No Leadership - Agree or Disagree?

"Disgustipate wrote:

You're giving the coaching staff credit for something that is a given.

Benching Tannehill would be a pretty Philbin move, though.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. What is a given?

"byroan wrote:

You sound just like Philbin. That's not a good thing either.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

This post sucks.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

No possible way to know...how's that a good argument? Hell, if that's the case...why play at all?

Not every drive is one just before the half, deep in your own territory, after your quarterback has played poorly.

"Dolphans Unite! wrote:

Not every drive is one just before the half, deep in your own territory, after your quarterback has played poorly.

Only one way to know...and Philbin removed it.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

Only one way to know...and Philbin removed it.

And he was right to remove it and try to instill some confidence in the line to run the ball after Lazor emasculated them for a full half, and prevent a pick 6 at the end of the half or a strip sack. That was probably the best offensive coaching Phins had all game today.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

Only one way to know...and Philbin removed it.

Well if what you would've "known" is a sack fumble followed by a touchdown, be glad Philbin "removed" it.

"Dolphans Unite! wrote:

Well if what you would've "known" is a sack fumble followed by a touchdown, be glad Philbin "removed" it.

If if if if if. It was plain gutless IMHO.

"Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure what you're saying here. What is a given?

Benching Tannehill should not have been up for discussion. Sticking with him isn't wisdom and patience, it's simply not being a total panicky ****-up.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

If if if if if. It was plain gutless IMHO.

Is it gutless not to take every penny you own and plunk it down at the roulette wheel? Why not?

"Disgustipate wrote:

Benching Tannehill should not have been up for discussion. Sticking with him isn't wisdom and patience, it's simply not being a total panicky ****-up.

Except I didn't say they're so wise for keeping him or give them credit for keeping him him. I was responding to what someone said.

"Anonymous wrote:

I liked the call to run it in at halftime. ***** move but look at the QB. Can't trust him. It was the right call, IMO.

I agree.

"Anonymous wrote:

You don't pull him because he's struggling. You've invested 2 years into him. You will live and die with him. Pack it in and adjust at half time. Don't give him the chance to make it worse. It was the right move. Too many just love to blame coaching because they just don't want to admit Tannehill might not be be playing very good.

Exactly!

Packers just went 98 yards in under 2 minutes. They didn't turn into cowards.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

I'm a Philbin fan but I don't agree with sitting on the ball in the last 2 minutes. I understand the mindset, but you can't be conservative.

Offense needs to wake up next week.

"byroan wrote:

Packers just went 98 yards in under 2 minutes. They didn't turn into cowards.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

Give us Aaron Rodgers and we would have drove down the same way.

"Anonymous wrote:

Give us Aaron Rodgers and we would have drove down the same way.

Packers offense hadn't scored a td yet. Didn't seem to matter in their decision.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

"byroan wrote:

packers offense hadn't scored a td yet. Didn't seem to matter in their decision.

Sent from my nexus 10 using tapatalk

aaron rodgers vs Ryan Tannehill. Think.

"byroan wrote:

Packers just went 98 yards in under 2 minutes. They didn't turn into cowards.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

We wouldn't have either if we had the best QB in the league playing for us.

"byroan wrote:

Packers offense hadn't scored a td yet. Didn't seem to matter in their decision.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

But they had moved the ball very well up to that point. When Miami took over deep in their own territory with 2 minutes or so left, the offense had yet to cross mid field.

I love watching people defend the decision to give up. We had 2:30 left! Not like it was 30 seconds.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

"MrClean wrote:

But they had moved the ball very well up to that point. When Miami took over deep in their own territory with 2 minutes or so left, the offense had yet to cross mid field.

So, what? They hadn't turned the ball over either, so why adhere to some weird self-defeating sense of superstition?

What do you have to lose?

Philbin should have called a TO after the Watkins phantom TD too...but naaaa...give it to him on effort!

"Disgustipate wrote:

So, what? They hadn't turned the ball over either, so why adhere to some weird self-defeating sense of superstition?

What do you have to lose?

You think that is what they were doing?

Even if you don't want to risk an interception, you've managed to get two first downs with your running game. Started off at the 17, and you drove to the 41. If you had taken timeouts before lazily skipping your way back to the huddle, maybe, just maybe you'd break the 50 and be able to try a long FG.

Playing not to lose is a defeatist attitude that we've dealt with through Wanny, Cam Cameron, and Tony Sparano. This was not a case where it's 4th and 1 on our 20, or 2:30 left in the half with a lead.

Look, I get the first three runs when we started at our 17, I do. That was a smart move, but we made it up to our 31 with 1:30 left and chose to sit on it rather than try SOMETHING, even safe passes or more runs!

"byroan wrote:

I love watching people defend the decision to give up. We had 2:30 left! Not like it was 30 seconds.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

Agreed! Also the 'deep in your own end' is a complete cop out excuse.

Ball on the 15 yard line. If Miami advances the ball to the Buffalo 35, they can still attempt a field goal.

So they only had to go 50 freakin yards with 2:21 and 3 timeouts! Philbin gave up on the offense and the players had to know it!