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

Rosen to Start against Cowboys

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Galant, Sep 19, 2019.

  1. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Absolutely. I mean, yes, it's great to have a QB who is better able to deal with crappy lines and bad skill position players...but even great QBs play weird behind bad olines. We've known for years the way to beat the Pats is to pressure and hit Brady. Same with any great QB. Or average QB.
     
    KeyFin and Tin Indian like this.
  2. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I never argued that. I'm saying we need a QB that can overcome adversity because that's precisely what we've been lacking. In fact, the BEST way to evaluate our QB is to see how he plays when things aren't set up for him to succeed!

    I'll tell you what bugs the hell out of me: Dolphins fans making excuses for QB performance even after the giant mistake of thinking that way with Tannehill. That mentality is precisely what led people to keep defending a no-better-than-average QB. It wasn't the surroundings!

    Having said that, let me make it clear: none of this says we shouldn't build a good OL. Championship teams are usually strong in most areas, and there's no reason not to provide as much support for a QB as possible.

    No question Atlanta made a mistake by taking their foot off the gas pedal. And no question it was an amazing performance by Brady. Once again.. why try to explain away the QB's performance? This wasn't just an "Atlanta" thing. It was also a "Brady" thing. Oh, and Brady really played well against Philly too. It's just that we finally saw someone (Pederson) out-coach Belichick.
     
    mooseguts and The Guy like this.
  3. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I think the issue is that at some point adversity becomes insurmountable odds. I mean...there is a limit to what someone can do with crap. Yes it's possible to have a few strong games but generally you wont find consistency.

    I agree on not making excuses, but sometimes what someone may consider an "excuse" is just contextual evidence shedding light on the situation.

    I'm only focused on each play for Rosen. Dud he make the best play available to him on that down.
     
    tirty8 and resnor like this.
  4. Tin Indian

    Tin Indian Rockin' The Bottom End Club Member

    7,929
    4,404
    113
    Feb 10, 2010
    Palm Bay Florida
    I think we are ultimately arguing two sides of the same coin. Tannehill was clearly not the answer at QB. I agree as well there was far too much time invested in him when it was clear he wasn't going to be the guy. My thing is the line has been a joke as well. Everyone wants a better running back when maybe the running back isn't really the problem and it's actually the guards aren't opening holes.

    It all has to work together or none of it works.
     
    xphinfanx and cbrad like this.
  5. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Of course.. but I don't see any good argument that Rosen was facing "insurmountable odds" in the 2nd half. That sounds very similar to the Tannehill defense IMO. I saw way too many throws off target or late (or tipped) to just explain away his 2nd half performance by WR drops.

    And that's after acknowledging there were a bunch of crucial WR drops. Doesn't matter. There are no "insurmountable odds" that prevent a QB on a bad team from scoring ANY points. We scored zero points in the 2nd half. Let that sink in.

    And that Daniel Jones comment was really pertinent. Giants even lost Barkley to injury at the end of the 1st half. Given how their OL played you can very easily argue they had similar "insurmountable odds". Except that they had a QB that threw for 300+ yards and passed and ran for multiple TD's – a first in NFL history for a rookie. People have to get used to good QB'ing, not bad QB'ing.
     
    mooseguts and The Guy like this.
  6. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I'm not saying I'd be fine with his second half performance all year. I definitely wouldn't be.

    Due to his circumstances though, I basically consider Rosen a rookie when it comes to his learning curve, leadership ability, and what I expect from him.

    His first half was entirely acceptable and promising to me despite not putting many points on the board. What I want to see is Rosen inprove each week, as well as like I said to judge each rep on its own merit.

    I think the team was entirely deflated by the fumble and the first Cowboy TD of the second half. It was a piss poor showing by everyone. Not to say we would have won anyway, they are the better team.
     
  7. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah he has 13 games to show us we don't need to take a QB with the #1 pick.

    Well.. let's put it this way. IF Rosen is the answer at QB we definitely won't be picking #1 or anything close to it. It will show up in win% even if it takes him the entire first half of the season to improve to that point.
     
    The Guy and AGuyNamedAlex like this.
  8. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I agree with that much.

    What I'm really hoping doesnt happen, is that Rosen is just good enough to win a few games but NOT be our QB. That would be awful.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  9. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I think you're confusing an "excuse" with perception AND team loyalty.

    Did I love Tannehill? No. Did I hope like mad he would succeed each week? Definitely. And did some people here name things that could help him succeed (like a better line)? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean we were blinded by flashing aqua lights or fooled into believing anything that wasn't true...we just wanted our QB to win.

    Cutler? I rooted like mad for Cutler. Osweiller? He was weak in almost every aspect of the game, yet I loved his leadership abilities. As fans, we focus on the positive and look for ways to improve with what we have, because it's not within our power to fire the QB. That's all we can do- discuss how it could get better next week and what we think our team will do to make that happen.

    What Tannehill did over 70+ games has nothing to do with how Rosen performed in his first. You're the one always telling us that we "need more data" before making an opinion, and for once I am 100% on board with your "wait and see" method. At the same time though, you shouldn't get upset because people here cheered for Tannehill or anyone else in a Dolphins uniform....because there's nothing else we could have done as Miami fans.

    Like I said a few weeks ago, I'm 100% all-in on Rosen because he's now our starter. I was 100% all-in on Fitzpatrick last week (and still am for the way he's mentoring Rosen). If we start Cleo Lemon tomorrow then I'll be all-in on him...not because of his talent, but because he's leading my team. And I make no excuses for that- whoever starts is unconditionally my guy.

    Does that mean I was okay with Tannehill's long history of strip sacks? Heck no...it drove me completely insane. But until he wasn't my quarterback anymore in Miami, he was 100% my QB.
     
  10. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Speak for yourself. The most acrimonious debates for YEARS on this board were centered around whether Tannehill the QB was no better than average or whether his average performance was due to his surrounding cast. There is no question whatsoever that a sizeable portion (around half IMO) of the fanbase supported the notion that it was the surrounding cast.

    That wasn't due to "team loyalty". We all support the Dolphins! It was due to a fundamental difference in how people evaluate QB's.

    Tannehill per se has nothing to do with Rosen, but if the same person is evaluating different QB's performances, then what is said by that person about one QB has relevance to what is said about the other.
     
    KeyFin and The Guy like this.
  11. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Come back to the Michael Jordan analogy. Or use Dan Marino as a closer to home example for that matter.

    When Jordan and Marino took over games, did everybody look around and attribute that to their surroundings?

    If not, then why do we look around at the surroundings of other players and immediately attribute their performances to them?
     
    cbrad likes this.
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Even if all of that is true — and it might be — there is still nothing to tell us that Rosen would be an adequate quarterback if his surroundings were improved to the degree that some people want them to be.

    Again an extreme analogy just to illustrate the point: put a middle school quarterback in an offense with the 10 best other offensive players in the history of the NFL, and he won’t be very good.
     
  13. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I don't want to get into another debate (especially about this particular topic), but I agreed with you early on that his pocket presence was a bigger factor than his great arm, solid reads, smart play, etc. Heck, I think I was one of the first on that bandwagon since I really liked Moore.

    At the same time though, your stats show he's average and we know you can win in the NFL with an average QB if other aspects also fall into place. There's no debating he would have been better with a higher-caliber line; the part we don't know (and will probably never know) is how much better. The argument was fairly unique though because RT can do so many other things at a high level as a game manager...while being absolutely terrible handling the pocket. He absolutely, positively needed that stud line to give glimpses of elite and I agree that it's not good enough.

    In hindsight, that's what you get when a WR converts halfway thru college and you can't see that long-term progression before the pros. He was simply the ultimate tease and it's rare someone like that gets six years to prove himself. So I don't think that same scenario is very likely with Rosen, Tua or any other traditional QB...we should know much sooner if they're the leader we've been hoping for.
     
    resnor likes this.
  14. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Michael Jordan is a terrible example because in basketball one player CAN actually score without help, and can play defense and get steals and blocks by himself.

    Further just because people SAY Marino took over a game, doesn't mean that's what actually happened. Again, I think people put far too much of the result of a play on the QB. This isn't the 40s (or whatever era) when the QB was drawing up his own plays in the huddle. The offense isn't moving the ball and scoring only based on what the QB does. And let's not act like Marino was sitting around with trash skill players around him. Or freaking Jordan for that matter.
     
    tirty8, The Guy and KeyFin like this.
  15. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I'll concede the Jordan example.

    The larger point really is that people are making theoretical adjustments in Rosen's individual play to account for his surroundings, when that really isn't possible given the data available about Rosen to date.

    This question may illustrate the point: yesterday Rosen's passer rating was 61.9. If he had been surrounded by the best 10 other offensive players in the league, what would his passer rating have been? If he had the best possible surroundings that could be assembled on the Dolphins (i.e., something really good but within reason for a given team), what would his passer rating have been?

    If we asked 100 different people those questions we'd get such varied answers that there would be no reliable way of determining the effect of the surrounding players on his performance. In the end we'd be left with an unknown regarding the effect of Rosen's surroundings on him.
     
  16. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    If I had to try to provide statistical evidence that Marino was the difference maker, even though he went to a team with a great coach and one that just went to the SB, I'd point to his TD's.

    Since 1978 where the league went to a 16 game season and where rules changed in favor of the passing game (easily noticeable in the sudden change in standard deviation of passer ratings from pre-1978 to post-1978) the most passing TD's any team had was 34 in 1981. Marino in 1984 puts up 48 TD's!!

    In terms of z-scores, the best by any team from 1978 up till then was just shy of +2.2 while Marino in 1984 was +3.46. I'm neutral in using the phrase "took a game over", but this is pretty clear evidence that Marino was something special, even on a great team in 1984.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  17. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    Ha! These arguments, man, what a joke. Are some actually, at this point, trying to compare Rosen and his circumstances to Tanne's? Ha. Seriously? Tanne had almost a decade of being the unchallenged stater to prove what he can do. Rosen had one year on the worst team in football that went through two offensive coordinators, then he was traded to another team which is also one of the worst teams in football. This team's roster was filled out with UDFAs, a s--t failure of an experimental football league players and Canadian players, etc, etc. The OL. Ha! Our f'ing rookie left guard was playing left tackle. The depth is mostly a bunch of castoffs and late rounders. Give me a break. It was his first start. Their pocket presence or lack thereof like in my boy Tanne's case, is not even comparable. Rosen is much better in that department. The team used to try to give Tanne some help. This team traded away it's awesome LT, receivers, another first round pick in Minkah, etc, etc, etc. That game was lost by Drake's fumble and all the drops, etc. Rosen had put the team in a position to score more points and possibly win the game. The team failed. There is only so much a QB can overcome. He wasn't perfect and I'm not anointing him as our franchise QB or anything, but give it a rest, guys.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2019
    KeyFin likes this.
  18. Silverphin

    Silverphin Well-Known Member

    11,035
    4,419
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Offensive line play has been downplayed for years. When Jake Long got released, people said we didn't need him or a proper replacement because "there are no major pass rushers in our division".

    Whenever offensive play factors hugely in our losses, we keep saying "Well, a QB is supposed to be able to play past that, look at [insert team here]".

    Look, unless we draft a QB who has the speed of Quicksilver, the senses of Daredevil, and/or the ability to tank hits like Luke Cage, we're going to have to finally do something about the offensive line.
     
    Tin Indian, KeyFin and Dol-Fan Dupree like this.
  19. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Finally do something about the offensive line?

    At one point in the team’s recent history, the offensive line consisted of a first round pick at left tackle, a first round pick at left guard, a first round pick at center, a former Pro Bowl player at right guard, and a first round pick at right tackle.

    If that wasn’t doing something about the offensive line, what do you suggest should be done instead?
     
    Pauly and cbrad like this.
  20. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    That's why I hope we draft Khalil Tate next year.

    I agree on the line. I would really love to get an absolute stud G. That could greatly help the running and passing game.
     
  21. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Yup, and we ran like the wind back in that season too...in Tannehill's 3rd year. And wouldn't you know it; the QB who stunk under pressure had arguably his best season with that group before we started talking about bullying and high moral character.

    Side note- when I pulled up RT's career stats, it showed me he played against the Browns this season on 9/8/19....I didn't know that. He had two attempts for -2 total yards! LOL, poor guy.
     
  22. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    But it wasn’t good enough, and that’s the point: you can throw tons of resources into the offensive line, and the ceiling on your quarterback’s individual ability can still make it insufficient.
     
  23. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    It's worse than that. We've had at least 2 1st round picks (not necessarily Miami picks) on the OL EVERY year since 2006!

    Our OL troubles have little to do with lack of investment. It's our GM that can't pick them right and us not having a good OL coach.

    Anyway, there are multiple years like what you mentioned:
    2009: 2 1st rounders and 2 2nd rounders
    2011: 4 1st rounders
    2014: 3 1st rounders and 2 2nd rounders
    2016: 3 1st rounders
    2017: 3 1st rounders

    Nice reference link:
    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/mia/2016_roster.htm
     
    The Guy likes this.
  24. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I'm telling you, it's more about consistency and the right mindsets than anything- you can find "junkyard dog" Incognito types up and down in the later rounds if you know what you're looking for. Smart, mean guys with some agility that love to hit people and can learn the playbook. Most linemen are dumb as rocks but physical specimens...you don't want that because they hesitate instead of firing off the ball.

    I think part of the problem is that teams have someone like Marino and Moore evaluating QB's, but they have a scout that's never played line and doesn't really understand the position finding linemen. That's how you end up overpaying for soft guys like Jonathan Martin who wouldn't hurt a mosquito. Big, fast, smart, good technique...he had all the intangibles and not an ounce of meanness or aggression.

    Like I said, junkyard dogs...that's what the position requires. That doesn't mean they have to be scum like Cogs, but he's the prototypical type you want at line.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2019
    Pauly, resnor and cbrad like this.
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I think it’s that the offensive line has actually functioned significantly better than some people believe.
     
  26. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    With RT, almost any pressure led to a strip sack or worse. So the line would perform well for three plays, have 1 "leak" on the 4th play or miss a blitz and we'd turn over the ball. That's not really a line problem as much as it is a QB problem....we've seen how well Fitz and Rosen do with pressure. Missing one block every now and then means little to a good scrambler.

    I have to defend Tannehill though because in years 1-2, he was told to stay in that pocket and throw the football. In college he'd take off and run, so you trained a guy who's weak in the pocket to stay in the pocket...it's hard to say that's on him. But to sit in that pocket he needed an elite line and we just didn't have that- most years we had a good line until people got hurt (we've never had depth, which is almost the bigger issue overall).

    So you're correct, but you're also completely wrong because you have to draft to your QB's skill-set. RT was great with protection and horrible without it- that's on the front office and Philbin. The problem was ultimately Tannehill.
     
    resnor and The Guy like this.
  27. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That I don't agree with (though I'm sure there are "some" people for which that would be a true statement).

    I think we've had fairly bad OL most of the time. Problem is (per your comment in the other thread) there's no real way to test this empirically because there's no good OL stat.
     
    resnor and The Guy like this.
  28. JJ_79

    JJ_79 Well-Known Member

    4,587
    1,707
    113
    Nov 25, 2012
    Germany
    I really hope Rosen and Flores are the solution for our problems and Rosen is the „guy“. Cause it would make this tanking gig much more sympathetic and Rosen went through hell this year and is fire proven for the future.
     
    freeperjim likes this.

Share This Page