I don't mean to sound as if I'm beating a dead horse over the head, but if we can't get a running game going, all of the excitement we had at the beginning of the season is going to turn into angry rants and calls to fire Ireland, Philbin, Sherman, etc.
I get so annoyed in this now pass happy league that everyone's focus is on the quarterback and that if you have a Peyton Manning, Drew Brees or Tom Brady you don't need a running game. Well as much as I respect those quarterbacks, none of them held a candle to Marino and our 1988 season showed that without a running game, even a god like Marino can't carry the team to glory.
I'm not giving up on this season but I will say that we need to consider selling the proverbial farm in the off-season to find an Adrian Peterson for next season. If we can't get a viable running game, Tannehill is going to end up like his predecessor, another Chad Henne because our team will be one dimensional and all defenses will have to do is bide their time, sack him left and right or start picking him off left and right.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
Agreed that we needed to run better...disagree that we need an Adrian Peterson to do it. Get a good line, that way we can run and pass...with a good oline, we could plug backs in, kinda like Denver from a couple years ago.
FanMarino, cdz12250, MikeHoncho and 1 other person like this. -
Yeah, I don't think Walter Payton could average 4+ yds behind this abortion of an offensive line.
-
-
-
It seems like a fine line that's difficult to negotiate. Like is mentioned, you can't start every drive 2nd and 10, but you can't let everyone know your pass/run (or pass/pass/pass) tendencies either. Every once in a while, I think you have to plug it up in there.
But, really, what's needed is the ability to convert third-and-shorts (a yard or less), getting 3 yards on the first downs you elect to run, and, then, at least the threat of a big run if Miller pops one. So far, though, we can't do the first two of those three (at least against decent run-stopping teams). And even just looking in our division, I think we've got six games where it's going to be difficult for us to run. Cinci won't be easy. Carolina won't. Pittsburgh won't. Not for us. But we do have to find a way to negotiate some rushing yards here and there. If it's read-option. If it's bringing back a fullback. If it's changing around the line (although Philbin seems resistant to that, at least from what's being reported). And though I'm against it in principle because generally you have to pay too much, an in-season trade. Whatever it is, the Dolphins have got to find a way to relieve just a little of the pass-rush burden that Tannehill is seeing by mixing in the run a little more.
We don't have to be great. But it'd be nice to be capable going forward. Because if we're capable, I think we're just good enough offensively and defensively to win more than we lose. That may translate to 9-7 or 10-6 (both better than 8-8 or worse) and not making the playoffs in a tight AFC (or possibly making it, as well), but we'll be in the hunt... and football will matter in November/December. -
In my opinion this is almost completely a self-inflicted wound.
Here, just read this. I don't want to type it all out again.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...lphins-can-get-the-running-game-back-on-trackunifiedtheory, Onehondo, MikeHoncho and 3 others like this. -
Particularly note the part where I show that if the Dolphins showed the same level of commitment to the ground game as the rest of the league does on average, their tailbacks would be rushing for 81 yards per game versus the NFL average of 89 yards per game.
The problem is not our yards-per-carry efficiency. It's our total lack of commitment.unifiedtheory, Onehondo and Tone_E like this. -
Good article.
So what is to be made of Sherman's earlier (this year) statement - I'm paraphrasing - that Philbin would have him pass even more? Was he joking around or serious? It seems like it was at least somewhat serious, because in practice (not practice on Mon-Fri, but meaning utilization in games), we've bent more to what Sherman was hinting at rather than away from it. Especially in the second halves, and especially when things get tough.jdang307 likes this. -
IMO much of the issue is related to the play calling. Part of that is the number of runs called and part is the type of runs called. Increasing the number is self-explanatory. As for the type, I see our OL strength as being Pouncey and Cogs. They should run more dives. It doesn't matter if they only get 1 or 2 yards, it helps keep the offense on schedule and requires fewer deep drops on subsequent plays. I know they want to do the zone stretch, but our Ts aren't mobile enough to run that with any kind of consistency. I don't think there's much value in selling out for a RB and I don't even think that we need to sell out for OL talent. I would take a T in the first in what will most likely be a pick between 15 and 25 assuming the talent in the draft warrants it. I'd look for a mobile G in FA and in the mid rounds of the draft. I'd resign Cogs and keep that side intact. Martin has struggled, but is also improved from last season. I think the struggles look worse b/c since the right side has been so bad you can't provide the usual help that all LTs need. IMO if the right side were upgraded to average, it would be easier for the backs to decide who to block and the OL as a whole would be incrementally improved.
-
Philbin's explanation about why they ran so little against Baltimore pretty much told us all we need to know about their commitment level.
To him it was simple. They're running a 3-WR package as their base. Last week the Saints played that package a certain way to where we thought we could do some things on the ground. This week the Ravens played it differently so the calls went to the air.
Very cut-and-dried. Black and white.
The problem is not getting to game day and then abandoning the run at some point. The problem is in the game planning itself. There's no commitment that we're going to run the ball during this game and if they play us a certain way, here is how we'll adapt specifically so that we can still run the football. The adaptation goes from run to pass or from pass to run. There's no adaptation from run to different run, based on how the defense is playing us.MikeHoncho, The_Dark_Knight and GMJohnson like this. -
-
-
-
-
Guest
I'd go to bat with Miller and a better line moving forward. If he doesn't show 1,200 yard potential, I'd take a serious look at Duke Johnson in 2015.
-
vt_dolfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member
There is one good thing to look at. We are 3-2 with the worst of our schedule over.....while having the worst line play we may have ever seen by a Phins line. If we can just get back to being average....damn...we will be in really good shape for December playoff football.
You know, one more point CK. Perhaps this is why Philbin has said he doenst plan to change personnel during the bye week, because he knows he can do just what you are saying, and get results. -
vt_dolfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member
-
Out of his 50 carries...
24 have gone for 2 yards or less (48%)
31 have gone for 3 yards or less (62%)
4 account for almost half (101) his total yardage (211) -
-
All I heard was a bunch of whining and moaning about how Reggie Bush would dance around but he was a playmaker and played behind an equally bad offensive line.
I love the double standard.
Miller is just another hole to fill moving forward. He shouldn't be starting in the NFL. -
Last year we ran the ball 27.5 times a game. Is it because we have these new toys (Wallace and Gibson) we want to play with them more? Is it because we lost a much maligned but pretty damn good toy (Bush)? Both? -
I'm not sure Bush could run behind this line either, but we have to try and run the ball somehow, someway. Given that the line is pure crap (3 out of 5 guys) a power back might help the cause. Maybe Daniel Thomas gets the nod from here on out. Thing is I don't think Miller or Thomas is the answer but the O-line isn't helping their cause either.
-
Seems like the coaching staff is looking for a running game that will operate off the passing game, not vice versa.
-
There are two ways to look at this. You mention 4 of his runs account for 101 of his yards.
Well, knowing that he's going to break off a big run nearly 1 out of every 10 carries, why WOULDN'T you feed the man 20 carries a game? -
-
-
That's what is not being established here...norms for the distribution of runs. We're giving numbers for Lamar Miller's runs with no context for appreciation. -
-
You're one-note. Nobody listens to the one-note guy.
Page 1 of 2