I was a "little" concerned that his comments seemed to reference not being able to make appropriate adjustments to the Brown's defensive schemes. He naturally used Cardinal film because that is where the new Brown defensive coordinator came from. However, he changed his habits just for the Dolphins... hum? In a way Sherman did change in that Miami started to focus on mostly the passing game in the second half. But on the surface it concerned me a little. But I was also concerned about the Dolphin blockers losing their assignment battles (missing them, getting beat by their opponent, interrupting the duties of other teammates). What is your opinion on Sherman's comments about play calling and making adjustments.
Our OL was pathetic. Sherman did adjust by having Tannehill get rid of the ball faster. CK took times and there was a lot of 2 second throws.
Meh...run blocking gets fixed, all is right. I just hope it can happen. You know how these coaches are...they drop mis-information just as much as real info...he could be saying that hoping Indy tries the same thing because he has some fixes. We sure looked a lot better in the 2nd half, so I think they adjusted well (albeit w/o a run game).
I made reference to his second half adjustments with the passing game. But that can't be the go to fix every game.
Sherman can't block for his OL. They did better in pass blocking in the second half. And Pouncey admitted the Browns kind of surprised them the way they lined up. I don't pretend to be a coordinator and to have the kind of knowledge about game planning to start. But I have some knowledge about the game having played on the oline. I am not going to write off the running game performance simply by saying they took what the Browns gave them and that was strictly in the air. I will look forward to the statement the running game makes next week. I suspect we will get more eight man fronts.
For once in a LONG while, I will be ok with an 8 man front. We finally have the WR to challenge that..............if the OL gets it together.
Did they ask him why he purposely settled for a FG when Miami was up 20-10? I'd like to hear an explanation for that... I don't know how anyone else felt about it, but when you're right outside the 20 yard line, you might want want to make the slightest effort to get the first down, keep the clock ticking, and how's this for a crazy thought? Put the dagger in your opponent and finish them off when you have a golden opportunity. Reminded me of last season against the Jets and Cards. We've got the ball deep in their territory and nothing but terrible play calling designed to give the FG kicker the chance to win the game rather than making any effort to win. Obviously this one turned out OK, but as a general philosophy going forward, that has to change.
I suspect that their goal was to get it by running the ball, giving the offense a bit of a boost, and proving to themelves that they could. Didnt work, obviously. Id have called a safe pass on third down there, myself. If its not there, throw it away and still kick the FG. That close, you havent lost anything but a few seconds on the clock.
why would we face more 8-man fronts. If our Oline can't run block any better and there's no threat there, then you leave 7 men in the box and take away our passing game.
Could also have been the reason that Tanny didn't get to Wallace as much. His longer routes take longer to develop... At any rate, the important thing to remember is that he actually MADE adjustments to the game plan, something our previous staff was inept at. That drive in the late third/fourth for the last TD was a Tanny thing of beauty....He put on a show (and we all enjoyed it). Cleveland did take away the slants, especially early in the game a staple of Sherman's calls...
I've been banging this drum since the preseason, the only real cure is to pass more effectively. I'd love to ask Sherman why we rarely dump off to the running back out of the backfield.
My thought at that point was that the FG was the right call. It made it take two TDs to beat you rather than just a TD and FG to tie you. Based on the time left I thought that was significant nail in the coffin.
If the OL cannot improve their pass blocking, Sherman really need to start calling more bootleg/rollouts to move the pocket. We need to do something that gives Tannehill more time to see the defense and time to have the deep routes develop.
They didn't show much, no read option, bootlegs, one RB screen, no WR screens, it was fairly conservative. I assume that's by design.
Was it just me or did I see 1 Wildcat Jet Sweep called? Maybe it was just Miller in a long motion going in front of Tannehill and the line wasn't offset, but it sure reminded me of the Wildcat.
That is, basically, what the Jet Sweep is. The main difference being the Jet Sweep is run with the ball carrier in motion toward the quarterback, the handoff to the runner is very quick after the snap, and before any other 'fake' motion, such as a fake dive by a different RB in the backfield, or a QB rollout, or whatever.
The play calling was pretty conservative. No earth-shattering calls that we didn't see a variation of in the preseason. That is probably not going to fly with the Colts and their high octane offense.
I don't think the playcalling was overly conservative. Especially in the second half. I think they could have thrown the ball a little more on 1st down, but they were trying to get the running game going. It didn't happen and it was time to win the game, so they aired it out a little bit. A good playcaller calls plays that allow you to win the game and the Dolphins did by 2 TDs. I actually think you could see more balance against the Colts as their defensive front isn't as good as Cleveland's.
Currently 26th in yards (1 spot behind us), and tied for 20th in pts (we're tied for 17th). Even last year, while they were 10th in yards, they were only 18th in points. I personally wouldn't come close to labeling them something like "high octane". Note: Not saying their offense is bad.
And that was against the Raiders. If they can't light the Raiders up, I'm certainly not of the mind they'll have a banner day against our D. They'll have their opportunities, for sure, I just don't think they'll look too "high octane" either. They gave up 171 yds on the ground...if we can't get at least half that...VERY bad...
I understand the situation. I still don't like the call. I would rather Sherman show some balls in that situation and make an effort to win the game. I can't stand this constant, play not to lose, strategy. See Jets and Arizona last year, and Tim Tebows Miracle 3 minutes the year before that. And it's not as if throwing on 3rd and 5 from right outside the 20 yard line is a huge risk. There are plenty of high percentage plays available that are low risk and satisfy the effort to win the game and get the first down, I'm sure.
High octane on potential I guess. I suppose I expect more from their qb this year, however, I realize their running game hasn't been the best.
Even if that play was conservative (which I tend to agree was), its not indicative of the overall playcalling of Sherman. Last year, we didn't have a lot of instances where we played to not lose. We're not a normally tentative team with this staff. If it becomes a trend I'll worry, but an isolated instance (which it is at this point) could have a valid reason behind we don't know.
