Short Yardage Problems versus Bengals

what is this football you speak of?

I know every roster spot is precious on gameday. But I can't get past not having a fullback or RB that specializes in 3rd an 1 situations. that FB we had a couple of years (was that Javorskie?) ago only had one purpose: 3rd and 1, and he was very effective. Maybe the coaching staff likes Thomas because he can also play the pass in case we don't run, but if he sucks on 3rd and short, it's a waste.

"ckparrothead wrote:

Bleacher ReportRead article ↗

Just thought I'd share something about football.

I don't have the numbers in front of me to back me up but I feel like we're an awful short yardage team.

Considering the success of the Clay FB dive, I'd like to see him get more opportunity to do it; even if that means lining him up at tailback some.

there shouldnt be a need for a short yardage specialist. if you cant trust your starter to get one yard, then maybe he shouldnt be your starter.

Barry Sanders probably shouldn't have started then.

"Mainge wrote:

Barry Sanders probably shouldn't have started then.

when we have a barry sanders on this team please let me know.

"Mainge wrote:

I don't have the numbers in front of me to back me up but I feel like we're an awful short yardage team.

Considering the success of the Clay FB dive, I'd like to see him get more opportunity to do it; even if that means lining him up at tailback some.

This. I'd use Clay. He would be my choice getting those 3rd & 1s

"phinswolverinesrockets wrote:

there shouldnt be a need for a short yardage specialist. if you cant trust your starter to get one yard, then maybe he shouldnt be your starter.

I don't that's a truism in this day and age. The game isn't smash mouth football anymore.

Look no further than to our game against Indy a few years back. We controlled the ball for 45 minutes, ran all over them, and still lost to a high powered passing attack.

"phinswolverinesrockets wrote:

when we have a barry sanders on this team please let me know.

That wasn't the point.

Can you specifically tell me why having a short yardage back is a bad thing?

"Fin D wrote:

I don't that's a truism in this day and age. The game isn't smash mouth football anymore. Look no further than to our game against Indy a few years back. We controlled the ball for 45 minutes, ran all over them, and still lost to a high powered passing attack.

im not saying we need to be smashmouth, im just saying that you should have confidence in your starting rb to get 1 yd.

I agree that Clay should be used more in short yardage. With the emergence of Egnew and Miller, the Dolphins have a set of players that can be used in multiple formations to vary short yardage plays. I think Thomas has value but his lack of power and outside speed results in too many easy stops on short yardage.

Varying short yardage between traditional and empty backfields should help reduce the LBers filling holes; freeing their DL to penetrate with limited gap responsibility. The risk of emptying the backfield is that the above have shown limited short yard receiving skills; however, I hope that execution would improve if it becomes part of the weekly game plan.

Additional short yardage plays/looks might be found with direct snapping to Clay. Read option is already in the play and perhaps a wrinkle can be added. Moreover, Miller's speed might make him a good partner for Ricky role in the Wildcat.

"Mainge wrote:

That wasn't the point. Can you specifically tell me why having a short yardage back is a bad thing?

because i would prefer to have a starter who can get 1 yd. and a fullback whose sole purpose is to block.

"phinswolverinesrockets wrote:

im not saying we need to be smashmouth, im just saying that you should have confidence in your starting rb to get 1 yd.

I disagree. The concept of a big bruising short yardage specialist is neither new nor unique to Miami.

"Mainge wrote:

I don't have the numbers in front of me to back me up but I feel like we're an awful short yardage team.

Considering the success of the Clay FB dive, I'd like to see him get more opportunity to do it; even if that means lining him up at tailback some.

Clay certainly made good on his conversion here,, and agree we should give him more opportunity. As for Thomas, his vision and decisiveness are real problems and have been. I thought he ran more decisively overall in the last two games, which is good but obviously not on every carry and certainly not on these short yardage attempts. Short yardage is not his strength and the team continues to pound the square peg into the round hole. His vision remains an issue on some plays. Thomas has never looked like he was in the flow of this offense, ever, maybe a couple of his very first games here but not sustained. Coaching and scheme don't fit him, or he is just not a really good back.

"Bofin wrote:

Clay certainly made good on his conversion here,, and agree we should give him more opportunity. As for Thomas, his vision and decisiveness are real problems and have been. I thought he ran more decisively overall in the last two games, which is good but obviously not on every carry and certainly not on these short yardage attempts. Short yardage is not his strength and the team continues to pound the square peg into the round hole. His vision remains an issue on some plays. Thomas has never looked like he was in the flow of this offense, ever, maybe a couple of his very first games here but not sustained. Coaching and scheme don't fit him, or he is just not a really good back.

this is what happens when you have a junior college qb as your short yardage rb. thomas was a qb in junior college. he has never had rb vision. i was pissed when we traded up to get him and knew it would be a failure.

"phinswolverinesrockets wrote:

because i would prefer to have a starter who can get 1 yd. and a fullback whose sole purpose is to block.

But why? Your preference is irrelevant. Why is a short yardage back a disadvantage?

I don't see the problem with it. If you have a runner that's very good in space and between the 20's, but not great in short yardage, and you're able to pair him with someone that is a good short yardage runner (something Daniel Thomas clearly isn't), then your backfield is going to be more productive than if it were just a guy that was a good runner in all situations.

To me, it's like saying you wouldn't want Pedro Martinez because he rarely finished games. But if you paired Pedro with a guy like Craig Kimbrel, overall you're going to get a much more productive 9 innings than if it was just Mark Buerhle throwing 9 above average innings.

I'd focus more on getting lineman who can block then worry about a short yardage specialist.

"Mainge wrote:

But why? Your preference is irrelevant. Why is a short yardage back a disadvantage?I don't see the problem with it. If you have a runner that's very good in space and between the 20's, but not great in short yardage, and you're able to pair him with someone that is a good short yardage runner (something Daniel Thomas clearly isn't), then your backfield is going to be more productive than if it were just a guy that was a good runner in all situations.To me, it's like saying you wouldn't want Pedro Martinez because he rarely finished games. But if you paired Pedro with a guy like Craig Kimbrel, overall you're going to get a much more productive 9 innings than if it was just Mark Buerhle throwing 9 above average innings.

well, if you're good between the 20s, shouldnt you be good in the redzone. javorskie lane literally took up a roster spot to get 1 yd. he sucked on special teams, and he couldnt block. that is why he's gone. he served no purpose. if you cant trust miller to get that tough yardage then maybe he isnt the answer.

"Fin D wrote:

I don't that's a truism in this day and age. The game isn't smash mouth football anymore.

Look no further than to our game against Indy a few years back. We controlled the ball for 45 minutes, ran all over them, and still lost to a high powered passing attack.

That never happened before and hasn't happened since!

Two of the best teams in the NFC are smash mouth teams.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

That never happened before and hasn't happened since!

Didn't it happen the very next week with the Saints and us?

"phinswolverinesrockets wrote:

well, if you're good between the 20s, shouldnt you be good in the redzone. javorskie lane literally took up a roster spot to get 1 yd. he sucked on special teams, and he couldnt block. that is why he's gone. he served no purpose. if you cant trust miller to get that tough yardage then maybe he isnt the answer.

It doesn't have to be a guy who's sole purpose is to get one yard. I'm talking more about Daniel Thomas' role. Him replaced with a LaGarrette Blount, Mike Tolbert, etc.

If you're dressing a player JUST for short yardage ala Lousaka Polite, I can see why that would be a detriment, but I don't see why that has to be the case.

"Ohio Fanatic wrote:

I know every roster spot is precious on gameday. But I can't get past not having a fullback or RB that specializes in 3rd an 1 situations. that FB we had a couple of years (was that Javorskie?) ago only had one purpose: 3rd and 1, and he was very effective. Maybe the coaching staff likes Thomas because he can also play the pass in case we don't run, but if he sucks on 3rd and short, it's a waste.

You are thinking of Lousaka Polite, who, for about a 2 to 3 year stretch, made money running on third and short.

I think he even made the Pro Bowl because of it.

"Fin D wrote:

Didn't it happen the very next week with the Saints and us?

No it didn't. No team has ever lost with controlling the ball for 45 minutes. Until that game it had a 100% win ratio. Since that game is till has a 100% win ratio.

Also when the Saints were able to establish their running game is when their passing attack became effective against the Miami Dolphins that game.