Poll: What was the biggest issue with the 2018 Dolphins?

"Fame wrote:

You can't seriously vote for anything other than injuries without having some other motive. We lost 80% of our starting offense at one point.

My motive is that Gase designed and called terrible plays! :lol:

I want the goal of the Dolphins to become something akin to what the Rams did last night. 76 plays run, 30 first downs, nearly every drive ended in a scoring opprotunity. Their worst drive had three first downs. That doesn't mean that the team gets there in two seasons, but I want it to be the plan. Gase was the polar opposite, seemingly trying to force a big play on every down. I hate it.

"danmarino wrote:

It was hard to choose between injuries and coaching. I chose coaching.

IMO, a healthy Dolphins team, a team filled with this much talent, yes, they have a lot, should have won about 12 games. So, I think coaching was the reason this injury riddled team did not at least win 9 games and a possible playoff birth.

We usually see eye to eye, but by your own logic...

Injuries took us from 12 wins to 9 wins. Total impact: cost team 3 wins.

Coaching took us from 9 wins to 7 wins. Total impact: cost team 2 wins.

So, by your estimation and predictions, we lost 3 games due to injury and only 2 to coaching. The injuries to the team were therefore a larger impact. But you voted for coaching.

What kills me even more is how widespread this belief has come. Amazing how a desire to be vindicated can impact a person's perspective.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

My motive is that Gase designed and called terrible plays! :lol:

I want the goal of the Dolphins to become something akin to what the Rams did last night. 76 plays run, 30 first downs, nearly every drive ended in a scoring opprotunity. Their worst drive had three first downs. That doesn't mean that the team gets there in two seasons, but I want it to be the plan. Gase was the polar opposite, seemingly trying to force a big play on every down. I hate it.

And in your mind the Dolphins are equally as talented as the Rams from a player talent standpoint? Therefore our failures were exclusively the result of bad play calling, and had nothing to do with the players who were healthy enough to play?

So, you see Todd Gurley mowing through defenders and you think: "Man, Gore and Drake are just as good as Todd Gurley. Gase is a loser"?

You see Goff making great throws down field and you think: "Brock Osweiler looks just as good as Goff. Gase is a loser"?

You see Donald and Suh breaking up plays and you think: "There's no difference in talent between Suh/Donald and Spence/Godchaux. Gase is a loser."?

Interesting. When you put it like that everything really does seem like Gase's fault. He should have made the playoffs with Osweiler.

"mooseguts wrote:

You're last sentence is why I have no faith in Gase. When Grant and Wilson went down instead of Gase fitting the offense to the talent that he has he sticks with his "system" and to the same play calling even though he doesn't have the talent to make it go anymore.

But did we? When they went down, the bubble screens were all but phased out. We transformed into a running team throwing 8 yard passes in the flats to Stills and Amendola. Heck, at one point Carroo was our WR1 and he was owning it. I'm not sure how anyone can say it was the same offense.

To answer Resnor's question- yes, I think we win 3-4 more games with Wilson, Grant, Tannehill and the offensive line on the field. Osweiller's win against the Bears showed why as well...speed kills and we had it in abundance. Everything stems back to the line though; RT can't navigate a pocket and we're far too one-dimensional without those quick releases under pressure.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

Resnor, you and I have agreed on a lot of things over the years, and you're a great dude, but man......Gase's offense was just so fundamentally terrible. It was terrible when the team was at full strength and winning games. It was just wholly reliant on big plays, and a bizzarly high number of trick plays, to accomplish anything whatsoever.

And in those rare games where the team actually took a signifigant lead, they couldn't hold it at all, because the offense did absolutely nothing repeatable and dependable. They just could not move the ball in normal ways and pick up first downs.

I am beyond thankful to be finished with it. Now, I'll just cross my fingers that the next guy is better.

I'm not trying to argue that Gase was good. I think going after the guy on his play calling is legit. That being said, I really just wonder what he reasonably could have been expected to do when we were down Wilson, Grant, Amendola, Parker, Tannehill, and 2 or 3 oline.

Those injuries completely decimated the offense, and the plays we built around were totally gone.

"KeyFin wrote:

But did we? When they went down, the bubble screens were all but phased out. We transformed into a running team throwing 8 yard passes in the flats to Stills and Amendola. Heck, at one point Carroo was our WR1 and he was owning it. I'm not sure how anyone can say it was the same offense.

To answer Resnor's question- yes, I think we win 3-4 more games with Wilson, Grant, Tannehill and the offensive line on the field. Osweiller's win against the Bears showed why as well...speed kills and we had it in abundance. Everything stems back to the line though; RT can't navigate a pocket and we're far too one-dimensional without those quick releases under pressure.

You're 100% right that the gameplan changed after Wilson and Grant went down, but that doesn't fit the narrative that Gase is a horrible coach, so some people don't want to see your logic here.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

Resnor, you and I have agreed on a lot of things over the years, and you're a great dude, but man......Gase's offense was just so fundamentally terrible. It was terrible when the team was at full strength and winning games. It was just wholly reliant on big plays, and a bizzarly high number of trick plays, to accomplish anything whatsoever.

And in those rare games where the team actually took a signifigant lead, they couldn't hold it at all, because the offense did absolutely nothing repeatable and dependable. They just could not move the ball in normal ways and pick up first downs.

I am beyond thankful to be finished with it. Now, I'll just cross my fingers that the next guy is better.

Except for the fact that there's no such thing as a "trick play" in the NFL anymore. Screens, bubbles, reverses, going for it on 4th down and QBs catching Super Bowl winning touchdowns have all become common place. The NFL isn't hyper conservative anymore. Teams are hiring 30 year old head coaches. It's a new world.

Eventually you're going to have to change the way that YOU think about football, otherwise you're going to fall behind, because if you're going to knock Gase for all those "trick plays" then you're going to have to knock all the other successful coaches who are also doing it. Fact is, guys use those plays because they work, and they get the ball into the hands of your best players. During his tenure we never had true talent anywhere on offense because it's hard to find, so Gase did the next best thing and built a team with incredible speed to make up for the lack of talent. Unfortunately we lost all of our speed. Then we lost the ability to run the ball. Then we lost our QB. Coaches can only do so much. They're people, not wizards.

The offense wasn't terrible, but it was different. That's a you problem though, not a Gase problem.

"Fame wrote:

And in your mind the Dolphins are equally as talented as the Rams from a player talent standpoint? Therefore our failures were exclusively the result of bad play calling, and had nothing to do with the players who were healthy enough to play?

So, you see Todd Gurley mowing through defenders and you think: "Man, Gore and Drake are just as good as Todd Gurley. Gase is a loser"?

You see Goff making great throws down field and you think: "Brock Osweiler looks just as good as Goff. Gase is a loser"?

You see Donald and Suh breaking up plays and you think: "There's no difference in talent between Suh/Donald and Spence/Godchaux. Gase is a loser."?

Interesting. When you put it like that everything really does seem like Gase's fault. He should have made the playoffs with Osweiler.

Why did you use Brock and not tannehill?You don't want to bash the golden boy?

"pumpdogs wrote:

Why did you use Brock and not tannehill?You don't want to bash the golden boy?

Are you saying my claim does't hold true when we use Tannehill as the example instead of Osweiler? That would imply you think Tannehill is better than Goff. Interesting. That's a hot take if I've ever heard one, but I disagree.

I was emphasizing our injury situation given the fact that Tannehill missed 50% of his games in the last 3 years, but you can put him in there and it doesn't change anything. It's just preference really since they both played poorly. We've gone through so many QBs it's hard to keep track of them all.

But yeah, it's probably just bad coaching.

"Fame wrote:

Are you saying my claim does't hold true when we use Tannehill as the example instead of Osweiler? That would imply you think Tannehill is better than Goff. Interesting. That's a hot take if I've ever heard one, but I disagree.

I was emphasizing our injury situation given the fact that Tannehill missed 50% of his games in the last 3 years, but you can put him in there and it doesn't change anything. It's just preference really since they both played poorly. We've gone through so many QBs it's hard to keep track of them all.

But yeah, it's probably just bad coaching.

Haha!Thanks for the entertainment!

"resnor wrote:

I'm not trying to argue that Gase was good. I think going after the guy on his play calling is legit. That being said, I really just wonder what he reasonably could have been expected to do when we were down Wilson, Grant, Amendola, Parker, Tannehill, and 2 or 3 oline.

Those injuries completely decimated the offense, and the plays we built around were totally gone.

It might have been better. The team might have legitimately earned seven or eight wins, rather than falling into them the way that they did. But Adam Gase proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt over three years that he has no interest in running an offense featuring repeatable, dependable plays that garner a lot of first downs and red zone trips. I was opposed to the way that Gase used nearly every player on our offense, frankly.

"Fame wrote:

We usually see eye to eye, but by your own logic...

Injuries took us from 12 wins to 9 wins. Total impact: cost team 3 wins.

Coaching took us from 9 wins to 7 wins. Total impact: cost team 2 wins.

So, by your estimation and predictions, we lost 3 games due to injury and only 2 to coaching. The injuries to the team were therefore a larger impact. But you voted for coaching.

What kills me even more is how widespread this belief has come. Amazing how a desire to be vindicated can impact a person's perspective.

Well, with better coaching I feel this team would have most likely been in the playoffs. You can't really help it that guys get injured, but you can do something about bad coaching.

I was all in (mostly) on Gase up until the Colts game. He was not able to teach the players. He's not a good teacher.

Saying that, I never really had a problem with his play calling. I think there were more failures due to lack of execution and penalties. Both of which are coaching responsibilities, however. So six of one and half a dozen of another...

I fear that if gets some good coordinators and/or learns to teach the Jets may have a good HC on their hands. I pray not...

"pumpdogs wrote:

Haha!Thanks for the entertainment!

The old "he got me, so I'll just laugh and slip away silently" strategy.

"Fame wrote:

The old "he got me, so I'll just laugh and slip away silently" strategy.

Ur a funny guy!Clueless but Funny!

"danmarino wrote:

Well, with better coaching I feel this team would have most likely been in the playoffs. You can't really help it that guys get injured, but you can do something about bad coaching.

I was all in (mostly) on Gase up until the Colts game. He was not able to teach the players. He's not a good teacher.

Saying that, I never really had a problem with his play calling. I think there were more failures due to lack of execution and penalties. Both of which are coaching responsibilities, however. So six of one and half a dozen of another...

I fear that if gets some good coordinators and/or learns to teach the Jets may have a good HC on their hands. I pray not...

I liked Gase as a coach and think he will be very successful long-term. I honestly don't want to come on here and defend him since he still had some stuff to work on, but when the narrative switches to he was horrible and the next coach will obviously be better...that's just a knee-jerk reaction that drives me nuts.

cBrad showed stats saying Gase-led teams won a few extra games per season than the statistics suggested we should have won. What more is there really to say? A four-win team won seven games. If we shore up the line and become a 8 win team, then maybe we win 10 or 11 under Gase like in 2016. As a fan, what more can you really ask for?

Gase shouldn't have been calling plays the entire game. Gase shouldn't have been as loyal to Tannehill as he was. Gase should have fought harder for a legit DC (which was beyond his control). There were clearly things he could have done better IF you're comparing him to one of the top coaches around....but as an average coach he gave us a better chance to win than most.

We will regret letting him go as NY becomes the next AFC East powerhouse. Just wait and see.

"danmarino wrote:

It was hard to choose between injuries and coaching. I chose coaching.

IMO, a healthy Dolphins team, a team filled with this much talent, yes, they have a lot, should have won about 12 games. So, I think coaching was the reason this injury riddled team did not at least win 9 games and a possible playoff birth.

You’d be in a very small group of people that expected anything more than 7-8 wins this season. Almost every major power ranking had us in the bottom 5 in the NFL. I also don’t see a lot of scenarios with any head coach leading this team to 12 wins.

"mlb1399 wrote:

You’d be in a very small group of people that expected anything more than 7-8 wins this season. Almost every major power ranking had us in the bottom 5 in the NFL. I also don’t see a lot of scenarios with any head coach leading this team to 12 wins.

I think what he's saying is, preseason, people had us pegged at 7-8 wins (or fewer). We got that, even while being decimated by injuries. So, it's reasonable to expect that without losing 80% of our offense, that we could have realistically seen 10 or better wins.

My biggest disappointment is the DL. There has been a combination of salary, experience, FAs, and draft picks invested into a unit that has sucked year over year.

No, I'm not in favor of bringing Wake back. It's time to move on...

"pumpdogs wrote:

Eagles have 14 players on IR this year but they are now in divisional rd of playoffs.

Tell you what. We'll bet. Next year you get the most injured team and I will get the least injured team. Whoever has the better record wins. We wont know who our teams are until the regular season is over. You might get the patriots, I might get the Cardinals. Let's bet $100 every year and We'll see who makes some extra scratch

Additionally injured reserve is a bad metric to use. All players are assigned the same value. Is losing Falk the same as losing Albert Wilson? Also some teams use the IR to stash developmental prospects.

A better metric to use is Football Outsiders AGL (adjusted games lost). For one it also includes games lost during the season even if you didn't end up on IR. Lately Tunsil, Tannehill, etc. It weights starters and regular contributors and people who don't play at all. Falk would be a zero or close to it while Grant might get a plus one for being a steady contributor and Tannehill might get two because he's a starter. It's really the only metric to use to gauge injuries....not IR

"KeyFin wrote:

We will regret letting him go as NY becomes the next AFC East powerhouse. Just wait and see.

Just like all the players who left the Dolphins to go to the Patriots were supposed to become all-pro's right? Stop it with this already. LOL

The problem with slating all the problems onto the OL injuries is that Gade has had 3 years to draft/sign players and 3 years of tdaining camp to get the backups into a position where they weren’t an outright liability. If Gase thinks he can get by with all 5 starting OL being healthy all season then I have a bridge or two I want to sell him. If he thinks there is a chance that he will have injuries then getting backups who are not complete turnstiles is a pretty high priority. Especially when your QB1 has shown he dramatically reduces in efficiency with an unpredictable OL performance.

If we look back at The Purge, Turner has become a solid NFL starter for the Broncos yet Douglas and Thomas never played another NFL snap. That shows Gase and his minions were wrong about all 3. Douglas and Thomas should have been cut before 2016 and if we had a quality OL coach Turner would be contributing for us.

Gase has shown that he prepared the first team very well. The fact that backups generally performed horribly, with the exceptions of RB, is a sign of bad coaching.

"adamprez2003 wrote:

Tell you what. We'll bet. Next year you get the most injured team and I will get the least injured team. Whoever has the better record wins. We wont know who our teams are until the regular season is over. You might get the patriots, I might get the Cardinals. Let's bet $100 every year and We'll see who makes some extra scratch

Additionally injured reserve is a bad metric to use. All players are assigned the same value. Is losing Falk the same as losing Albert Wilson? Also some teams use the IR to stash developmental prospects.

A better metric to use is Football Outsiders AGL (adjusted games lost). For one it also includes games lost during the season even if you didn't end up on IR. Lately Tunsil, Tannehill, etc. It weights starters and regular contributors and people who don't play at all. Falk would be a zero or close to it while Grant might get a plus one for being a steady contributor and Tannehill might get two because he's a starter. It's really the only metric to use to gauge injuries....not IR

My point is eagles coach got hired same year as pederson and obviously had the same amount time to help built and coach up team.One guy has team that folded with the same amount of injuries and one guy led his team to divisional rd.
(Not to mention are coach had a coke head assitiant,a player go missing,a player who quit in middle of game,and numerous players he ran out of town to appease his inflated ego).

"adamprez2003 wrote:

Tell you what. We'll bet. Next year you get the most injured team and I will get the least injured team. Whoever has the better record wins. We wont know who our teams are until the regular season is over. You might get the patriots, I might get the Cardinals. Let's bet $100 every year and We'll see who makes some extra scratch

Additionally injured reserve is a bad metric to use. All players are assigned the same value. Is losing Falk the same as losing Albert Wilson? Also some teams use the IR to stash developmental prospects.

A better metric to use is Football Outsiders AGL (adjusted games lost). For one it also includes games lost during the season even if you didn't end up on IR. Lately Tunsil, Tannehill, etc. It weights starters and regular contributors and people who don't play at all. Falk would be a zero or close to it while Grant might get a plus one for being a steady contributor and Tannehill might get two because he's a starter. It's really the only metric to use to gauge injuries....not IR

I just compared apples to apples.Both 3 year coaches in the 3rd year with the same amount of injuries.One team overcame them and one failed.Maybe if he didn't put an unqualified LB coach in charge of the defence or count on an 35 year old rb to lead the rushing attack things could have been different.I love gore but was stupidity to make him the workhorse at 35.He should have been short yardage and the goaline back at this point in his career.
If you want to defend a coach that for one thought he could make a star out of an average qb,could not see he had a coke head for a coach,had a player go missing in action,run good players out of town,a star player quit on the team in the middle of a game,and had the team quit on him at the end of the season.If so I don't know what to tell you.This guy reminds me of mangini with a huge ego but has nothing to show for it except nice ride on peyton mannings coattails.

"Rock Sexton wrote:

Just like all the players who left the Dolphins to go to the Patriots were supposed to become all-pro's right? Stop it with this already. LOL

Yeah, you're right. For now on guys, let's only talk about Rock's opinions since we're all unqualified to have original thoughts. In fact, why don't we shut down the forum and just turn this into a video blog where he can tell us what to believe...maybe he can lead the Fins to greatness with his infinite wisdom.

"Rock Sexton wrote:

Just like all the players who left the Dolphins to go to the Patriots were supposed to become all-pro's right? Stop it with this already. LOL

What does one have to do with the other?