Really the fact that Jeff Ireland has put together such strong play in the trenches is what will enable Ryan Tannehill to develop properly. He has a running game he can count on, and a defense that can make other teams one-dimensional and thereby allow us to be balanced on offense by keeping the score close (when we don't turn the ball over repeatedly).

There's this massive belief by some that Ryan Tannehill's development has been compromised by Jeff Ireland because he didn't improve the team at receiver, but I submit that what I mentioned above is far more important to a rookie QB than his receivers.

I think the receivers' route-running is sure important (i.e., being where they're supposed to be when the QB throws the ball), but having a good defense and a good running game is far more important to a rookie QB IMO than having tremendous all-around talent at WR.

 

That's great except, you know, he could've done both.

 

Yes, because every GM in the league has filled every hole on his team...That's why there are 31 Super Bowl winning teams every year and the Miami Dolphins all alone.

 

Not every GM. Just the good ones.

 

... you mean since this will be the NFL's last year of football? :shifty:

 

I'm neutral in this Ireland thing, but can you name a team without a hole someplace?

 

There are holes and then there are holes. Every team has more talent at some spots than others, but the elite teams have at least some talent at every key position. Maybe not in the backups, but at the very least the starters on the best teams at every key position could start for a few other teams---in some cases several teams. Which teams would I say are in that position? Well, off the top of my head, I would say that the Steelers have starting talent at every key position, as do the Giants, though each is sometimes hurt by injuries that expose holes in their depth players. Other teams in that position? Maybe the 49ers, depending on your feelings about Alex Smith as a QB. Maybe the Texans.
But even teams with some holes usually wind up in that position because of unforseen happenings: retirements, injuries, high draft picks that didn't pan out. The holes we have are not unforseen, they are holes that everyone has known we've had and that nothing major has been done to fill. The hole at WR is self-inflicted. No one with a shred of realism thought that Chad Johnson or Nanee were going to produce the yards that Brandon Marshall did. Yet we didn't try to bring in a WR via a high draft pick, despite several that were available in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. We didn't make a serious effort to trade for one.
Most teams have positions that are weaker than others, but the ones who are serious super bowl contenders don't leave holes that gaping when they had the chance to fill them.

 

Considering he created a hole when he traded Marshall, I'd like to think he could have done a better job of attempting to fill that hole than signing Naanee and Chad, then on top of that wait till the 6th and 7th to address it on draft day.

 

We just beat a team by 23 points that was favored to beat us, "hole" at WR and all.

Oh and by the way, Brian Hartline caught 9 passes for 111 yards and was a key part of the win.

It's amazing how some beliefs can persist around here despite evidence to the contrary. It's almost delusional.

 

Who said anything about having tremendous all-around talent at WR? Just mid tier talent would have been nice.
No matter how much you want to spin things or apologize for Ireland his lack of addressing the WR position was atrocious and unnecessary.

 

Yes, Hartline did very well, going against two backup corners. Don't expect the same thing had Ron Bartell been starting, or next week when he goes against Cromartie.

 

I think you're going a little overboard with the Ireland praise here. It feels far fetched after 2 games. Reggie is our only playmaker on offense and made some of those runs himself. Let's not get crazy. He could've easily forgone having Egnew, Clay (last year) Kaddu and I'm sure others in order to grab us another playmaker on offense.

Thank god for Reggie. Ireland better fckin re-sign Reggie if he wants to help Tannehill.

 

Well we'll have to wait and see what happens won't we.

 

I don't think it's far-fetched after two games when you consider the quality of the individual players in those areas. It's not like this is happening with smoke and mirrors.

 

I'm sorry but Hartlines comeback routes won't win us a SB anytime soon.

 

Don't be talkin' bout White Lighting.

 

Ah well, there are lots of teams whose wide receivers won't be winning them Super Bowls anytime soon.

 

no no shou, he only got the yards because he played against their 3rd and 4th DB....:shifty:

speaking of peyton he just threw a such ugly pick to the half right which really questions his arm strength...that was an ugly duck...very noodlearmish

 

No, what's delusional is thinking that winning one game against a team that has never travelled well to the East Coast and who we've beat at home something like 8 times in a row is indicative that we suddenly don't have any holes on our team.
It was a good, fun win but it doesn't prove anything other than that the Raiders aren't that good and don't play well at 1PM EST on the East Coast, particularly in hot weather.

 

That statement is infuriating.

We are devoid offensive talent. I agree we have a nice run game. Stop making Ireland a genius for using very high picks on Offensive Lineman. He could have done a hell of a lot more these last 2 offseasons.

 

Uh, that team was favored to win.

Wow, the oddsmakers must have overlooked that. I guess there's no way they could have predicted the Raiders would be traveling to the East coast and it would be hot in South Florida in September.

What a bunch of idiots. They should've known we'd beat that team by 23 points.

 

unreal how these haters look for reasons to make this win look bad......well anyways peyton just threw his 2nd ugly pick

 

and I am thinking if we keep calling this same play next week........there will be at least one pick6.....for the BAD guys.

 

With Philbin and his intelligence at the helm, next week will be the double move for a touchdown. :yes:

 

Yes, because the Dolphins looked really, really bad the first week and the Raiders lost to the Chargers mostly because of a bad long-snapper.
Did you have any other arguments, or are the Las Vegas oddsmakers your only point?

 

No one is "making the win look bad." Pointing out that the one win against a team we ALWAYS beat at home is not indicative of how our season will go ANY MORE than one loss against a team we ALWAYS lose to is indicative is not talking down the win. It's putting it in perspective. Sadly, perspective is something many people seem to lack.

 

There are still a lot of unanswered questions concerning whatever Ireland has or has not accomplished. He has made some good moves and he has made some major blunders. I am sure opinions vary but I question what was really accomplished over all with drafting Davis with a high first round draft choice and then trading him for a second round pick. Trading two second round picks for Brandon Marshall and then trading him for two third round draft choices. One can argue that they were both disappointments but it doesn't change the fact that both moves were net losses for the Dolphins. You can speculate that Miami's offensive scheme doesn't need a #1 wide receiver but it doesn't change the fact that a true #1 wide receiver would be a positive for this team and help for a rookie starting quarterback.
The Dolphin's soundly beat the raiders but they were soundly beaten by the Texans so you have to temper expectations keeping both games in mind and not just dwelling on the win. We have some good things to get excited about but we have to remind ourselves we are not there yet.

 

there is no "always" win against any team in the NFL

 

It is a perspective that is meaningless. What happened last season and previous season doesn't matter much. So what if Miami beat the Raiders last season or 10 seasons ago.

 

Nope, that's my only point! :)

 

Yes there is. The Texans have beat us every time they've played us, no matter where the game was. That's always until it's not.

 

manning with the 3rd INT, wow is he getting back to earth, all 3 picks in the middle of the field lacked serious velocity

 

No, it's not meaningless and your baseless assertion won't make it so.
The Raiders don't play well at 10AM PST in the heat. They hardly ever win in Miami, even in seasons where they've been good. History does matter, whether you want to believe it or not.

 

But that doesn't mean that Miami will always lose to the Texans.

 

It is meaningless.

It went from always lose to hardly ever win?

History doesn't matter. The players are different, the coaches are different, the situations are different.

Just saying so doesn't make it true.

 

well the so called experts didn't think it was a big deal, the time of the game, the opponent, the oakland raiders Defense was supposed to be a hot start in fantasy football , mcfadden as well, underdogs at home.....since we beat the jets the last 3 out of 4 at home this becomes a gimme too i guess ?