In one of the worst QB performances I've ever seen even Lindley had 35 net yards in the first half and 33 net yards in the second half of yesterdays game. That should help put Tannehill's 13 net yards passing in perspective.
Once again, a thread that is about Philbin, you just say Tannehill...shocking. As bad as Lindley was, Arians did not go into a shell. He tried to WIN with the players he had, little fear. We get how you feel about Tannehill, just do not know why every post of yours is Pro Joe and anti-RT..every one. And net passing yrds included sacks...I know, I know..RT held the ball for too long.
It is classic deflection. There is no defense to the fact Philbin quit. So he deflects and try's to change the subject which worked. The use of Tannehill is to suggest it is Tannehill's fault not Philbin's. There is more substance there for him to potentially use as an argument
It's not an attack on Tannehill or anyone else, what he's saying is that the offense had done nothing all day and a big reason why is bc we couldn't block their DL, which is relevant to any discussion about whether or not to get pass happy and try a two minute drive in that situation. You're the one doing the attacking, attacking a decision that you apparently don't understand.
Grimes was already beaten when he slipped. His help, what little there was, was to the inside yet he gave up the outside, allowing the catch, first down and a clock stoppage. Finnegan also allowed a receiver out of bounds, on a play that would have ended the game had he protected the side line. Two vets who should have known better. That's a small part of why it's silly to blame the HC who's on the sideline watching the game instead of the guys on the field playing the game.
i guess kodaking the moment didn't help..hindsight only strengthens the argument not to do what they did...roll the dice man, your defense was on fire, momentum was all theirs and the morgue was on their feet, you must recognize that doesn't happen very often in this town and take your chances.
I don't recall too many complaints when Philbin called timeout twice on Brady's final drive in week 14 last year, bc the Pats didn't convert afterwards, no? Because the players went out and executed after the TO, no? Michael Thomas, fresh off the practice squad, made two great plays to seal the game after the Kodak moments. Second guess all you want but like you said it's a roll of the dice, ultimately the PLAYERS decide the issue, not a TO call.
Oh I see the play. If that's an attack, geez man color me an *******. I understand his position exactly. Philbin was scared that if we tried to score something bad would happen like an interception or fumble. So he stuck his head between his legs and went into the locker room like a *****. Never in 35 + years of watching a football game have I ever seen such a ridiculous call. Not when your loosing. Good god man do you want to win or just argue semantics?? Joe Philbin purposely quit and put this team in a negative position. The object is to win the game. You know maybe make the playoffs a yr or two (sarcasm). I am really trying to understand this logic It is no different then not trying to get a first down on 3rd and 20 because the last 5 times you tried you failed so you just give up and don't bother to try maybe call a play that you average 10-12 yards on the last 10 times you ran it when you know you need 20 Oh wait -------------------------Philbins done that too
You have to do it using subjective evidence. No idea, but adding those two inputs into the regression model don't move Miami from 5th best in the league to middle of the pack. Don't agree. Think low penalty rate is just as indicative of lack of aggression as it is discipline.
i know its an invisible thing I'm talking about but just because you did it one before doesn't mean you repeat the process exactumundo right?..its an understanding of the situation and the variables leading up to it...the big variable was their qb jut got nailed and fumbled and had to scramble to get his guys to the line...different story, requires a different reaction..the fact that you would do the same thing as we did in the pats without assessing the situation seems bizarre to me so I don't agree with that style of coaching philosophy.
Probably because Philbin called timeouts after incompletions, when the clock wasn't running??? You're either trying to mislead people or you have amnesia.
I don't agree with it either. But it didn't cost us the game, same goes for the 3rd and 9 call or the 4th and goal call in the 1st half.
You analogized two things that are not analogous. The TO's you cited from the NE game are not analogous to the TO's from the GB game.
That doesn't excuse the first TO which benefitted GB. The second TO wasn't really a big deal. Just accept that Philbo screwed it up and move on.
And that's my main point here, that it makes little sense to attribute the failures of a team with only two Pro Bowlers and a slightly above-average QB to coaching. There is simply so much room for an attribution of failure to insufficient talent, that any other attribution is likely to be heavily laden with error. In other words, if you attribute the team's failures to its insufficient talent, you're probably about 90% likely to be correct, and if you attribute them to anything else, you're about 90% likely to be incorrect. Naturally if the team had the number of Pro Bowlers the playoff teams do, and/or had quarterback play that was similar to that of the most competitive teams in the league, we could legitimately look elsewhere (such as coaching) for an explanation for its failures. But until those sorts of things are in place talent-wise, it makes little sense to look beyond talent.
Yeah, if you believe that the coaching staff has no role in developing players, then your theory is plausible. The fact that the argument in support of Philbin has devolved to how many Pro Bowlers are on his own team, says how little evidence there is to support him being employed.
But what if as I said earlier in the thread he made a half-dozen or so decisions earlier in the quarter that we're unaware of and that made the game far more competitive than the norm for Green Bay in such a game? Can we possibly evaluate Philbin accurately when we're going on only what we know, and not what we don't?
It sounds like we're operating from a philosophical starting point in which you believe coaches have far more an impact on the individual talent displayed on the field than I do.
I never quantified any impact. I said they do have an impact. Do you agree that coaches have the responsibility of developing players? This is a yes or no question.
Again, we can only use subjective evidence. And there is a lot of subjective evidence that indicates patterns of incompetence from Philbin. Can we definitively say that we can 'accurately' evaluate Philbin? No. But then at best, your argument is that you cannot accurately evaluate Philbin, which does not mesh with your opinion that he is competent.
I do, but naturally there is an input into that equation coming from the coaching staff, and (a much bigger, in my opinion) one coming from the player, in terms of his natural ability, his intelligence, his mentality, his work ethic, his willingness to be taught, etcetera. I'm sure you know the old "you can lead a horse to water..." saying.
I don't have an opinion that he's competent. I'm saying we can't have an accurate opinion until the team has the requisite talent to make that assessment far more reliably. My subjective impression, whose accuracy I can't determine, is that he's no more or less competent than the average coach.
Right, a lot of it is dependent on the player himself. But we have a large sample size of players Philbin has coached. You're essentially suggesting that over the 100+ players that the Dolphins have had over the past 3 seasons, that group had a demonstrably lower talent level than the norm. Based on evidence we have regarding talent acquisition, to suggest that one team has a demonstrably lower level of talent acquired is nearly impossible.
So maybe if we acquire players like Vontae Davis, Karlos Dansby, Brandon Marshall, etc.? What subjective evidence supports this? Subjectively speaking, the bad far outweighs the good. We have had players publicly disrespect Philbo. We have had a player literally quit the team, go AWOL, and sabotage the organization. We have had the owner forced to step in and force Philbo to fire Sherman. We have a number of players used in bizarre roles. We have seen the team's QB cite Philbo's behavior as a distraction to the team. We have seen multiple players leave this team and perform significantly better on other teams. Seriously, what more subjective evidence do we need? What subjective evidence can you point to that supports him being competent?
What evidence do we have regarding talent acquisition, and how does it incorporate the talent that was jettisoned? Vontae Davis, Sean Smith, Karlos Dansby, Brandon Marshall, Reggie Bush, Jake Long.
There have been numerous studies on talent acquisition that have concluded that acquiring players at the NFL level is a function of luck. I can dig some up if you would like. How exactly does Philbo not get blamed for jettisoning talented players that he had conflict with?
Also, to add to this debate - we do have quantifiable, objective evidence of how good of a coach Philbo is. He works in a free market, where coaches are paid based on their performance. Philbo is one of the lowest paid HCs in the league. That is objective evidence of his performance.
What I meant above is that the team may have acquired just as much talent as it's jettisoned, and is therefore left largely where it was when Philbin was hired -- hinging predominantly on the play of its quarterback. That quarterback is just now -- three years later -- performing at the level at which sufficient talent elsewhere would likely equal the playoffs or better. In other words, Philbin's first three seasons were characterized predominantly by the development of a very raw player at far and away the game's most important position. We're just now entering the span of time in which Philbin can be assessed accurately.
Why is someone's compensation on an open market not an objective measure of their competence? Youre arguing counter to some basic economic theories.
Because coach pay has just as much to do with other factors like how good their agent is. Or if they are popular. Or if they are in the proper circles. Or the frugality of the owner. Or any number of other things. You seem to be forgetting the closed ecosystem of the NFL AND the celebrity aspect of it. But, I'm sure you'll argue that.........
