Granted, Miami's defense still has some deficiencies both in terms of execution (dropped INTs, missed tackles) and overall talent. But despite these issues, Miami's defense has gone from one of the worst in the NFL in 2009 to top 15 in 2010. And the main reason for that was not personnel. It was a change at defensive coordinator. I think it's unrealistic to see a change at the offensive coordinator spot in the middle of the season, but let's hope that Sparano recognizes what an upgrade at coordinator can do for his offense (just as it did for his defense).
Playing devil's advocate, we had 7 completely new defensive starters vs opening day last year (Odrick, Misi, Wake, Dansby, JAllen, Davis, Clemons. Counting Crowder as a starter). We currently have 5 new starters vs the majority of last year (Solia, Misi, Wake, Dansby, and Clemons). So maybe personnel did have a lot to do with it.
I can appreciate a little devil's advocate work. That said, you have to keep in mind that Soliai, Wake and Clemons played last year (Soliai and Wake played quite a bit). So what you're really looking at is 2 completely new guys in Misi and Dansby. That's simply not enough to account for the "day and night" change in production especially when you consider that the defense has a lot of same deficiencies, but they simply appear to be masked by Nolan's approach to defensive scheming.
Come on, all you had to do was come back with us having 5 new starters on offense vs the majority of last year (Marshall, Hartline, Incognito, Berger, Jerry/McQuistan).
One of the BIGGEST COMPLAINTS ABOUT LAST SEASON WAS THE LACK OF PLAYING TIME WAKE RECEIVED.To say Wake played quite a bit is wrong and very misleading by you. Wake was lucky to get 10-12 play per game The first few games he hardly saw the field and the only game he received any playing time was against Buffalo when he went off...the next game his playing time was cut drastically
although I agree that Nolan is a better defensive coordinator, I have to agree with Stitches that saying we dont have a complete overhaul in personnell on the defense is wrong. Players like Wake, Soliai and Vontae may have played last year but even they are completely different players and that has nothing to do with Nolan. I like Nolan's attacking style more than Pasqualonis but to say that the personnell hasnt improved dramatically is just wrong. Generally speaking personnell is about 90% of success on the field. Coordinators and coaching is only about 10%. Coaching comes into play when teams are evenly matched IMO. AS our personnell gets better we get better
I agree that Nolan is awesome! I also agree that Henning is rediculous! Honestly, this season it seems like he is just drawing out of a hat on when to call plays... I hate seeing things change over a lot as far as terminology and whatnot but the Dolphins need a shake-up to get the offense going!
Nah, I completely and totally disagree. Perfect example is right here in Dallas. On paper, they are more telented than 90% of the teams in the league...which has them at 1-7. I say the same thing about Minnesota. They have TONS of talent, yet still suck. The Vikings DEFINATELY had more talent than the Saints last year, so did the Colts. Adversely, the Colts are mostly playing 3rd stringers yet doing pretty good. The coaching staff has at least as much to do with it as the talent level they have.
Yeah, I simply can't agree with much of this. While it's true that some of those guys are playing more than they did last year, you can't simply dismiss the production that the guys they shared time with would have brought to the table under this new system. And to say that scheme is only responsible for 10% of the production you see on the field is difficult to justify. When more than 50% of the defensive personnel stays intact yet the defense does virtual 180, you have to give more credit to the coaching.
Very misleading? So 10-12 plays...that equals 20-25% of defensive snaps. That would seem to fit the phrase "played quite a bit" and even if it doesn't to some, it's a bit of a stretch to say that my phrasing was "very misleading." (saying he started or played the majority of snaps would have been).
I agree that Nolan is an upgrade over Pasqulaoni but if you think Nolan would've had us in the top 15 with the players we had last year, that's where I get off the bus. Our defense is better because we have better players AND a better scheme, its not an either or type deal IMO.
My memo to Sparano would be this: Sometimes you've got to ignore the pitch count and ride the hot hand.
Personally I don't agree with that at all brother. Not one bit. Coaches, coordinators and their ability to scheme towards whatever their strengths are while protecting their weak points on their squads can have massive affects on the success of a team and the personell involved. Look no further than how the Patriot machine roles along even while casting off top talent year after year. They went deep into the playoffs playing a WR at DB one year for Gods sake. That's all scheme, preparation and adjustments. You seriously underestimate the affect a well prepared game plan and the ability to change strategies during a game successfully can do to make a team into a winner.
I disagree with this statement 100%. Let's use Belicheck for example. The guy wins with scrubs, toss-offs from other teams and average players. His defensive mind and overall football philosophy is second to none. Coaching/scheming is 90% of football. Making sure that your players are in the right spot at the right time is what the game is about. Let's face it, if you're in the NFL you have the talent to make ALL the plays.
If I had to guess, I would say that the way a team plays is roughly half players half scheme/coaching. I'm sure it sways one way or another from play to play (for example, you can't blame coaching for Smith's dropped INT on Sunday) but there's no way that you can discount the impact that coaching/scheming has at the NFL level. Also, as far as who makes these kinds of decisions, I'd guess that it's on both Sparano and Ireland, but I think that Sparano is the final decision maker (pretty sure he pulled the trigger on the Bonamego firing).
What it really comes down to me... it is that it "appears" to me that Tony plays out of a mold and he is not sure what to do when things spill out of that mold. For example, Wake wasn't in their plans last year. He played his *** off and earned more PT. But that wasnt in Tony's script so he didn't give him the snaps. I also believe there was a loss of control by Tony. There was at least one time in which he sent Wake in and Porter sent Wake back off the field. I am sorry but if one of my players does that to me he would be so far in the dog house he wouldn't know what hit him.
Who knows? Maybe coach Sparano's luck will continue and Tom Moore falls from the sky and they go all playmakers in the draft.
Will everyone here still be excited about a new OC if his first act is to make Pennington the starter? Curious. Because it's entirely possible.
what has them at 1-7 was a horrible offensive line to start the season and a horrible QB playing now. The defense is was vastly overrated also and a team that kept shooting themselves in the foot with turnovers and penalties
so when the miami offense or st louis offense or atlanta or baltimore offenses improve as their young QBs get better and better that will bee due to the coaches and not to their personal growth?
almost every coach comes form maybe 5 or 6 coaching trees. they are all running the same schemes. what seperates winners from losers is turnovers, penalties and talent. offensively its all about who your QB is. You think its scheme or Brady who is responsible for the Patriots success? Colts...its Peyton not scheme. Steelers? Big Ben and defense talent not brilliant playcalling. Look at Tennessee. Great coach, Great personnell, average QBs ...result - no glory. 90% of success is personnel
alot of people feel Belichik's defensive scheme is oudated and ineffective today. Not saying it is but there were more than a few opinions stating that over the last few years. as for his offense its all brady, just like when we had marino it was all marino. you think marino was good because of the scheme or playcalling? once in awhile you get a coach who is ahead of the curve...bill walsh of the 80s, don shula of the 70s, buddy ryan in 85, etc... and once in awhile you get a complete buffoon of a coach...ray handley, rich kotite, etc... but for the most part you have coaches of relatively equal skill playing one of five or six schemes going against coaches of equal skill and the only difference is the talent of the players on the field
exactly. you almost feel for pasqualoni last year. was the scheme responsible for peyton manning making gibril his ***** or was it the greatness of peyton matched up against the buffoonery of gibril?
If Pennington is better than Henne - Then sure, I'm all for it. But, on the other hand, if the new OC recognizes the value of taking 2-3 shots deep every game just to put the possibility on the table, I'll take Henne.
i would like to see those three shots taken dowfield also. I think thats a legitimate gripe. even if we dont connect and we probably dont, i think its time to start testing the defenses deep and get henne used to attacking. i think we need to start to take the training wheels off just a bit
you think he's a head coaching candidate? he kind of screwed the pooch in san fran. similar to cam cameron here. i hope we keep him for at least three years
Funny that you use the Steelers as one of your examples, especially since they started the season 3-1 despite having to rely on their third-string quarterback. Or how about the Patriots? Not only have they sustained their level of success despite a vast amount of roster turnover, but they also managed to go 11-5 despite losing their Hall of Fame quarterback in Week 1. Like I said, personnel is obviously a key factor in success. But I really think that you need to reevaluate your "90% stance." Very few professional NFL folks would even remotely agree with that and there's a ton of historical evidence to the contrary.
charlie batch is a dam good 3rd dtring qb and if you have their defense you can get away with it. you think the offensive coordiantor won those games? because i would say it was the defense. Now if you're talking about Super Bowls then they need Big Ben. To win regular season games you can get away with just a defense. Lebeau is actually one of the exceptions also. He is a true genius. There's only a handful of those guys coaching right now if you say that very few professionals would agree i would like to see a GMs opinion on that. Ask a GM what the ratio is since he's responsible for getting both. Its not 50/50 like you said. Maybe its not 90% like I said but its definitely skewed towards the players
I'm sorry Adam but this is such a narrow view it's not even worth discussing. Everyone is using schemes based off of 1 coaching tree at one point if you want to attempt to make it seem like coaching is pointless. It's not about the definition of what a scheme is. It's how a cooridnator or a coach uses a scheme, how he maximizes strengths and minimizes weaknesses according to their personell, how they disguise what they are doing so opposing offenses or defenses are confused about what's coming, how they gameplan within the scheme to attack weaknesses of the opposing team, how they gameplan playmakers within their sceme to be the focal point, etc. etc. etc. I could go on and on. I am floored you really feel strategic gameplanning is almost a non issue.
it is periodically an issue and having a truly great mind like Lebeau or Bill Walsh or a truly horrendous mind like Rich Kotite or Jerry Glanville can make a difference. But the majority of coaches or coordinators fall into that middling pack where there isnt much difference. And my point isnt that coaching isnt important its that talent is more so. And I will once again go to the Super Bowl to make my point, the last time I saw coaching decide a Super Bowl was 1990 when the Buffalo Bills clearly had superior talent but Marv Levy got outcoached by Bill Parcells. Every other Super Bowl was either a coin flip or the superior talented team won. Talent and discipline are the deciding factors far more often than coaching. its very rare when coaching is the deciding factor Just to take it further did Cam Cameron completely outcoach Nolan or was the reason we looked so poor on defense due to player breakdowns, missed tackles, forgetting about Ray Rice in the passing game? Who was at fault more? The players or Nolan?