Joe Philbin gave up on this game...

Up until yesterday's game i was not jumping on the "Philbin Out" or "Bring in Matt Moore" bandwagon..but that series really opened my eyes to the type of leadership and philosophy in the Dolphins organization.

True, the offence was playing poorly at that moment but the simple fact was they LEFT POINTS OUT ON THE FIELD. Whilst they were LOSING.

Yes the worst could have happened like a Tannehil pick six..but surely you must show confidence in your supposed franchise quarterback to get you out of a losing predicament or....if not...why is he your franchise quarterback?

Tannehill's addmitance that he agreed with Philbin's decision to run time down is shocking and saddening in equal measures. It shows he has no confidence in his own ability, or in his teammates ability to make plays and score points. Simply Philbin and Tannehill displayed a losers mentality right there.

So frustrated.

"ckparrothead wrote:

They weren't backed up to their end zone. They were at their own 12 yard line. That's not backed up into your end zone to where you feel you are at risk of a safety. That's just saying "I have no confidence in my offense to gain the 50 yards necessary to go for a long field goal, even if we have three timeouts AND a two-minute warning at our disposal."

It was a coward's move. Pure and simple.

just to play devils advocate, it could have been a gauntlet thrown down to see how the offense responded. they did not pick it as we have to unanimously have suggested that Marino most certainly would. the offense is clearly lost at his point.

Andrew abramson on twitter

Philbin on clock: Last thing I wanted to do was go into halftime down 16-0. I told Bill I wanted to run every single play.

On end of 1st half clock, Philbin said he wasn't worried about team throwing INT. He was worried about 3-and-out and Bills getting ball back

"jpep13 wrote:

Andrew abramson on twitter

Philbin on clock: Last thing I wanted to do was go into halftime down 16-0. I told Bill I wanted to run every single play.

On end of 1st half clock, Philbin said he wasn't worried about team throwing INT. He was worried about 3-and-out and Bills getting ball back

That's nonsense. They might have gone 3 and out running the ball too.

"schmolioot wrote:

That's nonsense. They might have gone 3 and out running the ball too.

Based on their first half performance, it was much more likely they would have moved the ball running, than passing.

"Finatik wrote:

I didn't really like it but I understood it. They were backed way up to the end zone. They were just trying to run the clock out without giving up field position. Ran a play and got to the 2 minute warning. Then they got a 1st down at he 20. It's not like they were mid field. The way the offense was playing at that point in the game I can understand going into the locker room and making adjustments since we were getting the ball out of the half. It was conservative. But at that point it was a very close game and you don't want to give the ball back to them on the 40 or 50.

But then why the sense of urgency at THE END OF THE GAME?

Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk

"Pee Sprinkles wrote:

Up until yesterday's game i was not jumping on the "Philbin Out" or "Bring in Matt Moore" bandwagon..but that series really opened my eyes to the type of leadership and philosophy in the Dolphins organization.

True, the offence was playing poorly at that moment but the simple fact was they LEFT POINTS OUT ON THE FIELD. Whilst they were LOSING.

Yes the worst could have happened like a Tannehil pick six..but surely you must show confidence in your supposed franchise quarterback to get you out of a losing predicament or....if not...why is he your franchise quarterback?

Tannehill's addmitance that he agreed with Philbin's decision to run time down is shocking and saddening in equal measures. It shows he has no confidence in his own ability, or in his teammates ability to make plays and score points. Simply Philbin and Tannehill displayed a losers mentality right there.

So frustrated.

Tannehill understood Philbin's decision. He most certainly DID NOT agree with it. That is all on Joe.

"Pee Sprinkles wrote:

Up until yesterday's game i was not jumping on the "Philbin Out" or "Bring in Matt Moore" bandwagon..but that series really opened my eyes to the type of leadership and philosophy in the Dolphins organization.

True, the offence was playing poorly at that moment but the simple fact was they LEFT POINTS OUT ON THE FIELD. Whilst they were LOSING.

Yes the worst could have happened like a Tannehil pick six..but surely you must show confidence in your supposed franchise quarterback to get you out of a losing predicament or....if not...why is he your franchise quarterback?

Tannehill's addmitance that he agreed with Philbin's decision to run time down is shocking and saddening in equal measures. It shows he has no confidence in his own ability, or in his teammates ability to make plays and score points. Simply Philbin and Tannehill displayed a losers mentality right there.

So frustrated.

I think you're looking into it too much here about Tannehill. I'd have to assume he didn't agree with it. Any competitor wouldn't agree with it. They were playing terribly though, however Tannehill isn't going to throw his head coach under the bus in post game interviews if that's indeed what he did (I didn't listen to any post game stuff yesterday)

"Stringer Bell wrote:

Based on their first half performance, it was much more likely they would have moved the ball running, than passing.

That's terrible analysis based on small sample size.

"ckparrothead wrote:

That's terrible analysis based on small sample size.

It absolutely is a small sample size. But what else is there to work with? If you're handicapping what to expect on a passing play from the Miami Dolphins in Buffalo, what are looking at?

At that point, what had Miami's pass game done over their last 6 quarters in Buffalo? This isn't a joke; they had 102 net-yards on 55 pass plays. That is < 2 yards NY/A. That isn't even Pat White bad. Daniel Thomas running the ball does better than that.

I suspect what's bothering people about this particular issue is that it's an implicit admission by Philbin that, at least in the kind of game played yesterday, he didn't have a quarterback he could win with at that point in the game.

During the year in which just about every Dolphins fan is desperate to see Ryan Tannehill move to the next level and make the team highly competitive, having the head coach admit such a thing in only the second game of the year is deeply disturbing.

What we want instead is a Dan Marino, who can move the team up and down the field at will, and we had nothing of the sort yesterday and haven't had it in over a decade. Coming to terms with the further improbability of that being Ryan Tannehill, as well, is disturbing, and that's what we all got to experience yesterday.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

It absolutely is a small sample size. But what else is there to work with?

This entire question assumes the need to use data in order to project a (weak) trend and make a drastic, very out of the ordinary decision based on that (weak) trend. There doesn't HAVE to be a trend visible, and you don't HAVE to make an extreme decision based on this trend which may or may not exist.

That is a fallacy.

You go where the data leads you to go. If the data is not valid it's not valid and you don't make extraordinary decisions based on it just because "what else was I supposed to go on?"

You don't go on anything. You do what 10,000 coaches have done before you. You use your timeouts and the two minute warning to try and push the ball up the field and get a score before halftime, drawing the game to within one score and giving you the chance to make up that score on the very first drive of the second half.

Is this team good enough to go 8-8 this year? If we can do that again, I think we're on the right track. Consistency matters, even in mediocrity!

Have we ever won a game on the road in a crazy environment like the Bills' had yesterday besides the Pittsburgh game? We are 6-11 on the Road ever since Philbin took over the team.. I'm starting to wonder if Tannehill folds under intense crowd noise..

"ckparrothead wrote:

This entire question assumes the need to use data in order to project a (weak) trend and make a drastic, very out of the ordinary decision based on that (weak) trend. There doesn't HAVE to be a trend visible, and you don't HAVE to make an extreme decision based on this trend which may or may not exist.

That is a fallacy.

You go where the data leads you to go. If the data is not valid it's not valid and you don't make extraordinary decisions based on it just because "what else was I supposed to go on?"

You don't go on anything. You do what 10,000 coaches have done before you. You use your timeouts and the two minute warning to try and push the ball up the field and get a score before halftime, drawing the game to within one score and giving you the chance to make up that score on the very first drive of the second half.

I think what you're arguing is that there is a low base rate of the kinds of events Philbin was trying to avoid (INTs, sacks, fumbles, a string of incomplete passes that stop the clock, etc.), and so it doesn't make sense to try to avoid things that have such a low probability of occurring.

That, though, brings us back to the idea that Philbin may have realized he simply has no offensive firepower he can count on, and so he was avoiding a second half in which his team was potentially down further on the scoreboard, even less able to come back and win.

Again, the choice to end the first half I think was a reflection of Philbin's belief in his own team's lack of offensive firepower more than anything else, and with the way the team is functioning right now, I'm not sure you can blame him. We're an awfully long way from having the "Dan Marino" offense we all want.

"Vertical Limit wrote:

Have we ever won a game on the road in a crazy environment like the Bills' had yesterday besides the Pittsburgh game? We are 6-11 on the Road ever since Philbin took over the team.. I'm starting to wonder if Tannehill folds under intense crowd noise..

I don't know if that's a trend or not.

But I will say this. It does seem to be a trend that this team has issues managing the upside. Managing the downside is a thing but so too is managing the upside. How do you approach the game when you've won and confidence levels are high? Do you get lax? Are you still able to generate emotional content from a position of dominance?

Miami has never been good at that under Joe Philbin. The only very brief exception I can think of is a short period when the team was being collectively shat upon by every news agency in the United States, regardless of whether they specialized in sports or not, due to the Jonathan Martin scandal. For that brief period, Miami was able to keep hold of their fire even as they won. They played with emotional energy every week. The clock struck twelve when they realized they were in "win and in" playoff position. Suddenly they went deer in headlights.

"ckparrothead wrote:

This entire question assumes the need to use data in order to project a (weak) trend and make a drastic, very out of the ordinary decision based on that (weak) trend. There doesn't HAVE to be a trend visible, and you don't HAVE to make an extreme decision based on this trend which may or may not exist.

That is a fallacy.

You go where the data leads you to go. If the data is not valid it's not valid and you don't make extraordinary decisions based on it just because "what else was I supposed to go on?"

I don't think six quarters is a weak trend. You also have a lot of data on Ryan Tannehill that suggests his performance against Buffalo wasn't all that out of the ordinary for him. Theres also a lot of data to suggest that Miami's passing game has hurt the team more than its helped in a number of recent games.

"ckparrothead wrote:

You don't go on anything. You do what 10,000 coaches have done before you. You use your timeouts and the two minute warning to try and push the ball up the field and get a score before halftime, drawing the game to within one score and giving you the chance to make up that score on the very first drive of the second half.

So you just hope that they stop sucking?

Based on what I've seen from this team, I would try to get to halftime, make some adjustments, and come up with a script of 25-30 plays that take as much decision making out of the QBs hands as possible. You hope you can get a couple of quick scores and hope Buffalo makes some mistakes or trips over itself. Thats what you do when you can't pass for ****.

EDIT: actually the ideal situation is that they sit on the ball for the last 2 minutes, the coaches get fired at half, and they let a fan that made the trip to Buffalo QB the second half.

"ckparrothead wrote:

I don't know if that's a trend or not.

But I will say this. It does seem to be a trend that this team has issues managing the upside. Managing the downside is a thing but so too is managing the upside. How do you approach the game when you've won and confidence levels are high? Do you get lax? Are you still able to generate emotional content from a position of dominance?

Miami has never been good at that under Joe Philbin. The only very brief exception I can think of is a short period when the team was being collectively shat upon by every news agency in the United States, regardless of whether they specialized in sports or not, due to the Jonathan Martin scandal. For that brief period, Miami was able to keep hold of their fire even as they won. They played with emotional energy every week. The clock struck twelve when they realized they were in "win and in" playoff position. Suddenly they went deer in headlights.

I have yet to see a Joe Philbin-led locker room celebration after a win that featured anything but positives. It's as if winning that week was the goal, and we should all feel good about it, rather than winning BIG being the goal, and telling the team what it still needs to work on to get there. Notice that Bill Lazor last week was far more critical in his quotes than Joe Philbin was in his post-game locker room speech, and notice how poorly the offense played the following game.

"Dolphans Unite! wrote:

I think what you're arguing is that there is a low base rate of the kinds of events Philbin was trying to avoid (INTs, sacks, fumbles, a string of incomplete passes that stop the clock, etc.), and so it doesn't make sense to try to avoid things that have such a low probability of occurring.

That, though, brings us back to the idea that Philbin may have realized he simply has no offensive firepower he can count on, and so he was avoiding a second half in which his team was potentially down further on the scoreboard, even less able to come back and win.

Again, the choice to end the first half I think was a reflection of Philbin's belief in his own team's lack of offensive firepower more than anything else, and with the way the team is functioning right now, I'm not sure you can blame him. We're an awfully long way from having the "Dan Marino" offense we all want.

What I'm referring to is a number of things.

1. Yes there's a low rate of incidence of the problems that you speak of (interception, fumble, turnover giving the other side a short field).

2. Running the football three straight times statistically gives you a strong chance of going three-and-out which means they get the ball back anyway with pretty good field position. Miami started on their own 12. If they went three-and-out they'd have been punting from behind their 20 yard line, and the Bills likely would have started the ball near mid-field. The Bills still had a timeout. If the Dolphins failed to convert 3rd down, the Bills take that timeout and have a little over a minute with the football at midfield needing perhaps 20 yards to try another field goal. Running the football was capitulation toward this likely scenario, regardless of the fact that Miami managed to convert on 3rd down and keep the ball instead of punting it.

3. This statistical conclusion of "zero offensive firepower" was based on a statistically INsignificant sample. The team had plenty of offensive firepower against the New England Patriots one week earlier. Suddenly the offense is so bad they're better off kneeling on the ball as that will do less damage? Bullsh-t. That's based on what, a few plays not working? You call that a solid statistical trend upon which you base decisions that almost no head coach in the NFL would ever make? Bullsh-t again. Ryan Tannehill has done well running 2-minute offenses in the past. But a few bad plays against the Buffalo Bills had them sh-tting their pants as if they'll never feel right again. *******.

"Dolphans Unite! wrote:

I have yet to see a Joe Philbin-led locker room celebration after a win that featured anything but positives. It's as if winning that week was the goal, and we should all feel good about it, rather than winning BIG being the goal, and telling the team what it still needs to work on to get there. Notice that Bill Lazor last week was far more critical in his quotes than Joe Philbin was in his post-game locker room speech, and notice how poorly the offense played the following game.

Coaches should never be satisfied.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

I don't think six quarters is a weak trend. You also have a lot of data on Ryan Tannehill that suggests his performance against Buffalo wasn't all that out of the ordinary for him. Theres also a lot of data to suggest that Miami's passing game has hurt the team more than its helped in a number of recent games.

Six quarters now? So the Dolphins had been able to score 33 points against the Patriots and that suddenly doesn't count? Sure. LOL.

And if you truly DO believe that this was a six quarter trend, then what exactly is so magical and mystical about halftime that your new brilliant strategy of never passing the ball again can be put back on the shelf because you're confident your rock solid statistical trend has officially been ended? Did some magical football fairy come to the locker room and sprinkle Dan Marino's *** in Ryan Tannehill's hair?

It's a pure bullsh-t, fallacy of an argument. It doesn't even merit serious discussion.

"ckparrothead wrote:

What I'm referring to is a number of things.

1. Yes there's a low rate of incidence of the problems that you speak of (interception, fumble, turnover giving the other side a short field).

2. Running the football three straight times statistically gives you a strong chance of going three-and-out which means they get the ball back anyway with pretty good field position. Miami started on their own 12. If they went three-and-out they'd have been punting from behind their 20 yard line, and the Bills likely would have started the ball near mid-field. The Bills still had a timeout. If the Dolphins failed to convert 3rd down, the Bills take that timeout and have a little over a minute with the football at midfield needing perhaps 20 yards to try another field goal. Running the football was capitulation toward this likely scenario, regardless of the fact that Miami managed to convert on 3rd down and keep the ball instead of punting it.

3. This statistical conclusion of "zero offensive firepower" was based on a statistically INsignificant sample. The team had plenty of offensive firepower against the New England Patriots one week earlier. Suddenly the offense is so bad they're better off kneeling on the ball as that will do less damage? Bullsh-t. That's based on what, a few plays not working? You call that a solid statistical trend upon which you base decisions that almost no head coach in the NFL would ever make? Bullsh-t again. Ryan Tannehill has done well running 2-minute offenses in the past. But a few bad plays against the Buffalo Bills had them sh-tting their pants as if they'll never feel right again. *******.

I don't think the team had much firepower the week before, either, other than with Knowshon Moreno. The passing offense has been abysmal to below average for four straight games now, going back to last year. In fact, I think if this continues we'll see Matt Moore after the bye week. I don't think you can be competitive in the NFL with this kind of offensive functioning.

So because you're convinced we suck, we should just kneel on the ball and not actually try to win games.

Brilliant strategy, Cotton. Let's see how that works out for them.

I don't understand how you simply give away a possession when you're losing by 9 points. I just don't understand how that's even defensible.

"heylookatme wrote:

I don't understand how you simply give away a possession when you're losing by 9 points. I just don't understand how that's even defensible.

It's not, except by a very convoluted set of arguments based on terrible assumptions.