1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Barry Jackson: Marino close to joining team

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Serpico Jones, Apr 15, 2014.

  1. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,560
    4,133
    113
    May 9, 2008

    Leading the league in TD's isn't exactly easy to do... And Dan Marino also never had really great offense post '86 to do it with. And when he did get some talent in the mid 90's, he started putting up strong numbers again. Only to be hampered by injuries from there on out, until he called it a career.
     
  2. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,560
    4,133
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Right. And not to mention, what else is he suppose to say? Is he going to go on a diatribe, explaining every detail? It would be like asking, how do rate prospects? I'm sure the answer isn't as simple as "I watch them." And yet, isn't that really the answer?
     
  3. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    That's not the only info we have though. Nothing either side has is total proof, but the picture painted by the info we do have is a man who was supremely physically gifted with a competitive drive rivaled by few others. But he was also a cocky and egoistical guy who didn't value film work and study. Seeing which guy was open faster then anyone is not proof of deep knowledge of the game. Does he have deep knowledge of what its like to play? Yes.

    Everything Dan was, was based purely on instinct and drive. Many people are going to be upset by what I'm saying, but in reality, if you really think about it, there's no bigger testament to his abilities then realizing he achieved everything he did....without being a student of the game.
     
  4. Den54

    Den54 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    19,678
    31,347
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    AMERICA!

    You're still selling him short. You don't make those kinds of quick reads against defenses without being a student of the game.
     
    shula_guy likes this.
  5. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    He didn't read defenses, he threw to the open guy. He was just so damned physically gifted it worked.
     
    bigbry likes this.
  6. Den54

    Den54 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    19,678
    31,347
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    AMERICA!
    "Dan Marino had tremendous peripheral vision. He just was tremendous at picking out the one-on-one situation and knowing where the weakness in the coverage was and attacking that weakness.


    You must have missed that part.
     
    dolphindebby likes this.
  7. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I didn't miss it. That's just a technical way to say he threw it to the open man.

    It was like those courses that have a cardboard cutouts pop up in a hollowed out town and you have to shoot the bad guys. Marino would be amazing at that.
     
  8. bigbry

    bigbry Huge Member

    5,278
    3,071
    0
    Dec 18, 2008
    Colorado
    Both mean the same thing IMO.
     
    Steve-Mo and Fin D like this.
  9. 54Fins

    54Fins "In Gase we trust"

    4,464
    1,515
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    over there
    But don't you think now would be a great time to bring him it to sit and listen while the most important part of the off season is going on?
    This would be a great learning experience from the managerial side before / if he takes on a bigger role in the future.
     
  10. CaribPhin

    CaribPhin Guest

    There have been players with amazing arm talent that flamed out. In 1984, with those defensive rules, that's hard to believe. Under current rules, just chucking it to the open guy can't get you in the hall of fame, ask Stafford. I can't imagine how hard that would have been in the eighties.

    Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk
     
  11. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I think the quick release was key. It slowed DBs reaction time and that gave the WR the edge. Plus, his accuracy was off the charts.

    I think its like this, for Dan the game was micro instead of macro. I think everything was the small in the moment details. Reactive not proactive. A guy like Peyton studies the history of a DC's playcalling, checks the stats on a db in particular weather. Dan, I believe, looked for windows happening in front of him and that's it. I think he could spot the tiniest of openings and take advantage of that with his quick release and laser accuracy. I'm paraphrasing Kordell Stewart who said that while he was just hoping to hit his man, Dan wanted to know which shoulder you wanted the ball over.
     
    Clark Kent likes this.
  12. Aquafin

    Aquafin New Member

    4,736
    304
    0
    Jun 16, 2011
    the poor house
    OK I think it is time to bring this up but we have had several players that were assistant coaches and were successful so why should Dan Marino be different ?

    I will bet that not only can Dan can succeed but I bet that DON Strock , ZACH Thomas and probally some other guys could succeed in a front office job .
     
  13. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Notice Shula is not talking any pre-snap stuff. His peripheral vision was tremendous, allowing him to recognize weaknesses in the defense as they develop. Then his quick release and arm strength/accuracy allowed him to take advantage. Notice Shula doesn't extoll Dan's ability to recognize patterns pre-snap and then change the play to take advantage of a weakness he expects will be there.

    What Rafael said was key. He didn't work on his play-action because he wants more time to look at the defense. There is no expectation of the defense being a certain way after turning around from a good play action.

    It's not just arm talent. It's the super quick release, great vision, fast recognition, and ballerina feet extending the play to wait for the open receiver. Also, I'm no guru but were defenses a little more simple back then?

    If you watch earlier in video, they talk about Dan's first year and how he didn't know the playbook. Nat Moore would call the play and he's just like, let's do whatever Nat said. And he killed it. That's how natural he was. Low INT, ridiculously high TD % for a rookie that hadn't fully grasped the playbook.

    Imagine for just one second. Everything that Dan was + Brady or Peyton's passion in the film and study room.
     
  14. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    There are obviously exceptions, but generally players who relied on instincts and natural gifts aren't as successful in coaching later in their careers as guys who had to learn to be students of the game. Strock and Zack are famous examples of "students of the game" (although IMO Zach's athleticism was under-rated). I would be less surprised by Strock or Zach becoming successful coaches. I don't think Marino would be likely to succeed as a coach. I know that he's not being considered for a coaching position. I was just responding to a specific post.
     
  15. His'nBeatYour'n

    His'nBeatYour'n Glass Ceiling Repairman

    4,454
    1,910
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    New York
    I don't believe that Marino would really be an asset in a Parcells or Elway role.

    I also don't think Elway would look as successful at this stage if Manning wasn't his QB.

    But in this debate about whether Marino could read defenses pre-snap or if he was just a purely an instinctual player, it seems that people have forgotten that Marino called his own plays as a rookie, and that especially as a veteran he feasted on defenses by calling the right audibles. His quick release, footwork, and instincts made him the greatest. But he was absolutely a player who could diagnose and dissect a defense pre-snap.
     
    shula_guy, Eop05 and fins4o8 like this.
  16. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Did he? Because in the video I linked, he was boasting about the numerous times he didn't even know how to call the play that year, and that Nat Moore or someone else had to call plays and he just rolled with it.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  17. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I didn't watch the video, but I do recall several reports during that rookie season of Marino not knowing the plays. One of the WRs (maybe Nat Moore?) compared it to playing in the backyard where you drew plays in the dirt. It wasn't stated as a criticism. Marino was the "can do no wrong rookie". The comments were more along the lines of what a great instinctual player he was and about how Shula adapted to the talent he had. But it does run counter to the image some are portraying about Marino being a student of the game.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  18. Den54

    Den54 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    19,678
    31,347
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    AMERICA!
    Upon reflection, I miss used the term " student of the game" when expressing my opinion Dan.
    I just believe him being portrayed as all talent and no brain is inaccurate.
     
  19. 54Fins

    54Fins "In Gase we trust"

    4,464
    1,515
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    over there
    Because his peripheral vision got him into the HOF.
     
    77FinFan likes this.
  20. I think Dan understood exactly whewre everyone on both sides of the ball was going to be at every moment of every play. Did it take him hours of study to figure it out??? I dont know. I do know he knew and he exploited it like no other.

    Perfect example is the infamous fake spike play. That was a complete understanding of the siututation and how to capitalize on it and then having the balls to execute it.
     
  21. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    That and great instincts, great pocket feel, a lightning release, confidence, leadership, oh and arguably being the greatest natural passer in league history.
     
    CWBIII and jdang307 like this.
  22. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No one is saying he had no brain. We are saying he didn't study the game and he doesn't know the game on that level. He was instinctual not intellectual. One is not inherently worse than the other.....unless you're gunning for a position of power in the FO.
     
    bigbry likes this.
  23. You need to get over your hard on for Marino. You take every opprotunity you can to tell people he was not as great as he gets credit for. Its old and tired at this point.
     
    Wayne Kjelsrud and dolphindebby like this.
  24. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    He was decent at pre-snap reads, not great, but decent. Almost any vet QB with as many NFL snaps as Marino had would eventually learn to pick up cues regardless of how much film study he did. As I mentioned in an earlier post, even Testeverde became known as a savvy vet eventually despite being pretty dim. And Marino was smarter than Testeverde. What Marino always struggled with was his post-snap reads if the D changed at the snap. That was the exact strategy SF used in the SB against him.
     
  25. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    STFU, I never said that.
     
  26. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    he still had to understand the coverage. he may not have been a "student" of the game but to say all he did was simply throw to the open guy is selling him short.
     
    dolphindebby and Den54 like this.
  27. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    He really didn't have to understand the coverage, and I'm not sure why you think saying he accomplished everything he did on instincts alone is selling him short.
     
  28. If you would learn to stop inserting your tampon with the adhesive side up the swelling on your vagina might go down.

    You make it a point to tell everyone that he does not deserve as much credit as he gets. This is a fact. The guy has a frigging statue built in his honor get off his jock.
     
  29. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Not knowing his own offense, therefore definitely not knowing the defense, as a rookie, he threw for 6.8%/2.0% TD/INT his rookie year. Fantastic numbers Pre-Manning crying for a rule change era. Fantastic numbers. That's how naturally good he was. 2 of his 6 INTs that year came in the first half of his first game, so we can definitely excuse those.

    It's ridiculous when you break down his rookie year stats and then remember, Nat Moore was helping him call plays in the huddle!
     
  30. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    I'm not sure why you think saying he did that on instincts alone isn't. it has been widely established by teammates and coaches that he lost interest in meetings after the passing plays were gone over,coverages and he plain and simple hell he even said he lost interest but what you are saying is that he didn't have the mental capacity to learn sand lot'd every week. he knew the coverages well enough to know were he needed to go to hit the open man. in my opinion he knew them well enough he could recognize them and make the adjustments in a very instinctual way. he could break down those coverages faster than most and it appears in a very un-intelctual way.
     
  31. bigbry

    bigbry Huge Member

    5,278
    3,071
    0
    Dec 18, 2008
    Colorado
    Hahahahahah Gotta love the pre-draft jazz
     
  32. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I never said he didn't have the mental capacity.
     
  33. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    but you are implying that buy saying he only.. I don't think anyone will argue that he wasn't a student of the game, lol there are reports everywhere that he didn't have the patients for that but I think we are missing something on a deeper level with him. this is just my opinion but I think the game played for him much like a fast ball hitter at the plate. I think things happened for him before they actually happened and i don't believe for a moment that he didn't have some understanding of coverages and responsibilities, just watch his interactions with his receivers and running backs when they weren't on the same page. he was quick to correct them when they weren't. I just think X's and O's bored him.
     
  34. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    WADR, I haven't been implying anything. I don't really imply, I more or less flat out say what's on my mind. I think my history (and points) record on here back that up.:up:

    All I've said is that Marino isn't qualified for a position of power, particularly roster-wise, because he doesn't know the game well enough to judge talent or direction. I've used is attitude about play study as evidence of that. Think about it, if he can't be bothered to watch film when was playing, how is he gonna watch even MORE film to make informed decisions on personnel?
     

Share This Page