Yeah, makes me feel sad though, wish our team could score 17 points in a half and not just for the whole game...

 

They do more often than you think, it's the other half thats the killer.

 

I just want to point out that you guys do realize that Miami is getting close to Bush's production from Lamar Miller at a fraction of the cost? Don't believe me?

Yards after contact per attempt
Reggie Bush 2.24
Lamar Miller 2.04

Breakaway Percentage (% of runs greater than 15 yards)
Reggie Bush 36.6%
Lamar Miller 33.3%

The biggest difference between the two is volume. Reggie gets more rush attempts in the system he plays in, and he is also used more in the passing game.

Yards after contact and your breakaway ability is a better indicator of true running back ability than total yards, yards per carry and such are because that ability is either all the running back (YCO) or mostly on the running back. Everything else, you have to take into account the quality of the offensive line and other blockers.

Reggie is getting $5 million this year. Lamar is getting $480,000.

 

Reggie better at the check down though.

 

and....

Miami rarely uses the back as a check down in this system.

Lamar also is a more effective pass blocker according to the ratings.

 

Why is cost a factor when we're $20m under the cap. Reggie + Lamar and a bigger back should be the equation. But if we aren't going to use Reggie correctly, then yes but that's not on reggie more on our coaching.

I like what Trestman does with Forte

 

People forget how crazy legs bush would have one big play for every 10 plays that were 5 yard losses. Or more. We didnt use him right. It was the right choice to not re-sign him unfortunately.

 

It goes to value. Why should I pay someone 5 times as much for the same rushing production? Especially when it is a fungible position such as running back.

So essentially, you want the coaching staff to completely change their scheme for two players: Reggie Bush and Mike Wallace.

Oh, I just saw Stafford underthrow Johnson on a TD and it got picked. I thought Ryan Tannehill was the only quarterback that underthrew passes down the field.

 

Because its a for-profit business? Is this really a question?

Either way, the person making these choices isn't the one setting the budget.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

Ireland deserves a ton of blame for Miami's current mess. But it's for royally ****ing up the O-line, not failing to keep Bush. It's a plug and play position. Bush is a better RB than Miller, but not by as huge a margin as some would believe. And overpaying at that position is not how to build a winning football team.

I was as sad to see Bush go as anyone. He was my favorite Dolphin while he was here. But that's one move I don't hold against Ireland.

 

Good points.

I thought you were going to mention how bad the Pack look without Rodgers.

 

Green Bays OL is arguably worse than ours. Their defense is definitely worse. Without Rodgers they're average at best, same as the Pats sans Brady.

 

...because Bush is more dynamic than Miller, and b/c the duo of Bush & Bell provides a better overall combination of running, receiving, blocking, chunk yardage plays, and short yardage/goal line than Miller & Thomas. Whatever Bush doesn't give you, you get from his compliment b/c he doesn't need to be a bell cow back to get your money's worth. I would've kept Bush and drafted Lacy. It doesn't get any better than that outside of using a high 1st rounder on an elite back.

 

Bush is a great fit for their offense and a bad fit for ours. IMO.

 

He's more dynamic by 3 percentage points. So 3 percentage points is worth $4.3 million more?

 

I was a big Lacy fan last year, and I wanted to go all in on the OL at the top of the draft. I also thought Miller would be a beast. 2 outta 3?

 

... plus leadership. knowledge. experience.... and he's more dynamic and a greater game-changer than the 3% says.

 

definitely. Plus, Miller might not be a beast but I think he still could become very good.

 

Remember when these boards blew up because we didn't sign Matt Flynn?

 

I'm not sure Miller is a good enough fit for our offensive scheme either. Is having Wallace & Miller enough to change up the scheme to better suit their ability rather than forcing them to fit the scheme considering we have to revamp the oline as it is and Tannehill is pretty scheme-flexible? Bring in some big powerful guards and right tackle who can pull and drive Dlinemen off the ball and let Miller burst through the holes and run for daylight. That'd fit Egnew's ability as a solid developing lead blocker too.

 

In a lot of ways Philbin was hired to bring the Packers offensive scheme to South Florida. Problem is that the personnel department has been negligent in bringing in the required players.

As for fit in this offense the number one trait for a running back has to be pass blocking. In that regard Miller is not a good fit.

 

Wanted Eddie Lacy, no way on the oline, meh on miller, didn't want to resign Reggie..

 

I thought Mike Wallace was the only one who didn't rescue his QB's underthrown balls :pity:

 

miller has daylight anxiety..lol

 

Are you a shareholder? Is this a board meeting? Do we really care how much profit they make? We want a good product on the field. Super bowls. Don't care if they're right under the cap or $30 million under.

 

That's completely subjective.

If we had Scott Linehan as the OC that would actually utilize his skills as a receiver, I might be inclined to say we should have kept Reggie. It wouldn't be because his running skills are so superior to what we have currently, because that is not the case at all.

 

It would be nice if he could at least play like James Jones plays. Did you see the play he made on the ball right before Flynn fumbled? That's the kind of play a $60 million receiver should be making. That's the kind of play we don't get from our $60 million receiver.

You should care about the value of the player and if the Dolphins are getting the most bang for their buck, because by paying too much to a player that doesn't live up to his contract, you hamper your ability to build the rest of the team and not have the major holes this team currently has. It also hampers your ability to have long term success because you wreck your salary structure.

 

Only if it becomes a problem. If we are $20 million under the cap but would be $15 million instead, does it matter? If we didn't sign Wallace (I like Wallace but not the contract we gave him) that's a whole lot of moolah on the table. Worry about "value" when you start having cap problems. Reggie Bush at $4m is not a problem.

 

I still have hopes for Miller but he's not a good fit for any scheme at this point.
He's way too passive, both running and blocking. A better OL would definitely help but I don't think we're gonna focus on building a dominant line or run game while Philbin is running the team.

Wallace's issue IMO has more to do w a lack of timing, chemistry and opportunities. I think those issues will go away as he and Tannehill have more time together.

 

Yes, it absolutely matters, because while you may be $15 under this year, you might be $15 over in 2 years because of this contract.

 

No, I dont. I dont make decisions for the organization though. The people who do make those decisions absolutely care though.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

This is ridiculous. "Value" is inherently fundamental in every business. You think Stephen Ross became a billionaire by letting $5MM go here and there?

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

And that's fine. They can have that conversation (for profit). Whatever the reason, when Bush was here, this coaching staff ran him more. A lot more. With him gone, they run less,by about a 3rd.

 

Someone say Mike Wallace?

 

I think you answered your own question. We had the cap space to keep Bush so that probably wasn't the issue. I'm guessing they wanted to go with the young guys and build for the future as opposed to hoarding their vets for the short term. That's why I don't think anyone is getting fired this year. If Irish had a mandate to win right this minute then guys like Bush, Dansby, Burnett would have been retained.

 

That's my point, money was not the issue. It was their version of players fitting a scheme.

As we see this year Miller/Thomas in this scheme is not any better, and a little worse. Did you guys see that deep over the shoulder catch by Bush in the Detroit game? We had some of that towards the end of last year as well.

 

You can roll cap space forward. Cap space this year unused isn't less valuable than next.

 

That's a different argument.

On a related note, do teams still have the requirement to spend 90% of their cap, even if rolled over? And if you roll over to next year, and use that all up, you'd have to be real smart in structuring it as the cap falls again the year after ..

 

Miller and Thomas have been awful, no question. But I didn't see that coming so I'm not gonna bang on them for it.

The OL is another issue. I understand they were all in for Dion Jordan but if you pony up for a Mile Wallace then it makes sense to give the QB some protection so that Wallace has a chance to give you some Return on investment.