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

Fourth Quarter Play-Calling

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Tannephins, Sep 21, 2015.

  1. dolphin25

    dolphin25 Well-Known Member

    6,338
    2,400
    113
    Nov 22, 2014
    run out of the spread. that works.
     
  2. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Is it though? How much success did we have last week running the ball? How much success did we have the first half, when I saw the Jags routinely rushing 4 guys. We ran it for 17 yards in the first half.

    Look, the oline is terrible. THAT is the problem. Fix the oline, and you'd have a run game that could get more than 17 yards in one half of football, and you'd have a QB who had a modicum of time to throw. Everything else that people are talking about is just noise.
     
  3. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    How about you ask the coaches...nobody here had a hand in the decision. I'd say a majority of others here have laid at least a good chunk of the blame for that debotchery yesterday on Philbs/Coyle/Lazor.
     
    Undisputed and resnor like this.
  4. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    You seem to be incapable of understanding the point that there are benefits of being balanced and simply attempting to run, regardless of the success of either phase of the offense.

    There are times in NFL games when the pass should outweigh the run 94 to 6 percent, as it did yesterday, but a tie game isn't one of them.

    Or do you approve of passing the ball nearly 95% of the time when a game is tied? If so, what sort of effect do you think that has on the offensive line you believe to be so weak? You think that puts it in position to play as well as it can?
     
    Rock Sexton likes this.
  5. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Apparently you're incapable of understanding my point, even though I've said it several times: Jacksonville did not respect our run, and it did not affect their gameplan. Running it more would have simply resulted in running the fourth quarter out faster.
     
    Undisputed, Finster and Samphin like this.
  6. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Actually, yes, I'd rather see short quick passes than runs that are doomed because the line can't block.
     
    Undisputed likes this.
  7. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Perhaps before their game-winning field goal? ;)
     
  8. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Well that's what you saw. The offensive YPA went from nearly 10 down to 4.9 (indicative of a shorter passing game), and the team didn't score at all, when it had scored 20 points previously with much better offensive balance.

    Since you're focused on success, how'd you like that success?
     
  9. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Doubtful.

    For the record, I don't disagree with the principle of being balanced. I disagree with in THIS game, running more in the fourth would have resulted in better pass plays.
     
  10. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    4.9 is better than 1.7. You're trying to draw a correlation that I don't think was there, due to the complete lack of success on the other runs.
     
    Samphin likes this.
  11. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    The correlation is with attempts in the run game (i.e., balance), not success.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  12. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Okie dokie.

    Agree to disagree, man. You will not convince me that running the ball in the fourth would have helped in the least bit.

    There is zero evidence that their defense did anything different in the fourth than in the other 3.
     
  13. Bpk

    Bpk Premium Member Luxury Box

    There were a few times we were passing our of the spread over and over and the D line was allowing massive lanes that could have been exploited by a RB draw. Yet we did not capitalize.
     
    Undisputed and dolphin25 like this.
  14. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Oh I gave up on that a long time ago. ;)
     
  15. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    I have to wonder if Tannehill is allowed to audible, and if not, why not, and if so, what his capabilities are in that regard.
     
  16. Samphin

    Samphin Κακό σκυλί ψόφο δεν έχει

    I am not sure correllating the 20 points and erasing a deficit to the rushing attack, is a good one. False premises often lead to incorrect analysis of bad data.

    For example, on the game tying TD that Miami had at the start of the 3rd Quarter, they ran the ball exactly ONCE with Lamar Miller for one yard. The other two runs were a six yard run by Jarvis Landry (with a 10 yard penalty by Juwan James) and a three yard run by Tannehill on first and long.

    In other words, they had a net gain of -0- yards on that drive in three attempts. Passing the ball on that drive, however, was responsible get g for Ryan Tannehill to go 5 for 5 for 80 yards and a touchdown.

    So you can't really stand by the argument that the run game helped when A: they gained no yardage at all, and B: didn't even get the advantage of running the clock due to a penalty. The passing game was actually better equipped to help run the clock down AND move the ball. The running game didn't do anything.

    Which is why Miami bailed on it. Especially after Albert went down and Fox was in the game. We simply did not have the personnel to rush the ball. As resnor said, the problem is the offensive line, not the play calling.
     
    Undisputed likes this.
  17. Brasfin

    Brasfin Well-Known Member

    2,435
    1,672
    113
    Apr 27, 2013
    Brazil
    Yeah, seems like a classic example of "correlation does not imply causation", to me anyways. The reason there is a correlation between a balanced attack and winning the game is because the team that most often wins can both run and pass effectively to some degree. If you shut down either of the two, you will see a drop in attempts of one in favor of the other, which will show up as an unbalanced offense. The run attempts went down because we had no success in running the ball, not the other way around. This made our offense one dimensional and predictable, which led to a lower offensive output.

    You won't see a magical jump in overall output by increasing the number of attempts of something that just isn't working.
     
  18. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    You're focusing on the success of the running game, when, again, the productive factor is the attempts in the running game, i.e., balance.

    You don't abandon the run unless you have to, so that you can preserve that balance. There was no game situation in the fourth quarter, prior to the field goal, that dictated that the run be abandoned at that time. It was a decision without logic.
     
  19. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Balance doesn't exist without balance, when you can't run the ball there is no balance, running the ball for no other reason than running the ball isn't a good reason to run the ball.

    Balance is only created by forcing the other team to actually PLAY the run, even if your not so successful, but if your forcing them into run D then you're creating balance, we were not doing that, so running was forced to be abandoned, because when a thing is INEFFECTIVE, you abandon it.
     
  20. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Sure there is. It's called balanced play-calling.

    There are reasons other than just running the ball.

    So at the same time that the Jaguars were supposedly (i.e., in your mind) not defending the run, we abandoned the run? That makes conceptual sense to you in a tie game?

    It's rather amazing how you can bolster my argument that the team should've been running more by proposing that the Jaguars weren't defending the run, while at the same time apparently thinking you're undermining the argument.
     
  21. Samphin

    Samphin Κακό σκυλί ψόφο δεν έχει


    The productive factor IS NOT the attempts. This is the fundamental difference in the discussion, I suppose. And when you aren't gaining any yards, then there IS logic in finally cutting down the attempts. Miami was so bad at running the ball yesterday that if they ran it on all four downs (instead of punting) they STILL wouldn't garner a first down. As others have said, running for the sake of running and chasing some sort of "balance," that you speak of, is nonsensical and would not have helped, in any way. I get what you are saying about trying to keep the defense honest, keeping them moving forward with play actions, etc. but that doesn't really apply here. Jacksonville had zero respect for our rushing attack, and rightfully so. We all want to see more runs, but successful runs. Not just running the ball of the sake of running it. That is counterproductive.

    At that point, you have to put the game in the hands of your best player, and that, for us, is Ryan Tannehill. And Ryan didn't fail in his task. His o-line did. The same o-line that forced us into being one dimensional in the fourth quarter.

    Again, the problem is in the personnel department, or maybe even the offensive scheme department (i.e. Coaching to the player's strength and game planning around their weaknesses) and not so much the play calling department.
     
  22. isaacjunk

    isaacjunk Member

    83
    24
    8
    May 17, 2013
    Conventional runs may have been doomed. What about the draw play?
     
  23. Piston Honda

    Piston Honda Well-Known Member

    7,853
    8,088
    113
    Sep 23, 2014
    Those are all good points. And Philbin has articulated them in one form or the other since he got to Miami. Ironically, Philbin is considered incompetent for by a fan base that largely agrees with this philosophy.

    I don't think there's a right or wrong answer, it'd a situational thing and yesterday passing was probably the better option. I do have to say tho, that when the pass game is clicking the way it was vs Jax and the offense still can't eke out a few decent runs, that's concerning.
     
    Undisputed, DolphinGreg and resnor like this.
  24. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Um, they were stopping the run without having to go to run D.
     
    resnor likes this.
  25. Piston Honda

    Piston Honda Well-Known Member

    7,853
    8,088
    113
    Sep 23, 2014
    You could also say Miami never made a real effort to establish the run. Inside zone is the foundation of the offense, they barely even tried it.
     
  26. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    They have 2 OGs that are hot garbage against the run, not a good idea to run behind them.
     
    resnor likes this.
  27. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    How do you know?
    What effect do you think it has on the offensive line when you become one-dimensional from a play-calling standpoint?
     
  28. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    So in the fourth quarter, were the Jaguars defending the run, or the pass. You tell me.
     
  29. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Do you think they were playing the run at any point during the game? They routinely rushed four guys, and stopped the run whenever they wanted.
     
    Undisputed likes this.
  30. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Assuming that's true and you aren't mistaken, despite that, it was only when the Dolphins' offense became one-dimensional by its own accord that the passing game's efficiency all but collapsed.
     
  31. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    It. Was. Always. One dimensional.

    No matter how much you try to soon it otherwise. 15 carries @ 1.7 ypc means the offense is one dimensional.
     
    Undisputed likes this.
  32. Limbo

    Limbo Mad Stillz

    2,476
    1,128
    113
    Mar 21, 2013
    Lazor's got to realize that Tannehill needs the threat of the run, and that Tannehill himself should be part of it. He's not at the point where he can just stand back and chuck it snap after snap and still move the ball consistently.
     
    Tannephins likes this.
  33. Piston Honda

    Piston Honda Well-Known Member

    7,853
    8,088
    113
    Sep 23, 2014
    Sorry to say but that is lame. Who played guard last year when Miami ranked 2nd in yards before contact and Miller averaged 5.1 per carry? Colledge, Smith, Thomas, etc. Bush ran for 1000 yds with Incognito and Jerry at OG. There were no Larry Allens or Nate Newtons. Lack of talent is not an excuse. Jax doesnt have All-Pro talent at OG, nor does Washington. They both ran well (at times) vs Miami's supposedly super talented DL.
     
    Undisputed likes this.
  34. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    In terms of success, yes. In terms of play-calling, no.
     
  35. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    And he may never be, but certainly not now. Essentially Bill Lazor called a fourth quarter as though he had one of the league's top QBs under center. They learned the hard way that they can't one-dimensionalize themselves in that way. They don't have the personnel for it.
     
  36. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    IMO, if you are going to abandon the run, abandon the play action pass. The play action pass is not effective if you do not at least run, it doesn't matter if the run only gets 1 yard.
     
    VManis likes this.
  37. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Right, and it would be better to do neither, especially in a tie game when the game situation doesn't dictate that one approach be favored over another, and the opposing defense can't predict what will happen on the basis of the game situation alone. Lazor essentially took a game situation that in itself keeps defenses honest, and made it much easier to defend his own team.
     
  38. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Well, again, you'll never convince me that running the ball in the 4th would have made a lick of difference. If anything, I believe it would have hindered them even more. I WILL agree that they should have run Tannehill some more, as he was the only one hurting them with the run, and if they were still rushing 4, like they did in the first half, he may have been able to get some good yardage.
     
    Undisputed likes this.
  39. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Last year we had Wallace taking the top off the D, they couldn't crowd the LOS the way they can now, huge difference.
     
  40. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Dude, teams were still able to stack the box. It's what happens when you can rush 4 guys and be successful. It allows you to put 7 guys in coverage. For all this talk about him taking the top off, without him, we still had Tannehill throw for 360 yesterday, and two receivers went over 100, all with Tannehill not throwing much more than 20 yards downfield.
     

Share This Page