How about addressing the REAL problem on this team

Your math is WAY OFF here. The average NFL offense scores 28 points per 76 plays per game...average. That means if we were even 16th in the league in offensive productivity, our defense would see 20+ less snaps. But even so, let's say the D still gets scored on the exact same amount....even when playing 1/4 less snaps and being far more refreshed (that's like taking an entire quarter off folks....sort of a big deal there).

Here's how this season changes with an average offense putting up 28 points; we'd be a 7-4 team with wins at Jax, Dallas, and NY. Also, we'd be 9-6-1 in 2014, 14-1-1 in 2013 and 15-1 in 2013. Yeah, with an "average, 16th ranked offense", we're the best team in football two seasons in a row. Back to back super bowl wins anyone? That's what we might have had if not for the Tannehill experiment.

Now let's do the opposite...the average defensive gives up 28 points per game. Let's see how that math works out if our D was just "average", giving exactly 28 per game-

We lose the Washington and Philly games, and not a single loss becomes a win since we've only scored above the league average twice in 2015 (or 6 times in the past 4 years). We'd be 2-9 right now....or 6-58 for Tannehill's entire career. If our defense was average, we'd currently be the worst team in football and we would have picked #1 overall in the draft three seasons in a row. Just something to think about folks- the math is about as simple as it gets.

 

This thread is about you arguing defense is a bigger problem than offense.

You should have titled it addressing the defense if all you wanted to talk about was defense

 

We were weighing offense versus defense and which affects the other more negatively. You know exactly why I brought it up.

Get out of the thread if you can't follow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Exactly. He just took an opportunity to bash me like many others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Can't the offense make a third down conversion for once?

Why are you so upset with my statement? It's pretty clear our offense has consistently sucked at putting up points since the Tannehill era began.

At least the defense was decent at the beginning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

With an "average" offense, we wouldn't put up 28 every game.

 

Exactly. And we're supposed to shut up about our offense in the Tannehill era. People act like Tannehill era means it's all on him. It's ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

We'd "average" 28 per game over 16 games....that's what "average" means. So sure, some weeks we'd score 35 and some weeks we'd have 21.....but the "average" would equal 28. And guess what, my friend, we've scored 28 or more 6 times in 4 years.

That's 42 games out of 48 below the "NFL average"....not sure how I lost you with the math there.

 

Can you post a link to the "28" per game? This link shows average points per game across the NFL for all seasons:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/team_stats.htm

Looks like it's 23 not 28.

Scoring 23 points, we'd have the same record this year as we do now except that Jacksonville game goes to OT and we lose the Houston game (so actually potentially a worse record).

 

The real problem? Your not suggesting an assassination plot against the owner are you?

Spoiler

cause I'd be ok with that

 

Thanks for the link. Amazing how little it varies from year to year -- the 1970s really stand out.

I think he said offenses average 28 points per 76 plays, which might be right. But per your chart, the league average plays per game has never even approached 76.

 

No need. He's old enough to die on his own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And this is why I follow you.

Either way, the offense suuuuuucks and has always sucked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Unfortunately we've not had a good offensive brain since Scot Linehan.

 

Well this game was instructive. Shows the short plays on 3rd and long wasn't all Lazor. Also shows Tannehill is one of the "real" problems on this team (otherwise, this team needs a really good MLB, better CB play and some OL help).

 

You lost me with your extrapolating into wins and playoffs. We would not score 28 every week, so, therefore, you can't extrapolate what wins would or would not have occurred.

Sorry you didn't make the connection.

 

Tannehill is a REAL problem on this team. 4 years in, many coaches later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

See, I agree that Tannehill is a problem THIS SEASON.

I don't agree that he was previously.

 

Well, the team is 12 games into a $96M contract. I think the idea the team would be moving on from him this soon is laughable. The fact this forum is all abuzz because the team is 5-7 won't mean much to the front office who felt confident enough to give Ryan his new contract last year. They certainly had no motive to do that if they had questions about his abilities or his development. In fact, I believe they projected him as being ahead of where anticipated. His passer rating suggests he's on the level with guys who've started 80-90 games, for example. Fact is, Tannehill was on pace for career highs in yards, TDs and YPA coming into this game. His 89 passer rating was going to keep him in place as the team's starter for the foreseeable future. Even in the craziest scenario wherein he's somehow traded, Ryan would definitely have been starting for someone next year.

I think it's rather obvious that Ryan will start for Miami next year. I think he has the full support of the owner and GM. I just hope the forum doesn't burn itself down between then and now. Personally, I'm fine with taking a wait and see approach in 2016. I think it's perfect. The next coach/OC and work with Tannehill on the short term. Either Tannehill hits his prime and plays well or he's a more than adequate stop gap. Miami is fine either way.

 

Basically impossible to say the FO has confidence in him when they signed him to a contract with a 2 year buy out written into it.

The contract has Tanne making about as much as he would have mede if they took the 5th year option, and then they can cut him loose if they want, that is no accident.