What do you think of Mark Ingram as that all around workhorse back. He's a guy that could really tear it up against smaller tacklers with his vision and strength especially if the defense is undersized. Perhaps more so than DeAngelo Williams even.
the operative word being "if", which for some reason you keep going back to as "if" Fasano is the TE on the planet who can effectively block his man or that there are no good pass catching TEs who can block. Again, remind how many elite blocking #1 TEs are on the teams who rank in the top 10 in YPG, avg per rush, and TDs. ????? Like I said, you don't need a block-first #1 TE if you have a good oline and a quality FB. The TE can be merely effective in this case, while excelling in the pass game. What does Bulaga being knocked on his butt have to do with facing a 4 man front when you're in an empty backfield? 5 on 4 is 5 on 4. If you consider that a "pressure situation" then there are some serious problems with your oline. Exactly!! Not the TE you want running routes when your QB is pressured b/c he doesn't separate quickly and isn't the most athletic guy to haul in passes. Are you trying to say that we need to line up a 3rd tackle rather than a TE? It's a little difficult to have a decent rating under pressure when you're in max protect b/c the line is injured, you have only 2 of your receivers, you're in tons of 3rd and longs b/c the ground game sucks, and the receivers you do have are possession guys. Peyton sucked in a similar situation. Right, because the rest of the offense has NOTHING to do with it. Those long passes have everything to do with Rodgers and nothing to do with Jennings; Finley is only good bc Rodgers makes him good; Driver sucks; and they have no talented depth at WR or TE. Right...... b/c no TE who can stretch the field can effectively block or do a good enough job blocking to get the job done. You do realize that teams have #2 TEs who are great blockers right?.... and that they use these TEs in running situations (3rd & 4th and short, goal line, and even 2nd & short? I see that you don't think about what it says to a defense when your #1 TE isn't a threat to stretch the field and you're in 1st or 2nd down..... and 3rd and long. So what?! If the blocking aspect were SOOO important and receiving meant so little, then you'd use 6 lineman. I guess if we're running 100% of the time that we "would" want Fasano instead of Finley. I love how you don't acknowledge the receiving aspect of the TE position as if it doesn't exist or create serious advantages for an offense. So what I get from all this is that you want us to become a 100% run first, one dimensional offense. Are you Dan Henning? You know--- THE Dan Henning who arrogantly announced to the NFL that he's going to out-execute defenses despite them knowing the run is coming? lol.
Thanks for the stats. The glaring problem when I look at this is: 3 of 3 over 20 yards. That's too low of a number, but it does show that Henne can hit that pass when he can make it, which is all the more reason to bring in someone who can stretch the field better down the middle. Also, 16 receptions in the 10-19 yard range doesn't mean 19 yards; it can very well mean 14 of those were 10 yards. Just sayin.
I agree with that. I'd have no problem with that grouping. With a seam threatening TE you could still use that personnel in the example I mentioned (while substituting the TE for Bess). I'm not saying Hart would be permanently moved to the slot, but rather only lined up there occasionally. We don't have to play these guys at the same spots. I'm a huge fan of Bess, but when he "is" on the field, that means we're giving up the ability to really attack a defense or pick up chunk yardage from his position on that play. When you look at his stats, most of his contribution comes on 3rd down. He doesn't do much on 1st down. If he doesn't contribute on 1st down, then why not bring in someone who can? IMO your playmakers, your chunk yardage guys, need to be on the field on 1st & 2nd down who allow you a better chance to push the ball down the field. If we don't have them, then IMO we need to find some so that we "can" field them on 1st and 2nd down. Hartline has been significantly better on 1st down than Bess (with more yards, higher 1st down %, and a much greater AVG). So why not exploit this? Play Hart over Bess on 1st with a Jacoby Jones or Mike Sims Walker at #2 who can make plays on 1st and 2nd down when we're not "solely trying to move the chains"? After all, Sparano said he wants the passing game to be a little more vertical, right? I'd have no problem with Bess catching 40 passes for 400 yards if it means we're moving the chains on 3rd down while now maximizing our potential on 1st and 2nd down. That's a win-win from my perspective.
I don't have a problem with it b/c IMO the achilles heal of our offense was our inability to pick up yards on 1st down. It stalled drives and put too much pressure on a possession based passing offense to pick up an excessive amount of 2nd and 3rd & longs. However, when we're in 3rd and non-long, we're one of the best in the league at moving the chains. So to me this is saying we DESPERATELY need to pick up 3-5 yards on 1st down, and do it on a consistent basis. That would give us the luxury to open it up on 2nd down because we know that we have elite 3rd down guys like Bess & Brandon to still convert for us. But that means we need another playmaker to fully take advantage of these favorable 2nd downs. Right now I don't know what would help more- a guy like Ingram..... or a major upgrade to LG. Harvey Dahl? Pouncey? I think if we can do both positions we'll be ok. I'm not terribly picky as to how we do it as long as we do. lol. Because of the injury factor to RBs in the NFL along with the fact that he would be splitting carries, I might lean toward Pouncey.
Fixing that line does seem to be the biggest priority at the moment. Perhaps Carimi and a second round guard in a trade down just to settle that stupid thing would be ideal. Then you pickup a free agent RB, a speed WR in the 3rd, and another RB in the fourth and you go with that. Nothing major. You just make sure you have that line. Few teams fail on offense with a good offensive line. Very few.
Despite how bad our offense looked last year, it actually does have 1 strength: 3rd down coversions. We also weren't horrible on 1st down passing. If we can pick up yards on the ground on 1st down, then that's 2 parts of the equation right there--- 1st down & 3rd down. With better 1st down production, 2nd down should improve by default. So for me, it's about gaining those solid 1st down yards and adding a few players to make us dangerous on 2nd down.
I completely agree that we need a 2nd TE. Schuler's two long catches were the first receptions by a 2nd TE after 12-13 games. The D had to be shocked we even threw him the ball. I don't believe anyone can say if it's Fasano's lack of ability or opportunity as to catching more long balls. In no way am I saying that he is a burner but the limited success does speak for itself. He did have to get open and make the catches. I may be wrong but do not recall many times of him going out without first making a block, or many times he was anything more than a 4th option. He and Henne apparently have a pretty good connection. I would like to see it used more. When I have more time, I'll look up how our other WR's fared in comparison to Fasano over 10 yards. * Thanks for the clarification on what 10-19 yards mean. JK/LOL
Or maybe, just maybe, Fasano is better than some think. Based on him catching almost everything thrown his way, with only 2 drops, maybe he can teach our other receivers how to catch with their bodies instead of hands.
I think most every player gets the benefit of the doubt in Miami & is thought of in glowing terms until his actions indicate otherwise. Fasano is no different in this respect. fixing the offense is a two year project. Rome wasn't built in a day & neither will the Dolphin offense be fixed in a season. Fasano, with another viable TE, is a probable part of the offensive solution & that is a good thing.
Fasano was the recipient of us playing Cover 2 all year. That's why his YPC was so high. One of the weaknesses of a Cover 2 defense is allowing plays to the TE. If his YPC were due to many longer passes down the seam, then he would've helped force defenses out of Cover 2..... and then we would've seen Marshall as the guy with the higher YPC & YAC, not Fasano. See for yourself. Fasano catches dump offs with tons of daylight in front of him. His yards on these 2 plays were due to the play, not because he got behind a LB and caught the pass 25 yards down field. I'm not trying to rag on the guy; but at the same time he doesn't deserve more credit than he should get. [video=youtube;xJA3Lq9gCuI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJA3Lq9gCuI[/video] [video=youtube;1hCj39l1rmw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hCj39l1rmw&feature=related[/video]
