And if we're assuming those are he opening day starters, I can definitely see Sherman sprinkling in some Spread in to the Offense.
This only happened for one season. How does something that happened in 2012 explain what happened in 2010? You also overstate the impact of system changes. Most systems in the NFL are fairly similar to each other. The NFL is not a hotbed of schematic differentiation and innovation; that's the college game, not the pro game. The pro game has three offenses that have melded together to become roughly interchangeable, and three defenses that are slightly different but not to the point where you would need to overhaul your entire roster to make it work. "We hired a new coach" is not an excuse for worse play when the point of that hire is to improve play.
I see. Coaches and systems don't matter. Only players. That's it, nothing else. Pristine logic on your point. I love how we played worse last year than the year before in your estimation. Also, pristine logic.
I think Hartline got overpaid. But one of two things will happen. He plays up to his contract or he gets replaced. If he doesn't do more he'll only see the guaranteed money and then he's gone.
Must you always exaggerate beyond recognition all opinions you disagree with? This crosses over into "putting words in my mouth" territory. I didn't say coaching and schemes don't matter. I said you overestimate the impact of changing coaches and scheme. I also disagree with the argument you derive from this opinion, that negative results can be selectively excused due to said changes. I lastly disagree with your application of this argument, that years prior to the coaching and scheme change can be excused because of this later coaching and scheme change. Both football and the space-time continuum do not work this way. Four years of sub-.500 play with a relatively unchanged roster hints that the problem might be related to the roster. You are free to disagree with this, but don't try to tell me that earlier losing seasons were because of a coaching change in a later season.
Why must you always ignore the logical outcome of your stances? If our record is the same regardless of coaching and/or scheme change, then coaching and schemes don't matter. That's not exaggeration. That's not putting words in your mouth. That is simply looking at what you said plus the results and coming to the only logical conclusion there is. If the conclusion seems ridiculous to you, then you should maybe rethink your stance. You could, on the other hand, accept the fact that the first 3 years of sub .500 play were due to an outdated blueprint presided over by ultra conservative coaching, that didn't focus on player development. Because of that, the creator of the blueprint is gone and the poor coach and his staff are gone. Now, we had one year with players for one system forced into another and we were two FGs from 9-7. Your one size fits all approach is worse than incorrect....its typical of the average fan.
It's funny. Some are up in arms because Brian is getting slightly overpaid for his production to this point, but the ones who are up in arms over this are perfectly happy with Mike Wallace getting GROSSLY overpaid by Miami.
I think with the Hartline contract, it pretty much assures that they won't be going after Jennings. They're not the same exact type of receiver, but the style is similar to where they can fill a similar role. I think what Darlington recently reported is probably true. He said he was told that they do not have interest in Jennings and they are planning on making a strong push for Wallace. It makes sense from the point of view that Wallace adds the extra dimension that the receiving core lacks. He said they want his speed. We know how infatuated lil' Jeffy is with having a speed guy. The $ is going to be the big issue.
Painting with a wide brush my friend. I think Hartline is grossly overpaid, and I'd prefer we not sign Wallace.
Who then would you bring in to play WR? I assume you're not satisfied with Bess, Binns. Matthews and Moore.
No. I was hoping for Jennings in FA and then draft Stedman Bailey or Quinton Patton. And then maybe even double dip in FA for someone like Ramses Barden or Brandon Gibson. Maybe even Domenik Hixon or Kevin Ogletree.
It appears that some guys are not interested in any player Irish brings in.... Is Hartline the worst guy we could bring in ?? No...is he the big play-maker that Irish is apparently intent on bringing in?? Don't know that either but it's just amazing that FA hasn't even officially began and Irish is so wrong in everything he does...
Yeah, I'm not gonna bite dude. You brought up Ireland not me. All I said was I think Hartline was overpaid. Don't remember bashing Teflon Jeff at all. I don't even mind Hartline, kinda like him actually. Makes some pretty good catches and has good chemistry with Tannehill. But he's not worth 6.5 mil. That's all I'm saying. So go ahead and try and turn this into a Ireland bashing thread, but do it with someone else. I've said my piece about our GM and said I would wait to see what happens in the off-season and either get on board or continue to believe he is not a good GM. So far it obviously too early to tell, but I'm not in love with his first real transaction. It's not awful, but it's not great either.
Alright, I was wrong....I'm not trying to make it a bash Irish thread either, but honestly it sounded like a shot to me and we seem to have too much of that even tho we are 72 hrs from the start of FA....
To me it kinda seems that this coaching staff isn't about wanting to give one player the entitlement that comes with getting paid an inordinate amount in relation to the rest of your team..I just don't know..I understand how he could impact an offense, I'm just not sure how much that salary can restrict a team of balance, or if I could pull the trigger on that kind of contract if I'm in charge. On the other hand, I do realize that a legit receiver with the best speed in the game can impact multiple facets of your team..it's a tough decision..
No worries. It wasn't meant as a shot, it was simply my reaction to the deal. I think we overpaid. That is all. If this deal doesn't prevent us from improving the WR corps and the rest of the holes on the roster, then it's water under the bridge.
The harmony and balance that would come with Jennings..Hartline..Austin..Bess...or Jennings..Hartline..Eifert..Bess is very appealing to me on many levels..
ok.. It's hard for me to think that Wallace will accept anything less than Bowe, who I don't think was worth what he got.
Fwiw I just saw on the Miami dolphins subreddit mike Wallace was spotted at a restaurant today in homestead, dining with someone and the overheard conversation was that of "renting a condo" Take that for what you will. Edit: link http://www.reddit.com/comments/19za1u
via @incarceratedbob: NFL - IBN Breaking News : Mike Wallace Has An Agreement In Principle With Dolphins!!! http://ibnsportswrap.com/article.php?articleID=133# It also says that we are trying to re-sign big Jake.
I no longer follow him because he has not been reliable. But I saw someone else retweet this on my timeline. Is it the kiss of death?
I'm just not seeing the desperate need for Wallace. He is a really fast guy who is limited in his route running ability. How is this different from Ted Ginn and Robert Gates? Yes he has had success, but with a totally different style of QB and a totally different offense. I don't see him signing for $12 million. It sounds like it will take more like $14. That is crazy talk for a guy who most admit is one dimensional. From what I saw last year we weren't that bad on offense between the 20's. It was in the red zone that we sucked. I'd rather have a guy who makes a big target of himself no matter what route he is running than a one dimensional speedster.
