makes sense except the AJayi trade comment. In hindsight, it was a good move for us.

 

If ajayi wasn't a malcontent we'd have both drake and ajayi splitting carries

Imagine that

 

Everything he says is true but ajayi had to go.

 

Coach harder...make better evaluations on players..

 

no we wouldn't drake would still be 3rd string and only used on kick coverage. also if you think being a malcontent is the only reason he was traded, then you haven't paid attention this year. Gase uses the RB in the passing game. ajayi can't do that.

 

1. Shouldn't be a standard rule, we just make bad decisions on FA's.

2. Is easier said than done, especially with a static subpar defensive scheme.

3. We got fleeced by the Eagles (twice). Never trade out of the top 10 when you actually need that quality of talent. And when you find talent in the later rounds that produce, get proper value for them. If Gase would have kept matters in the locker room instead of being a loud mouth in his press conferences, anything negative with Ajayi would have been kept under wraps and we could have gotten a better draft selection.

4. We've done a little better here. Phillips shouldn't be included. Most DT's outside the top pick range often take 3 years to develop as it's a very difficult position to learn. Phillips is no exception and he's settling nicely.

5. I don't think Gase has what it takes to cut it as a HC, but that's just my opinion. He treats the team like his fantasy football roster - focusing on trinkets and not the overall team - and doesn't make sound personnel decisions. Gets very undisciplined, and inconsistent play from his players.

6. More of a cute spout off statement than reality. Every situation is different.

7. Spot on. The 1st round tender placed on Alonso was a terrible decision. Alonso is very bad at his job. Branch, also meh.

8. Biggest detriment of the 2017 season and a pot mark on Gase's career. Bringing in Cutler was a disaster, and worse, you could see it coming a mile away. Not to mention, all this talk of Gase being a QB guru when he has never coached up a young QB. He rather succeeds within areas of offensive scheme and playcalling, not specifically QB development.

9. See #5

10. Takes a good coach to know one.

 

Good point.

Was forgetting gase also leaned on Williams more after the trade

 

Number 10 should be number 1!!!!! Offensively, the success or failure of the offense always...ALWAYS starts in the trenches.

If your OL can't block, then your running game and passing game is going to fail every time.

 

#2 is what I've been preaching for the past couple of years now. PRESS the WR's like we did in Patriots game and we win games. Play soft and we lose..... obvious to me.

The Dolphins should really read that article cut it out of the paper and look at it every day.

 

That article really drives home a few points that ring true: (1) there’s been big money poured into FAs, (2) there’s been too many aging vets brought in, (3) the team seems incapable of evaluating who’s good and who’s over-rated in the 1st round, (4) the team has failed to develop the QB position behind Tannehill.

All of those things suggest the roster in Miami isn’t what it should be—which is why I argued with folks who wanted to go right after Adam Gase at seasons’ end. There are plenty of things Gase could do better, but spending time diminishing a 2nd-year HC misses the point. There’s a lot here that suggests Miami ought to suck.

We shouldn’t respect the Dolphins at this point. I don’t and I don’t see why anyone here would. Of course I hope they do well. I root for them on Sundays. In fact, I still can’t believe I never canceled my NFL Sunday Ticket this year. If ever there was a year to do that, this was it.

But quite honestly, the more success I see elsewhere in the NFL, the more I realize it’s about being disciplined and doing things correctly across the board, at each position. That’s the challenge of building a team—managing all 22 positions so that your coaching staff can properly execute the scheme.

You need to find a quality QB but you also need to manage who you have along the O-line. Additionally, you need to bring in sufficient talent at the skill positions without shelling out too much money. It’s critical you find players who not only work hard but fit your scheme and who are self-motivated. You need to make sure the guy’s you’re getting create value. It’s all about balance and about being able to achieve that balance at all 22 positions (as best you can).

I’ve watched this team for a decade fail to display a cohesive vision. They’ll address a clear problem either by throwing money at it or by using a 1st round pick only to let another leak spring up. This is why the roster looks like a patchwork.

The Dolphins have young players that are underachieving such as Parker, Phillips, and Tunsil. They have aging veterans that are well past their prime such as Thomas, Fasano, Bushrod, and Timmons. And they have had several personalities that could be considered problematic from Parker’s lack of motivation to Ajayi’s problems with authority to Landry’s being a hot-head on the field. A lot of players simply seem overpaid (Kiko, Suh, Branch, etc.).

And that’s not including the nonsense that went on under Philbin and Ireland. At this point, I don’t see a need to involve Jonathan Martin or Dion Jordan in this conversation. Those people are (and should be) dead to us.

It shouldn’t be surprising that a team guilty of regularly breaking the rules isn’t contending. The Dolphins have taken on a lot of risk because they’ve been sloppy and not surprisingly they’ve been burned quite often. They’ve been active enough to stay competitive having drafted a decent QB and obtained a slew of solid players. But they’ve been far too undisciplined in terms of building a team. They’re like a person on a diet who allows themselves a “cheat day” every other day. Success just doesn’t work like that. I’m sorry. You have to do the right things 9 times out of 10. Miami’s batting average is not nearly that good.

The fact the Patriots have drafted 9 QBs since Belichick took over to the Dolphins 5 is shocking. It would’ve been interesting if Miami had someone who could’ve taken the reigns this season. With some experience that player could pushed Tannehill next year, provided some depth or maybe netted the Dolphins a pick. Funny how the Patriots use Brady’s occasional absences to create value and turn a profit with players like Matt Cassel and Jimmy Garoppolo. That’s smart and it’s why I admire and respect the Patriots success. They so often do the right things that it’s not surprising when they consistently find a way to conjure up a 11-, 12- or 13-win season.

 

1. I don't think age was the problem with those players. I think boiling it down to age is sloppy and lazy.

2. Is stupid, quite frankly. The same people that fawn over the Patriots are the same ones that ignore their cheating and tout BB's genius to change everything up. Saying we should copy them either means we need to cheat OR we're supposed to keep up with a person these sycophants consider a once in lifetime genius.

3. Trade back was a better deal for the Eagles, but the Ajayi trade was not a fleecing. Jay doesn't;t have a high value. When he was drafted we were told by every pundit he's got about a 4 year career with his knees. On top of that he is a malcontent whose already showed his *** once in Philly.

4. Agree 100%. No more medical issues.

5. Dumb example. No one was saying he needed to coach harder last year.

6. Pitt didn't let Wallace go, they offered him a contract before Brown. Absolute rules are often dumb.

7. Until our cap becomes an actual problem, I'm not worried.

8. We have a young QB developing in Doughty. We don't have the luxury of taking development QBs high because we have too many holes already.

9. Gase said his first year, he's ok with penalties if they are from playing too intense. 31 penalties didn't;t stop us form the playoffs in 2016 and they really didn't stop us from playoffs this year.

10. So many problems with this one.
a) Hyde acts as if the line is terrible and then calls it an incessant cycle of mediocrity. Which is it?
b) It takes time to build own offensive line, we've had too many different FO and coaching staffs in 15 years to have a cohesive approach to building the line.
c) Last year we had 4 1st round draft picks playing on the line. 4! People still complained and still want more 1st round picks on the line. Again, no consistent approach to building a line.
d) Most lines will be under construction into perpetuity. That is the nature of the salary cap era.

 

You're correct that there's a lot of perpetual shuffling that goes on given the salary cap.

The problem is that so much of that shuffling really ought to be peripheral. Good teams sustain themselves on the back of core players that are (typically) big hits in the draft. Miami doesn't really have any big hits in the draft. I hate to use "Pro-Bowler" as a descriptor but I can't think of a truly elite player Miami drafted that's one of the best at their position and who's in line to have a Ring of Honor or Hall of Fame worthy career. They don't have an offensive weapon like Antonio Brown or defensive stud like Luke Kuechly or Von Miller.

I think Ryan Tannehill, Reshad Jones and Jarvis Landry are above average. None are elite players. Tannehill's very good but there are now several very good young QBs around the league. Jones is a great safety around the LoS but struggles in coverage. Landry is wonderful as a slot receiver, but that's a limited position within the offense. I think Tankersly and Howard may emerge as above average players, too. Drake I think has a chance to be a great player if he continues to work hard but sadly RBs do wear down quickly.

But it seems that too many of the other players who we wish were core players either aren't great or can't stay healthy. That includes several first round selections--linemen like Mike Pouncey and Ja'wuan James as well as skill players like Devante Parker.

Miami's roster is weaker than we think IMO.

 

Don't disagree with a lot of that.

The point of my post wasn't to say everything is great. I just don;t think many of the things brought up were valid.

We do need to do a better job drafting, that is for sure. OTOH, I think if we win a couple of playoff games, you'll see Jones, Landry and even Thill getting more accolades then they do now.

 

Well who's image wouldn't benefit from being seen as a Play-off winner?

Matt Moore's image sure could do with a couple Play-off wins right about now, haha.

We keep expecting those Play-off wins to come but a big part of why they don't is that we're relying on mediocre draft picks to get to the Play-offs and we're also underestimating how good many Play-off teams actually are.

Truth is, even when this team made the Play-offs, they got smashed. Would having Tannehill made that different?

Well consider we lost giving up 30 points to a team with Antonio Brown and Le'Veon Bell (in their first Play-off game together). Those two combined for 291 yards and 4 TDs.

When you know what's coming and you can't stop it. That's called greatness.

And even then, Matt Moore went 29-for-36 in that game for nearly 300 yards and came out with a 98 rating. Landry had 100 yards. Stills had 80 yards. What failed Miami (besides their inability to stop two amazing players in Bell and Brown) was the ground game which generated only 52 yards, 33 of which were Ajayi's.

Honestly, it wasn't just "we didn't have our QB" that lost us that game. We were no match for a team that's simply more equipped for post-season play. You need great players to show up.

You know who got the only sack for Miami?

Ndamukong Suh.

Miami has bought themselves an Ndamukong Suh. And they have an aging Cameron Wake. But sadly, Miami is a really mediocre roster when compared to many of the teams that walk into the Play-offs every year.


A lot of people scoff at the notion that being a "Pro-Bowler" is meaningful because fans vote. While it certainly sometimes is a popularity contest, think about what it means to be recognized league-wide. Is Bell not a great RB? Is Brown not a top-flight WR? Is Kelce not one of the best TEs?

I watch these guys every week and while Reshad Jones is under-rated...is he criminally under-rated? No. He'd be a Pro-Bowler if he could cover TEs but he can't. So twice a year we watch him get burned by Gronk like every of SS out there knowing full well that if a team wants to expose him, they can.

Honestly, it seems to me that our best players are mere good players. We should have a whole team of good players.

Sad reality is, that's just drafting.

 

Joe Philbin: Fired in Indianapolis as OL Coach with entire coaching staff
Bill Lazor: 7-9 as OC, 31st in rushing & 32nd in total offense
Kevin Coyle: Fired in Cincinnati as DB Coach
Mike Sherman: coaching in Canada after three years coaching high school........ I got this from another message board. Shocker that Hyde did not include this in the article, our beat writers would rather make us look as awful as possible

 

I dunno, we crushed Pitt earlier that year and the two biggest differences for us, was that in the playoffs we were missing Thill and the vast majority of our starting defense (I think we had like 2 of our starting 11 on defense). I think those two things can easily account for the difference in play.

 

Eh...I disagree. Good performances are the result of having competent players in the right position anticipating what's coming. But you have to have those competent players.

That's exactly what good teams (like NE) are known for. They don't need the best players--just players who are good and can execute what the coaches need them to do.

The Steelers played terribly in Miami during the regular season, giving up 200 yards on the ground to Ajayi. In the Play-offs, when it counted and the game-plan was aimed at not letting that happen, they limited him to 33.

And as I just showed, it wasn't simply because Miami couldn't throw. Moore's rating was the same as Tannehill's and Moore threw for more yards,TDs.

And to your second point...does lacking depth not signify a problem with your roster? Yes. It does.

 

How many teams in the playoffs are missing 8 or 9 starters on their defense?

 

First, you should know, using NE as an example of what to do, doesn't work with me because I don't believe they are great because they are cheaters. I chalk the vast majority of their success up to them cheating.

Secondly, WADR, you're kind of all over the place. I thought we were talking about the top end of Miami's roster. I never argued that Miami has depth nor have i argued that not having depth isn't problem. I will, however, say depth gets built AFTER you've built your starters. We aren't done building our starters yet.

Third, I find it hard to believe there's very many teams (if any) you could point to, that lost their starting QB and the vast majority of their starting defense and did well in the playoffs. Thill threatens the defense differently than Moore. You can't simply substitute Moore's passing stats for Thill and assume it is the same. This year should have taught us all that.

 

I don;t see how that refutes anything I said.

 

No.

I said if we had Thill and the same defense we played them with earlier in the season we could have won.

 

Philbo the Clown can probably go back to Green Bay and resume his previous role, fetching coffee and donuts for McCarthy and the rest of the real coaches. :chuckle:

 

The New England problem is basically unsolveable until BB is gone.

It's like the SEC with Alabama right now. Coaches are getting canned left and right in that conference because they can't beat him ... but neither can anyone else consistently. For whatever reason you want to give, they are just THAT far ahead of everyone else, and there really doesn't seem to be much you can do aside from just trying to put the best team together that you can and play each year and each game individually. And if NE/Bama comes out on top like usual? Well, that's just what they do.

Saying "copy New England!" is assinine. Not only do they not have a template to really copy other than "luck in a 6th round all time great QB, cheat like hell and be flexible" but it's basically telling the struggling D+ student to just "copy what that A+ student does" - it's useless and not applicable.

We are just unfortunate in that we have had to play with a juggernaut. We can beat them every few games, and maybe steal a season or so ... but they are just too much for sustained success. Is this defeatist? Yeah sure. Am I saying don't try? NO. But I do think we need to realize what we are up against.

 

Andre Branch DE
Cameron Wake DE
Jordan Phillips DT
Ndamukong Suh DT
Kiko Alonso LB
Bobby McCain LB
Jelani Jenkins LB
Xavien Howard CB
Tony Lippett CB
Bacarri Rambo S
Michael Thomas S
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201701080pit.htm

 

Also, Albert let the same rusher have a clear path to Moore twice when we were in good scoring positions, resulting in sack fumbles. Apart from the obvious talent deficit, the main issue for us is that we don't have any significant playoff experience on the team, whereas teams like Pittsburgh & NE are there year after year - they know how to gameplan & win when the season becomes knockout.

 

So neither of our starting S's, two young corners, Jenkins & Alonso playing with one hand (and Jenkins about to be let go), and two DE's who's main asset is nullified if we don't have a lead.

Playing knockout football against an experienced playoff Pittsburgh team in Pittsburgh, with Big Ben back & Brown & Bell, we were always going to struggle, even if we had the Killer B's back. However, with the D we had....

 

But we know everything about Gase

 

Your analogy falls flat because college football is based on recruiting (a system in which prior results matter A LOT) while pro football is based on a salary cap (a system in which prior results are not as critical). Thus the same strategy won't work in both cases. And thus we see lots of coaches work at one level but not the other.

The fact that prior success is a big factor in where a kid will want to go gives Alabama a natural advantage in recruiting. That's worrisome because you get the same sort of disparity in opportunity you get with run-away capitalism. College football seems like a free market system where the prior success of one entity (Bama) is creating a positive feedback loop.

The presence of the salary cap in pro football makes the NFL more of a regulated market. So I'd say the Bama effect is similar to that of the Yankees. Both play with a natural advantage. It's hard to recruit players away from Alabama because of the prior success and the strong program. Likewise, it's difficult to convince top baseball players to play for you when the Yankees will probably pay more. At least Bama wins on the back of having built a legitimately better internal structure. The Yankees rely more on pure buying power, meaning there's less actually going on that's remarkable.

In a salary cap sport, things are much more equal. It's safe to say that it doesn't matter at all who won the Super Bowl 3-5 years ago. The Ravens won in 2012 for instance. In subsequent years they've won 8-, 10-, 5-, 8- and 9-games. Hardly dominant.

In short, the salary cap means teams rise and fall much faster because it's harder to maintain a competitive advantage. The Yankees can do it every year with money. Bama can ride a wave of success that lasts a decade or more.

Theoretically, the constant turnover of players leaving college should act to limit a single team's dominance but Bama seems to have gotten around that by not relying solely on QB-play. In the NFL, the only comparable thing is finding an elite QB. Even then, it's no guarantee. It's still a team game.

So there's nothing stopping the Dolphins from rising up and having their own 3-4 years of greatness. What will it take? Good player evaluation. Good drafting. A great QB.

So let me ask you this...do the Patriots win consistently because they're doing things other can't? No. Anybody can study a well-built organization and mimic what they do. I'd argue that most of the other teams in the NFL are just bad at doing so. This is true in most areas of business. You have a few real pioneers and leaders who are strongly disciplined. The host of followers range of competent/mediocre to truly awful.

I'd argue that the NFL (like most things in life) is home to a lot of incompetence. That's simply because a large part of any population of human beings is going to be average- to below-average in their competence. The NFL consists of a lot of front office execs that don't know more than you or I. That's the sad reality. It's a lot of cronyism and nepotism. It's pretty lame actually when folks sit here and talk about these organizations as though they're built of genius guys. They're not. Many guys are there because of who they know and/or because of who their relatives are.

Systems like that don't breed a ton of competence. So it's really no wonder why a few guys really shine or that the league chases after guys who've come from a few proven hierarchies. Everyone wants Belichick's underlings. They want people from that front office who know about player evaluation.

I suspect the NFL is 90% pretenders. Those who can actually swim typically worked under someone legit. But it's not that hard to trace the moves of an organization such as Miami and think...wow, these guys don't know anything I don't know.

 

Missing three from the defense that started against the Steelers in the regular season. Maxwell, Jones and IAQ.

 

I know recruiting is a huge difference maker in college, but that doesn't really affect the analogy at all. The point is simply that they are a team that is consistently leagues better than anyone else. WHY that is has no meaning to me. Recruiting, cheating ... just being better/smarter, whatever you want to say.

The one thing rising up to stop us from being consistently great ... is that presence of the Patriots. If they COULD be copied, they would. But no other team is doing what they do on the field. There are bursts and flashes, but nothing that has been sustained as long and at as high a level as New England. Even look at other consistently "good" teams like Pitt, New England ****ing OWNS them! Indy with Manning? Nearly a 2-1 Pats advantage. Coaches and GM's from New England are consistently churned out and consistently do not produce the same results, and often produce absolute garbage. Again, HOW they do it to me is not relevant - it IS happening.

Look at our division - aside from a brief Jets run, all 3 non-Patriots teams have been largely garbage. It's the idea that we have to match up to and beat New England consistently that has killed us. It causes ancillary problems as well. The lack of success means frequent coaching and player turnover and change. Fan dissatisfaction. It's demoralizing.

I do agree that coaching/front office personnel are largely made up of people that likely are not any more advanced than a knowledgeable fan, just as with business the bosses often seem the least competent people. I do wonder, for instance, when an enterprising owner who wants to save some serious money might just fire the majority of the front office and use crowdsourcing for drafting/free agency. Would it really be any worse than going 4 and 44 like the Browns have done the last few years?

Ultimately, the point is simply that we are trying to beat Michael Jordan, we are UT trying to beat Alabama. We are the Orioles going up against Boston. It's not that we can't put together a solid team and compete and maybe win here and there ... it's that we really shouldn't expect us to overtake the Patriots until something fundamental changes with that team. Whether it's Brady retiring, BB moving elsewhere or the cheating to be exposed it doesn't matter. Just like the rest of the SEC is basically forced to rearrange the Titanic's deck chairs every year until Saban moves on, so are we.

 

So true.

I'm just not totally sold on the Patriots dominance because:

(1) Beyond Belichick & Brady (who was merely luck) no move the Patriots have made is magic.
(2) We've seen other teams *temporarily* challenge the Patriots.

The thing no team has been able to do is sustain the momentum on both sides of the ball. There are teams with great QBs and team with great defenses but no one has been able to accomplish both for more than a year or two.

But when the Colts had Bob Sanders healthy, they found a way to make a run and eventually won a Super Bowl. The Saints acquired Gregg Williams as DC and won a Super Bowl.

The recipe might just involve giving yourself a 10-yr window through the acquisition of a franchise QB and then finding a way to put together a defense that's good enough to win Play-off games.

So, to me, it's not that the Patriots do stuff other teams haven't done. It's that they can generate some of the best offense and defense virtually every year. It'd be strange if a team that competent on both sides of the ball didn't win multiple titles.

 

I'd say the Patriots are the 2nd most dominant team in NFL history. Doesn't really matter if they lucked out on Belichick and Brady, that's expected to happen by random chance to a few teams over 50 years. Only the 49ers from the 1980's and 1990's are ahead of NE in all-time dominance IMO.

Some comparison stats between SF in the 18 years from 1981-1998 vs. NE from 2000-2017: both won 5 SB's, 16 playoff appearances for SF vs. 15 for NE (though NE went to more SB's), average rank on offense by points scored was 3.72 for SF vs. 4.94 for NE, and average rank on defense by points allowed was 5.67 for SF vs. 7.53 for NE. SF did that with 2 QB's btw, Montana and Young (exactly the years 1981-1998) and fell apart after Young left.

As far as best franchise ever, for me that's Pittsburgh. Not just most SB's ever, but they've only had 3 HC's during the SB era: Noll, Cowher and Tomlin, and all three won a SB. lol..

 

Yep. Just as Saban is challenged by guys like Meyer and Ohio State or Dabo and Clemson, so to with the Pats. But it's that near 2 decades worth of dominance. The biggest issue we face is just getting past the Pats - we (and the rest of the East) have basically been relegated to Wild Cards at best whereas the rest of the league at least gets one step ahead with a shot at divisions.

Our best chance has never been to beat the Pats, or copy them, or be them ... but to just be the same as the rest of the league. Have a good QB that can make clutch and timely plays and can drag a team to the playoffs regularly and have a defense that can be stout. Those things give us a shot - not at sustained dominance, but at least at a one year dethrone.

Look at the year Brady went down. Yeah, Cassel went what, 11-5? And yet the door was open, and we had a decent QB who could drag us along and a solid defense.

Can Tannehill be that guy? I don't know. I personally wouldn't bank on it, but he is clearly the best we have had in awhile. But it is easy to be knee-jerk and reactionary in this kind of environment.

 

I wouldn't say such things. This kind of flippant and ignorant view is always a quick giveaway for not having a knowledgeable grasp on football. A person that can't possibly fathom such success so they suspect cheating is the only way, is foolish.

 

Or what you're saying proves you're ignorant to reality and you're nothing more than a sycophant.

A person can't possibly believe their unheard of success from a previously failed hc and a nobody qb no matter who else is on the team or on the staff while been caught cheating multiple times and accused even more.....is not cheating to win. Honestly, the sheer lack of rational thought in defending them is stunning.

 

The Brown's of the 50s, packers of the 60s, dolphins, cowboys, Steelers of the 70s, 49ers, redskins of the 80s and cowboys of the 90s were all more dominant. Just winning a super bowl isnt enough. You have to dominate. Has there been a super bowl the patriots have won by more than one score difference. A field goal dynasty isn't dominant

 

Yeah I meant over a long period of time, not just for a single year or a few years.

If we're only talking a single year, then in the Super Bowl era I think the '85 Bears take the crown (I still say for a single year the '72 Dolphins were the best team ever because they're the only perfect team, but they weren't the most dominant). But over 18 years, it's SF from 1981-1998 and then NE from 2000-2017, pending the outcome of this year's playoffs of course.