ESPN analyst Damien Woody on Miami Dolphins: 'They're soft mentally'

If injuries are why the team has consistently fallen back at the end of the regular season, then the goal should be to build a team that is more robust to injury--because injury itself is a predictable hurdle.

We know injuries are going to happen. Instead of cheering about how great the 22 starters look on paper, we need to be a little more concerned with the depth behind those premier stars and the most recent additions.

Thankfully, I think the youth that's been added over the last couple years at LB and DB will provide a great deal of depth. Not having short term fixes in the way (i.e. Cortland Finnegan and Philip Wheeler) will also help those young guys get more playing time and thus be more reliable.

Depth has obviously been added along the O-line as well, but we've yet to see if it's worth anything.

 

Moreno was the leadership loss in that unit. IMO he was a critical, season changing injury for us last season.

 

A team takes on the personality of its coach...

 

And? Some teams fare better because they have better back up talent then we did.

 

Yes. I know they aren't out of the ordinary, but the devil is in the details. Those were key positions for us and we weren't exactly stacked with quality depth. You also have to take into account all of the changes in the last few years. There's been no stability. There's been constant and many changes with players, coaches, coordinators, GMs, etc, etc. My point was that it isn't all on Philbin. That's what is BS.

 

I think the problem in recent years has been that our starters weren't either up to par or didn't play well together. You gotta focus on that first, then worry about depth, and I think our FO has done exactly that this offseason (and last).

As far as starters go, OG remains the biggest hole, but what about 2nd starting CB? And will LB really pan out? We need one more year of good drafting/offseason and then we'll be in that rarified group where we can focus mostly on depth or on future replacements for starters. Right now we have solid depth at only two positions: WR and DT.

 

Excellent point about the lack of stability.

 

That final game of the 2013 season stands out to me the most. Down 14-7 going into halftime with the playoffs on the line and getting shut out in the 2nd half......at home......against a below average team..........with a poor QB

That, to me, is the very definition of buckling under the pressure and/or not being prepared for a pressure situation. It defines mentally weak. I'd love to call it an aberration if a similar thing didn't happen the very next year.

 

I get what you're saying and to some degree that has to be true because the coach influences a lot of things, but you gotta admit when you see those defensive breakdowns, it just doesn't feel like the personality of a "Philbin".

 

I agree they may have buckled under pressure, but that's not the same thing as being underprepared.

 

You can prepare for pressure though. The military, police and many athletes do it. Though the situations they use for training aren't the same as the actual situation the troops/athletes will face, there are effective training programs.

Basically, once you train people on specific skills in non-pressure situations, you can create situations where something is on the line (there's tangible cost to failure and reward for success, more so than in non-pressure situations) and do what you can to mimic the real thing without getting people injured.

We never really hear much about this aspect of training when reading about training camps etc.. so I don't know what's being done or not to improve performance under pressure, but it's definitely something you can better prepare for and it does seem like we aren't as well prepared for it as some other teams (would be easier to tell if it's a coaching issue or not if more reports about what teams do regarding this came out so we can compare).

 

The attitude to dominate on defense and run on offense just makes the QB's job so much easier. I firmly believe that if Tannehill had gone to Seattle they'd have had similar team success. And I'm a big Wilson fan, so this is not intended as a slight. I don't believe just any QB would have had the same success. But I also see how well those coaches protected Wilson and how little they asked him to do, especially early on. Limited passes, roll-outs and half field reads, more consistent use of the read-option, etc. All of that puts less on the QB's shoulders and it's easier to make a play when you're asked to do it less frequently and you're facing a defense that's focused their practice all week on what you usually do, run Lynch. While that makes it easier on the QB, that QB still has to make some plays (just less when you have the best D in the league). Wilson does that which is why I don't believe just any QB could do just as well.

Tannehill has done similarly when provided with similar support (it's just been less often, less consistent). Look at that first game against NE this year. Our D was playing at a top 5 level and our run game was our bread and butter. The rest of the team played like Seattle has for the last two seasons. Tannehill didn't play great. In fact, he had a poor day statistically. But he had a fairly typical Wilson-type bad day (although he ran less). It was almost identical to the Seattle/Oakland game I watched last season. He even had similarly inconsistent play from his WRs. Clay was banged up and was a non-factor as was Hartline. Wallace was inconsistent. He didn't get much separation on Revis most of the time and when he did break open deep stepped out of bounds on a beautiful pass from Tannehill. The other similarity is that both Seattle and Miami won. Wilson had about 5 games last year where he played about that poorly, but Seattle was 4-1 in those. Tannehill had about 6 games where he was poor and Miami was 3-3 in those. On the other end, Wilson had about 10 games where very good. Seattle was 7-3 in those. Tannehill had about 7 games where he was very good and Miami was 5-2 in those games. Seattle wins 70% to 80% of the games whether Wilson plays poorly or great. Miami is a .500 team when Tannehill plays poorly and wins just over 70% when Tannehill plays well. IMO Wilson has been a little better and a little more consistent. Part of that is his support, which as I said makes things easier, and part is his greater experience. My opinion is that with similar support Tannehill conservatively would have had about one fewer bad game and one more very good game last year (probably more very good games since that's what I usually see when accurate short passers get that run game support). I think that Miami wins at least 11 games last year with better D and run support. That puts us in the playoffs (who knows what happens there) and changes the discussion about Tannehill or the team's mental toughness. IMO Wilson has been better, but most of the difference is in the support he received (he's also benefited from system consistency). After considering the difference in support, Wilson's edge is smaller. IMO Wilson is a great QB. Most people won't argue that b/c Seattle has been very successful. I just believe that if Tannehill had been drafted by Seattle that most would feel similarly about Tannehill.

 

Get out of here with your "reason" and "logic". We're not trying to have any of that "grounded in reality" crap.

 

It still comes down to the unique human animal being able to withstand a given pressure at a given time under given circumstances. The military can control much more than a football team can, based on their resources. Point is, you can only prepare so much, and not besting that pressure is not automatically an indictment of the quality of the pressure preparedness.

 

I tend to be in the same camp, saying Wilson > Tannehill, but not by that much, and Tannehill would have had success in Seattle too.

But.. I don't think you can get away with implementing a similar type of offense if Tannehill is the QB up there, especially in limiting his pass attempts to the degree they did with Wilson. I really think you have to give him a role closer to that of a traditional pocket passer, but with options to run. But yeah supporting cast and coaching matters.

 

Oh I agree absolutely.

I do wish we had more info on what coaches are doing to try to prepare the team for such situations though. It would make analysis easier.

 

I think Wilson is better than Tannehill by quite a bit, but also believe Tannehill would have had success in Seattle with that team as well.

 

IMO Tannehill is a better pocket passer than Wilson so it would make sense to tailor the offense that way. But I also think Tannehill would have run more up there. He would have been encouraged to run more, run more read, and roll outs with half field reads would have resulted in more runs. Not as much as Wilson, but more than he did here. Tannehill is not as nifty, but he is faster and a little stronger. On balance probably a few less yards due to a few less escapes (not as many as some here think), but speed nets a few longer runs.

 

this is a logical scenario considering ireland's lack of talent was responsible for the lack of depth on the team last year..

 

i agree and disagree, can't take all the blame, but i think he lost that packer game, and coyle lost that panther game.

 

Exactly.. that's one big difference in coaching between the two teams.

On the plus side, I expect that as Tannehill shows to a relatively conservative coach like Philbin he is comfortable in the pocket, they will give him more freedom to run. Or at least I hope so. The training wheels need to come off now.

 

I dont understand how you come to that conclusion when one player is an elite playmaker at the position and the other has not shown nearly the same level.

 

Aaron Rodgers was the reason for why the Packers won, imo.

 

IMO you tend to over-estimate play-making ability and attribute it all to the player rather than the support/environment. I think that's why you liked Manziel. You saw his play-making as translating since you saw it as all individual. I saw it as more situation dependent and not translating. Likewise with Wilson and Tannehill. I see Tannehill's play-making as improving in Seattle and Wilson's play-making as diminishing in Miami.

 

i responded with a very long post in another thread, cant find it now but Im not sure you read it..

yes, I judge playmaking ability on the individual, not the other parts, when any qb who possesses that special talent, it is he thats making something out of nothing, or worse, a potentially disastrous situation into a positive play..thats all individual, and thats what ryan needs to do..he has not shown the wherewithal to do so after three years, and imo thats the missing element he will need to implement if he wants to be a top 10 qb.

is that because of the steep learning curve ryan had to becoming a pro qb, maybe so, i hope so..Id like to see some conscious efforts to make a play, id like to see something on purpose, like he recognizes that if he threats the defense it will help him dissect later on, not there thus far.

 

aaron rogers was being thrown around like a rag doll on the previous play, so much that he just let the ball go flying..you don't fu&& with that type of rhythm and momentum..no need to get analytical about it either, you just don't mess with it..you roll and you take the hit, but at least you rolled.

 

Maybe the D giving a 68 yard drive to Rodgers and co with 4:09 to go didn't help things either. Or maybe the Packers quickly forcing a punt to give them a start at their 40 or Rodgers hitting Jordy Nelson on 4th and 10 for 18 yards to keep the game winning drive alive. Rodgers finished with three TDs, 264 yards and no TOs. If anything, yet another defensive meltdown.

 

the point is it was complete luck they recovered that ball he fumbled on third down and long..finish him is the right approach, not, lets call time and regroup...lol..deflated that stadium so hard it wasn't even funny.

 

That's the point? Ok. It was luck. Ok, well luck is also a part of winning football games and it's pretty easy for a fan to say what the right call was in that situation. Maybe they had personnel issues. Maybe they had a scheme or alignment issues and even if it was a bad move, it was just a final dagger. Being in that position in the first place against a player like Rodgers was the problem, but whatever, it's cool. Put it on who you wish.

 

We would have STOPPED them on 4th and 13 if Philbin doesn't call timeout to help his boy Rodgers regroup. Point..Blank..Period.

 

well, since that's a cold, hard fact..

 

The D are the ones you usually like to keep on their heels and prevent them from calling a TO to prevent them from regrouping, getting in better position and making the right subs. etc.

Now he intentionally helped "his boy"?

 

Yes,pretty much..you want to check and see what the chances are of them having a first down with no timeouts, coming off a sack/fumble with the stadium rocking with no timeouts for Aaron to regroup on 4th and 13? Or did you just want to mock my post as usual...lol

 

Yes,he did..was his OC for several years...weird huh? After the timeout we came back out on defense with the same 11 that were out there on D the previous play....hmmm..just seemed odd to me.

 

The TO costing us a win thing is bogus.

 

the way i look at it is like this, some were irate including myself when it happened, and then the worst possible scenario, the against all odds play happened, so who's right and who was wrong?..they were wrong, thats the point, they didn't roll with the momentum and all variables on their side..Pros get stuff wrong all the time, you don't have to defend it on the notion that they may of had schematic issues coming off a 3 rd and long to a fourth and long..

 

prove it.

 

there goes the personnel theory..lol..their down to alignment..lol

 

Well, off to another thread, don't have the want, time, or energy to argue with you FinD which is what you are looking for...you have your opinion, I have my opinion, I won't change, you won't change, opinions on this particular topic. Have you ever played defense my man?

 

prove it did.

Again, you don't stop the clock on defense if you're trying to run out the clock. You do however, stop the clock when there's lots of time left and you're facing Aaron Rodgers and your defense is gassed.