Granted, Miami's defense still has some deficiencies both in terms of execution (dropped INTs, missed tackles) and overall talent.
But despite these issues, Miami's defense has gone from one of the worst in the NFL in 2009 to top 15 in 2010. And the main reason for that was not personnel. It was a change at defensive coordinator.
I think it's unrealistic to see a change at the offensive coordinator spot in the middle of the season, but let's hope that Sparano recognizes what an upgrade at coordinator can do for his offense (just as it did for his defense).
-
-
We currently have 5 new starters vs the majority of last year (Solia, Misi, Wake, Dansby, and Clemons).
So maybe personnel did have a lot to do with it. :shifty:Shamboubou, , Bpk and 2 others like this. -
That said, you have to keep in mind that Soliai, Wake and Clemons played last year (Soliai and Wake played quite a bit).
So what you're really looking at is 2 completely new guys in Misi and Dansby. That's simply not enough to account for the "day and night" change in production especially when you consider that the defense has a lot of same deficiencies, but they simply appear to be masked by Nolan's approach to defensive scheming. -
hugoguzman likes this.
-
THE LACK OF PLAYING TIME WAKE RECEIVED.To say Wake
played quite a bit is wrong and very misleading by you.
Wake was lucky to get 10-12 play per game
The first few games he hardly saw the field
and the only game he received any playing time
was against Buffalo when he went off...the next game
his playing time was cut drastically -
Generally speaking personnell is about 90% of success on the field. Coordinators and coaching is only about 10%. Coaching comes into play when teams are evenly matched IMO. AS our personnell gets better we get better -
I agree that Nolan is awesome! I also agree that Henning is rediculous! Honestly, this season it seems like he is just drawing out of a hat on when to call plays... I hate seeing things change over a lot as far as terminology and whatnot but the Dolphins need a shake-up to get the offense going!
Bpk and dolfan7171 like this. -
Perfect example is right here in Dallas.
On paper, they are more telented than 90% of the teams in the league...which has them at 1-7.
I say the same thing about Minnesota. They have TONS of talent, yet still suck.
The Vikings DEFINATELY had more talent than the Saints last year, so did the Colts. Adversely, the Colts are mostly playing 3rd stringers yet doing pretty good.
The coaching staff has at least as much to do with it as the talent level they have.frozenfin, fins4o8, Coral Reefer and 1 other person like this. -
While it's true that some of those guys are playing more than they did last year, you can't simply dismiss the production that the guys they shared time with would have brought to the table under this new system.
And to say that scheme is only responsible for 10% of the production you see on the field is difficult to justify.
When more than 50% of the defensive personnel stays intact yet the defense does virtual 180, you have to give more credit to the coaching.Coral Reefer likes this. -
So 10-12 plays...that equals 20-25% of defensive snaps. That would seem to fit the phrase "played quite a bit" and even if it doesn't to some, it's a bit of a stretch to say that my phrasing was "very misleading." (saying he started or played the majority of snaps would have been). -
Bpk and hugoguzman like this.
-
-
Personally I don't agree with that at all brother.
Not one bit.
Coaches, coordinators and their ability to scheme towards whatever their strengths are while protecting their weak points on their squads can have massive affects on the success of a team and the personell involved.
Look no further than how the Patriot machine roles along even while casting off top talent year after year. They went deep into the playoffs playing a WR at DB one year for Gods sake. That's all scheme, preparation and adjustments.
You seriously underestimate the affect a well prepared game plan and the ability to change strategies during a game successfully can do to make a team into a winner.hugoguzman likes this. -
I disagree with this statement 100%.
Let's use Belicheck for example. The guy wins with scrubs, toss-offs from other teams and average players. His defensive mind and overall football philosophy is second to none.
Coaching/scheming is 90% of football. Making sure that your players are in the right spot at the right time is what the game is about. Let's face it, if you're in the NFL you have the talent to make ALL the plays.Coral Reefer likes this. -
-
Coral Reefer, adamprez2003 and hugoguzman like this.
-
If I had to guess, I would say that the way a team plays is roughly half players half scheme/coaching. I'm sure it sways one way or another from play to play (for example, you can't blame coaching for Smith's dropped INT on Sunday) but there's no way that you can discount the impact that coaching/scheming has at the NFL level.
Also, as far as who makes these kinds of decisions, I'd guess that it's on both Sparano and Ireland, but I think that Sparano is the final decision maker (pretty sure he pulled the trigger on the Bonamego firing).Coral Reefer likes this. -
OK, maybe not having Wilson back there... :shifty: -
What it really comes down to me... it is that it "appears" to me that Tony plays out of a mold and he is not sure what to do when things spill out of that mold. For example, Wake wasn't in their plans last year. He played his *** off and earned more PT. But that wasnt in Tony's script so he didn't give him the snaps.
I also believe there was a loss of control by Tony. There was at least one time in which he sent Wake in and Porter sent Wake back off the field. I am sorry but if one of my players does that to me he would be so far in the dog house he wouldn't know what hit him. -
Who knows? Maybe coach Sparano's luck will continue and Tom Moore falls from the sky and they go all playmakers in the draft.
-
Will everyone here still be excited about a new OC if his first act is to make Pennington the starter?
Curious.
Because it's entirely possible. -
Good to see you brother:hi5:Bpk likes this. -
-
-
-
once in awhile you get a coach who is ahead of the curve...bill walsh of the 80s, don shula of the 70s, buddy ryan in 85, etc... and once in awhile you get a complete buffoon of a coach...ray handley, rich kotite, etc... but for the most part you have coaches of relatively equal skill playing one of five or six schemes going against coaches of equal skill and the only difference is the talent of the players on the field -
-
But, on the other hand, if the new OC recognizes the value of taking 2-3 shots deep every game just to put the possibility on the table, I'll take Henne.Bpk likes this. -
-
-
Or how about the Patriots? Not only have they sustained their level of success despite a vast amount of roster turnover, but they also managed to go 11-5 despite losing their Hall of Fame quarterback in Week 1.
Like I said, personnel is obviously a key factor in success. But I really think that you need to reevaluate your "90% stance."
Very few professional NFL folks would even remotely agree with that and there's a ton of historical evidence to the contrary. -
if you say that very few professionals would agree i would like to see a GMs opinion on that. Ask a GM what the ratio is since he's responsible for getting both. Its not 50/50 like you said. Maybe its not 90% like I said but its definitely skewed towards the playersLast edited: Nov 9, 2010 -
Everyone is using schemes based off of 1 coaching tree at one point if you want to attempt to make it seem like coaching is pointless.
It's not about the definition of what a scheme is.
It's how a cooridnator or a coach uses a scheme, how he maximizes strengths and minimizes weaknesses according to their personell, how they disguise what they are doing so opposing offenses or defenses are confused about what's coming, how they gameplan within the scheme to attack weaknesses of the opposing team, how they gameplan playmakers within their sceme to be the focal point, etc. etc. etc. I could go on and on.
I am floored you really feel strategic gameplanning is almost a non issue. -
Just to take it further did Cam Cameron completely outcoach Nolan or was the reason we looked so poor on defense due to player breakdowns, missed tackles, forgetting about Ray Rice in the passing game? Who was at fault more? The players or Nolan?Last edited: Nov 10, 2010