Tannenbaum says Dolphins will make responsible decision on Wallace

Nicks, when he was drafted, was a far more elite player than Hartline ever will be. Everyone knows that. But now he's not that guy.

But that's exactly the point, I mean, you've gone an proven my case. This year, they produced basically the same things.

So therefore there's little to be gained in signing Nicks from a football standpoint, right?

 

Probably shared by ones who watch the line. Satele wasn't good. In fact, he got worse as the season went on.

 

I don't know what's to be gained in this argument. Neither guy is worth much. The fact that Satele got away from the Colts--who are in need of quality offensive linemen--is telling. They really have no running game and luck is often under pressure. The fact that John Jerry got out of Miami, who may have had some of the worst offensive lines during the Ireland/Sparano era, is also quite damning.

 

IMO, John Jerry got way too much hate. He was never a great or even a good guard, but he was adequate.

I cannot say that about Satele or College. They were both HUGE downgrades over a crappy season by Incognito and John Jerry. Miami's interior line this year was amazingly terrible at pass protection.

Hopefully next season, moving Pouncy back to center and Billy Turner getting experience will help the line a lot. Maybe Shelly Smith will work on his pass blocking so he isn't really bad at pass blocking this year.

Probably could use a guard or two this offseason. If I was Hickey and the draft had enough, round 4-7 I would draft at least 2 guards.

 

Stolen from the Steratore thread but I disagree. You need two feet down to be a catch, and his first step was already a stumble, but one could disagree. But his second step was clearly a stumble. And his 3rd was what tripped him up. As you see, his 3rd step was him trying to right himself since his second step was such a huge stumble. He was headed to the ground.



At no point was he stable. He must maintain possession all the way through. He never established the catch. The football move stuff comes into play when the catch is done. He never got that far.

 

He wasn't always headed to the ground because of the catch. He would have stabilized if not for getting tripped up. I mean, if the rule really says that that is not a catch, then the rule is truly terrible.

 

Remember Calvin Johnson which is even more clear than this one. He never lost control, he just threw it away.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81a77070/Controversial-call-on-Megatron-non-TD

 

Well, I think that one should have been a touchdown, although I do think that the ground caused that fumble. If that happened at the 20 it would be ruled an incomplete pass??

 

You could argue it was a catch. But it was not a TD.

Just realized, you may have been talking about CJ and Dez.

 

He secured the ball, came down, switched hands, dove for the pylon and the ball hit the ground while he maintained control of it. The ruling on the field should not have been reversed.

 

If that is true, then the call should have been reversed.

 

If that's the case, then a catch on the sideline with a run toward the first down marker, and as the receiver extends the ball over the marker it's knocked out of his hands is an incomplete pass.

 

He didn't run towards the goaline. He was stumbling towards it. Look how fast his 3rd step comes after his second step. Because he's falling. If you fall, the ground rule applies. Need to maintain possession through the fall.

Do those look like normal steps to everyone, or do they look like steps of someone about to fall. What kind of leap is he taking with that last step? He creates a divot. It's not a step. He's trying to keep from falling. But he falls. So the rule applies.

I mean, is anyone reading the rule I'm posting or just ignoring it? If you catch a ball on the sideline, and make a run towards the first down marker, the rule doesn't apply. The rule applies when you go to the ground in the process of making the catch. Your catch and run doesn't fit. So it's a different rule for that.

 

Yes, was talking about CJ and Dez situations.

 

I think everyone has read the rule you posted. I personally, disagree with the rule even applying, as I think most people do. I think that he made the catch, and got his feet down, and secured the ball. As he attempted to continue running upfield, he got tripped up by the defender, and went down. It's not like Bryant was laying out to make the catch, and went to the ground in the act of catching the ball. The act of catching the ball was separate and before he was tripped up by the defender, and lunged for the goal line.

 

Sorry I mean CJ and NOT Dez.

Dez's was not a TD, catch or not. He's down at the 2 inch line.

 

I think that's a better, more understandable reason that what I assumed and with all due respect to your daughter and your experiences I don't think you're holding a grown man to appropriate standards.

He hasn't hit any women, if that's what you're defining as an instance of misbehavior.

Trying to fight people over Twitter is not appropriate. Getting into verbal altercations with coaches, and then doing the same thing(not wearing pads to the next practice) is not appropriate. Getting into altercations with radio co-hosts are inappropriate. Situations in which he should know better and has ample opportunity to use his coping mechanisms and make better decisions, and he doesn't.

Because he's a good player and on his physical merits he should be retained.

An unverified, under-investigated athletic charity should be regarded with suspicion, look at the article I posted. Most of them in practice give a tiny bit of what they earn to their actual cause, and the Brandon Marshall Foundation has less information available than most.

It's really nice he's found a cause he self-identifies with, I guess?

That really doesn't absolve him of his other issues.

 

that is on the QB no question.

 

Being grown up doesn't have anything to do with it. If it were simply an issue with maturity and growing up, then it wouldn't be called Borderline Personality Disorder. Its intensity of symptoms will lessen with age, but they can still persist through the person's 40's & 50's. My stepdaughter is 23, and I see how it affects her on a daily basis. She doesn't enjoy acting out, losing control, being impulsive, having fits of anger and so forth, of which and she certainly realizes she's doing; however, realizing she's doing it and stopping doing it are two different things. It's not just a switch that can be turned off, especially not a young 30 year old Brandon Marshall. He goes through great effort to minimize his disorder, GREAT EFFORT. I only wish my stepdaughter were as dedicated and committed as Brandon b/c she'd be much more agreeable to get along with.

C'mon man. Brandon challenged a fan to a boxing match, not a fist fight, after he insulted Brandon's mother. If the a**hole Lions fan lost, he would have to do 100 hours of community service at an orphanage and publicly apologize to Brandon's mother. Brandon didn't want to kick his *** like some street thug. He wanted to open the guy's eyes, all while helping out an orphanage in the process.

Yes, how inappropriate of Brandon to turn a negative fan encounter into something positive for Brandon and potentially positive and life-changing for the a**hole, while also potentially benefitting a group of orphaned kids whom he most certainly would've visited which would've lit up their lives, even if only for a day. If anything, I applaud Brandon. I only WISH more celebrities were selflessly willing to sacrifice themselves and their time like that for a greater purpose, especially for kids.

Now, the old BPD Brandon would've lost his s*** and impulsively wanted to slug it out, just kick the dude's *** in defense of his mother and make him look stupid. That's far from being uncommon BPD behavior. I've witnessed that anger and even rage many a times from my stepdaughter. Brandon didn't do that this time however. The anger was still there [he can't turn that switch off], but this time he collected himself and channeled his feelings of anger into a positive, which he did, and I bet if you asked a hundred sufferers of BPD how Brandon handled it, most if not all would say, "better than I could've". This is how it went down: Brandon read the comment and it infuriated him. I guarantee you his blood started boiling. But he's worked tirelessly on managing his BPD, so instead of just impulsively going off on the guy, he was able to recognize his anger. Recognizing it doesn't mean he can simply turn it off; it just means he recognizes it. By recognizing it, he can then ask himself, "how can I turn this anger into something positive?".... and the answer to Brandon was, "What if I can use it to help out underprivileged kids or as a way to change this guy's life for the better"? So there were two alternatives here, Brandon could've lost his cool and gone apesh** on the guy, or he could've used it as a means to positively impact others. For a sufferer of BPD, I'm pretty sure he took the high road. However, because he didn't handle it like a NORMAL individual who's capable of just blowing it off, you feel it was a display of immaturity, thuggishness, or whatnot..... and you're wrong.

I mean this with all due respect, have you yourself ever spent time around someone with severe BPD? What you think is "inappropriate" is flat out typical behavior of BPD sufferers, regardless of age. It's inappropriate for you or I. It's not inappropriate for my stepdaughter or Brandon. It's unfortunately just how it is. It'd be like me condemning you for not being able to turn off your attraction to women. If Brandon didn't experience these impulsive altercations, uncontrolled anger, outbursts, etc that you're so critical of Brandon about, then he wouldn't have BPD. He'd have a normal functioning brain.

Would you retain his contract during a rebuild? I wouldn't. I'd want Marques Wilson developing as quickly as possible myself.

That's understandable. My intention wasn't to dismiss your article our your mention of it. I only know how much effort Brandon puts into mental health. It should be clear by now that he's a highly passionate individual who possesses an obsessive compulsive personality. It clearly manifests itself in the way he goes about football. He might do dumb things from time to time or make the occasional outburst, but that doesn't change the fact that he works obsessively hard at his trade and on his health and physical self for the good of his career. When he goes off on his team or teammates, it's because he wants to win and wants them to be more accountable for their on-field performance. He might go about it the wrong way, but his intentions aren't inappropriate.

When he says he's using football as a platform for greater things, establishes a foundation for the very thing he suffers from, donates a million to raising awareness for the same thing that almost ruined him, travels around the country speaking on behalf of mental health, meets with Congress about mental health for kids, wants to meet with Goodell about getting the NFL more involved in raising mental health awareness, incurs fines to wear lime-green cleats to raise awareness for mental health, and gets the city of Chicago to go lime-green to raise awareness of mental health, he means every bit of it. It's all genuine. It's his passionate, obsessive-compulsive nature kicking into high gear.

That's how I know his Brandon Marshall Foundation and his involvement with raising mental health awareness is the real deal [even if I hadn't heard others praisingly speaking up about it]. His passionate obsessive-compulsive nature won't allow him to spend that much time with stuff that doesn't capture him or maintain a high level of interest. He'd lose his mind. He attached his name to his foundation. It's highly personal to him. As such, he knows its success or failure is directly tied to how the world sees him. And if you read up on BPD, you'll learn that a huge part of BPD deals with an extreme sensitivity to rejection, a frantic effort to avoid real or perceived abandonment, and a need for attention [as in being liked]. The extreme competitor in him paired with his BPD will flat out not allow his foundation to look like a failure, because failing would bring about massive bouts of feeling rejected, abandoned, and disliked to a level commensurate with suicide.

I'm not sure what those issues are? If he's actually detrimental to an established, winning organization or a team that's playing well, then yes, his condition wouldn't be enough justification to keep him on the team IMO. However, when a team is competing and playing well, has a strong sense of established leadership, and thus is in a positive state of being, I think it's possible that Brandon could be an asset to them. It's very possible that it's only when the team is losing, leaderless, not playing hard, and is surrounded in turmoil that Brandon is a detriment; however, if the team is losing, leaderless, not playing hard, and is in turmoil, I don't think it matters much which Brandon Marshall you get. The guy is an energy source. He utterly radiates energy. From what I can tell, if the environment around him is a positive one [like the 2012 Bears that started off 7-1], his energy emitted will be positive and will be felt and absorbed by those around him. If the environment around him is negative & stressful [like the 2014 Bears], his energy emitted will be negative, and this negative energy will similarly be felt and absorbed by those around him, thus perpetuating the stressful or negative environment.

 

Correct. I'm saying Dez should have been a catch, and I think the ground caused the fumble on the Johnson one, not him simply letting go of it. I don't think Dez had a td.

 

There is no fumble. I don't get why people are struggling with this so much. I don't like the rule, but as the rule stands it is a pretty easy call. If you go up for a pass and you're falling to the ground then you have to control it all the way through. It doesn't matter if you were stumbling or tripped up. It doesn't matter if while falling you were also making a football move. You can't let it hit the ground and have the ball bounce out of your hands. That's it. It's not a fumble b/c the catch isn't completed. It doesn't matter if you're in the endzone or in the middle of the field or falling out of bounds.

 

Right, there's little to be gained. Sorry, I misunderstood your original post.

 

My gawd, could you possibly be more full of yourself? I watch the line and there is no way in hell that John Jerry 2013 looked better to the University of My Eyes than Samson Satele 2014. Jerry was a little better pass blocking, but Satele was a whole lot better run blocking. Miller averaged 4.5 and 4.3 in 2014 running middle left and middle right. In 2013, he averaged 2.9 and 2.5 running middle right and behind right guard.

 

When it comes to watching the line, I probably could.

Satele was poor at run blocking and run blocking as a center is different than run blocking as a guard. Over half of the time when a running play did not work or almost didn't work it was because of Satele. The most of the other times were College. He was terrible.

Miller's average increase has more to do with the offense not demanding one on one blocking like the year before, which allowed him to do many double teams or blocks that pretty much work if he is in front of him. Also Miller was much better at finding holes and finding cut back lanes. His play was much better than the year before.

Samson Satele looked terrible at all aspects of the game. He also got worse as the season went on. He was much worse than Pouncy the year before and not as good as Jerry. Nor was College.

Incognito-Pouncy-Jerry > College-Satele-Pouncy. Which is sad. Part of the reason I think Hickey did just an O.K. job and not this great job people are trying to say he did.

 

Anyone else besides me have any interest in Reggie Wayne? He looked like he lost a step after his ACL injury last year. I wonder if that's simply a case of not being able to heal completely in one off-season at his age or if that injury just did him in. I wouldn't mind bringing him in if the price was right and see if he still doesn't have a solid year or two left in him.

 

Wallace just hasn't meshed with Tannehill, it's time for him to go. Say what you want about Hartline but he and Tannehill are at least on the same page. Landry and Tannehill were clicking right away. Save money for defense and just pair whoever you can with Landry and Hartline. They're gonna dink and dunk it down the field anyway.

 

That is different than saying Jerry > Satele. Incog was only there half the year for that matter, and Pouncey was at full strength, not coming off hip surgery. The LG spot was mostly a mix of Garner and Brenner.
When inside runs did not work in 2013, the man who missed his block was usually Jerry, and a lot more inside runs failed in 2013.

Whatever you want to believe was the reason for Miller's success and averaging 5.1 a carry, he ran better inside in 2014 than he did in 2013. No need to repeat the names. We know who was giving him running room on the inside. Style points don't count. Bottom line, it is right there in black and white which line did better run blocking based on results.

BTW, it is Colledge, not College. I thought you'd get it right eventually, but apparently not. Perhaps you feel that some players do not deserve having their names spelled right.

 

How is it any different than Dez's bobbled jump-ball reception against Houston where he didn't have control all the way through while going to the ground? We see plenty of these bobbled catches on the ground, and none of them are ruled incomplete. Tory Holt's jump-ball TD was bobbled a dozen times going to the ground and on the ground before the catch was finally secured, and it would still be a TD today.
[video=youtube;HWVzTcZW2gk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWVzTcZW2gk[/video]
[video=youtube;yWm4cJK_tHo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWm4cJK_tHo[/video]

Dez's catch was a combination of David Tyree's and Holt's catch. Tyree's was ruled a catch b/c he had control of the ball with it pressed against his helmet while it contacted the ground, just like Dez did. The ball never moved. Then as Dez rotated his body, the ball slipped out, but that was due to his body whipping around, not the ball hitting the ground. From there, he secured the loose ball without it contacting the ground just like his Houston catch and Holt's catch.

Dez's "reception" was literally two separate, completed occurrences- maintaining control while the ball contacted the ground [which he did], and then securing the catch after the ball popped up [which he did]. At no point did the ball touch the ground without him having control of it.

[video=youtube;27XeNefwABw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27XeNefwABw[/video]

0:57 mark
[video=youtube;NR-d-EVLygc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR-d-EVLygc[/video]

 

I do... agree with my idea of how coverage works that is. I mentioned how Wallace effects coverage and illustrated how he busted the coverage on Clay's TD, and you made a few rebuttals that were irrelevant WADR. The Jets were in Cover-2, and Wallace busted the coverage, period; however, you tried to act like the results [the busted coverage] would've been duplicated had Wallace been replaced by any other receiver as if it's some sort of foregone conclusion, and that's false. If busting coverage were as easy as you depict, then we'd be scoring 100 points a game. Therefore, when Wallace successfully busts the coverage, he's effecting it. Furthermore, why did Lazor choose Wallace to run distraction? Why not choose Landry or Hartline if it makes no difference so that Wallace can remain on the outside with just 1 safety to worry about rather than 2?

You referenced a Cover-2 shell as not being an uncommon coverage as if that's supposed to mean something in and of itself, but it doesn't. Just b/c it's not an uncommon coverage, it doesn't mean it's the only coverage, nor does it mean it's the coverage Rex had to run, correct? What's the main purpose of Cover-2? it's a "bend but not break" coverage scheme meant to prevent the big play over top, is it not? Rex could've gone with any coverage or any pressure package, so why would he opt for one that's friendly to Miami's successful dink-and-dunk offense when he could've instead compressed the field and pressured our porous O-line [like defenses did before Wallace and like Rex did in the 2nd half with Wallace on the sideline] in attempt to push us back out of FG range?

 

Watching Reggie was painful this year, even his hands are failing him.....retiring makes the most sense for him imo.

 

I've had a friend who was diagnosed as an adult I've known since middle school, so yes. You've most certainly dealt more with the treatment end than I have.

I've seen this person use their issues as an excuse multiple times, as a shield for planned bad behavior and I think it's very similar to what Marshall does.

I don't think you can be that laudatory for someone who is involved in their own issues. He's gone above and beyond, but again...I'd want to see the filings for his charity, and I don't think it's that special to be involved with support of a condition you yourself have.

 

Yeah, I agree with you somewhat. I shouldn't have called the Johnson one a "fumble." However, I don't think that the Johnson example is the same as the Bryant example. I think in the Johnson one, he was clearly going to the ground as a result of the catch, and the ground cause the ball to come out. I was more referencing that some people are arguing that Johnson let go of the ball intentionally, when I don't see that when watching the Johnson play. The Bryant play, I also think that the ground caused the ball to pop out...but, I think that the he was not still in the process of the catch. That is the disagreement we're all having. One side believes that the whole play was the process of the catch for Bryant, and the other side believes that the play was two separate parts, and that Bryant had already completed the catch, and wasn't going to the ground as a result of the catch...thereby meaning, that rule wouldn't apply to Bryant. I don't see anything that shows that Bryant was falling to the ground as a result of the catch. He fell to the ground as a result of tripping over the defender after he secured the ball and attempted to run.

 

What overall result of the play isn't that easy, but Wallace wasn't like even the 2nd most important element of it.

Bill Lazor hitting on the rock-papers-scissors element of playcalling was a huge part of it. He selected a Cover-2 beater vs. the right coverage. Secondly was Charles Clay selling his route. If he doesn't sell the fake-out portion of his route as well as he does, that second safety isn't going to be paying attention to Wallace.

I'm not going to disagree that Mike Wallace results in the Dolphins seeing more safeties over the top, but I'm not sure why it results in anything close to justifying his existence or speaks particularly well of his skill-set.

 

The difference is that the ball hit the ground and he lost control. In the catch against the Texans the ball never hit the ground. Holt's catch may or may not of hit the ground (I didn't think it did but there was no visual confirmation either way so it can't be overturned). The Tyree catch did touch the ground but also didn't move. He didn't lose control. In the Dez play against GB the ball clearly hit the ground and bounced out of his hands. I have certainly seen cases where the refs made the wrong call (a ton of times actually), but none of those above are reflective of that.

 

That would never be ruled as not going to the ground. He was always stumbling forward. He had never gathered himself. Just b/c he also dives and extends the ball does not negate that he was always falling. The way the interpretation has been applied since that "going to the ground" wording was added has always been very strict. I've seen guys stumble, with or without contact, for 4 or 5 steps (maybe even more) and the catch wasn't completed until the receiver gathered himself. In those cases I can see the argument that the catch was completed before the receiver fell, but here Bryant was clearly never not going to hit the ground.

 

Especially when you consider that he'll just not play whenever he feels that he's not being fed the ball. Ultimately the result of that play was Wallace benching himself. How happy is anyone supposed to be about that?

 

A man quit on his team. How can anybody want a guy like that on their team???

 

I don't think he ever quit in the same sense Mike Wallace did, and even then Moss was supremely talented to a degree you accept some of his poor behavior.

Wallace isn't even close.