Obviously Peyton was absurd that year. He played out of his mind. Lets just say Tannehill throws 35 tds which would be heads and shoulders his best year but is moderately realistic in the second year having substantially upgraded the TE positions and Stills, Paker and Landry also being in their second year of this O. That's still TWENTY tds we won't have vs. Broncos O in '13. I think our running game could maybe best theres by 3 MAYBE 4 tds but that would be amazing.

So, no. That offense put up 606 points. Since then, no one has eclipsed 489. No, we don't have an offense that can do that but the good news is neither does anyone else since the Greatest Show on Turf. Do we have an offense that should put up points in the mid 400's? Depends on consistency and really the defense. One of the reasons that Peyton was able to put up that many points was that their D was good enough to stall/shutdown and cause turnovers to their opponents.

 

Well, we think the defense is going to be better. Until it is proven on the field all we really have is hope.
When the defense steps up and is healthy we will have a better shot at improving that 55 play average. I think the offense has the tools and players to do it, but there is a big question mark with Mike Pouncey. He has to stay healthy. There is a HUGE dropoff at center without him. The rest of the line should be ok assuming we can settle on a couple of reliable guards. Competent, Productive O line play is the key to the whole thing.

 

You think we can pull off over 600 points? Look man. I'm a BIG Phins fan but I think we need to snap up just a modicum of reality. Look at the Saints O last year which was the #1 O in the league and they put up 469 which is 29.3 pts per game. The Broncos averaged over 37 points PER game.

If we could get to 27 points per game that would be a HUGE improvement....

 

Oh hell no! Didn't mean to imply that at all! What I am referring to is increasing our Offensive plays per game and T.O.P..

And I agree, 27 points per on average would be huge and should be more than enough to win a lot of football games.

 

30 is a needlessly high bar for average per game. At 29.3 points per game that got the Saints exactly how far? They were 3rd in their division and didn't make the playoffs because their Defense gave up 28.3 points per game. Our offense only managed a pretty mundane 22.7 while the defense gave up 23.75. The mighty Super Bowl winning Patriots fell far short of the 30 points per game at 27.5. The big difference between the Saints, The Dolphins and the Patriots is the Pats D only gave up an average of 15.6 Points per game.

That is the real key, not a number of 30 points per game.

 

Yeah it's unrealistically high for ANY offense actually. Since 2000, 30 points per game lands you usually in the top 2, sometimes in the top 3, sometimes in 1st place (3 times: 2002, 2005 and 2008), and once (2011) in the top 4 of all NFL offenses by points scored.

I think more realistic is minimum 25 points per game. That usually gets you just barely in the top 10.

 

No what I'm saying is that we don't need to be an elite offense to win the Super Bowl. We need to have around 27 points per game on offense and have the Defense give up under 20 per game. Both of those things are a world apart of where we have been for the last, well, I don't know how long and are hardly mediocre.

I can tell you back when Dan was in his prime and scoring 30+ on a routine basis that we still couldn't win consistently because the defense was 1) not very good in players nor scheme and 2) always tired and gassed from being on the field so much. Dan and the offense simply could score too fast and the defense never got enough rest.

You must have both good offense and good defense. Balance, Daniel San.

 

I was referring to post #8 of yours where you said if we don't score 30 there is an elephant in the room conversation we need to have again. I'm assuming that's Tannehill?

OK.. so since almost NO offense in the NFL scores 30 per year, are you suggesting they should all get rid of their QB's??

This isn't about whether we want to be an elite offense, it's about what is a realistic threshold before you have an "elephant in the room" conversation.

 

We don't have the talent to match that team. Most obviously, Tannehill isn't Peyton Manning at his best. Peyton's offense was ranked #2, then #1, then #2 in points scored from 2012-2014!! Only time in Dolphins history we came close was during Dan Marino's peak from 1984-1986 where we were #1, then #4 then #1 in points scored.

So I think it's pretty clear you're setting goals that are unrealistic here. I'd of course be happy if we achieve them but we shouldn't "assume" they'll score 30 (more like "hope in our wildest dreams" they'll score 30).

 

I think you are trolling man. You have slated tannehill, most recently a few days ago, saying he isn't the answer and will hold us back this season. You now come out with this outrageous premise and asking how it isn't possible in the hope that other posters will confirm your view that tannehill can't put up the required numbers, and thus validate your point on him.

 

Sure.. just not historically great stats. Like I said, let's realistically hope for 25 per game. That should get us into the top 10. We were 17th last year. It would be impressive if Gase can do that.

 

It's less than 4 points more per game haha. We averaged 22.7 points per game last year. I'm asking for 25. So only 2.3 points per game more.

I know it's counterintuitive, but it's HARD to raise average points scored by a FG. You're thinking about what it takes to score points in a single game.. that's different than being able to do it consistently for every game in a 16 game season. 2.3 points more is (perhaps counterintuitively) quite impressive.

 

Let me just show you how valuable 25 points per game is.

Our record in 2012: 7-9. With 25 points per game with NO change in points allowed we have a 12-4 record!!
Our record in 2013: 8-8. With 25 points per game with NO change in points allowed we have a 12-4 record!!
In 2014.. record was 8-8 and it would have stayed the same with 25 points per game.
In 2015.. record was 6-10 and we would have had a 8-8 season with 25 points per game.
In 2016.. record was 10-6 and we would have been 10-5-1 with 25 points per game.

On average.. that's more than 2 wins extra per season with 25 points per game. Let's not belittle 25 points per game.

 

I'm assuming our defense will improve to counter that. Besides, predictions based on schedule are notoriously inaccurate.

25 ppg going once.. going twice.. SOLD! lol

 

If we increased our Avg Points Per Game to 25 I would be pretty darn happy. If it went as high as 27 I might pass out!
My point is that yes we need a few more points per game out of the offense, but the lions share of improvement HAS to come from the Defensive side of the ball. Giving up nearly 24 POINTS PER GAME is awful. That has to be closer to 20 or less. Getting our offense to run closer to 70 plays per game and get closer to 50-50 in T.O.P. would be the best way the offense can help the Defense out and help achieve that goal of 20 or less.

 

Yeah.. let's archive this until after the season. Assuming Gase does well enough to get us into the top 10, I think we're more likely to see 25 ppg than 30 (or 28). And if we have 25, we're almost certainly at least an 11-5 team and in the playoffs.

Anyway.. we'll revisit this again after the season haha.

 

The REAL elephant in the room is that we haven't won a SB since 1974, even with Marino and a great offense (the kind you want), and even with multiple 12+ win seasons. Maybe you should set the bar a little higher eh? haha!

 

30 is hard. Only atlanta beat that. New Orleans had 29 and they have Brees, Cooks, Michael Thomas, Snead, Mark Ingram etc.

26 per game is good, but it's all point differential. Give up 18, score 26, you're in pretty good shape.

 

Yup.. based on what I saw last year and the trend lines for improvement I'm expecting passer rating around 96.5 (there's a post in another thread where I showed that) and Tannehill to just make the top 10 because of that. That trend line is also consistent with... 25 ppg haha!

So to answer your question, I like the improvement in Tannehill, but I don't see another Peyton Manning here happening next year. If that's "hedging" then yes I'm hedging (I'd prefer to just call it being realistic but we can disagree on the terminology if you want).

 

Yeah, Tannehill, Parker, Stills aren't as good as their counterparts. Maybe even Landry depending on if you are comparing him to Snead or Thomas. His numbers vs Snead are almost identical except for number of targets. Similar catch percentage, similar yards per catch, but most importantly similar yards per target (8.6x ypt).

Cooks + Thomas + Snead >>> Parker, Stills, Landry so far. And I love Stills. But he hasn't been as good as Cooks.

Ajayi is good but isn't as consistent as Ingram.

And of course Brees.

So yeah, you're missing a lot if you think the two are comparable. Brees alone is throwing for 5k and 35+ each year. It's not close.