The concept is sound, but there has to be some balance in the equation. If you support a quarterback who is perceived by his teammates to be inadequate, you lose your locker room.

You have to be ready and willing to relinquish that support in the name of the team if and when it becomes prudent to do so.

 

Supporting a player does not mean he necessarily gets a starting position or wven a roster spot.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

Indeed. Joe Philbin supported Eric Steinbach by not allowing him to play and put his poor performance on tape for other teams to see during the preseason one year.

 

Agreed, but I think the perception that Tannehill is viewed by most in the locker room as a subpar QB is not correct. It's agenda-driven BS spewed by Omar Kelly and Miko Grimes. While I don't expect everyone in that locker room to love Tannehill as a QB, they are not about to cause a mutiny because of the HC rightfully standing behind his QB. Now, if it gets to the point where Tannehill is clearly playing worse than who ever the 2nd string QB is, then yeah, the HC needs to think about whether he selected the right QB to be the starter, just like any other position on the team.

 

Really liked this, btw.

 

I have no idea how Tannehill is viewed in the locker room. I was merely pointing out a concept relevant to the issue of supporting a player.

 

The rest of my comment wasn't directed at you, just speaking in general.

 

"not about imposing any system on his players, but about assessing his players and figuring out what they can do and what they can’t do before figuring out what the Dolphins should and should not do"
This is what I keep reading about Gase and why I have hope. Other coaches kept talking about players learning "the system" after they got hired. Two years from now they may still be a mess, but at least it's going to be a different kind of mess.

 

I hope we bring in legit competition for Tannehill. Phin fans act like Tannehill is a proven winner or a proven stat hog and that he is above competition. He is neither a winner or a stat sheet stuffer, he is mediocre to date. Bring in competition for this loser of a QB.

 

None of it ****ing matters until this oline gets better.

 

That's the thing. Tannehill has dealt with a terrible oline since day one. Despite that, he's progressed pretty well. There is literally no way of knowing what he's truly capable of until you give him at least an average oline. Give him a little protection, and maybe a defense that doesn't routinely give up 30 points.

Until he has that, how can anyone say that he is mediocre or less?

 

Any QB is legit competition for this mediocre QB. Only players that should be guaranteed a job are Jarvis, Reshad, Suh and Parker, everybody else should be held to an open competition.

As for your question, there is lots of routes we can take for competition for Tannehill, i mean, he really isnt that good so it shouldnt be tough to find legit competition.

 

Anything less than a first ballot HOFer isn't good enough for some people, circumstances be damned. I love Ryan, and I think that the current coaching staff is going to get the best out of the whole offense.

 

Hi Speed, how ya been buddy?

 

What Gace said is Nonsense. Taylor the offense to what his players are capable of. They are professional atheletes. Anyone who buys that Malarky has never coached or thinks it sounds good because they want to win. Well sadly there is not a person on this board who doesn't want to win.

So before I get hammered in the next several responses, if you think what he is saying holds substance - tell me what he has done to "mold" his offenses around his players in the past???

 

"Omaha" was all him.

 

lmao

 

I can't comment on what Gase has done, but there are coaches that definitely do tailor their offense to the players they have. What do you think Don Shula did with Marino? He didn't impose on Marino the run-first offense the Dolphins (under Shula) had when they won their Super Bowls. No, he tailored the offense to Marino because Shula was smart enough to realize what a rare talent he had at QB. And you could say his son Mike has finally started to design in plays for Cam instead of just letting Cam be Cam in an unplanned way.

So yes some coaches will drastically change their system to fit certain players, and yes it's refreshing to hear Gase say that after our experience with Philbin (doesn't mean Gase will succeed, but I like the approach/attitude).

 

Shula never tailored his offense to Marino he simply threw the ball because it was Dan Marino. Gace statement he was going to tailor his offense to his players abilities is in it self a statement for the media. You guys have bought it hook line and sinker.

Again. Please show me 1 thing that Gace did anywhere he has been to "Tailor" his offense to the people they have. There X's and O's on paper the athletes either have the ability to execute them or they don't.

So Far we have Omaha which made me laugh. That was a great post

 

Totally disagree on that.

Totally agree on that.

 

Professional coach are ya?

 

Good thing we have you to set us straight.

 

Legit question

Pathetic answer.

Yup, Trav... you should have known better bro..

:up:

 

Gase...

G
A
S
E

Gase...
:pity:

 

Bold: In that very interview Gase talked about the offense they designed with Tim Tebow so that he could play to his strengths and then goes on to talk about seeing what Cutler did well and doing doing more of that in their offense.

Underlined: Basically you're saying all players are equal in terms of strengths and weaknesses?

Sorry, I completely disagree with that and if Philbin and co wasn't enough to show you that fitting square pegs in round holes don't work in football then I don't know what else to say.

 

This ^ sentence, is incredible.

- He never cooked dinner, he just applied heat to food and ate it in the evening.
- He never argued online, he just countered other people's points on the internet.
- He never went grocery shopping, he just made a list of things he needed from the store, went to the store and bought the stuff on the list that he needed.

 

Omar's cousin.

 

2 socks is right, Shula never did "tailor the offense" to a passing offense, he just passed the ball out of that same old proset running formation for years, they were doing route trees down in Houston, they were doing west coast offenses more and more throughout the league and we were still running that stupid proset offense, and Shula was still drafting smart, slow players.

 

Both ways can work. Belichick is the master at exploiting his opposition week to week and Pete Carroll's system is obviously very effective (and when both systems collide you get very entertaining matchups). What do both head coaches have in common though? An elite QB at the helm.

Ironically, the guy Gase credits with teaching him to be an exploitative type is McDaniels, who was a pretty lousy head coach obviously. He "learned" that you need to support your starting QB but none of his head coaches actually did that.

 

There's more to an offense than a formation. Play-calling is a huge part of what constitutes an offense. There's no question the play-calling changed after Shula had Marino and the Marks brothers. We went from run-first to pass-first. I mean you could expect a Marino-led Dolphins to pass on 3rd and 1, unheard of when we had Csonka, Morris and Kiick.

As far as the formation is concerned, it didn't change because it didn't have to. Marino was a fantastic pocket passer with great vision, quick release and impeccable timing on his deep balls to the point that he could release those balls well before most QB's would and still hit the WR in stride. We had 2 very fast WR's in Duper and Clayton. Shula recognized this particular asset and decided our offense would be built around passing and the thread of the deep ball. For a pocket passer like Marino the formation we had didn't have to be changed.

Anyway, point is that while QB's like Marino will elevate any offense, many coaches will make few modifications to the system to accommodate them. I guarantee you Philbin, even with Duper and Clayton, would still use the same offense he was used to and not focus on taking advantage of their speed like Shula did. Why you ask? Because people like to stick with things they are familiar and comfortable with. For some it's the system, for others it's identifying what people are good at and just letting them do what they are good at, and that's the kind of coach Shula was.

 

you disagree but provide no legitimate facts to support your conclusion.

I design plays all the time. They are not based on my players abilities. They can either execute or they cant. Plays are designed based on moving people around and creating defensive weakness'. You either understand that philosophy or you don't. If you don't understand you will fail as an offensive coordinator. Example: you run a jet sweep 4 times to the right, eventually safties, corners and Lb's will abandon their responsibilities in order to stop the sweep. On the 5th time you run the sweep you sneak out the tight end down the seem and have the RB pull up and throw. That is scheme not fitting the offense to the players abilities.

Give me an example of how one fits the plays to the players strengths. It is an empty statement. I don't dislike Gace. I hope he does well. I think we maybe will be a better team then with Philbin. How much better I am not sure. But making statements like that when I know better doesn't earn any respect. SHOW ME

 

Has nothing to do with what we are talking about. If Shula "Tailored" his plays to Marino show me where. He threw the ball, because Marino was the best ever at executing the x's and o's in the passing game.

Show us one thing Gace did anywhere he has been where he "Tailored" his offense to the players strengths. As I stated before, The plays are x's and o's . These athletes either are able to execute them or they fail. It's media speak that sounds good unless you know better

 

So you design plays for your players, with no regard for whether or not your players can execute the plays? Do you keep calling the plays that they can't execute? Do you try to figure out why they can execute certain plays, but not others?

Simple example: you have great tackles, and a running back who is blazing fast, and to light to go up the middle. Do you call more of tackle plays and tosses, or so you continue to try to ran dives and draws up the middle?

 

you design the plays to take advantage of the defenses weakness'. You run routes to move safties and get double coverage high then come underneath with the tight end or back. You create match ups that put the defense at a disadvantage. Yes I will run the ball everywhere regardless of the outcome. Otherwise, they are not kept honest.

But that is the difference in some of my play designs. Mine are designed to run 4 times the same way. As soon as I "train "the defense to react the way I want them to I hit them up side the head when they least expect it by pulling up the running back and throwing to the open receiver who now is behind the defenders. Works like a charm.

Certain plays are also designed and are no gainers. Just to get a peak at what the defense will do given a certain set of circumstances. For example lining up 4 receivers to the same side. If the defense lines up both their safeties and corners on one side of the ball you better believe I will naked boot to the weak side for a good size chunk on yardage. Or I will have my QB throw to the receiver who is covered by a linebacker. It varies given the film

 

Right.. there are many coaches that think this way and many are successful (and many are not of course). But you can't deny that some coaches have altered the types of routes run, plays called, etc.. depending on the types of players they have. Shula really is a great example. Not saying it can't be done your way, in fact I think that's the way most coaches do it. But there are definitely coaches that adjust the plays to player strengths, which is all we're saying.

 

Wait....what do you two think tailoring an offense means? Do you guys think it really means creating an entirely new playbook from scratch?

 

The thing about this "tailoring what you're doing to your players" thing is that there's likely a range of that in which success is more probable, and outside that range it becomes less probable.

An extreme (and unrealistic) example illustrates the point: imagine if your talent was on the level of the average high-schooler. Obviously then, "tailoring what you're doing to your talent" makes you less competitive, not more, in that you'd now be running a high school offense in the NFL.

This could in fact be why some QBs appear to succeed for brief periods, when they get coaches who tailor things to their strengths, and then go downhill when the league gets tape on them and exploits the fact that the system around the QB is limited to the QB's strengths, rather than being flexible and less limited like it would be with a better QB, owing to that QB's greater capabilities.

Matt Schaub, Josh Freeman, Colin Kaepernick, etc. There is some reason why QBs like these "flash" for a year or two and then appear "solved," and why other QBs (Rodgers, Brady, Manning, Brees, etc.) remain stellar year after year, even with variations in their systems.

So Gase might come in here and make good adjustments to the scheme, tailored around Tannehill's strengths and weaknesses, but we'll have to see if that keeps the team competitive.

 

this seems like a bizarre debate...

coordinators study what qb does well and what he doesn't, coordinator calls and designs plays that cater to the strengths of the qb..if different qb comes in, change the plays to fit qbs skill set..

kinda like what game and mccoy did in denver.