1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

It’s not your imagination; Miami Dolphins’ pass defense is historically bad

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by jim1, Dec 24, 2015.

  1. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Try to follow this.....because this is getting beyond annoying...

    The other crap you think we need to fix, may improve our ToP a little, tiny bit, but it will still suck. To get our ToP from sucking we need to run the ball more.

    For example:

    Let's say ToP has the following scales-

    Top 5th of the league = Great
    Next 5th of the league = Good
    Middle 5th of the league = Average
    Low 5th of the league = Bad
    Bottom 5th of the league = Sucks

    Let's say we're in the Sucks category. Fixing the things you said would only move us a little up but still in the sucks category. Fixing the running game would probably take us to the average category.

    And none of that is even factoring in, that we can't fix the stuff you're complaining about unless we run more.

    This isn't squirming or spinning or any other BS you're accusing me of. Its all right there in my posts if you actually read them without your narrative.
     
  2. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    I read your posts, multiple times. I've pointed out specifically how you have both contradicted yourself and moved the goal posts of your argument, as if no one would notice. Everyone knows that we need to run the ball more and that it would improve our offensive time of possession. You can stop hacking that one up like a cat with a prize winning hairball, it's self evident. Maybe next time you won't feel the need to soil a thread by needlessly bringing up Tannehill, then you can work on not contradicting yourself and changing the scope of your argument. Be a big boy- stick to your original thesis and when you're proven wrong just admit it and move along.
     
    Finster likes this.
  3. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Sigh. Every last one of you Tannehaters reads the exact same playbook. If it wasn't so mind crushingly annoying, I'd be impressed by the sheer Borg like hive mind of it all.

    I've explained to you every way possible. I have a clear history of admitting when I'm wrong, do you? So I'm not moving any goalposts. The words are there if you just drop your BS pretense and read them free of your anti-Fin D agenda.

    Don't mistake this ^ for me holding my breath you'll do that. I know you won't. You all never, ever do.
     
  4. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Anti Fin D agenda? I don't know who you are except for your contradictory driveling in this thread, you must have changed your picture. You said that the offensive time of possession weakness was all on the running game. Remember? And I quote:

    "ToP sucks because we're dead last in the league in rushing attempts. No other reason."

    And then you proceeded to backpedal from there after that inane comment. Why did you try to derail this thread with the Tannehill comment anyway? Regardless, this is a waste of time, check back in when you grow up. Have a good weekend.
     
    Finster likes this.
  5. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    That does not in any effing way contradict anything. Dear god. Our time of possession does suck because we don't run the ball enough. Nothing else will make our ToP not suck other than running the ball. The crap you're crying about will help a little tiny bit but ToP will STILL SUCK. (ANNNNNDDDDDDDD we'd still need to run the ball to get those things to improve any damn way). On no reasonable or rational planet is that an effing contradiction.

    I didn't try to derail this thread, I made a freaking joke. Nothing more. You and the Tannehater brigade lost your minds over it. It was a joke that turned out to be pretty accurate btw, as you and the others have continued to try and blame Tannehill for some of the defensive problems.

    Reply or don't, I'm not getting sucked into this stupid crap with you any longer. This is my last response to you in here.
     
    resnor likes this.
  6. Bumrush

    Bumrush Stable Genius Club Member

    23,190
    22,341
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    It's not ****ing Tannehate. When someone points out that TOP is also correlated you know, to how effective the offense is in sustaining drives, converting third downs and you know, generally being effective, you got your panties in a wad because someone dared to suggest what anyone with a half brain would understand. Of course you take it to an extreme level and equate it with Tannehill hate when the ONLY, the one and ONLY absolute position taken in this entire debate is by you - Mainly, that pointing out that FACT equates to Tannehate and that the only FACT is we don't run the ball enough, hence the reason why our TOP is so imbalanced.

    The fact is it's a combination of a lot of things- We don't run the ball enough. We get penalized to much. Tannehill has not been effective on 3rd down.

    Everyone is to blame. If you want to blind yourself to reality to sooth your stance the past three months then good for you. But stop being such a hard headed, one sided agitator.

    I've stepped back and have admitted I've been wrong to scapegoat Tannehill and now see many of things that the pro crowd has been preaching. But I'm also not going to fool myself that Tannehill is the long term answer until HIS play improves and I see a more instinctual clutch QB.

    How about you admit that Tannehill is part of the problem and can or may not be part of the solution?
     
    Finster, Fin-O and jim1 like this.
  7. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    That'd be great, but that's not what happened.

    I was actually called a troll, because I made a joke that turned out to be accurate. I replied by pointing out that ToP sucks as bad as it does because we don't run the ball enough (last in the league by a significant margin). I then pointed out that the lack of "efficiency" you guys foist on Tannehill, is likely also due to the fact that we don't run enough (as we've been saying forever now). Then I get accused of all manner of bs. Typical day.

    I've never once said Tannehill is perfect. I've on numerous occasions pointed out things he can be better at and games he's sucked in.

    But there is no way in hell, the lack of the commitment to run is not the reason our ToP sucks. Nor is there no way in hell that lack of running is not a major reason for our Tannehill-led offense being so inefficient (along with our **** oline).
     
    resnor and WhiteIbanez like this.
  8. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,033
    7,960
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Ok, so to those arguing that the problem is our passing efficiency: what would our passing efficiency need to be to get our ToP up to average?

    And I still don't understand, why are you arguing with FinD about this? It's like he said something outrageous, our ToP sucks because we don't run the ball. But that's not outrageous, it's true. Trying to cling to one tiny game of semantics (wouldn't increase vs increase is tiny) in order to prove yourself right (which you aren't, because the problem IS we don't run the ball enough, and it affects everything, including third down efficiency), is ridiculous.

    You want him to admit he's wrong because he said that the only way to bring up ToP is by running, then admitted we could have a minimal increase with better passing efficiency. The thing is, you're even more wrong, arguing that the problem isn't that we don't run the ball. You should admit you're wrong.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  9. Silverphin

    Silverphin Well-Known Member

    10,311
    3,915
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    That's pretty accurate.
     
  10. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    And that's what it is, accurate and fair. And also where the back tracking and sliding began. It's amazing how a thread on the poor state of the defense can get derailed into yet another Tannehill thread/argument. We can thank post #2 for that, and post #8 as well.
     
  11. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,161
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Nothing will improve our TOP except more runs?

    I'm pretty sure pass completions for first down would too.
     
    Finster likes this.
  12. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yeah, let's just push the magic "more passing first downs" button.

    Sigh.

    That's also not what I said. But same team, same playbook.
     
  13. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    10,394
    9,950
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    But you are taking a legit topic and trying to make it into one of the other 50 RT discussions....how is that a good thing for the "lowly mains"?

    Just sayin


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Finster likes this.
  14. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,033
    7,960
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Jdang, come on man, what is the easiest and best way of upping ToP? Running the ball, or passing the ball? Yes, being incredibly efficient could be as good as running, but it's way harder, and puts way too much pressure on the oline and receivers, especially with how this offense is designed.

    The problem with this offense is that we don't run the ball. We end up in terrible distances on third down, and have bad ToP.

    No one is saying this to defend Tannehill. Yes, Tannehill has also been less than spectacular this season. He has been hamstrung by the oline and the play design this season.
     
  15. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Really, you're sticking with that? Then please explain your words from post # 17:

    "ToP sucks because we're dead last in the league in rushing attempts. No other reason. That's the fault of the OCs.

    But of course Tannehill was going to be blamed for the defensive problems.....as i accurately predicted."

    I might as well watch you squirm while I eat lunch.
     
    Finster likes this.
  16. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,033
    7,960
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    So your argument really and truly is that the run game is not a problem?

    We are dead last in rushing attempts. Your argument is that if we were league average for rushing attempts, or ToP wouldn't be league average?
     
  17. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No, I made a joke. You try to do that sometimes too. In fact, i kinda thought you'd have jumped in and made a joke for your side. You didn't, I was wrong about that. My bad.

    People lost their ****, called me names, then turned my joke into a premonition.

    I thought this board had a sense of humor. It doesn't (well, a select portion doesn't seem too), I was wrong about that. My bad.
     
  18. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I have explained it to you, over and over and over.

    "ToP sucks because of the run game" is not the opposite of saying "we'd improve a little but still suck if we had better 3rd down efficiency".

    I legitimately don't know how else to get that through your skull.
     
  19. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Resnor, with all due respect if you read over the thread you'll see that I haven't said anything like that at all.
     
    Finster likes this.
  20. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    First of all that's not what you said. Second of all, our lack of third down passing efficiency and sustaining drives is a significant issue, as is the lack of a running game. If you could have gotten both of those points through your skull this would have been a much more enjoyable thread.
     
    Finster likes this.
  21. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yes the hell it is what I said. However I didn't say our poor third down passing efficiency wasn't significant issue. I said it won't make our ToP not suck. I also said it won't improve without a commitment to the run game (and improvement on the oline).

    But hey, don't let facts change your mind here. Keep making yourself look ridiculous because you can't understand something that's been explained to you 100 times over already.

    I am an idiot though cause I keep getting sucked back in to your ridiculousness. But that definitely ends now for real this time, last post to you. Stop trolling me.
     
  22. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    If you're going to stick with that, then can you finally please explain exactly what you meant in post #17?

    "ToP sucks because we're dead last in the league in rushing attempts. No other reason."

    How is it that you, in your little world, define "No other reason"?

    And then you say, "However I didn't say our poor third down passing efficiency wasn't significant issue."

    How is that not contradictory? There is no "Well, what I meant to say is..." aspect or potential excuse here. You said "No other reason". End of story.
     
    Finster likes this.
  23. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Could someone please explain this to him. Please.
     
  24. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    There is no explaining from you, just a long excuse and misdirection.

    Blah blah blah
    Blah blah blah blah blah

    Fail.
     
    Finster likes this.
  25. danmarino

    danmarino Justice for Jacob Blake Club Member

    10,489
    11,491
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    And traded Tanny...
     
    resnor likes this.
  26. Silverphin

    Silverphin Well-Known Member

    10,311
    3,915
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Think we should go defense heavy in the draft? Honest question.
     
  27. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,033
    7,960
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    But that is what you're arguing. Yes, better efficiency could minimally improve ToP. Running the ball at least at league average number of times would improve it drastically.
     
  28. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,033
    7,960
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I'll try. Again. But will be unsuccessful because this argument is not about him understanding, but about proving you wrong.

    The main issue with our time of possession is our criminal underuse of our run game, which we are dead last in attempts. Bringing our attempts to league average would significantly improve our time of possession far more than improving passing efficiency. It would also affect opposing defenses, and probably have us in fewer third and long situations, thereby improving our third down efficiency.
     
    Unlucky 13 and Fin D like this.
  29. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Here's your post with the question:

    "So your argument really and truly is that the run game is not a problem?

    We are dead last in rushing attempts. Your argument is that if we were league average for rushing attempts, or ToP wouldn't be league average?"

    I never broached the subject of league average, that's a tangential topic. I've said many times in this thread that the running game is a problem as per time of possession, all you have to do is look.
     
    Finster likes this.
  30. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,033
    7,960
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yet you're arguing that passing efficiency is the problem?

    You're cutting off your nose to spite your face right now.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  31. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    You truly have a problem with reading comprehension. The lack of a running game contributed to our offense having a low time of possession. Our inefficiencies in third down passing contributed to the problem as well, as it led to an unusually high number of three and outs. Both issues contributed to the problem. This is not rocket science, both issues are not mutually exclusive as to our low time of offensive possession and how it effected an already crappy defense. How could you actually read the posts and think that I'm saying that a lack of passing efficiency is the problem in and of itself? That's a mystery.

    Cutting my nose off? You can't even find your nose when it comes to this thread.
     
    Finster likes this.
  32. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,161
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Yeah I guess Tanny is at his limit of 1st down passes then?
     
    Finster likes this.
  33. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,033
    7,960
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    K, dude.
     
  34. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,161
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    That's a different conversation. Our TOP sucks because we're not efficient at passing the ball and don't run the ball much. Both of those. For example, Dallas Cowboys in 2012 ran the ball less than we have this year but their TOP is much better, 31 minutes.

    http://www.nfl.com/teams/statistics?season=2012&team=DAL&seasonType=

    And they ran for less yardage than us, 3.6 ypc. So I'm sure their down and distance were pretty bad but I'd have to do more legwork to verify that with the splits.
     
    Finster and Fin-O like this.
  35. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Sure, whatever helps you sleep.

    What makes more sense.....

    1. Running the ball more at least an average amount of attempts.

    OR

    2. Having a QB with a **** oline, criminally underused running game, no ability to audible and plays designed to be short of the sticks, somehow use magic, unicorn farts and angle kisses to "will his team" to a better 3rd down%.

    But no, Tannehill is killing our defense and I'm a dick for saying you guys think that.
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  36. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,033
    7,960
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Here's a key argument of the passing efficiency argument, and here's my question: wouldn't running the ball more tend to give you shorter distances on third down, thereby making converting them easier? Further, wouldn't having receivers run routes past the sticks make covering third down easier? Would having an oline that could block make converting through the air easier?

    We're in this discussion because FinD made a joke that people would blame Tannehill, and here we are, with people blaming Tannehill. Yes, he bears some responsibility, but the lion's share goes to the coaches abandoning the run and designing plays that have receivers not past the los l and often bunched in the same quadrant of the field.
     
    Unlucky 13 and Fin D like this.
  37. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,033
    7,960
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Did you have to go back to 2012 to find a team who ran it less and had better ToP? I mean, I'm sure teams can do it, but it's not ideal. Strictly in terms of time run off the clock, it's unreasonable to assume that every pass will be completed, therefore, just by passing your almost guaranteed to run less click than if you passed.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm getting like 22 carries a game for the Cowboys that season, and 18 for the Dolphins this season.
     
  38. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    You just answered the questions. As to the "joke", well the joke brought up the RT issue itself, didn't it? I never intended to bring that up. But as you just said, "Yes, he bears some responsibility." Isn't that fair enough? The lack of a running game contributed to the problem, the way the coaches used the running game contributed to the problem, a lack of first downs and sustained drives contributed to the problem, RT's poor 3rd down passing contributed to the problem. That is just evident and common sense if you watched the games and I'm sure that the stats bear it out. As to changing the scope of the discussion from this (which never was intended) to what degree each category should be held responsible- I mean really, who cares? They're all significant issues that have to be addressed.
     
    Finster and Bumrush like this.
  39. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,033
    7,960
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Jim, as regarding ToP, the lack of a run game is the culprit. The lack of run game is a major component of the dysfunction of our offense.
     
  40. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    It is a culprit and I would say the major culprit, but it sure isn't the only culprit. Drives have to be sustained in order to achieve a good time of possession. What sustains drives? The running game for sure, not only for getting the yards but because they keep the clock running more than passes- a runner can run out of bounds, a pass can be incomplete, a receiver can run out of bounds- but by and large running plays chew the clock more than pass plays. We all know that.

    But third down completions sustain drives and lead to more runs (to get technical about it they should, but then there's the Dolphins coaching staff to consider...),. If a QB is consistently poor in third down conversions, that's a huge issue, is it not? No third down conversion means no first down, new drive and what should be more runs, and instead the defense is back on the field to show their behinds. More time on the field equals more opportunities for opposing offenses to rack up yards and scores on the poor defense. This is basic stuff, just plain good old fashioned logic. And it's true.
     
    Bumrush likes this.

Share This Page