keep it an honest fight. Daniels alone averaged over 20 yards on his 4 catches.
The constant back and forth is ridiculous and unfortunately we have 5 more months of it. But if Disgust and Shou see this as an overly talented roster then we just have fundamentally different views of what a really good player looks like. If somebody can look at a WR core anchored by Bess, Hartline and Nanee and not see a problem then I don't know what to say. Shou can ask for objective evidence all he wants but if you think Nanee is good there can't be an objective discussion
Did I say they didn't have any big plays, or did I say they didn't have a tremendous amount or a significantly advantageous amount more? What were you saying about straw men, Vendigo?
So when two teams have nothing to play for, isn't the one that wins more talented, by your standard? How is winning those games consistent with an overwhelming lack of talent?
"Well no, they didn't get big plays. They absolutely, positively did not." That's what you said. Seems pretty definitive to me.
No I don't.... and as good as Tannehill has the potential to become, I certainly don't expect him to reach it during his 1st NFL game, against the daunting Texans' defense no less. Same goes for a rookie RT transitioning from LT..... and same goes for a completely new offense & defense. If you expected the team to be settled in right away, then that's your choice. Personally, I find it unreasonable. Question: Did you expect us to beat Houston for you to now have such a glum, pessimistic viewpoint of the game?
That's fair enough, but there's still more positives than that. They had one three and out under "normal" circumstances, the rest besides the last were multi-down drives. The Texans neither signficantly out-gained, or had more first downs than Miami. The issue was largely efficiency, and there's sort of mitigating circumstances for that. Can't agree with you about linebacker speed. Both Burnett and Dansby were right on Owen Daniels for the most part, and they stopped a perimeter-run heavy run game pretty convincingly. The problem was gaps in coverage, not ability to cover.
I can't believe I'm engaging you but let me ask this. Who do you think are the top 4 or 5 teams in the league? How does the Dolphins roster stack up against those teams. And let's take it the other way too. Who are the worst 3 or 4 teams and what do their rosters look like in comparison to ours? You're the guy who said our receiving core played well despite only one WR catching a pass in the first 3 quarters so let's see what you think a good player looks like so we're talking apples to apples
Seriously, Houston is a playoff team that should be in close to midseason form; meanwhile we're a young team trying to gel under a new coach, 2 new schemes, and a rookie QB...... but people for some reason are suddenly acting like we're a veteran, established team who just lost to the worst team in the league. Keep it in perspective.
