We need a Qb? No, we need a Feature Back with 280 carries at least

Can you say that offensive interference calls haven't gone up as well? I've certainly noticed a trend in the calls going up.

These are all health rules.

 

Funny thing is both Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers missed 4,000 yards last year. So did Jay Cutler NFCCG. Mark Sanchez, AFCCG. Dolphins boy toy Matt Ryan missed 4,000 yards. His ugly but still attractive to Dolphin fans brother Joe Flacco did as well. Matt Cassell missed 4,000 yards. Ben Roethlisberger didn't get 4,000 yards. Neither did Matt Hasselbeck. Hell, Vick just barely made it over 3,000 yards at 3,018.

EDIT: Let's list Playoff QB's over 4,000 yards last year...Peyton Manning, Drew Brees. Both teams lost in the first round. Both to inferior QB who passed for under 4,000 yards. Both to teams with solid running games and ST's.

Let's now list non-Playoff QB's with 4,000 yards: Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Matt Schaub. More out than in. Carson Palmer threw for more yards than every Playoff QB besides Peyton Manning and Drew Brees. His TEAM finished 4-12 I believe.

 

I cannot say one way or the other. I would wager that offensive interference calls have not kept pace with the increase in defensive.

Health rules enacted because the league understands the implications on the money aspect of the game when big name QBs are lost for entire seasons or worse, careers. Health rules that make the passing game easier.

 

Kept pace, probably not. Been called more often? Possible.

Sure, they are protecting their investment. Doesn't really bolster your argument any that the nfl is making it into a passing league. By your argument I could say helmet to helmet rules make it a passing league.

 

To that I would say Aaron Rodgers passed for I believe 3922 yards, and missed I think a game and a half with injuries. He was arguably the best QB last season, and his team won the superbowl.

 

Lol. That's your response? It doesn't prove your point and it doesn't defeat mine. My point being team balance is necessary. One QB does not make a trend. But go back to 2005. 2005 and 2008, Roethlisberger missed 4,000 yards. Steelers won the Super Bowl. 2007, Eli missed 3,000 yards and his team beat a guy who broke records. Fact is, 4-2, the Super Bowl champ's QB over the past 6 years missed 4,000 yards. Even if you give Rodgers that game, which is a "what if" game, it's still a 3-3 split.

 

I have to go with NJFinsFan here. There are so many more variables that go into winning games, that there is no real way to correlate winning with running the ball a certain amount of times for X amount of yards (whether it's one back or two or three) and equating that to certain success. Football is a multifaceted game that requires solid play - and consistency - all around. It all has to come together: offense - must be able to keep a defense off balance, guessing, on their heels - unable to hone in on tendencies. An offense can not be one dimensional (unless your Marino) and be successful. You have to have solid play all around. QB, even if unspectacular, must be able to make the plays that keep a defense honest. (Fiedler, as much as everyone seemed to hate him was able to do this enough to allow our backs to have some room to maneuver.) The O-line must be able to consistently execute blocks while the running back has to have vision, the ability to set up blocks, attack the gaps, and explode up field without hesitation. I haven't given up on Henne yet. I like the kid. I think he certainly has the ability to play very well for us. Talent is not his issue. Consistency is.

Defensively, we must put our offense in the best position possible to put up points. Creating turnovers is, in my opinion, one of (if not THE) biggest keys to winning games. How many more games would we have won last year had we NOT dropped all of those should have been INTs? Pass rush, stout against the run, shut down corners, and the ability to create turnovers. We're almost there - and that's what the great defenses do (Pitt, Balt).

Special teams has been a horror fest for us. Rarely do we have great returns, yet many times we give them up. That trend has to be reversed. Special teams play can be the difference between a win and loss - or a close game turned into a blowout (see Patriots game).

COACHING: A coach has to be willing to go away from the game plan and have ingenuity enough to know how to do it. You can't go into a game hell bent that your game plan is not going to change. Sometimes you have to have enough sense to know when the defense or offense is whipping your *** and have the intelligence enough to know when, how, and what to change to put your team in position to win. Seems last year we stuck with the same old BS formula that made all areas of our team easy to attack. You can't rely only on talent vs talent and hope your guy wins the individual match up, you have to have enough smarts to put not only your team, but each player in a position to have his best chance at winning the match ups.

Anyway, might be somewhat off topic (could have gone into WAY more detail), but the point is, it takes everyone. In my opinion the thing that equals wins is consistency in all facets of the game. You certainly have to be well balanced. You can't rely on ONLY your running back, or only your QB, or hope your defense wins the game for you. Everyone has to go out and execute AS IF the outcome depends upon their performance. That's how you become a winner.

 

My point is that it's a passing league and you have to be able to throw the ball effectively to win the superbowl. Not that you have to throw for 4,000 yards to win the superbowl. Instead of focusing on the numbers, focus on the quarterbacks. Most would have no trouble admitting these are franchise quarterbacks winning the big game these days.

 

If we ever win a superbowl I would bet every last dime I have that it will have more to do with the QB throwing the ball, whether it be Henne or someone else than Daniel Thomas or any other RB. I'll be shocked if a RB ever wins superbowl MVP anytime soon.

 

You made the point that nowadays a 4,000 yard season is where good starts. 2/12 Playoff QB's were over 4,000 yards. Those teams had balance. Look at the Eagles. Their QB barely made it over 3,000 yards. My point is that it takes a play making TEAM effort to win games in this league which is a balance league, not a passing league. Your point initially was numbers show the passing league. The numbers show a balanced league.

 

No quarterback has led the league in passing yards and won the Super Bowl in the same season. Not ONE.


Most Passes Completed (Super Bowl Game)

1.Drew Brees-NOR32(SB 44)---Win Tom Brady-NWE32(SB 38)---Win3.Peyton Manning-IND31(SB 44)---Loss Kurt Warner-ARI31(SB 43)---Loss Jim Kelly-BUF31(SB 28)---Loss6.Donovan McNabb-PHI30(SB 39)---Loss7.Tom Brady-NWE29(SB 42)---Loss Dan Marino-MIA29(SB 19)---Loss9.Kurt Warner-STL28(SB 36)---Loss Neil O'Donnell-PIT28(SB 30)---Loss Jim Kelly-BUF28(SB 26)---Loss

9 out of the 11 top passing leaders in Super Bowl History lost the Super Bowl

 

Chicken and egg argument going on here.

 

Fried and scrambled, please!

 

This just shows that the NFL is a team sport. Tom brady came close to perfection. Yes the Giants stifled him, but he also marched down the field when they were being stuffed all game and scored what could have and should have (and thankfully wasn't) a superbowl wiinning TD throwing a pass to Randy Moss. A dropped INT and the catch of the century thank Goodness kept our record in tact!

A great passing game and a decent run game is better than a great running game and a decent passing game. IMO. Of course both require a good defense as well. But I think with the running game you often lean more on the defense. Just conjecture on my part. There are no quick strikes with the running game. It's a grind. Passing alone won't win you championships, but it's very versatile.

I don't think that anyone, when advocating for one facet of the game is doing so envisioning a vacuum.

 

Wasn't exactly what I said at all. I said 3,000 used to be a great year for a QB. By great, maybe I should have clarified, that was considered statistically speaking a LOT of yards. Now 4,000 is considered a lot of yards.

Now, 4,000 yards doesn't guarantee anything. Sometimes it's the QB who had an AWFUL defense that threw for 4,000 + yards.

My point is, the franchise QBs are the guys taking their teams to the superbowl these days. Not franchise RBs. Giving one good or great RB the ball 300 + times won't get us a winning season if not coupled with good QB play.

 

If you look at all the past Super Bowl winners you'd find that defense wins Championships. I realize that there are people who have tried to disprove this opinion, but they haven't. In all but 2-3 Super Bowls the winning team played better defense. The Pats-Giants game was a perfect example. Look at the Pats defense when they played the "Greatest Show on Turf"? Remember how little points they gave up to that high powered Rams offense? Remember how many points the Pats defense scored? Time and time again we see these high powered offenses going into the post season and being touted as the clear cut favorites only to lose.

 

It's more chicken and egg, as jdang said. Did the other team play better on defense, or did the other team just execute poorly on offense? Giants played great defense in the 2007 superbowl. But the Giants couldn't have won without a great drive on offense.

Packers won the Superbowl last year despite giving up huge chunks of rushing yards. Yes, they played great defense but they put pressure on the Steelers by putting points on the board. Same with the Saints 2 years ago. They were gashed on the ground by Indianapolis, but made big plays in the secondary and put points on the board.

 

NO,
We need a balanced attack

 

Can you name me the last "workhorse" to carry his team to the playoffs in the absence of competent QB play? To the superbowl? To a championship?

I have no problem having a RB get plenty of carries. But if Henne doesn't improve as well all we'll have is a tired RB and another losing season.

 

I dont' disagree. If you read my post you see how I mention all facets of the game as being important. Think about it this way, imagine all the parts of a football team as forming a circle. increase the volume of any portion of the circle allows you to be deficient in the other. Of course the winning team played better defense if you look back, that's because their offense scored more points

But we're talking offense here, wr vs QB. Defenses will always give you a chance. Let's eliminate defense as a variable. Now you have a choice of elite QB and solid run game, vs elite RB and solid QB. 1/2 a dozen of one,and six of another. If you look past you see very good QBs in a lot of super bowl. Winner and loser.

 

To be fair, it's a lot easier to stack the line when you predictably max protect with 7 or 8 and only 2-3 guys out on routes.

 

Sounds a lot like the Marino offenses of the JJ years

 

That's sort of a myth! Looking at the last 6 Super Bowls, the majority winners ran the ball often, and ran the ball well. Sure there are a lot of good passing teams in the league but it's the ones play very good defense, who run well, and pass efficient that win....

 

I think we just need to see more of Henne under better circumstances. More of him if the team can run the ball alot more consistantly than they did last season. With better play calling and a running game, he might be efficient enough that the team becomes somewhat of a threat!

 

Only 2? How those teams doing now? I think they are still looking for QBs...

And their RBs are looking tired.

 

Man, if they have this season, it's gonna be the sloppiest football we've seen in a while. A season where ugly, grind it out football takes all. A season where continuity trumps talent. A season where the wildcat passing game rises from the ashes. A season of cake with no icing. It could be the Phins year. Hope springs eternal like my prostate...

 

Sorry to interrupt with some meaningless banter and numbers... but let's take a look at what some have been saying about our team make up and its strength over the last decade (2000-2010)...

Padre sort of has it right when he states that a big bruising back took the load of the carries and the team won because of it... well that part he had right but IMO, not completely right, just one half of it...

From 2000-2006- The Dave and Saban eras this team core strength was it's Defense. It won games with it and lost them also. The Offense was a slow plodding unit built to take time of the clock and keep the TOP to avoid shoot outs...

Those Defenses only allowed opponents to score at least 27 points in 18 games out of 112... That was only 16% of the games played and the team went 2-16 during that period in those types of games... On average opponents scored at least 27 points about 2.5 games per season...They went 60-52 or about 9-7 on average during that seven year timespan, and yes I am including the 2004 season...

Then you see a change in performances after 2006...

From 2007-2010 those Defenses allowed opponents to score at least 27 points...28 times (in 4 years) or 44% of those games played during that timespan... The team's record was 2-26 or 7% win % on those games played...The teams record is 26-38 through the last 4 seasons...

I will break it down a little to answer some question before they are asked...

Record of Allowing 27+ points per game...
2000= 0-2
2001= 1-1
2002= 0-3
2003= 0-2
2004= 1-3
2005= 0-2
2006= 0-3
2007= 0-9
2008= 1-5
2009= 1-8
2010= 0-4

Now, there are those that state that a great/franchise QB would take you over the hump, but those that have followed one of the greatest (Marino) would add that a Defense would be a QB's best friend...

Marino from 1983-1992- The Prime of his career 156 games...
1983= 0-2
1984= 2-3
1985= 2-1
1986= 3-6
1987= 1-5
1988= 2-6
1989= 0-7
1990= 0-2
1991= 0-4
1992= 0-3

Looking at Marino's games above, proves that not only do you need a RB with a Defense to win games, but a passing attack without a run game will struggle to win games, if your Defense cannot stop opponents...

50 games (out of 156) where opponents scored 27+ points, that is about 32% of the games played during that span... winning about 20% of those...

Let's us follow a few current franchise QBs and their team...

Peyton and Indi (1998-2010)...including Post Season games
When their Defense Allowed 27+ points per game...
1998= 0-10
1999= 2-3
2000= 0-3
2001= 2-9
2002= 0-4
2003= 4-3
2004= 3-4
2005= 2-1
2006= 3-2
2007= 0-1
2008= 2-3
2009= 3-3
2010= 1-5

In Peyton's games over 13 years there have 73 games where opponents scored 27+ points... About 35% of the total games played and winning 30% of them...

As you can see the Defenses have allowed more 27+ games that Miami had the 1st half of the last decade and won more... but they are a set up with a different Offensive scheme and their Offense is still their primary threat for quick scoring, that can run effeciently... No mater what the stats show, they have an average Defense (not a bad one) that relies on the O to win games...

Now lets look at Brady and the Pats....From 2001-2010, 9 years (except 2008)
When their Defense Allows 27+ points per game...
2001= 0-2
2002= 1-3
2003= 3-1
2004= 2-2
2005= 1-6
2006= 0-2
2007= 4-0
2009= 0-4
2010= 3-3

In Brady's games (9 seasons), his Defenses have allowed opponents to score 27+ points in 37 games... That is about 26% of the total games played, winning 38% of them...

Looks to me like BB really tries to balance this team... Adding weapons for Brady to use, and trying to bring talent to his Defense, unlike in Mannings case, where it has mostly relied on his shoulders, just my opinion...

Now sorry to take this thread out of context but maybbe I just added some feedback Padre...

 

Matt ryan
2010 - 28-9 91 qbr
2009 - 22-14 81 qbr
2008 - 16-11 88 qbr



Statistically Turner was having one of his best years in 2009 in those 11 games he started. In 2009 atlanta rushed less, but gained almost the exact same yards (higher ypc) than in 2010.

So you are saying that it is more important that one runner run the ball more often (workhorse) then a committee of running backs who actually run for a higher average. Right?

 

So we're back to that now. Because that "worked" in Miami a decade ago. With completely different players, a different coaching staff, in a different ERA.

BTW, if I remember correctly all that system got us was a couple one and dones.

 

Actually, if you look at all of the QB's who started in the Super Bowl you'd find that a majority were below average to average. However, with the exception of (if I'm remembering correctly) the Unitas led Colts, the Manning led Colts, and the Manning led Giants, every single team who has won the Super Bowl have had above average to great defenses.


Of course a team would love to have a star QB, a great RB, and a top notch defense. However, that usually doesn't happen due to many reasons. The easiest way to win a Super Bowl, if you go by past Super Bowl winning teams, is to have a game managing QB, great defense, and a good to great running game. At the moment, the Dolphins look to have a great defense in the making, a game managing QB (who, IMO, can and will be better) and they are working on that running game.