Screwed AGAIN By ESPN

"Rickysabeast wrote:

Maybe you're a different type of fan than I am. If you are that's totally cool. I'm a never stop, the phins are the best team ever every year and get heated and come to blows when anyone says anything bad about them or doesn't beat me to saying that they are awesome and the golden example of everything good. I know it's an irrational way of being but it's my passion to be a Phins fan. Anyone that doesn't think the Phins are doing well is flat out wrong and if I had my druthers, I'd set them on fire and put them out with Kathy Griffith wrapped around that sledge hammer you use to hit the thing at the fair that makes the thing go way up in the air run by the carnie that keeps checking out my wife's behind while ridiculing me so I can get that pink unicorn she wants. Luckily I don't have my druthers and can't find them.

Yeah, we're different types of fans. I try not to feel too invested where my day is ruined when we lose. I try not to rage over off-season moves I don't like. I realize I have zero control over those types of things.

I like to sit here like you guys and wonder how to assess and improve the team, but that's it. I want them to succeed but all I can do is contribute money. I don't make excuses for or defend the franchise, I don't hate on other teams or fans, none of that. At the end of the day it's just a game and it's not worth affecting your personal life.

Not that you check off all of those boxes, I'm sure you get that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"finsfandan wrote:

Yeah, we're different types of fans. I try not to feel too invested where my day is ruined when we lose. I try not to rage over off-season moves I don't like. I realize I have zero control over those types of things.

I like to sit here like you guys and wonder how to assess and improve the team, but that's it. I want them to succeed but all I can do is contribute money. I don't make excuses for or defend the franchise, I don't hate on other teams or fans, none of that. At the end of the day it's just a game and it's not worth affecting your personal life.

Not that you check off all of those boxes, I'm sure you get that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Totally get you. Phins are my passion purge valve. Always been like this about them. My ways not right it's just mine. White flag of truce extended.

Who cares what ESPN thinks? There's a good reason they have had to lay off so many personalities. They have become more of a reality show that talks about sports than any source of credible sports journalism.

Maybe it's because James Walker is the ESPN guy covering us. If they rely on him for their info they sure wont get much.
He never offers any substantive info, just seems to regurgitate basic info that can be garnered from the local papers.

"Rickysabeast wrote:

Totally get you. Phins are my passion purge valve. Always been like this about them. My ways not right it's just mine. White flag of truce extended.

I used to be that guy. Losses use to ruin me and I wouldn't even watch espn or nfln until Wednesday. 2007 broke me. Cheering Cam Camarillo against the Ravens like it was our super bowl. Cheering Plaxico Burress against the Pats like my son just hit a grand slam in the MLB World Series game 7.

That's what I became?

Yeah I've backed off of that. I still watch every game but I'm not as emotionally invested to that point anymore. It was an obsession. Now it's a hobby.

"jdang307 wrote:

I used to be that guy. Losses use to ruin me and I wouldn't even watch espn or nfln until Wednesday. 2007 broke me. Cheering Cam Camarillo against the Ravens like it was our super bowl. Cheering Plaxico Burress against the Pats like my son just hit a grand slam in the MLB World Series game 7.

That's what I became?

Yeah I've backed off of that. I still watch every game but I'm not as emotionally invested to that point anymore. It was an obsession. Now it's a hobby.

I was at the same point but now w're again winning more often than we're losing. As we win more often, I'll only get worse.

their copying Vegas.

Totally agree. The schedule is always hard, until its not. Or easy until its difficult. Every team is going to be tough...so are we. I think we'll find a way to win 10 games.

"Rickysabeast wrote:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/19504913/fpi-makes-predictions-2017-nfl-season

All right this is getting to be straight up bull sheet. I'm SOOOOOOOOO tired of the media dissing us. They have us at 7-9 and being the 11th ranked AFC team. So the only teams in the AFC they think are worse than us are Texans Bills Jaguars Jets and Browns. I mean how is it not evident that we are better than the team that went 10-6 last year and went to the playoffs? If it isn't evident, how do we not get credit for being able to at least accomplish the same record as last year in our second year with Gase which should at least negate the tougher schedule.

I mean I just don't get how we get straight up cooter hole raped by the media regardless how good we are.

I have heard that teams sometimes take a little step back in year 2 for a coach and I actually expect us to be in that 7-9 win range. But I also think we will be in that 9-11 win range for quite a while after that.
First thing I noticed was that they only have the Bills playing 15.9 games this year, with 6.8 wins and 9.1 losses. I sometimes enjoy looking at rankings but it's all just in fun. You have to remember that pretty much anything you read by sports "journalists" is probably just thrown together to make a deadline and get some clicks. Even the "analysts" on TV who we tend to look at as authorities because somebody put them on TV are not always as informed (or connected I would guess) as we are supposed to think. Some sports writers do know a lot and are good at it, but I would say more of them are just people who happen to enjoy sports and use their lower end writing / analytical skills to make a living. So if you disagree, don't take them too seriously. They probably don't know as much about the Dolphins as you do. They have to try to follow all 32 teams, which explains the lack of depth in most of their coverage.

I don't believe in the 2nd year coach regression theory.

"djphinfan wrote:

I don't believe in the 2nd year coach regression theory.

I agree in general but disagree in this particular case with Gase. Why? Because it's damn tough to get 10+ wins in any season. Looking at things historically, other than John Madden who had an insane winning percentage of 75.9%, only one other long-tenured coach that coached only during the SB era (1966- ) has a winning percentage above 70% (George Allen at 71.2%). Next best is John Harbaugh at 69.5% but he only coached 64 games.

Point is.. 70% of 16 games is basically 11 wins. Even the great Don Shula had a 67.7% winning percentage which translates to 10.8 wins, so expecting anyone to consistently have 10+ wins in a season is TOUGH.

So don't be surprised if there's regression from a 10 win season.

Also note that while it's true that the great majority of HoF or potential HoF coaches did MUCH better their 2nd year, it's because they did so bad their first year (because they went to a bad team obviously). Here are some examples of number of extra wins in the 2nd year relative to 1st year:

Shula (+4)
Landry (+4)
Belichick (+1)
Schottenheimer (+4)
Noll: (+4)
Parcells (+6)
Gibbs (+0)
Dungy (+4)
Ditka (+5)
Lombardi (+1)
Walsh (+4)
Coughlin (+5)
etc...

Looks great until you realize the average number of wins in the 1st year for those coaches above is a pathetic 4.3 wins lol.

A rare example of a really good coach that did really well his 1st year is Cowher who had 11 wins his rookie year. His 2nd year: 9 wins. So don't be surprised if Gase doesn't get 10+ wins in any year. It's just difficult to do that in general.

"cbrad wrote:

I agree in general but disagree in this particular case with Gase. Why? Because it's damn tough to get 10+ wins in any season. Looking at things historically, other than John Madden who had an insane winning percentage of 75.9%, only one other long-tenured coach that coached only during the SB era (1966- ) has a winning percentage above 70% (George Allen at 71.2%). Next best is John Harbaugh at 69.5% but he only coached 64 games.

Point is.. 70% of 16 games is basically 11 wins. Even the great Don Shula had a 67.7% winning percentage which translates to 10.8 wins, so expecting anyone to consistently have 10+ wins in a season is TOUGH.

So don't be surprised if there's regression from a 10 win season.

Also note that while it's true that the great majority of HoF or potential HoF coaches did MUCH better their 2nd year, it's because they did so bad their first year (because they went to a bad team obviously). Here are some examples of number of extra wins in the 2nd year relative to 1st year:

Shula (+4)
Landry (+4)
Belichick (+1)
Schottenheimer (+4)
Noll: (+4)
Parcells (+6)
Gibbs (+0)
Dungy (+4)
Ditka (+5)
Lombardi (+1)
Walsh (+4)
Coughlin (+5)
etc...

Looks great until you realize the average number of wins in the 1st year for those coaches above is a pathetic 4.3 wins lol.

A rare example of a really good coach that did really well his 1st year is Cowher who had 11 wins his rookie year. His 2nd year: 9 wins. So don't be surprised if Gase doesn't get 10+ wins in any year. It's just difficult to do that in general.

Sounds like there are factors in play that are hard to pinpoint as to why things fluctuate..like the meaning of entitlement as it pertains to the mindset of a team after success..

Maybe it's the homer in me talking but This dude seems to really know how to get the best out of his players..

Three keys to success..accumulating talent, motivating talent..scheming talent correctly..

I think he's got the last two handled..I think we've done a good job this offseason accumulating talent.

I see 10 wins, I see a strong start to the season..I think we can get to 10 this season..it should be the goal every year..10 wins.

The Dolphins were not screwed. They were disrespected. This report does not hurt the Dolphins in the slightest.

I don't understand why people put so much stock in rankings during the off season. It's baseless!
Where did anyone here have us ranked this time last year and how close were you to the mark??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Superself wrote:

I don't understand why people put so much stock in rankings during the off season. It's baseless!
Where did anyone here have us ranked this time last year and how close were you to the mark??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Amen

Expecting ESPN to show the Miami Dolphins respect is kinda like going to Walt Disney World and expecting to be able to go to the front of the line on every ride in the Magic Kingdom...it ain't gonna happen and if anyone is really that wrapped around the axle about their opinion, you really need to get a life.

I've repeatedly expressed my concern over the Dolphins first 5 games due to the schedule and the travel involved. We could really be upside down on the .500 scale and have a hole to dig out of, but that certainly doesn't mean we're not a better team than last year.

I'm kinda like Jarvis Landry when it comes to this sort of thing. Where was he ranked last year in the NFL's top 100? What did he do with that? The entire team needs to do the same thing in this regard. Use this as motivation to show ESPN and the rest of these so called sports reporters they have no idea what in the hell they're talking about.

"slickj101 wrote:

What makes the Texans so bad ? Lol because they traded Osweiler?

"cbrad wrote:

I agree in general but disagree in this particular case with Gase. Why? Because it's damn tough to get 10+ wins in any season. Looking at things historically, other than John Madden who had an insane winning percentage of 75.9%, only one other long-tenured coach that coached only during the SB era (1966- ) has a winning percentage above 70% (George Allen at 71.2%). Next best is John Harbaugh at 69.5% but he only coached 64 games.

Point is.. 70% of 16 games is basically 11 wins. Even the great Don Shula had a 67.7% winning percentage which translates to 10.8 wins, so expecting anyone to consistently have 10+ wins in a season is TOUGH.

So don't be surprised if there's regression from a 10 win season.

Also note that while it's true that the great majority of HoF or potential HoF coaches did MUCH better their 2nd year, it's because they did so bad their first year (because they went to a bad team obviously). Here are some examples of number of extra wins in the 2nd year relative to 1st year:

Shula (+4)
Landry (+4)
Belichick (+1)
Schottenheimer (+4)
Noll: (+4)
Parcells (+6)
Gibbs (+0)
Dungy (+4)
Ditka (+5)
Lombardi (+1)
Walsh (+4)
Coughlin (+5)
etc...

Looks great until you realize the average number of wins in the 1st year for those coaches above is a pathetic 4.3 wins lol.

A rare example of a really good coach that did really well his 1st year is Cowher who had 11 wins his rookie year. His 2nd year: 9 wins. So don't be surprised if Gase doesn't get 10+ wins in any year. It's just difficult to do that in general.

'60 - '77 there were only 14 games in the regular season. Something to keep in mind for the older coaches listed.

"Rickysabeast wrote:

'60 - '77 there were only 14 games in the regular season. Something to keep in mind for the older coaches listed.

Yup.. but let's be precise here.

The number of games in a season doesn't have any influence on win percentage over a career, so the difficulty of winning 10+ games in a 16 game season argument doesn't need to be modified.

But you're right about the difficulty of improving by say +4 wins from season 1 to season 2 being different in a 14-game season than in a 16-game season.

For those interested in the math, you can use the binomial theorem to calculate the probability of getting X wins in N games for any given win%. You have to use the binomial theorem for every possible value of X (0 wins to 10 wins for a 14-game season, and 0 wins to 12 wins for a 16-game season), calculate the probability of first having X wins, then X+4 wins (so you multiply those probabilities) and then sum over all possible values of X.

You get different results for different win%, but if win% is like with Don Shula at 67.7% you can calculate that the probability of increasing win totals by 4 from one season to the next is 4.42% if you have a 14-game season while it's 4.86% for a 16-game season.

So for Don Shula it was 9% harder to increase his win totals by +4 than if he had to do it during a 16-game season.