Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by jim1, Dec 24, 2015.
moot point. the whole freaking team sucks. enough badness to go around. tanny? he sucks man, defense? they suck, coaches? suck. o line? sucks. and on and on. we are what we are, worst team top to bottom in our division. lets hope we loose the last 2 games, at least we should get that right, i hope so we get a higher pick, because these bumbs havent played with pride all year so dont start now. put the young guys in, bench tanny so he doesnt get killed, let miller get is 1000. merry christmas
we should play Moore the last two games
I really think they r going to win this week and we drop about 5 spots in draft.
If it's to prevent Tannehill from getting killed I agree. If it's to see what Moore can do I disagree we know what Moore can and can not do and how limited he is. Moore is neither a starter or a stop gap. If it's to lose and for better draft position I disagree with that strategy as well.
Man, I know you always want to win, but right now, winning actually hurts us.
I hate these situations.
I don't know. I could have sworn that 2007 was worse.
To be fair, the defense's inability to get off the field on third down coupled with the offense's inability to sustain drives are prime factors.
Absolutely. But a major reason we can't sustain drives is because we abandon the run too soon and the opposing defense can tee off on our horrible pass blocking oline.
Great "club level" like response to the topic...
Yeah, I know.
Its almost as if I've heard Tannehaters blame the defense's problems on their QB in this thread and others or something.
The two units have worked in harmony to give the other team the ball for as long as they would like the entire season, and special teams has even chipped in by forcing the offense to start within their own five yard line with generous frequency. Total team effort!
so... in 5 years we'll go undefeated and win the superbowl?
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous claim.
I would've went with something like "A primary reason."
Generating first downs, be it through heavy pass or run, will consume clock and ToP. The offense's ineptness plays into these defensive historic numbers quite directly. And it's certainly not just playcalling. It's poor execution all the way around.
But yeah, the defense has been pitiful regardless
In five years, absolutely anything could happen with any team. Its the beauty of the NFL, and one of the things that makes it so special compared to the other sports.
I said our ToP sucks because we don't run the ball. That's a fact. If we ran the ball an average amount of time our ToP would be to the point that no one would point to it as a problem.
Could the passing game do more to increase the ToP? Maybe, a little. It would still be a problem though and its much harder to do without running the ball.
This is Football 101 type stuff.
Football 101 type stuff is that more efficient passing, especially on third downs, would lead to more first downs, longer drives and therefore more time of possession. That would, of course, also lead to more chances to run the ball and help to keep a poor and overworked defense off of the field more often. Your argument is inane.
Yeah, I mean, you don't look at a team with low ToP, and say, "Hmmmm...to fix this, we should throw even more." It defies logic. You increase ToP with a good run game. That's football. Throwing the ball a ton is a surefire way to kill ToP.
Football 101 also says that to be effective on third down, you don't want to be consistently in third and long, throwing the ball behind a terrible line, in an offense that seems to rarely have any options past the marker, and often with multiple receivers bunched in the same part of the field.
But, let's try to downplay how much the lack of running affects the offense.
Yeah sure. I mean that's why teams throw to run out the clock.
Do you guys understand, we run the ball the fewest amount of times in the league...by far?
It's not a question of throwing more, it's a question of throwing more efficiently to get first downs and extend drives. Most would agree that we should have run the ball more, but the two aren't mutually exclusive. The inconsistencies in some of these posts speak for themselves if you look back over them. Did an inefficient passing game have a negative effect on the defense- replies went from no to absolutely to well a little... Come on man. This thread wasn't about that anyway, this tangent was dragged into it for whatever reason. Regardless, the piss poor/underused running game kept our defense on the field longer, an inefficient passing game that was lousy as per third down conversions kept our defense on the filed longer. It is what it is. The defense still sucked, but having them out on the field exacerbated the poor defensive play.
Yes. Do you not understand that a lousy running game, inefficient passing game and terrible third down conversion efficiency all contributed to the defense having to be on the field longer than they should have been? It's not one or the other, the running and passing games both played their part in our defensive struggles.
Running the ball more helps third down efficiency. Running the ball more drastically helps ToP. Running the ball more helps the passing game.
All of this is doubly true when your #1 RB averages almost 5 ypc.
Sure, but its more like:
Running game is 80%
"inefficient" passing game is 10%
terrible third down conversion efficiency is 10%
Basically because the running game helps the other two.
Is anyone, anywhere on this thread or this site for that matter saying that we shouldn't have run the ball more? You can stop banging that drum. We should have. That doesn't change the fact that lousy third down passing/conversion rates contributed, as did the running game, to the defense being on the field longer. That's self evident.
You are acting as if they are equal. They aren't even close.
You're doing the equivalent of saying a patient with cancer, a hang nail and a cold has 3 reasons for being in the hospital.
Where did I say that they were equal? I would place more of the blame on the lack of using the running game. But the three and outs, ie poor third down efficiency has a lot to do with Tannehill's third down passing woes, and that certainly contributed to the problem, I would say in a significant fashion. The drives haven't been extended and that has kept a vulnerable defense on the field longer, plain and simple. Plenty of blame to go around.
I didn't say you said it, I said you're acting as if...because you are.
The drives would be extended and the third down efficiency would improve if we ran more.
And all of that would significantly raise the ToP. The key and by far the major component is the running game.
No I'm not. Both the running game and poor passing efficiency, especially on third down, have contributed to a low offensive time of possession. And where do you stand?
Post #17 "ToP sucks because we're dead last in the league in rushing attempts. No other reason."
Post #30 "You're acting as if ToP is at best 50/50 between Tannehill and the running game or 70% on Tannehill. Its more like 80% on the lack of running the ball."
Post # 49 "But a major reason we can't sustain drives is because we abandon the run too soon and the opposing defense can tee off on our horrible pass blocking oline."
So which is it? Post #17 where according to you the lack of a running game is the sole reason for our low offensive time of possession, or your gradual slide into more logical ground where you share the blame between the running game, passing game and coaching? How are you acting? I'm acting as if both the underused running game and inefficient passing game, especially on third downs, contributed to the lack of time of possession.
Regardless this is all tangential, the RT element dragged into the equation by you. The article, the issue at hand and the reason why I started the thread has to do with our defense being just plain bad. The defense has been bad with or without the offensive deficiencies as per time of possession, more time on the field has just made them worse no matter how you cut it.
Not sure why this is confusing everyone.
Our ToP sucks because of not running enough.
Our third down efficiency could improve our ToP a little, but it would still suck if we don't run more. Plus, running more will improve 3rd down efficiency.
There is nothing we could do that would improve our ToP from the "suck" category to the "not suck" category outside of running more. If Tannehill could magically improve 3rd down efficiency without a better line and without running more, ToP would improve a little but still suck. We would go from like 31st to 29th. Whoppie do. Doesn't solve the problem.
Running an average amount of runs would likely raise us from "suck" to middle of the pack at minimum.
So, regardless of the attempt by you to show I'm contradicting myself, I'm not. If want to get ToP out of the basement, run the ball more, nothing else will get it out of the basement. Other things will improve it, minimally but it will still suck.
Third down efficiency is bad, due to the distance we often need combined with offensive scheme often not having receivers past the sticks. Why are we in lousy distances on third down? Because we don't run and/or penalties.
Trying to boil this down to passing efficiency is silly. It's particularly hard to have efficient passing with no run game and poor offensive scheme.
The run game is the major culprit.
Yes you are contradicting yourself, that has been proven, and your argument is still inane. Better third down passing means more first downs, and that means more drives and time of possession. That doesn't diminish the role that the lack of a running game has played in our poor offensive time of possession but it sure adds to the problem, significantly so. We had far too many three and outs, and part of that responsibility lies with the passing game. They're not mutually exclusive but rather both significant contributing factors.
Oh for crying out loud, learn to read what was written.
Not only did I read it, I quoted you on it. It's right there in post #69, so just own it. This went from inane to both inane and tedious, so I'm out of here. Good night.
Those quotes don't contradict each other. So I say again, read was written. i know, I know, you guys so desperately want to get a "gotcha" on the horrible big mean Fin D. But this wasn't your moment I'm afraid.
I'm not arguing that 3rd down efficiency wouldn't improve ToP. I'm saying the only thing that will pull our ToP out of the suck category is running the ball. This is clear, if you know, you read what i said.
OK so it's the worst season we've had other than 2007.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
At least we had Marino then! Lol
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
What you said, as well as your other blithering and needlessly dragging Tannehill into the discussion, is this:
"ToP sucks because we're dead last in the league in rushing attempts. No other reason."
So you can stop trying to squirm your way out of this one. Take some advice from Bobby Knight, just lay back and enjoy it, the deed is done. You would be clearer in what you say, if you know, by not contradicting yourself so blatantly and not bringing a different subject matter (Tannehill, of course) so unnecessarily and devisively into the subject at hand.
I wonder though...is it identifying..or coaching?
Vernon Davis...Sean Smith...love to have those two back