Joe Philbin gave up on this game...

"Tannehill wrote:

Don't you think he, as head coach, played a role in what kind of team he brought onto the field Sunday afternoon or are we alleviating him of even the most basic accountability?

Absolutely, 100%. I wrote this earlier in the thread:

The Dolphins passing game had a -6.73 expected points in the first half. They literally cost the team a touchdown. They were awful. Joe Philbin is relatively smart for understanding this.

The Dolphins passing game had a -6.73 expected points in the first half. They literally cost the team a touchdown. They were awful. Joe Philbin is a bad head coach for overseeing such a bad passing game.

"Tannehill wrote:

The running game was nonexistent against Buffalo, and you can't cop that out with Moreno's injury. We didn't have him or any big names last year and we still at least tried to run it and we had some success. That's on playcalling.

The poor performance by the line to give our QB and our offensive a chance plays another role. We can't even protect the freakin' punter and you're looking at the QB as our main problem?

The defense basically spread it's legs for their run game in the second half to the point of it being embarrassing just to watch.

All of these things are so conveniently ignored by you that it makes no one wonder as to what your agenda is.

The Bills had 71 rushing yards in the 2nd half and 47 of that came on one play. Of the Bills 5 offensive drives in the 2nd half, 4 began in Miami territory and 2 of them inside the Miami 30. On those 4 drives, the Bills scored a total of 6 points. You call that a defense spreading it's legs?

"Stringer Bell wrote:

Absolutely, 100%. I wrote this earlier in the thread:

Anyone who can say a team had a neg 6.7 scoring whatever when it comes to talking football..is just pulling any number out of their butt to back up their analytical argument.

"Tannehill wrote:

The running game was nonexistent against Buffalo, and you can't cop that out with Moreno's injury. We didn't have him or any big names last year and we still at least tried to run it and we had some success. That's on playcalling.

The poor performance by the line to give our QB and our offensive a chance plays another role. We can't even protect the freakin' punter and you're looking at the QB as our main problem?

The defense basically spread it's legs for their run game in the second half to the point of it being embarrassing just to watch.

All of these things are so conveniently ignored by you that it makes no one wonder as to what your agenda is.

Your username is "Tannehill" and you're accusing other people of having an agenda?

"Dolphans Unite! wrote:

Your username is "Tannehill" and you're accusing other people of having an agenda?

He could call himself..Shou wrong!!!

"Stringer Bell wrote:

Did we get two first downs? I don't think we did. I don't think we got to the 41 either:

2:21 1 10 MIA 12 Damian Williams for 5 yards (tackle by Corbin Bryant and Corey Graham)
2:00 2 5 MIA 17 Damian Williams right guard for 3 yards (tackle by Aaron Williams and Jerry Hughes)
1:26 3 2 MIA 20 Ryan Tannehill right tackle for 6 yards (tackle by Corey Graham)
0:52 1 10 MIA 26 Lamar Miller left tackle for 3 yards (tackle by Da'Norris Searcy)
0:19 2 7 MIA 29 Lamar Miller left tackle for 6 yards (tackle by Da'Norris Searcy)
0:13 3 1 MIA 35 Lamar Miller for 6 yards (tackle by Preston Brown and Nigel Bradham)

Its not like they ripped off a big run. Do you really think they're going to drive the ball 50 yds with a bunch of 4 yard runs?

That kinda equals a 2nd first down and ball to the 41.

"vt_dolfan wrote:

Anyone who can say a team had a neg 6.7 scoring whatever when it comes to talking football..is just pulling any number out of their butt to back up their analytical argument.

Huh? I didn't just make up that number.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

Huh? I didn't just make up that number.

Its freakin football dude...not Wall Street.

"Dolphans Unite! wrote:

Your username is "Tannehill" and you're accusing other people of having an agenda?

Your repeated use of this "rebuttal" only demonstrates how simple minded you are. I accuse you based on what you have and have not said, not by what your username is or what flavor of ice cream you like. Maybe if you had a shred of dignity you'd actually admit that this last game was a team loss in which no player or position excelled to the point of being immune from any criticism. But you don't so that's that.

Also...go to hell.

You guys are missing the most egregious point in that closing first half drive.

They had Tannehill run the ball in order to get the first down and get out of the half. That's dumb and dumber to me, simply because you're risking your QB to get out of the half.

Nah, Philbin just exposed himself. Eff that guy, send him home pronto. Have him keep an eye on his ****ty offspring for a change...

"jdang307 wrote:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/sports/football/miami-dolphins-joe-philbin-didnt-call-plays-in-gre/nPs4Y/

We hired the league's best spell-checker as head coach.

Typical nonsensical hyperbole.

Serious question. Since everyone is calling Philbin scared and a coward, can someone point to another instance besides yesterday where Philbin went conservative like this? Because I can't think of one.

Last year against New England we were down 10-0 in a similar situation and we didn't sit on the ball. Same thing with the New Orleans game (where Tannehill was picked and the Saints got another TD) and the same thing in Tampa Bay where we went for points instead of sitting on the ball in the same situation.

So, other than yesterday, where else was Philbin coaching "scared" and "not to lose"?

Anyone else get the sense that if you walked your new dog within ten feet of Joe Philbin, that the dog would kind of get neutered for free?

"Rocky Raccoon wrote:

Serious question. Since everyone is calling Philbin scared and a coward, can someone point to another instance besides yesterday where Philbin went conservative like this? Because I can't think of one.

Last year against New England we were down 10-0 in a similar situation and we didn't sit on the ball. Same thing with the New Orleans game (where Tannehill was picked and the Saints got another TD) and the same thing in Tampa Bay where we went for points instead of sitting on the ball in the same situation.

So, other than yesterday, where else was Philbin coaching "scared" and "not to lose"?

We need something to distract us from the disturbing thought that Tannehill is looking like anything but Dan Marino, and this is doing a great job of it, so we don't need any other instance.

"Rocky Raccoon wrote:

Serious question. Since everyone is calling Philbin scared and a coward, can someone point to another instance besides yesterday where Philbin went conservative like this? Because I can't think of one.

Last year against New England we were down 10-0 in a similar situation and we didn't sit on the ball. Same thing with the New Orleans game (where Tannehill was picked and the Saints got another TD) and the same thing in Tampa Bay where we went for points instead of sitting on the ball in the same situation.

So, other than yesterday, where else was Philbin coaching "scared" and "not to lose"?

Yes he doesn't usually do it. One of the few good things he's done is bring in a 2 min drill. Still doesn't make it not gutless.

I mean at least take a shot once it's under a minute after we kept getting yardage on the ground.

"pmj wrote:

Yes he doesn't usually do it. One of the few good things he's done is bring in a 2 min drill. Still doesn't make it not gutless.

I mean at least take a shot once it's under a minute after we kept getting yardage on the ground.

I didn't agree with it either, but I don't understand why people are suddenly saying this is a norm for Philbin when it isn't.

"Rocky Raccoon wrote:

I didn't agree with it either, but I don't understand why people are suddenly saying this is a norm for Philbin when it isn't.

I wouldn't say it was a norm, but it was disgusting. Couple that decision with other flubs, and he had a very poor game. Not a Philbin fan at the moment, but not writing him off.

"Dolphans Unite! wrote:

We need something to distract us from the disturbing thought that Tannehill is looking like anything but Dan Marino, and this is doing a great job of it, so we don't need any other instance.

While I don't agree your anti-Tannehill state of mind, you're right here. The problem is the offense needs to play better than they did yesterday all around.

This is just yet another example of a fan base overreacting and freaking out over one loss.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

I wouldn't say it was a norm, but it was disgusting. Couple that decision with other flubs, and he had a very poor game. Not a Philbin fan at the moment, but not writing him off.

It was a bad game from a lot of standpoints, but it's just one game.

"Rocky Raccoon wrote:

While I don't agree your anti-Tannehill state of mind, you're right here. The problem is the offense needs to play better than they did yesterday all around.

This is just yet another example of a fan base overreacting and freaking out over one loss.

That is an understatement.

I'll just stick with being in the minority on this issue. I had no problem with how Philbin handled the final 2 minutes, given the circumstances.

While I understand his explanation or logic, I don't agree with it, and stunts like that are likely to come back and haunt him when his performance is evaluated by organization.

"Lee2000 wrote:

While I understand his explanation or logic, I don't agree with it, and stunts like that are likely to come back and haunt him when his performance is evaluated by organization.

The only thing he'll be evaluated on is wins and losses. They're not going to look at a random instance in week 2 where he got conservative.

"Rocky Raccoon wrote:

It was a bad game from a lot of standpoints, but it's just one game.

Which is why I said I haven't written him off. This year, however, I'm paying a lot more attention to him...hoping to see much more good than bad...I realize nobody's perfect...but that was a real stinker...in several aspects (and I don't think RT was one of the top 3 reasons).

"Rocky Raccoon wrote:

While I don't agree your anti-Tannehill state of mind, you're right here. The problem is the offense needs to play better than they did yesterday all around.

This is just yet another example of a fan base overreacting and freaking out over one loss.

I think it's yet another example of finding a defense against the horrible realization that the first, first-round QB picked by the team since Dan Marino isn't working out. If we can concentrate our outrage on one decision made by the head coach at one point in the game, we don't have to think as much about the fact that the player the team's fortunes ride on primarily hasn't played well in his last four games with the team, and doesn't appear to be developing in the right direction.

Notice that in the discussion about Philbin's decision, there is very little emphasis on how it likely had something to do with Tannehill's poor play. What does that tell you?

"Dolphans Unite! wrote:

I think it's yet another example of finding a defense against the horrible realization that the first, first-round QB picked by the team since Dan Marino isn't working out. If we can concentrate our outrage on one decision made by the head coach at one point in the game, we don't have to think as much about the fact that the player the team's fortunes ride on primarily hasn't played well in his last four games with the team, and doesn't appear to be developing in the right direction.

Notice that in the discussion about Philbin's decision, there is very little emphasis on how it likely had something to do with Tannehill's poor play. What does that tell you?

Thaaattt

You think Tannehill is awsome sauce?