Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by KeyFin, Sep 8, 2019.
If you want to join an even better site, join Club!
Are you finally admitting that Tannehill was not the guy?????
We can definitely strike out horribly ... but that's the case regardless, as we have seen from our teams in the past few decades. Sometimes it's worth trying for a home run, eventually we have to hit one. The right coach and right QB and we are back in action. Neither THill nor Gase (he didn't have a good day) are or were the guys imo. Would we have been better with, say, Haskins taking over for Fitz in week 4-6 with Flores or someone else? Maybe we would have been, I liked the kid, and there HAVE been some excellent looking QBs not taken first overall ... but we are on the path we are on now, and all we can do is hang on and cross our fingers and, frankly, laugh a bit. Sometimes it's good to divorce ourselves from the intensity of wrapping ourselves in a fandom. I'm in Michigan, and don't spend money on things like Redzone or Ticket, but I love to talk Phins football and I enjoy catching games when I can. I wear some gear sometimes and celebrate wins and success, and get annoyed with losses and mediocrity. But I used to run pretty hot and felt stepping back was good, and football more in general.
I hear you man. If anyone watched New England last night ... **** they looked good. I absolutely think they could have hung a fitty burger on Pitt if they really wanted. Mahomes is legit, the Chiefs are gonna average 30+. If Jackson is legit, the Ravens might match that. The Rams are still as good, the Packers have a D that can pace Rogers, the Vikes look for real ...
We weren't touching any of them. We'd be lucky to hang with second rate teams like San Diego.
Guys, we shouldn't be surprised about this at this point. We knew what this team was going in. We were filling the roster with cast offs, AFL players or whatever that league is called, 2nd-3rd stringers, etc, etc. We just have to hope that these guys make the right moves in the draft AND in FA. It can turn around quick if they make the right moves and, of course, get a little bit of luck. I just hope I'm alive to see it if and when it happens. F!! Think what it was like to be a Browns fan before they had Dorsey running the show and before they got Mayfield. Maybe that will help? .......uhhhh ....F!!!
That Pennington team was pretty impressive, while the Moore team over-achieved and then got crushed in the playoffs. So no, they weren't legit...but there was enough there to build on if we weren't paying a billion dollars a minute for Suh. As I said earlier, I think we were 4-5 players away from being a legit contender at a few points of the past 10-12 years.
Problem is.. one of those players was the QB (except for the Pennington year) which brings us back to our current strategy.
Yes and no. We didn't have to trade 80% of the roster to have a top-5 pick this season...or multiple picks in the 1st round. Grier took the nuclear option to guarantee the #1 pick.
I know you didn't love Moore and I'm not saying he was elite, but I do think he was "good enough" if we were more solid in other areas.
I know.. if we only had a good GM we wouldn't be in this situation. But with an average GM, tanking for a QB isn't a bad strategy.
You remember those graphs I've posted about the probability of winning the SB as a function of z-score passer rating? I can post them again if you want, but Matt Moore's career weighted (by pass attempts) z-score is -0.3278 and the probability of winning a SB in any given year (single year only) with a -0.3278 z-score is 2.06%. Unless you really get lucky, that's not "good enough".
How many instances are there in NFL history in which an exceptionally good quarterback carried a coaching staff and/or front office?
Probably not super rare - just look for any long term QB who has gone through at least one coaching change. Phil Rivers and A-Aron Rogers immediately come to mind.
Not sure.. texanphinatic has the right idea, and I think Peyton Manning is the best example: played under Mora, Dungy, Caldwell, Fox and Kubiak and won SB's with two different teams where offensive performance drastically increased with Manning vs. without.
Someone would have to tally up the cases they think fit your description to get an idea of how many times this has occurred.
Agree with your suggestion on how to find most such examples but Rodgers doesn't really fit that mold because he's essentially been with McCarthy the entire time he's started (2008-2018.. only changed late 2018).
However, I do agree with putting Rodgers on the list because it's pretty clear he's elite while McCarthy isn't.
If we could have developed talent and had successful drafts then we could have turned this team around without this god awful season. Every year we were starving for talent, because ALL of our drafts were average to bad and our Free agency attempts had to be some of the worst decisions in the whole league(admittedly a few were only bad in hindsight). Even if we get the #1 pick, if we don't fix our off season issues we will just waste a quality QB here.
This is just a cheap way to try to get ahead without really earning it, and karma has a way of coming back on you when you try these shortcuts. I hope I'm wrong...
It's been one game. It does look like rough seas ahead. But really.
That statement has nothing to do with the game we just played. This has to do with the behind the scenes dealings, the way we have handled multiple situations, and the general feeling of knowing we are tanking, AND having the entire rest of the football world calling us out for tanking. We are not acting like a class act organization right now, and that was one thing I always thought we would have during the Shula years.
Umm, why do you think we got so many picks from other teams? We did have successful drafts and we did develop talent....then we shipped them out anyway.
But that was the same thing with Tannehill. And Henne. And pretty every QB for us for the past 20 years.
It hasn't worked man. **** it. Blow it up. Rebuild it totally. It doesn't matter. If you ain't in the playoffs, no one cares what your record was. Might as well lose them all as to win 8. It's all the same at the end. No playoffs.
Also we've talked about changing the culture in the locker room. Maybe that means getting rid of everyone and starting over.
I personally think RT and Henne could have been "good enough" as well if we focused more on the line. I mean, the Cowboys have had one of the better lines in football for the past 15 years and they've been in the playoffs almost that entire span with 4 different quarterbacks. Pittsburgh and Indy- same thing. It's the most common sense thing in football yet we haven't done it since the Marino years.
I disagree with you though- 8 wins means you're more than halfway there. I'll take 8 over 0 or 2 any day of the week....and I suspect you will as well once we're rolling into week 14 and the entire NFL fan-base hates us for wasting everyone's time.
You missed my point. If you aren't making the playoffs it doesn't matter how good you feel, or how close you think we are, we just aren't good enough. When you are that way for 20 ****ing years, then no, I don't think it's better than winning 3 or fewer games a season for at least a season so you can restart.
Further, I don't give a **** is we're the laughingstock. I'm not part of the team. I don't care of other fans think we sick or not. Fact is, we've been a laughingstock amongst fans for at least a decade. We're known for the '72 season and running a gimmick offense to the playoffs. Once.
Pittsburgh has one of the best QB's of the last 15 years in Roethlisberger with a top 10 defense in 11 out of the 15 years he's played and you think Pittsburgh is an example of how we could have won with Tannehill had we had a good OL?? If anything Pittsburgh shows how you need above average play at all positions including QB or you won't have that kind of success, meaning we can't do that with Tannehill.
And Indy doesn't support your argument either except for 1 out of their last 15 years, namely in 2018 where Indy finally had a good OL. The first half of that 15 year period was with Peyton Manning, one of the greatest ever. And the first 3 years Luck took them to the playoffs was with a famously BAD OL! So Indy is actually evidence against your argument except for one year, 2018.
And Dallas doesn't support your argument either for most of the last 15 years because 4 of the 6 times they made the playoffs was with Romo who I know doesn't get the same recognition as some other QB's but is top 10 all time in efficiency (z-score passer rating) for QB's with 4000+ passing attempts.
In other words it's really only the Prescott years where you can argue a good OL with a decent QB was good enough to make the playoffs. Except.. they also had a top 10 defense in 3 out of the 4 years and one of the best RB's in the NFL. The result? They made the playoffs 2 out of 4 times and then lost immediately.
So if anything your examples show why we wouldn't have had much success with Tannehill even with a good OL. We'd need a top 10 defense on top of it and even then it's unlikely we go deep in the playoffs. No.. we HAVE to get the QB position right first.
LOL, no....I wasn't saying that at all. I'm just saying it starts with the trenches and can hide a lot of issues at QB/RB. Indy now has one of the top lines in football and Dallas has been there for awhile.
I'm not going to reply to the rest though because I REFUSE to have another RT conversation after this board has seen thousands of them and you already know what I'll say. Henne was largely mismanaged and RT couldn't figure out the pocket...so it's very easy to say they weren't the guy. But with better blocking I think we could have been more successful....and we averaged missing the playoffs most years by 1 or 2 games.
Okay, but that's not what I watch football for. I watch the games for what's going to happen this coming Sunday and nothing else. If the Fins win, that's awesome.....but if not then there's another game next week for them to get some redemption. That's always been my philosophy because the odds of winning the Super Bowl are very small.
Maybe you have to be an athlete to understand it, but if a college coach tells his team, "Aw heck, we lost the first game so the season is over....no national championship for us!" What do you think happens in that locker room or on the field next week? That's why you can't say Super Bowl or bust- 31 teams ultimately fail each year regardless of record.
Like clockwork, this team has shuffled coaches and rosters every 2-4 years for the past 2 decades. We rebuild, we get to 8 or 9 wins, then we start all over again. This time is absolutely no different other than it's more extreme, so it will take longer to rebuild and hit that 9 game win mark. And if it fails, people will be screaming to do it all over again instead of actually building out a roster and tweaking it over 5-10 seasons. I personally think that's ridiculous that we keep doing the same thing yet some here expect entirely different results.....the league has shown us time and time again that it doesn't work that way.
You know.. this quote of yours is actually pretty revealing. It helps explain the first post of this thread. You're seeing things on a game by game basis while those of us who aren't at all bothered by this tanking are seeing things on a multi-year basis.
It also helps explain that "I told you so" comment. You're talking about how a fan would feel if he wanted to win the current (or next) game irrespective of what happens in the future, draft or otherwise.
It also helps explain a misconception you have: you think that those of us who focus on the multi-year aspect of things will somehow come around to your point of view after lots of losing. Not sure if you can understand this, but that won't happen precisely because we're not focused on winning any single game and are instead focused on significantly improving the chances of winning a SB.
What you say about the odds of winning a SB is also revealing. You say that SB odds are too small to care much about so it's best to just focus on winning the game in front of you. I too would think that coaching stability (whoever the coach is) and just adding pieces around an average QB is the best strategy if I thought the chances of winning a SB were too small to care much about.
But what if you could vastly change the chances of winning a SB by tanking and getting a franchise QB? Then you'd think differently.
Anyway, you can think the way you do and that's fine, but from a purely psychological perspective this season is going to eat away at you if you can't focus on the multi-year aspect of this. Assuming you don't change your viewpoint, something amazing will happen here: I'm going to be a greater optimist about the Dolphins' future than you lol!! (and that's saying something!)
I get what we're doing and I can see the bigger picture of POSSIBLY having a better team in the next 2-3 years. That's the key word- possibly. We will possibly get that QB and we will possibly fill in for all the talent we just threw away. And the coach will possibly get us to 12 wins and deep in the playoffs by year 3 or 4 and we could possibly win the Super Bowl......but the odds say we're more likely to end up an 8-8 team all over again.
You're the math wiz here- tell me I'm wrong.
Show us 1 example of a team trading/cutting almost everyone and making a Super Bowl in three years. I don't think there is one that's done what we're doing- maybe Jacksonville as an expansion team is sorta close? But that's 1 team in the history of the league and their success wasn't due to a franchise QB...it was an awesome defense. People say, "Well look at Cleveland or Arizona..." Those teams didn't do what we're doing though and the even bigger point is that they haven't won anything yet.
Others have said, "Well, it works in baseball" but that's a completely different scenario- you have 1 pitcher throwing the ball to one batter....it doesn't take an offensive line and a solid WR corps and so many other pieces to execute a single at bat. It's not an apples to apples comparison.
I understand that our chances are higher to draft the next Marino by taking this path- I completely get that. But as much as it pains me to say this, Marino is not a Super Bowl quarterback because he didn't have those other pieces in place.
Again, do the math and show me where my argument is illogical. The last true "tank team" with some data I can think of that got a stud QB was Indy, and six years later they've won exactly the same number of Super Bowls as us. The Falcons didn't tank to get Ryan and the Panthers didn't tank for Newton- yet they've both been to recent Super Bowls and lost. Maybe the Rams sorta/kinda fit your template? But they went 10 years though without topping a 7-win season.
I can't find a single example anywhere that points to this path being viable in the NFL.
You're right- I will be miserable this season because there's nothing to look forward to until the draft. I think the part that you still don't understand though is that we're betting the next 5+ years on Chris Grier. He has two chances- develop Rosen or pick the right guy...and you're pretty confident that Rosen won't get there (I personally haven't decided yet...as the optimist, I like him so far). Even if we draft the next Peyton Manning though, he's still going to have to develop and he's still going to need a team around him.
Yet we have players that want out of Miami after a single game- at step one of your 32+ step process. It's not that I can't see Grier's long term vision, I just don't think it has a chance in hell at working to the level you're expecting.
Someone has to be first. It wasn't endemic in baseball either. Baseball has greater parity in the last few decades than 50-100 years ago (standard deviation in win totals has gradually decreased) but within that trend there seems to be an undeniable trend towards more teams tanking in recent years (some say almost half of teams now).
Why? Marlins first showed it could be done after winning the WS in 1997 and going on a fire sale, gutting the roster yet winning the 2003 WS after that. Then the Cubs ended their 108 year WS drought after tanking. But it was really the Astros that showed how to do this for real. They lost over 100 games 3 years in a row to get lots of high draft picks and built a WS roster out of it. And no it's not just a pitcher here and there. It's close to half their starters. I think after the Astros did it you just saw more and more teams copying them.
So my answer is that someone has to be first.
Suck for Luck tried it for a QB, and yes that didn't work out but a lot of teams would have loved to have Luck. I think the first team to seriously try this, like the Cubs or Astros, is Cleveland. They didn't just go after a QB but went all analytics with a multi-year tank job: 3-13, 1-15 and 0-16 until they not only got Baker Mayfield but also a competitive roster (on paper).
We might be the next ones. Not every tank job succeeds, and it gets harder the more teams simultaneously try to do it, but we don't have to worry about that right now. Hey.. you said in post #103 that "we keep doing the same thing yet some here expect entirely different results". At least what we're doing now IS different. Have to admit that.
Sure, it is different since nobody has ever gone this extreme- probably because the fans will want to burn down the stadium, LOL. I still don't think baseball directly compares though since you need 9 solid players there (plus some relief/rotation pitchers) while you need 35+ in football. And like I said, a great pitcher has more of an advantage than a great QB since they don't have to directly rely on anyone to do what they do best.
I watched the Marlins win the World Series in 1997 in a strip club in Key West at a buddy's bachelor party, BTW...some memories stay with you longer than others. Our friends were yelling at two of us because we were more interested in the game on TV than the strippers. =)
Just keep in mind that just because it's new, doesn't make it a smarter path. History will tell us that and nothing else. And unless we win 12+ games in 2021 then I can already tell you what I'll say three years from now- it's not worth the price. It's just so unfair to the players and the fans. I couldn't imagine being in that locker room after working hard for months and buying into the hype that it would all be okay...and that's after spending a decade just to get this far.
They deserve better than this and so does the fans- I just don't see how anyone can say the ends will justify the means.
We'll see what happens dude. Anyway, I feel good about what we're doing.
As one who has to sit on the sidelines while the big boys play, all I can say is there have been some pretty damn good conversations going on in this thread and others these last couple of days — enjoying it. Thank you!
Key, man, as a fan, you deserve better than the **** they've given us over the past 20 years. They've sold us a mirage for the past 20 years. I'm sorry, I just no longer agree with add a few pieces here and there, and we'll tweak the roster into a contender. I'd rather suck for a couple seasons and build an actual contender.
This isn't an example of consciously tanking but we may want to consider the Carolina Panthers recent history:
John Fox is fired.
Cam Newton is drafted #1 overall at QB
2013: 12-4 (DIVISION WINNER)
2014: 7-8-1 (DIVISION WINNER)
2015: 15-1 (SUPER BOWL)
The alternative examples would be Goff and Wentz who both went to teams that were previously 7-9 but who were able to trade up to the top picks of the draft. Both QBs were drafted in 2016 and both have been to Super Bowls.
However, it's notable that the Rams and Eagles both had some decent pieces on their defenses. So trading up to secure their franchise QB was a justifiable expenditure of capital.
But let's pause and first say that it's VERY possible for a QB to get drafted highly and ultimately end up in the Super Bowl within 3-5 years. We've seen that happen multiple times: Cam Newton, Russell Wilson, Jared Goff, Carson Wentz, etc.
The question is about whether a team that's really bad should expect that to happen. To that end cbrad is right. We haven't seen a team as bad as Miami get to the Super Bowl yet. Both Stafford and Mayfield went to 0-16 teams via the #1 pick. Neither team has yet gotten to where they want to be.
In the case of the Browns it's too early to tell. In the case of the Lions, they just haven't done enough good work building that team. Miami will have to do better. No doubt about it.
Anyhow, in looking at the 7-9 teams that got their QBs (LA and Philly) it's important to remember that they had willing trade partners. Miami made a stupid trade with Philly which gave Philly a top-10 pick. Philly then traded with Cleveland who stupidly passed on Wentz. Meanwhile, the Rams traded with the Titans who were originally at #1.
A team like the Dolphins cannot trade everything to go up to #1 because (1) it's hard to put trade deals together and (2) they need other fundamental pieces to build up their roster.
So I think that the Dolphins are most like the 2-14 Panthers, the 0-16 Browns. and the 0-16 Lions. They would do better to earn the #1 pick so they don't have to give anything up to get it.
If we end up in the position the Browns are right now, I'll be excited. It's hard to argue that from a front office perspective, that roster looks pretty impressive. I expect they'll develop chemistry as a team and become quite competitive unless they have issues with particular players like OBJ. I'm not sure I'd ever endorse bringing in a diva WR, see Antonio Brown...it seems some of those guys are literally crazy.
If we do manage to draft Tua or another so-called franchise QB in 2020, I still expect the upward trend towards being relevant to be not as steep as others. We have a young team now and with all the picks we have should have a young team then. Maybe we could kick the can so to speak with some of our picks and fill some key positions using our decent salary cap space to bring n more experience. However, if we don't and still stay one of the youngest teams it could be a little longer until the team rounds into shape. The plus side is we may have some extra picks to replenish the team with as the years go by.
Not every tank job succeeds, but as I said in another thread, what is the advantage of not tanking, when a team has an inadequate QB and insufficient surrounding talent? There is certainly lack of success associated with that, as well.
I have yet to see a good argument for not tanking under those circumstances.
Yeah.. I'm starting to understand the other side more. They're focusing more on one game at a time while we're focusing more on a multi-year plan. Focus on one game at a time and ask your question again. The advantage is you don't feel so depressed after each game.
I think Detroit is a great example, actually. Detroit has been consistently mediocre, forever, and look at how people look at Detroit. That's exactly how people look at Miami. Constantly churning through draft picks, overspending on free agents, and not having an actual stuff at QB.
Yes, I still agree that you need a decent oline. However, you NEED a stud at QB that isn't so dependent on the line.
I think it's important we be totally honest here.
The Eagles went like this:
2013: 10-6 (DIVISION WINNER - Lost in Wildcard round of Play-offs)
2014: 10-6 (missed play-offs despite winning record)
Then they fire Chip Kelly, hire Doug Pederson and execute 2 good trades to move up to #2 in the draft to take Carson Wentz who we all agree is a competent QB.
2017: 13-3 (SUPER BOWL WINNER)
So if we're being completely honest, they were never a bad team. In the 4 years running up to that Super Bowl, they had 2 winning seasons and a Play-off appearance. And the worst they finished was 7-9.
So we cannot act as though a team MUST tank.
The facts say that you can avoid tanking if (1) you hire the right HC, (2) you execute good draft trades and (3) you draft the right QB prospect. All of those things are hard to do but as the Eagles demonstrated to us, it's clearly possible.
So if someone wants to come along and tell me that the 8-8 Dolphins could've simply done the same, I can't disagree. It's possible. If mediocre Miami team hires Doug Pederson and trades up to draft Carson Wentz (while making other good moves), there's a strong chance the Dolphins might be a Super Bowl contender today.
IN FACT, the story of the Lions might very well be a cautionary tale to teams that are considering tanking. While it is likely to secure you a good QB, it does nothing to ensure you that you'll find the right HC or build a great roster. The Lions have had tons of chances and have always remained a mediocre team during the Matthew Stafford era despite him being a relatively successful and productive pick at #1.
So again, to cbrad's point about HC's...you absolutely need someone who's good if you want to win a Super Bowl (unless maybe you have Peyton Manning, lol). Even if we land a QB like Tua (which I think is most important because it gives you 10-15 years to sort out the rest) we could easily end up the Lions of the South if we don't find the right HC and build a strong team around that QB.
Actually that's a good point. Detroit went 0-16 (intentional or not) in 2008 and then drafted Stafford with their #1 pick. They had 8 losing seasons in a row up to that point. After drafting Stafford they've had 4 winning seasons in 9 years, going to the playoffs 3 times. That's not bad for an average QB (Stafford's career z-score is 0.1361), though he did have a great WR tandem in Calvin Johnson and Golden Tate.
So intentional or not, Detroit went bottom of the barrel for a QB and the only thing they got wrong was the timing: 2009 was a talent starved draft class for QB's with Stafford by far the best one available (next one taken was Sanchez and we took Pat White lol).
I think this sums it up for me. I think the better fix, even if it is slower, is to get the right Front office working on the problem. If you have to spend big draft capital to move up and grab your guy, nobody is going to complain about that.
I'm also ok with shedding veteran under preforming/over bloated contracts, in fact I have been for that for years now.
During all of this, the front office should have been looking for talent that fits the coaches scheme and there should ALWAYS be an effort to put a quality product on the field. Even if we lose every game if we can see growth and talent gathering that makes sense, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
This is something different. This is a deliberate attempt to field a horrible product to "cheat" our way into a safe pick so we don't have to worry about our front office blowing it... which they probably will anyway... cause you know... we never fixed that front office thing...
The 2012 draft was fateful in this respect. There was a 50/50 chance by most pundits that we either take Tannehill or Kuechly: a QB that had potential (based on college) vs. a LB that most thought was HoF calibre.
If the scales had been tipped just slightly in favor of Kuechly by our GM, we would have very likely ended up drafting Wilson by default. That's a SB contender right there because we actually had a top 10 defense in 2012 and 2013. Sometimes fate hangs on such small things.
Though back to that coaching issue.. one does wonder what Philbin would do with a QB like Wilson.. lol that's a comedy of imagination.
Man, I don't mean to start another "thing" and I certainly have respect for you on here but my God, the way you talk down about Cam Newton, Andrew Luck and Matt Stafford is nuts, man.
You have to take your eyes off the passing numbers sometimes and realize that those guys are all imperfect as passers, sure but they're perfectly good candidates to win Super Bowls because as you've told me--it's a team game. You need a good QB. We agree. You need your QB to be special during the run to the Super Bowl. We agree. You'd like a guy that's special every single year. But most picks are not.
That doesn't mean guys like Cam Newton aren't great pickups for their teams.
Here are Cam Newton's 2015 numbers:
3,837-yds, 35-TDs, 10-Ints
Those are pretty solid, right? His 99.4 rating is pretty awesome, no?
Then consider his 7.1 TD% and his 4 game-winning drives led the league that year...okay, so he was a special guy.
Now consider he also played RB and contributed 630-yds on the ground with a 4.8-ypc average and 10 TDs!!!! So he accounted for 4,500-yds, 45-TDs and just 10-Ints. That would be an elite year by Brady or Manning.
If Luck doesn't get beaten around by those horrible Indy O-lines he doesn't retire. If he went to Seattle for instance, he might have 3 Super Bowls already. He was the ideal prospect and his teammates loved him because he was so clearly special.
Cam Newton has gone 12-4 and 15-1 and made a Super Bowl. At some point, you have to look beyond what you think an "ideal QB" might be and say, hey, if a Cam Newton is on the board I'm taking him because while he may not play like Brady or Manning every year, he can at last do a thing that IS special that gives me a reasonable chance to go to the Super Bowl at some point over the next decade.
If you predict he's going to be the guy he has been....you take him in a heartbeat. It really worries me that you evidently don't consider him a great pick. And btw, his teammates love him and so do the fans.
Matthew Stafford would be my last choice of those 3 but I'd still consider him a successful #1 pick. On a good team he can most certainly make the Play-offs and be competitive therein (IMO).
So I totally understand what you mean when you say some drafts are bad in terms of the QB's they produce. I've looked at that. It's true. But some of the guys you're evidently tossing off as not great, are (IMHO) perfectly good picks that I'd consider successful.
In the other thread you counted Russell Wilson and Matt Ryan as the only two good ones? I mean, that's crazy.
Hell, if I were starting from scratch I'd take Andrew Luck over Russell Wilson TODAY knowing who they were as players.