1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Lazor must grow as a OC

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Conuficus, Nov 23, 2014.

  1. DeDolfan

    DeDolfan Premium Member Luxury Box

    19,406
    10,985
    0
    Nov 23, 2007
    Rehoboth Beach
    When you score 36 and still lose............................................................................
     
    SICK likes this.
  2. DeDolfan

    DeDolfan Premium Member Luxury Box

    19,406
    10,985
    0
    Nov 23, 2007
    Rehoboth Beach
    Missed tackles. How many yds did Denver pick up after first contact? ;)
     
  3. Ophinerated

    Ophinerated Preposterous!

    8,629
    785
    113
    Apr 1, 2008
    [​IMG]

    A Whoooooooole lotta yards!
     
    DeDolfan likes this.
  4. Conuficus

    Conuficus Premium Member Luxury Box

    17,116
    16,186
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    Well away from here
    I didn't blame the offense for the loss. If you did actually read what I typed then you would be able to understand this portion of the topic. What I said was "it would help shorten the game a bit" which would have at least let the defense that was being dragged up and down the field see the field less. I never said in any way that he was the reason we lost, I just said that I don't like how we go away from the run; which we do, and more often than just this game as well.

    So tell you what you go find anything I said that the offense was directly responsible for this loss. I wish you luck. Maybe that's why I called your response "****"? Perhaps?

    If you're make a point of responding to points, it would at the least behoove you to make a response that actually addressed what was said, not what you managed to add to it so that you have something to complain about.

    And for the posters who thanked your post, I'd love any of them to show me where I directly blamed the offense for losing the game. All fo you just thanked a post that criticized an idea that was never put forth to begin with. It's a crying shame.
     
  5. Conuficus

    Conuficus Premium Member Luxury Box

    17,116
    16,186
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    Well away from here
    Could you please find any phrase that directly points a finger at anyone? I never his playcalling cost us the game, I just said I didn't like how we deviated from the run. It doesn't mean we have to run it 20 times, but there were times where we had an opportunity to do so and elected to pass. For instance, when we got the punt muff back and instead of even attempting to run there, we throw two passes in a row and then we get bailed out on the third straight throw via penalty. So rather than using our run game to get the clock going after we had a rather unsuccessful drive where we threw the ball on 6 out of 8 plays we continue to throw the ball. We had one run after the penalty which got the clock moving again. The first three plays after the muff used 15 seconds.

    Thats just an example of what I am talking about. So on that sequence we threw the ball 10 times and ran it 3. Does that really make sense if we have a lead, and did we really give Denver an opportunity to stop the run, or did we help them by simple not doing it? And, again, that isn't saying the offense lost us the game, its just an illustration of where we could improve and help win games in other ways - especially when our defense did literally nothing to stop anyone on the last two drives especially. But I am off base with this?

    Really?
     
  6. Conuficus

    Conuficus Premium Member Luxury Box

    17,116
    16,186
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    Well away from here
    Really? Read above you and tell me they shut us down ans much as we simply made it easy for them to do so by not calling them.
     
  7. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,274
    7,490
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    When you say several times that we had the lead and didn't run, and talk about Lazor having to improve, or certainly gives everyone the impression that your view that we lost because we didn't run the ball, thereby running the clock, thereby giving Peyton less time to runs plays and score tds. If that wasn't your intent, then you have a funny way of writing about the part of the team that is dokey responsible for this loss. Hint, you didn't talk about them once in the post.
     
  8. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,340
    8,302
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Does anyone else see the problem with these two statements? Or is 1.2 yards per carry the new NFL standard for success when you're getting shut down?

    Six carries, five yards, and the offense couldn't do anything. So we change strategies, open up some passing lanes, and march down for a TD to pull us within 4. On the 2 point conversion, we could have ran...sure...but we didn't and converted. Going pass-heavy was our only chance to win and IT WAS THE RIGHT CALL. But let's blame the OC anyway because darn, somebody lost 1.6 points in their fantasy league because Miller didn't run enough. That's why we're all here, after all....how dare the Fins try to actually win...
     
  9. Conuficus

    Conuficus Premium Member Luxury Box

    17,116
    16,186
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    Well away from here
    Dude read above. We ran the ball 3 times in the third quarter. If we simply go away from it after three carries - 2 of which were positive then the question remains; did Denver really stop us or did we stop ourselves? 3 carries isn't enough to say they stopped us or forced us to abandon it. So by the same logic we should go run happy if we throw the ball 3 times in a quarter and it doesn't produce outstanding results? I'm sorry but it doesn't pass the test of 'the other team stopping us' it falls more into we stopped ourselves.

    We threw it 10 times and ran it 3 in the third quarter. That's 3 to 1 in favor of one side over the other. If we ran it ten, twelve times (which would still be less than the first half) and had mediocre results then fine, but to run it 3 times then go away from it early in the fourth just doesn't seem sensible. The run game gives you results of 1,2 or negative yardage plays, it just does, but you don't move away from it after 3 tries in a quarter.

    Also we did run it on our conversion Daniel Thomas carried it.

    You disagree with my premise, hey more power to you, but save the insults for when you feel like circle jerking your buddies on a Saturday night. Alright there sunshine? Cause the ending of your post is just asinine, I'm sorry but it is.

    And, as I have said to several others who have yet to find it, I'd love for someone to find where I attributed the loss to Lazor. I just said he needs to grow, and he does. He goes away from the run for no reason for stretches of games - hence the use of the word 'often' in the first sentence - meaning I'm confounded by this trait more than once, which no one has yet to pick up on. And, to me that is just not sensible.

    Especially here. Why? You bring in new Ol and have them pass block? It's a widely known axiom that its easier to run block than pass protect, so going to the pass is a bit counter intuitive in terms of the norm or anticipated ease of which one is accomplished over the other. 3 runs versus 10 passes in a quarter. 3 attempts is not enough to say that Denver stopped us. How? We only did it 3 times in the quarter, three times. Not when we're behind, but when we are leading. 3.

    But I shouldn't say we should run it more? Did I say we should run it 15 times? Damn give me 7 runs and guess what we'd have equal pass versus run. I mean is that insane? It keeps the clock moving against one of the best the game has ever seen and helps a defense regroup. Not that the defense would have done much with it, but if thats the wory, then all the more reason to not stop the clock. And, if people say Tannehill was hot, then he's still exploit the options, which may have increased by running as a play fake may have meant something, if only that they know you actually have run it rather than simply stopped.

    This is not directed at just you, but people need to read. Seriously.

    If you can't separate a post that assesses no blame to anyone for the loss by the way, from one saying this lead to us losing or 'x' caused us to lose or 'x' should and we'd have won then I have no idea what to say. I am not responsible for people that can't separate the two, they come in different forms and should be easy to recognize.
     
    Trackstar likes this.
  10. Trackstar

    Trackstar Season Ticket Holder Luxury Box

    1,438
    1,061
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    FL
    Just because you have success does not mean you are exempt from constructive cristisism. We all know better
     

Share This Page