A coach is going to go to a team that will hire him. As you said, there's only 32 of these positions in the league and only 3 or 4 are open a year. Seattle didn't have a top QB or great defense before Carroll took the job. Again, you're talking in terms of if a coach could wave a magic wand, then he'd have X, Y & Z. Reality of the NFL doesn't work like that. Also, you're neglecting the differences of humans. Some coaches would want the challenge of righting the ship, for example.
I'll agree that there are several examples of coaches taking over good teams and getting some sort of reward for being a stand-in. This may come in the form of money or reputation. However, Barry Switzer taking over the Cowboys and winning another Super Bowl is one thing...in the Dolphins case it would be more like Chan Gailey taking over the Bills. If the team can show value then yes, obviously good coaches will be attracted to the job, but the scenario I've laid out does not paint the team as having value. The value must come from Tannehill and from the defense and from the front office's ability to draft. What I have said is nothing more than that. If any of those entities, particularly the QB and the defense don't do well, there will be problems in selling this job to coaches out there. At this point, I'm back to where I was 2 pages ago so I feel like the point has been made. I'm pointing out a potential flaw in the system. The team is dangerously tied to it's QB and it's perceived organizational structure and it's expensive FA acquisitions. That being said...I'm a happy fan because I like those additions but it does feel risky.
Let's just boil the discussion down to this part here because my argument is exactly that Tannehill won't be a liability, our roster is relatively good (including defense), and the last 2 years of drafting and FA signings and offseason moves for personnel looks like it's a real plus.
You say he won't be a liability. I say "won't" isn't for sure and there could be problems if he turns out to be. I don't think we're far off.
Everything's relative. So, list all the teams you think might want a new HC. Now tell me which of those teams has a better QB than Tannehill in your mind. Which of those teams has a better roster? That list will be VERY short, maybe zero.
It's not Tannehill versus the other QBs in the NFL. It's Tannehill versus the opportunity to use who's there or locate a FA or develop a new draft pick. It's also more likely that the coach would get an extra 1-2 years based on the notion that their QB was still developing (just like Philbin has). Once again, I think you're over-simplifying the situation Miami could face in 2016 and ignoring key factors that don't help Miami's cause. It seems like every point you make is markedly pro-Miami. Maybe it's because you're a Dolphins fan or because you're not thinking enough before you post these kinds of arguments.
Fair enough. But Tannehill vs. who's there is likely to end up in Tannehill's favor. So, it's down to Tannehill vs. free agent/draft pick. Any free agents that are clearly better than Tannehill? Draft who knows, but there's the risk of the unknown + probably not doing well the 1st or maybe even 2nd year. You know what you're getting in Tannehill. Tell me why a future HC might want to jettison Tannehill, assuming he plays like he did last year and the team doesn't do well?
Sure, if you want.. the only point of debate is what we're debating now anyway. We don't have to debate this if you don't want to.. it just looked like you were interested in this so I continued.
That's the really grey part to me. What if you have a QB that throws for let's say 3,800 to 4,200 yards and for about 25 TDs and for about 15 INTs but who doesn't seem appreciably capable of deep passes or creating big plays when things break down. So he's clearly capable but there's clearly a ceiling. Will a coach view that as good or bad for long-term success? It suggests the ability to make the Play-offs but it hints at a limited ability to go much beyond that or to ever win a Super Bowl without a great defense accompanying him. I could easily envision a coach believing that he has the abilities to make any QB "capable" and that if the present guy has a known ceiling, not being especially interested. That, to me, is the big risk of giving Tannehill this contract. If the improvements we've seen are associated with getting used to the NFL game as opposed to fixing major flaws, then we won't see much, if any, improvement in the long run. So far, I haven't seen many major improvements from Tannehill. Slow progress suggests, to me, that we're seeing a guy get acclimated more than we are a guy evolving into a real great player. So if 2015 goes badly and the team needs a HC, I see Tannehill as being a guy the league more or less recognizes as having leveled off to something just higher than Alex Smith and Andy Dalton but still with some ceiling that limits Play-offs success. So again, will a coach see that kind of stable QB as an asset or an ultimate liability?
Yeah, remember we're only considering the most likely scenario of applying for a HC-only job (I agree HC+GM > HC so there's no debate there), so you can't decide personnel through draft or FA, though your input will be considered. Now do you think Miami looks bad? So, it's Tannehill (take your view of him) vs. trusting someone else that's a GM to find a better QB than Tannehill through FA or the draft. Does that change your mind?
Somewhat, yes. But I think there's still issues. For one, a new HC in Miami would from the onset be considered a bit of an after-thought with all the front-office moves as well as the roster building over the last few seasons. The fact that Miami will have found 90% of their roster, found their VP/DM and found their GM will certainly make HC seem like an afterthought as opposed to some other hypothetical team that may be looking for all of that at once. I will say this...look at the Falcons: similar QB, similar owner, similar problems with defense, similar front office. They were able to go get a high-profile head coaching candidate so that speaks to your view...strongly I might add! Atlanta getting Dan Quinn makes me feel better but Atlanta pursued their guy hard and they have achieved things Miami has not. For one, Matt Ryan has been a great QB for 5-6 years where as Tannehill has 1 year of similar production under his belt. Matt Ryan began his career with 5 consecutive winning seasons and a regular season record of 56-24. Ryan's last few seasons have averaged about 4,650 yards and nearly 30 TDs to something like 15 INTs. His completion percentages have been outstanding: 68.6, 67.4 and 66.1 over the last 3 years. His career passer rating is 91.1 as a result. He's consistent and highly productive. Ryan went 11-5 his rookie year and went 13-3 twice over the next 4 seasons. He's been to the Play-offs multiple times. He's won his division while facing at least one other great QB (Brees). Despite what Miami fans will tell you, Matt Ryan's current resume is undoubtedly stronger than Tannehill's because Matt Ryan has proven that when surrounded by a good team he will win. So while the Falcons look similar from the outside, it's easy to see why a head coaching candidate would say 'yes' to that job over Miami had he been considering both. It's just food for thought that tells me Miami isn't as desirable a place to be as many fans think it is and that Tannehill had better show up and prove he's on a similar level as somebody like Matt Ryan, who is just another guy that gets dogged around here (like Stafford, like Romo, like Flacco, etc.). Again, it's the same point. Tannehill needs to play well moving forward, better than in 2014 in fact. If he doesn't, it will put the team in an awkward spot.
Yeah, in a direct competition with Atlanta, I'd agree Dolphins might come in 2nd, but Atlanta as you said already filled that job. I think we'd be competing more against the likes of Jacksonville, possibly Tennessee and Tampa Bay (if either again does that poorly), maybe St. Louis (and I doubt they try HC+GM again!), and Washington (RG3 is damaged goods). I really don't see the competition when I consider likely teams. Also, on another note, given we'd probably get decent candidates, what's wrong with the current approach of building the organization top-down? Handing out HC+GM responsibilities is fraught with danger, so I'm actually fine with letting Tannenbaum and co. find the coach that is right for the system. Also, consider Lazor might be promoted and he would definitely want to work with Tannehill.
I think the top-down approach is going to make a lot of coaches look just like Philbin does now. Top-down strategies tend to do that so I'm asking why fans think they'll get so much improvement out of changing one piece without changing his bosses or his subordinates. I hope you're right in regards to the coaching landscape but I think at that point we're projecting based on cause and effect and there are obviously a ton of things we aren't (and could never) factor in so we can't assume to much confidence in that line of thinking without doing a lot of consideration and fact gathering. Now, the first thing I'd look at if Philbin were fired is the promotion of Bill Lazor, however that assumes that in another year or so we'd be feeling as optimistic about Lazor as we are today. That could easily change if Tannehill doesn't have a good year and the offense doesn't open up and evolve the way we all want it to. If it stagnates, Lazor could become someone who is viewed as out of his depth and unable to guide the team. That said, if the defense continues to be of concern (and we haven't yet fixed our holes at LB and DB) we could easily look at head coaches that are more defensive-minded guys.
Top-down does work. It just depends on how good the guys at the top are. John Harbaugh is a recent example, Mike Tomlin another, and Tom Coughlin yet another, etc.. of recent SB winning coaches that were HC only. Of course we don't know how good Tannenbaum and co. are at finding the right HC, but I don't think the approach is wrong. Lazor is promising though. I don't think his schemes are suddenly going to fall off a cliff. So I too would like to see an in-house promotion if Philbin is fired. Not having to start all over is important. Also, despite some defensive troubles, let's remember that before injuries we were one of the best, so maybe it will be Lazor.
eh..debated this to hell and back in Club, and Ive decided to take the mindset that hes our coach this year whether I like it or not so I will support him. If I believe players can see their mistakes, then I have to hope Philbin can do the same. What hes said so far about making defense simpler...I feel good about. I wont say Im optimistic about him this season, because that wouldnt be true, but Il refrain from bashing him more now, and lets just see how things unroll this season. Hes a Phins HC, which means Im behind him.
I think the authors point is Philbin doesn't have a clue when it comes to the pulse of this team. Which is obvious. He either did know and ignored it or he really was not in tune with what was going on. I believe he really didnt know what was going on and he should, he is the Head Coach. What makes Philbin bad is he failed to bring together a group of men who could have made a huge splash --- had, I believe the head coach been someone different: http://www.miamidolphins.com/news/a...-Offense/7fbd4b2a-5afd-4c0b-8c83-727eb5ef535f The Dolphins also did something they had never done, which is have a 4,000-yard passer and a 1,000-yard rusher in the same season. The first thing that jumps out when analyzing the Dolphins’ final offensive numbers for 2014 is the 388 points scored, the team’s best showing since 1995 when Miami finished with 398 points. The 388 points also ranked as the seventh-best total in franchise history. (Click on link to continue reading) This article should demonstrate my point that he actually was that Bad; as a head coach. I have no doubt that he is in over his head, but is excellent when tasked with smaller jobs such as the offense in of itself and making sure Tannehill develops. That he did but at the expense of the rest of the parts not being in sync. And how the offensive line ended up when the man was a career offensive line coach I am still scratching my head over. In conclusion I believe we are a .500 team with Philbin at the helm. Until we get a motivator of Men who can bring all the pieces together and tune up and oil this machine we are in for another long season
Wait...what? You're complimenting the offense and arguing against Philbin at the same time? You'll have to clarify that. The phrase "motivator of men" doesn't sound all that quantifiable or scientific to me nor does it sound like something you can precisely measure from the standpoint of a fan nor does it indicate by itself where and to what degree it should be included in an organizational structure. Thus, I don't know where to go with that. What you're speaking to is a confounded system and you're drawing stats out at a system level (388 points, 4k yards passing, 1.8k yards rushing, etc.). Unless you have a way of explaining all the interactions of the system or calculating the portion of each that should be tied to each component I can't see how to choose between competing explanations, some positive and some negative. This forum has seen those arguments made over and over and the conflicting views are at an impasse. Go back a couple pages and I've had that exact conversation in this thread.
Sure Lazor deserves some credit. But how about having Albert and James at OT instead of Martin and Clabo? Or Wallace, Hartline, Gibson, Landry instead of just Hartline and Bess? Tannehill in his third year instead of being a rookie or 2nd year guy. There are a lot of factors that made greater success more likely.
Scientific?? Joe Philbin failed to again coach up this team to a winning record. There is nothing scientific about it. As far as drawing Stats I am stating facts. We had a 4000 yrd passer and a 1000 yrd back for the first time in team history. Philbin failed to make it count. We scored the 7th highest points the team has ever scored and Philbin failed to make it count. My point is the team has shown the ability to make small improvements in areas that Philbin openly admits is positioning coaching and that he really has very little to do with. Which was highlighted in later posts then your original post that I responded to. Philbin is the HC and with it comes the overall responsibility of bringing all those improvements and pieces together. I am not sure what you want to measure. He is a .500 coach over a 3 yr period. There really is nothing to measure except our record. I posted the article to show that we quietly accomplished something last year that we have never accomplished in the history of the team. It has been well documented in this thread Philbin had little to do with it. I don't think we don't need to measure anything to know unequivocally that Philbin failed miserably. Philbin didnt bring the team together to make a run at the playoffs with a 4000 yrd passer and a 1000 yrd back. We haven't scored as many points since Marino in 1995. In fact the point total we put up was the 7th highest in team history. This is monumental failure to the 10th degree. No measurement needed except our record. Philbin had pieces and improvement and failed to bring that together in the form of notches in the win column. Where we go from here I don't know. But something has got to give. Maybe it involves Philbin, maybe it doesn't. Ross and Tannenbaum will make that decision soon enough.
It's a perfectly fine opinion to have. It's just not a very strong argument because it contains a lot of holes and it leads to a lot of arguments which don't have any way of resolving themselves because things are jumbled up. Just as one example, you credit Philbin for building a good offense but then come back and say he didn't "make it count." The very premise contradicts itself but if it makes sense to you then it's a free country and you can spin that web, just don't pretend that it's a justified argument as opposed to a highly speculative opinion. It's fine if you believe that story personally, you just have to be a man and stand up to admit the assumptions you're making to get there. Loads of people agree with you're perspective, it's just not possible to get from point A to point B in that argument without making stuff up along the way. They made up the same stuff and concluded similar things about Philbin. There's nothing to debate in terms of your opinion versus mine. As I said, that's just going to lead to an argument that doesn't resolve.
We make it extremely complex, probably because there are some people here who are more sophisticated than most about how things work in the NFL. Not being one of them, I observe that since Coach Philbin has been at the helm, the team has lost two more games than it has won, and in the last two seasons, has been in control of its own destiny at the end and failed to deliver. To me, this speaks volumes, and I agree that this season is probably his last chance. If with this roster and this schedule we finish out of the playoffs, I hate to paraphrase the Tuna, but in the long run you are what your record says you are.
How about moving James to LT after Albert went down, therefore ruining both tackle positions instead of just one? If we want to talk about that.
It's crazy. Delmas went down and the defense went from top 10 to bottom 10 in a span of about 3 weeks. That has to be more about depth than coaching.
Granted; it has to be. But how in a world of pro days, scouting, the draft and free agency do you manage to end up with an injury prone Delmas at safety and no one behind him? Some coaching decisions have to have factored into it also. Remember, only a few of us are saying Philbin is a terrible coach. A lot of us say he's mediocre. You know: not bad. Middling. We damn with faint praise and that's enough. I'm sitting here hoping he proves me wrong this year. I'll stuff myself on crow and love it.
Fair enough. Stability is important. I just don't see the Sherman signing as a coincidence when it comes to drafting Tannehill.
Really we are hoping to follow the Cowboy's trajectory here. They were in a fairly similar position coaching-wise with multile seasons of .500 ball (I know Philbs is slightly under). They let Garrett define the type of players he wanted, the coaches he wanted, Jerry backed off a bit and they ended up going to the second round of the playoffs. We can hope Philbin does something similar, but it is hard to have confidence. The best argument for him is just continuity. Give a guy long enough to make sure he can get his systems to work once he has the "right players." It's not my favorite argument, but the Cowboy's season shows it has at least some historic success.
The difference between 2013 and 2014 for the Cowboys really is their move from pass happy, to a more balanced offense. Their oline was already great in 2013. Dez is Dez, Romos' been borderline elite for a few years now. There is almost a reverse correlation between number of attempts and his rating. From 2011 to 2014, attempts and rating 522/102.5 648/90 535/96.7 435/113.2 Murray went from 217 carries in 14 games to 392 in 16. The person responsible for the success in Dallas is the person who decided they were going to balance the offense.
The difference and one of the reasons this franchise has been a failure is our willingness to accept making the playoffs as "success". The object of the NFL season and image of success is winning the Super-Bowl. Anything short is failure
