I don't see him with a 90+ rating...YET. Not this year. I just think the Mike Wallace thing is going to take a little time before it really takes root...and I don't think Tannehill is going to appreciate the pressure that's coming off his blind side this season.
It sounds like it. I'm just not sure how you're going from A to B on me saying addressing the half-empty and half-full case for the team, and that implying that I'm "rolling my eyes" and referring to everyone that thinks differently as idiots. The a-hole you're imagining is a voice in your head that you're attributing to me. It's not me.
Exactly. Appreciating what Evans brought to the table in that interview (I really can't speak to other interviews because I never saw them) has nothing to do with Jeff Ireland. Really absolutely nothing. Jesse Agler praises Jeff Ireland all the time and and I was equally praising Agler's interviewing/argument skills.
Nor do I. But honestly, I don't think he has to for us to achieve a winning season. I think if he falls within the middle of the pack in QB rating, around 86, we'll be close to a playoff team. Maybe 10 wins. I think Ireland built the roster well enough to where average QB play can lead to a winning season/playoff season. I'm not sure If Tannehill will be a middle of the pack QB, though.
I don't share that opinion. I think this is a team built to lean on the passing game. I like Lamar Miller but I'm concerned with the hits to the run blocking that have occurred this off season between swapping out Jake Long for Tyson Clabo and Anthony Fasano for Dustin Keller, now possibly Lance Louis for John Jerry. Easy to dismiss those things but now between those factors and the continued presence of Jon Martin, potentially 4 out of the 7 guys that create the run blocking are not guys I think are any good at it. And that's assuming A) Vonta Leach is signed, and/or B) Dion Sims is all he's cracked up to be as a blocker. We could just as easily be staring at Jorvorskie Lane still at fullback and a ROOKIE Dion Sims that isn't quite the plus blocker that he will be once he's developed some more...and voila you've got 5 out of 7 run blockers that really kind of suck at it. Good luck finding running room. And on defense like I said it boils down to this...can Miami A) stop the run with their nickel package, B) stop the play-action deep passes on the outside from the base package, and C) stop the short passes over the middle with their linebackers in coverage? Not quite sure they can do those things and if it's enough to give Miami more of a top 10 defense than a top 5 defense, that's going to take away from their win potential. And that's why I see about 8 wins.
Considering he played in the 70s and we were missed FGs away from having a winning season, I'd say that is right.
We weren't a very good running team last year, yet still managed to win 7 games with a poorly rated QB. I don't see how we'll win just one more game if Tannehill really does step up to a middle tier QB. I know you think the running game could be worse than last season, but I think the improvement of Tannehill will more than make up for it and lead to more than one win. As for defense, I share the same worries as A and C. I think we're a disciplined enough defense to not let the deep ball beat us off play-action. Still, last season we still won 7 games with a defense ranked out of the top 5. I'm not trying to pester you here with this but I don't think those concerns will matter if Tannehill is projected out to be a middle tier QB, which is what I believe you see him as. That's the reason I don't understand the 8 win projection.
I think you're overlooking the toughness of our schedule, Saints, Bucs, Falcons, Ravens, Bengals, Steelers, Colts, Carolina (they should be improved) Pats twice...that's 9-10 tough games
How many Saints, Bucs, Falcons, Ravens, Bengals, Steelers, Colts, Carolina (they should be improved) Pats games have you watched recently?
Seattle and San Fran didn't bother cracking .500 first, neither did Indy, Minnesota or Washington. I'm not going to write a 10 thousand word essay about why I think the team will be MUCH improved. Training camp is right around and the corner and all of last years games, coaches film included, is available for anyone who wants to see it. I remember last year around this time Miami was supposedly the worst team in the league, fire Ireland, blah blah blah, I'm sure you remember. This season seems to be a slightly milder version of that. No worries though, the most fashionable people are always late to the party .
got me confused with someone else... was solidly, even belligerently ani-Henne & Sparano from the get-go... the only season I hyped (different from hoped ) was when Pennington came aboard & he proved me right... when you assume, well you know how it goes
Not to mention people can pick ANY team apart in the NFL to make it say whatever they want it to say. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
You mean all the Jeff Ireland fans? Those people? Everyone claiming this team is guaranteed to win 10+ games are mostly the same people that were calling to fire the GM that built this team. Sent from my HTC One GE using Tapatalk 4 Beta
I never guaranteed 10 wins, I said it was a reasonable expectation based on how the team looks on paper and the schedule. I'm also a charter member of the Ireland support group, check the Fireland threads.
Supporting Ireland since last year does not constitute a charter member, but that's not really a big deal. The point here is that I don't see how 10 wins could be reasonable, but 8 wins isn't??? Sent from my HTC One GE using Tapatalk 4 Beta
If the prevailing prediction of the team's record is X, and a person/people ALWAYS predict <X wins and they very often blast most of the moves, then I think its fair to think them pessimists/haters. I'm not sure why you'd take each instance as a unique event while pretending that's all that exists.
Prevailing prediction for this team is 8 wins. That's what Vegas has them at I believe. Sent from my HTC One GE using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Perhaps this is the homer in me, but one of the most exciting parts of this season is that it feels like our floor is higher than normal. I agree with the 8-8 predictions, but feel like there is a much better chance we go 10-6 than 6-10 just based on how many positions were upgraded from a 7-9 team vs those that were downgraded. I also think the AFC East being so bad helps tremendously. You can not feel great about the Dolphins this season, but still feel there are a lot of wins to be had just based on the competition. It seems to all come down to the offensive line and Tannehill's progression. But those are obviously big question marks.
Slightly increased efficiency in the passing game, decreased efficiency in the run game, an unforgiving schedule plus the problems I talked about on defense (including the deep ball concern we disagree about, testing Chris Clemons and Richard Marshall deep) and you don't know how I only go from 7 wins in 2012 to 8 wins in 2013? Really?
Sort of like how the prevailing prediction a year ago (viz a viz Las Vegas over/under) was 7 wins and sure enough my season prediction came in at 7 wins. Sooo, there goes THAT theory.
I was talking about this board, not Vegas. Like I said, I was blasted as a homer last year for picking 8-8.
I could be mistaken in my recollection but I think the last time the Dolphins' season results strongly differed from my preseason prediction was 2010 and that was a miss on the high side, Dolphins coming in at only 7-9 whereas I believe I expected a winning record. In 2011 my season prediction was 6-10 and and in 2012 my final prediction was 7-9. And now this year I have them at 8-8 and lo and behold, Vegas has the same thing. Accuracy being mistaken for pessimism?
8 wins is pretty much what the team did last year, minus a couple FGs. That was with a rookie HC, DC and QB, one of the worst WR units in the league and after Week 2 one of the weaker CB units in the league as well. 8-8 in 2013 implies that half of the teams on the schedule are better than we are and while I completely disagree with it I don't find it unreasonable. What I view as hating is the nitpicking of Miami's roster, in a vacuum, as the basis for an objective prediction on how well the team will do. It's not objective at all, and it's also somewhat irrelevant. An objective analysis takes into account the strengths and weaknesses other teams as well, the teams on Miami's schedule specifically. I don't think anyone would argue that Miami has had a net gain in talent between 2012 and 2013, probably one of the higher net gains in the league. It's also fair to say that Miami has more arrow up players than most other teams, Tannehill chief among them. Virtually the entire roster is either in it's prime or heading towards it's prime. Miami is one of the youngest teams in the league yet there's not a single rookie slated to start this year and Lamar Miller is the only player slated to be a first time starter. The weaknesses that plagued the team last year, mainly at WR and CB, have been addressed. Not with rookies, old guys or unproven players but proven commodities. The lone exception would be Martin replacing Long at LT. Objectively, if you're looking for a team that is poised to make a significant leap Miami fits the bill on just about every metric. More overall talent. The QB, HC and DC all with a year under their belt, the team with a year under the new coaching staff and better adjusted to the new system. A roster full of young/developing players and devoid of past their prime/oft injured players. All that is worth the same as Dan Carpenter hitting an extra FG? Not in my book.
An interesting way of looking at things, to continue claiming that Miami was a few missed field goals away from being better than 7-9, while choosing not to recognize that Miami was a few made field goals away from being even worse than 7-9. Interesting especially as it relates to this discussion of objectivity. Dan Carpenter missed a 48 yard field goal attempt in overtime against the Jets. Is that really strange or uncommon? Not really. He also made a 41 yard field goal in a very clutch situation (21 seconds left in the 4th quarter, down 20-17) in order to get his team into that overtime period. And he made another clutch kick at 43 yards with 4 seconds left against the Seahawks to get the Dolphin the W in that game as well. Mike Nugent missed a 41 yard field goal against the Dolphins as the Bengals attempted to come back on the Dolphins. If he'd made that, would that have helped the Bengals win? We don't know. Blaming missed field goals has never seemed like a strong argument to me. People tend to see the misses and not the makes, and they tend to forget about opponent misses. Not to mention there really isn't much reason to believe Miami will have markedly better field goal accuracy in 2013 than they did in 2012.
Completely agree when it comes to adding specific wins to last year's record. But there is some takeaways from looking at how close those games were in the sense that the team won 7 games and was in position to win a few more. That can lend to some additional optimism - as it isn't like they lucked into 7 wins but were blown out in most others. You can argue they should've won a few more or lost a few more, but football is a lot of luck, and them being competitive in so many games is a good sign.
Carpenter missed a FG vs NY that would have won the game in regulation in addition to the OT miss. He also missed a FG in Arizona on the first drive of the 3rd quarter that would have given Miami a 16-0 lead. Instead AZ got the ball around the 40 and promptly scored a TD to make it 13-7. Young Jeezy missed 3 FGs that led to the win over St Louis. Since we're being objective...
As opposed to Indy who went 9-1 in games decided by 7 points or less. I'm willing to bet that's never happened in the history of the league.
Yeah football is so much harder to analyze those types of outliers. In basketball and baseball it is much easier to evaluate percentages (shots / at bats) and determine if there is such thing as "clutch" (and I believe for the most part it has been decided that there isn't really such thing as being "clutch.") In football there just isn't a base stat to look at - but with so many random variables I would think 9-1 in close games is still somewhat of an anomaly.
I get what you're saying and I understand but I think the objective view has to account for the close games you could have lost if things had gone a bit different, as well as the close games you could have won if things had gone a bit different. In this case, indeed Miami lost 4 games by less than a touchdown. But they also won 3 games by less than a touchdowns. That record in close games (0.429) approximates the record in the other games (0.444). Doesn't seem like there's a strong "luck" argument to be had either way.
But see, now we're stretching it to field goals at the beginning of the 3rd quarter? I mean what separates that play from, for example, an interception Ryan Tannehill threw in the 2nd quarter that we suddenly want to call uncharacteristic and therefore we discount it? This is why it doesn't make sense to me to focus on missed field goals in order to claim that the Dolphins were better than their record said last year.
I don't see any nitpicking. Whats being pointed out is that there is a high amount of turnover. You are relying on a number of major contributors that weren't with the team last year. That inherently is a risky proposition. Between Wallace, Keller, Clabo, and Grimes, history tells us that two of those guys will not perform up to expectation. I'll take the optimistic view that only one will not perform up to what I'm expecting. And while there are a lot of players that are expected to develop, that inherently entails the possibility of not developing. I love having a team that is young, but at the same time I'm willing to acknowledge the risks associated with that. I don't think there is anything non-objective about that. And yes, I agree that if you're looking for a team to make a leap, then Miami fits the bill. But that doesn't inspire much confidence is that happening, considering how things have happened historically.
You guys are overlooking a KEY stat. Forget tge fgs, Miami had one of the worst turnover ratios in the NFL and STILL managed 7 wins. Now they have: A qb who will be a year wiser. Added another fast passrusher Picked up CB's & LB's who have playmaking ability. If we end up with even a -1 TR or better?? 10 wins. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
You're implying that turnover is a bad thing, I'll come back to that later though. There was a lot more turnover last season when a new QB, RT, RG, FB, WLB, DE, FS, and CB entered the starting lineup, not to mention a new HC, OC, DC and new systems on both sides of the ball. In spite of all of that the team won 7 games, more than they had the previous season. The level of turnover this season pales by comparison. What's non-objective is that you're saying that Wallace, Keller, Grimes, etc may not perform up to (whose?) expectations when that's not really the point. It's Wallace-Hartline-Gibson-Binns-Matthews-2nd year Tannehill vs. Hartline-Bess-Naannee-Armstrong-Gaffney-Rookie Tannehill etc. I don't want to hear about "turnover" when half the receivers we played last season weren't even on the team at this point and that Tannehill wasn't named the starter until well into training camp. Objectively, the offense should be more cohesive this year not less. Ditto at corner. You can talk turnover all you want but under what circumstances will Grimes-Marshall-Patterson-Taylor-Carroll-Davis NOT outperform Smith-Carroll-Wilson-McCann-Stanford? The only place where turnover is a factor is at LB. Dansby and Burnett were solid players and probably the tone setters on defense so it remains to be seen whether Ellerbe and Wheeler can replace them in terms of production as well as in the locker room. Not sure what you mean here, elaborate if at all possible.
No, I'm not implying its a bad thing. It just presents a risk-proposition. Just like first-round picks are great, but they fail at a 50% rate. There is an inherent risk involved. The circumstances where Brent Grimes isn't as explosive as we believe he will be. Or where Taylor turns out to be a bust. And it goes way beyond simply stating that there is more talent, therefore they will play better. I have no idea how anyone could predict how these guys will be in the locker room, either. Historically, teams' improvement on the field does not match what appears to be improvement on-paper. Teams often look great on paper, but fail on the field.
Jamar Taylor doesn't even need to be a bust to play worse than Nolan Carroll did a year ago, as a rookie.
Slightly increased efficiency? We're talking about him moving from one of the worst rated QBs to middle of the pack. The impact of that out weighs what could happen to the running game, IMO. Especially when you consider the fact that this team won 7 games with a below average running game YPA wise and a defense outside the top 5 last season.
