Mel Kiper bashes Tannehill

brandon albert healthy
defensive line healthy
the philbin miasma has been lifted

 

1. The OL was more effective because they got to run block more instead of taking a beating from nonstop rushes and blitzes.

2. We ran the ball more and threw screens to slow the pass rush and buy more passing time.

3. The run set up other plays like read options, play actions, end arounds.

4. The run rested our defense and tired out theirs.

Basically we were less predictable, more balanced and bought ourselves time to run explosive plays.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Word.

 

agree with all of it but make some allowance for having guys who actually carry out their assignments. the problem with philbin was even when we had 3/5ths we passed too much. we dont have to be 50/50 but you cant get to 75% passing and expect to win or not get your qb killed (dan marino excluded)

 

That's fine. We haven't had only 3 decent offensive linemen ever since Tannehill was drafted. It's not always the OL. Well, it is if you throw as often as we used to, which is why Albert was such a big factor.

Miller didn't get better today, he just got more chances. He's not my favorite feature back but he's surpassed 1k yards when given a chance. And he should've had even more then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yeah, it's much more plausible that simply running the ball more made the oline play better, than that Albert coming back had a significant effect.

And there's a reason why Albert has a significantly large salary.

 

I said Albert made a difference. Just not the biggest difference. Nobody in the NFL would tell you Albert was the biggest factor today. Nobody.

Who got the game ball? Albert or Campbell?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Are you aware that Turner was inserted into the starting lineup at guard for the first time this season? Are you aware his specialty is run blocking?

Are you really going to tell us that having back our best tackle and our best run blocking guard had little effect on the run game?

 

i cant even imagine how good this offense could be if we had five competent linemen. Tannehill could sit back there and rip apart a defense throwing 10-20 yard darts and the running game would pick up five yards a carry

 

turner looked good on the majority of the limited plays i saw but he got blown up on a few plays really bad. What was your take

 

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I saw Turner was inserted, yes. He made a big difference. So did Albert.

But some posters are making the case that the OL is so much better with Albert alone. The record with him is convincing except that was during an era when we passed a whole lot. Check his pass block ranking versus his run block ranking on PFF and you'll see what I mean.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

How is asking questions putting words in your mouth?

 

I really need some help from the resident "experts"...
Tom Brady tonite - 311 3tds 1int
Ryan Tannehill tonite - 266 2tds 2ints

We all understand that the oline makes the offense go. A Qb can't help them if the are suspect. They just stink and that means a Qb can do nothing at all. I may have just witnessed a miracle. Stay with me now resident genius football watchers.

The Pats are starting an undrafted rookie at center. They are starting a rookie at left guard. The Pats lost both their left tackles. The right tackle slid over to left tackle and a guy called up from the practice squad is playing right tackle. Simply put, 2 rookies and a p squad player on the offensive line. The result you may ask, Brady under pressure by 3 and 4 man fronts. Now here is the miracle, how did he do it? If you're oline stinks then according to the" experts " you should play like a r e tard. Brady slid, moved, ran, dumped it off, took a sack or two, and basically made it happen behind a terrible line. How? How? How?

Also, I learned here that Brady has no pocket presence. Hmmm... somebody needs to spend more time watching the all 22.

This isn't really about Brady. It's about the excuses made around here. With all the athleticism that Tanny has why doesn't he slide around to avoid pressure? I contend he has great athletic ability but doesn't have the mind of the real good Qbs. Maybe it was the coaching. I guess we will see. Either that or football miracles only happen in New England.

Aside from all that I think the Jets beat the Pats on Sunday. The Jets could really win this game.

 

Wasn't he blocking down field on the Landry run? He was certainly better than Douglas.

 

Reread the question. That's not honest. That's framing and dishonest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thank you for your input. You're right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well....your team cheats.

I mean a failure HC drafts a nobody loser in the sixth round and they magically become a dynasty, winning no matter how bad their team is...all while cheating the entire time in multiple ways, but we should believe they're great and they didn't need to cheat?

Doesn't reading that aloud make your boasts sound stupid?

 

]

At least three out of the five played well. I watched about half the game. Brady had decent protection tonight.

 

Take it from a journalism grad. You don't ask a question that implies anything. You don't ask me if I believe Turner and Albert had little effect on the running game.

What did I say to imply that? I said Albert alone didn't make THIS big of a difference. I said the game plan made the biggest difference.

Please don't joke about sobriety. You don't know who you could offend with that joke. I thought we weren't supposed to be personal here, just debate football.

I've already given my stance and my reasons. I've been very clear and very specific. I've directed you all to statistics (pass to run ratio and Albert's pass versus run blocking rankings). I made a prediction, it came true and it worked.

You're just defending a post that you admit gave no reasons or substance that you and many others thanked. Everybody knew the OL underperformed. Nobody disagreed on that. The disagreement was over the reason. You and many others said they were just bad. Myself and a few others disagreed. We were right. Just admit it... or don't because you haven't done so yet.

Either way, I know I was right. I'm satisfied regardless. We should all be. We all root for the same team. We might've discovered the next great Dolphins HC. Enjoy it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

What did you say to make me think that? I dunno, this:

 

I know I might be in the minority but I legitimately feel bad for Philbin.

Must feel bad to see the players' reaction to Campbell after the win. Must feel bad to hear everybody talk about how much better he is than you.

He wasn't a bad man, just a bad head coach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Saying he wasn't the biggest difference is the same thing as saying he had little impact on the running game?

Are you seriously getting that personal? What's your problem? Questioning my sobriety and insulting my intelligence?

We're debating. I haven't insulted you once.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Ya, Billy Turner was the secret to success. LOL

Looked more to me like the return of Dion Sims as our inline blocker and a coaching staff that was actually committed to the running the ball.

 

It's all he has, but as you and I both know, all it is is a sign of impotence, he takes sides without really knowing anything then defends it no matter what, but he doesn't actually have the knowledge to back up his statements so he twists your words and hurls personal insults.

An open and shut text book case of someone who's arguments are impotent.

 

Perhaps, finsfandan, it's because you're crowing about running the ball more, while ignoring the two new olinemen that were playing. I do not believe your method would have worked with the line playing the way they were the first four games.

 

That's not all I said. I said running, screens, read option, play action, etc.

And I know that sounds simplistic but people said the same thing about Jimmy Johnson. The reasoning is sound. All those things dampen the pass rush and set up huge plays.

Like I said, if you drop back to pass as often as we used to, your OL is just going to face rushes and blitzes all day long and your offense will be garbage. You need to allow your OL to fight back, not just take a beating. So it was unfair to evaluate them considering the circumstances. I've said this all along.

The game plan was most important. Did Albert and Turner have a big impact? Yes, I've already acknowledged that. Did Campbell really coach the guys that well within a couple of weeks? Yeah, sure. But you've gotta acknowledge that the team as a whole has been wanting to play that way all along and has always been capable of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I get what you're saying.

He just got done telling you Albert was a big factor, just not the BIGGEST factor, and you magically interpret that as him saying he had little effect in the run game? He's clearly said, clearly I might add again, that individual line performances were a factor but the biggest factor was the improvement in scheme.

 

Et tu, Brute?

Really hard to debate when you guys misrepresent the other side's argument.

 

For some reason I can't "thank" your posts from my iPhone but thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well so now,if I understand correctly, its philbin's fault that miller and tannehill put up poor numbers. It's not the personnel. Or is it just miller who was hampered and tannehill should have overcome. All these moving goalposts are making me dizzy

 

All of the above. Clearly the team quit. That's on them despite the coach. Clearly the coaches sucked game plans were whacked.

 

That is the single biggest reason these threads go South.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well, when he says that he was right, the only thing that needed to change was the gameplan, I assume that means he is not factoring in Albert and Turner. That was when I stated talking about the olinemen being different.

Try to put aside your bias for a moment, and realize the progression of the argument.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

Yeah....about that.....

There's more, go actually read it.

I get he was arguing with me, so he clearly is on your side, but this started because he was basically **** talking Boomer and his post. The guy is all over the place.

He said Boomer was wrong about the oline being Tannehill's biggest problem, simply because he didn't list in detail why they are the biggest problem. He then goes on to vacillate between saying Albert was little to just not the biggest reason the oline improved and all the while completely ignoring Turner's effect.

If you really pay actual attention, you'll find he thinks the talent of the oline is just fine last year and this year....even without Albert. That is the position you're felating right now because you want to "gotcha" me.

And I forgot, he also thinks he's the only person that has complained about scheme being a problem with the oline and that we needed to run more. So yeah, have fun with that side you chose.

 

The only thing that changed was not the gameplan. The oline played way different with Albert and Turner in there.

Shouldn't it be the OC and DC are the most impressive if all that changed was gameplan?

Oline wasn't really a problem before. Really?

Again, only about gameplan. But that wasn't all that changed...

Seriously?

Absolutely wrong.

Wrong. Two guys.

Other things changed other than gameplan.

So, you praise the oline, then say it wasn't the oline, then praise Albert, then it wasn't Albert. You act like the only thing different was the gameplan. You discount two different olinemen being in, plus the entire team seemed to play much better for Campbell then for Philbin. There were many factors different than simply running the ball more.

 

Lmao what a great job highlighting what I said that was "wrong." Put it in bold for me, please.

Then there's some heresy and straight up lies putting words in my mouth. That's so dishonest I should just ignore it but I'll ignore you from now on. As long as everybody knows I'm calling you out on it now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Bottom line, man, you've made the claim several times, that the only thing that changed is the gameplan. That is factually incorrect.

 

Okay I was technically wrong saying NOTHING changed but the game plan but I'm also on the record as saying Albert and Turner made a big difference just not the BIGGEST difference.

I've also said we could've ran this game plan since Tannehill got drafted. Maybe not as well. Maybe not to the tune of 38-10 but successfully with the OLs we've had.

Turner wasn't Superman. Freaking Turner is that big of a factor to you guys? Big whoopdeedoo!! Turner was so great no other guard we had could've been serviceable. Look at Albert's run block rankings over the last few seasons then get back to me... But of course you'll twist that to mean I hate them even though I said they did well. I can't even say other linemen would've been serviceable. To you guys Albert and Turner made all the difference in the world and nobody could replace them.

Why do you guys ignore my reason for claiming the OL looked much worse than they were under Philbin? They pass blocked way too often and didn't get a chance to push back and run block. Of course they looked worse before. That's what YOU guys want to ignore. WHY they looked so much worse before. We should still have Incognito too. He'd excel with this scheme.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Read my latest post. You know what I meant. Other linemen would've been serviceable. Other teams make do. The Pats fan came on last night and made that very clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk