Ugh! Burrow going to be a stud!

"pumpdogs wrote:

I wasn't a Tua fan at all last year but I am praying I am wrong about him or this regime is done!

At least credit them for prioritizing the QB position and taking Tua instead of pulling a Jake Long or a Jamar Fletcher. Had we prioritized the QB situation earlier while Gase "a.k.a. the QB non-whisperer" was here and given up what we needed to find a great QB we would've lucked into either Mahomes or Watson in 2017 after Tannehill's injury. But no. So stupid really.

I hope Ross learned his lesson to trust his instincts regarding QB's over some coach that says they can make do without a very good one. Ross did want Jackson I remember. Just have to keep trying until you find a very good QB.

As far as Tua, we'll see but I think he's a keeper. I don't think he'll light the world on fire when he starts, but I do think we'll conclude that we don't have have to worry about the QB position anymore.

I was heavily in the Burrow camp as well since I actually watched college football last year. A lot of folks felt like he could be a one-year wonder, but Burrow said it himself that he simply got better his senior year and everything seemed to click. His awareness in that pocket is simply incredible and I think he has one heck of a career ahead of him.

I DESPERATELY wanted Burrow over Tua, but I think we got a pretty awesome QB as well. We were locked on Tua the entire season last year and Burrow simply didn't do enough to change our front office's minds...who knows if the 3-1st round pick offer actually happened or not to move up. I'm happy with Tua so far and I'll watch Burrow with admiration over the next decade...it will be really interesting 10 years from now to look back and compare their careers.

If I had to bet today, I'd say Burrow > Tua in long-term career stats. But I also think Tua got into a better organization and will have more chances to succeed, so who knows.

I didn't feel like Burrow looked special at all. Not into Tua either, though.

"cbrad wrote:

At least credit them for prioritizing the QB position and taking Tua instead of pulling a Jake Long or a Jamar Fletcher. Had we prioritized the QB situation earlier while Gase "a.k.a. the QB non-whisperer" was here and given up what we needed to find a great QB we would've lucked into either Mahomes or Watson in 2017 after Tannehill's injury. But no. So stupid really.

I hope Ross learned his lesson to trust his instincts regarding QB's over some coach that says they can make do without a very good one. Ross did want Jackson I remember. Just have to keep trying until you find a very good QB.

As far as Tua, we'll see but I think he's a keeper. I don't think he'll light the world on fire when he starts, but I do think we'll conclude that we don't have have to worry about the QB position anymore.

It truly astounds me some of the logic, or illogic I read on these boards. Does anyone here really truly believe that if the Dolphins got Mahomes or Watson with Gase as our head coach that we would have been a good team?

Our coaching staff has been so terrible since Shula's retirement that it wouldn't matter what quarterback we would have drafted. You're only as good as the leadership at the top, period. Look at Andy Reid for example...

QB coach and assistant head coach at Green Bay with Brett Favre.
Head coach at Philadelphia with Donovan McNabb
Head Coach at Kansas City with Alex Smith
Head Coach at Kansas City with Patrick Mahomes.

Coaching is the key...always has been, always will be. Who have we had?

Dave Wannstedt with Jay Fiedler
Nick Saban with Gus Freotte, Sage Rosenfels, Joey Harrington, Daunte Culpepper
Cam Cameron with John Beck, Cleo Lemon, Trent Green and the other carousel that season
Tony Sparono with Chad Pennington and Chad Henne
Joe Philbin and Adam Gase with Ryan Tannehill....who's gone on to success with Mike Vrabel
Now we have Brian Flores with Ryan Fitzpatrick and Tua in the wings.

The ONLY potential miss we truly had was Saban was our head coach and we passed on Brees for Culpepper...because that's who Saban wanted.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

It truly astounds me some of the logic, or illogic I read on these boards. Does anyone here really truly believe that if the Dolphins got Mahomes or Watson with Gase as our head coach that we would have been a good team?

Our coaching staff has been so terrible since Shula's retirement that it wouldn't matter what quarterback we would have drafted. You're only as good as the leadership at the top, period. Look at Andy Reid for example...

QB coach and assistant head coach at Green Bay with Brett Favre.
Head coach at Philadelphia with Donovan McNabb
Head Coach at Kansas City with Alex Smith
Head Coach at Kansas City with Patrick Mahomes.

Coaching is the key...always has been, always will be. Who have we had?

Dave Wannstedt with Jay Fiedler
Nick Saban with Gus Freotte, Sage Rosenfels, Joey Harrington, Daunte Culpepper
Cam Cameron with John Beck, Cleo Lemon, Trent Green and the other carousel that season
Tony Sparono with Chad Pennington and Chad Henne
Joe Philbin and Adam Gase with Ryan Tannehill....who's gone on to success with Mike Vrabel
Now we have Brian Flores with Ryan Fitzpatrick and Tua in the wings.

The ONLY potential miss we truly had was Saban was our head coach and we passed on Brees for Culpepper...because that's who Saban wanted.

It's also worth pointing out that Henne, Matt Moore and Tannehill went on to have pretty good careers elsewhere. I still think Gase got a bad rap with RT since the kid was injured both of his last seasons, but a big part of that was also how we were paper-thin at line and several starting linemen missed most of the season. RT stinks under pressure and Miami couldn't ever stop the pressure...so who's fault is that? I'd blame the front office 1st (recruiting/contracts), coaching 2nd and the QB himself 3rd.

"pumpdogs wrote:

Kills me watching Joe Burrow and yes I was one of the Bomb for Burrow guys!
Bengals are God awful but he is showing what he will become already!
I wasn't a Tua fan at all last year but I am praying I am wrong about him or this regime is done!

Meant to reply to your post first. I can't disagree with you more, particular the title of the thread. The Bengals are going to KILL Burrow. What idiot has a game plan that results in your rookie quarterback throw the ball 61 times a game, not to mention the 3 additional pass plays called that resulted in sacks and Burrow's 7 scrambles...that's 71 pass plays for a rookie quarterback. That's incredibly ***STUPID***

"KeyFin wrote:

It's also worth pointing out that Henne, Matt Moore and Tannehill went on to have pretty good careers elsewhere. I still think Gase got a bad rap with RT since the kid was injured both of his last seasons, but a big part of that was also how we were paper-thin at line and several starting linemen missed most of the season. RT stinks under pressure and Miami couldn't ever stop the pressure...so who's fault is that? I'd blame the front office 1st (recruiting/contracts), coaching 2nd and the QB himself 3rd.

I still blame Gase. Head Coaches are supposed to be able to adapt and if Gase was good head coach that got a bad rap in Miami, then what's his excuse in New York? He allegedly has a stud in Sam Darnold and thus far, Gase is just as huge of a flop in the Big Apple as he was in Miami

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

It truly astounds me some of the logic, or illogic I read on these boards. Does anyone here really truly believe that if the Dolphins got Mahomes or Watson with Gase as our head coach that we would have been a good team?

Yes I do think so. I actually think Gase does well with a QB the quality of Mahomes. He just can't make magic work with average QB's. I think you vastly underestimate the potential impact of a very good QB.

Henne never had a good career and Matt Moore was on the Chiefs...

"Destroyer wrote:

Henne never had a good career and Matt Moore was on the Chiefs...

And if you want evidence it was the QB, not the coach, that was responsible for an increase in win% and offensive output, try Peyton Manning with various HC's. Check out John Fox for example.

Win% for John Fox:
Carolina with Delhomme + other QB's = 50.7% (144 games)
Denver with Tebow = 50% (16 games)
Chicago with Cutler/Barkley/Trubisky = 29.2% (48 games)
Denver with Manning = 79.2% (48 games)

Average offensive rank for John Fox:
Carolina = 20.4
Denver with Tebow = 25
Chicago = 26.7
Denver with Manning = 1.7

Absolutely clear the increase in offensive output was Manning, not the HC. Same thing if you look at Dungy.

Win% for Tony Dungy:
Tampa with Dilfer/Johnson etc. = 56.3% (96 games)
Indy with Manning = 75.9% (112 games)

Average offensive rank for Tony Dungy:
Tampa = 19.8
Indy with Manning = 5.7

Both of those coaches had some pedigree before working with Manning, but if you just happen to land a really good QB early in your HC'ing career, it's sure going to look like you're a good HC. That's the hope with Tua and Flores.

"cbrad wrote:

And if you want evidence it was the QB, not the coach, that was responsible for an increase in win% and offensive output, try Peyton Manning with various HC's. Check out John Fox for example.

Win% for John Fox:
Carolina with Delhomme + other QB's = 50.7% (144 games)
Denver with Tebow = 50% (16 games)
Chicago with Cutler/Barkley/Trubisky = 29.2% (48 games)
Denver with Manning = 79.2% (48 games)

Average offensive rank for John Fox:
Carolina = 20.4
Denver with Tebow = 25
Chicago = 26.7
Denver with Manning = 1.7

Absolutely clear the increase in offensive output was Manning, not the HC. Same thing if you look at Dungy.

Win% for Tony Dungy:
Tampa with Dilfer/Johnson etc. = 56.3% (96 games)
Indy with Manning = 75.9% (112 games)

Average offensive rank for Tony Dungy:
Tampa = 19.8
Indy with Manning = 5.7

Both of those coaches had some pedigree before working with Manning, but if you just happen to land a really good QB early in your HC'ing career, it's sure going to look like you're a good HC. That's the hope with Tua and Flores.

Ummmm, John Fox led the Panthers and the Broncos to the Super Bowl

Tony Dungy revamped the Bucs to playoff contenders as well as the Colts to the Super Bowl

You say quarterbacks, I say head coaches

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

Ummmm, John Fox led the Panthers and the Broncos to the Super Bowl

Tony Dungy revamped the Bucs to playoff contenders as well as the Colts to the Super Bowl

You say quarterbacks, I say head coaches

Umm.. look at those stats. Clearly they didn't have the win% or anything close to the offensive output without Manning as with. It's plain as night vs. day. And both of them had far more playoff success with Manning than without.

Saying "it's the HC" doesn't explain those stats.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

Ummmm, John Fox led the Panthers and the Broncos to the Super Bowl

Tony Dungy revamped the Bucs to playoff contenders as well as the Colts to the Super Bowl

You say quarterbacks, I say head coaches

it absolutely astounds me everytime someone says Dungy was a good Head Coach. He was a body, a figure head, a face. He had a great d coordinator in Tampa who kept them competitive. He had a great QB in Indy who won him a super bowl. If Manning had a real head coach how many bowls would he have won in Indy. Same as Elway and Reeves. As soon as Elway got a real head coach he won a bowl. So yes I would say Dungy is equal to Dan Reeves. That is accurate. Difference is Dungy was in right place at right time and got a lucky ring.

"FphinFantastic wrote:

it absolutely astounds me everytime someone says Dungy was a good Head Coach. He was a body, a figure head, a face. He had a great d coordinator in Tampa who kept them competitive. He had a great QB in Indy who won him a super bowl. If Manning had a real head coach how many bowls would he have won in Indy. Same as Elway and Reeves. As soon as Elway got a real head coach he won a bowl. So yes I would say Dungy is equal to Dan Reeves. That is accurate. Difference is Dungy was in right place at right time and got a lucky ring.

Well to heck with it then...if it’s the quarterbacks and not head coaches, why even have them?

Get rid of all coaches because they don’t do anything. They’re useless tools that just stand on the sidelines listening to Bananarama’s Cruel Summer on their headsets and drinking free a Gatorade. No need to have them at all

I guess that also means that Don Shula was a useless tool as well. Guess I won’t go to his steakhouse

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

Well to heck with it then...if it’s the quarterbacks and not head coaches, why even have them?

Get rid of all coaches because they don’t do anything. They’re useless tools that just stand on the sidelines listening to Bananarama’s Cruel Summer on their headsets and drinking free a Gatorade. No need to have them at all

I guess that also means that Don Shula was a useless tool as well. Guess I won’t go to his steakhouse

He does make a great steak. Shula was the “Perfect” head coach...

it’s safe to say it takes the right combo the right chemistry. It’s not usually a one or the other. I will stand by Dungy always along for the ride though...

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

Well to heck with it then...if it’s the quarterbacks and not head coaches, why even have them?

Get rid of all coaches because they don’t do anything. They’re useless tools that just stand on the sidelines listening to Bananarama’s Cruel Summer on their headsets and drinking free a Gatorade. No need to have them at all

I guess that also means that Don Shula was a useless tool as well. Guess I won’t go to his steakhouse

Don't make this a strawman argument. The HC is arguably the most influential individual on any football team. However, the QB is arguably 2nd (ignoring GM for the moment). All I'm saying is you're discounting #2. No question who #1 is.

"cbrad wrote:

Don't make this a strawman argument. The HC is arguably the most influential individual on any football team. However, the QB is arguably 2nd (ignoring GM for the moment). All I'm saying is you're discounting #2. No question who #1 is.

I would actually go with the QB's being the most influential, because I think the QB puts more of a ceiling on the HC's potential than the HC puts on the QB's potential.

"The Guy wrote:

I would actually go with the QB's being the most influential, because I think the QB puts more of a ceiling on the HC's potential than the HC puts on the QB's potential.

The HC directly influences both offense and defense, unlike the QB. That's why you find unbelievable turnarounds on BOTH sides of the ball when you get the right HC, like Shula. Dolphins from 1966-1969 with George Wilson were 15-39-2 (a 27.8% win%), then Shula comes in and immediately has a 71% winning percentage or better in EACH of the next 6 years.

Average offensive rank from 1966-1969 with Wilson was 8 (out of 8-10 teams in the AFL depending on the year, so near worst in the league), average defense rank with Wilson was 7.25 (so just above worst in the league), while average offensive rank with Shula from 1970-1975 was 5 (out of 26 teams, so one of the best) and average defensive rank during that period was 3.3 (again.. one of the very best).

You will NEVER find such an impact with a QB on BOTH sides of the ball. No, I think it's clear HC > QB in terms of influence.

It was amazing to me that Burrow was playing with an awful OL and every play he faced a heavy doze of pressure and still was able to deliver the ball.

The guy is going to be a stud.

"cbrad wrote:

The HC directly influences both offense and defense, unlike the QB. That's why you find unbelievable turnarounds on BOTH sides of the ball when you get the right HC, like Shula. Dolphins from 1966-1969 with George Wilson were 15-39-2 (a 27.8% win%), then Shula comes in and immediately has a 71% winning percentage or better in EACH of the next 6 years.

Average offensive rank from 1966-1969 with Wilson was 8 (out of 8-10 teams in the AFL depending on the year, so near worst in the league), average defense rank with Wilson was 7.25 (so just above worst in the league), while average offensive rank with Shula from 1970-1975 was 5 (out of 26 teams, so one of the best) and average defensive rank during that period was 3.3 (again.. one of the very best).

You will NEVER find such an impact with a QB on BOTH sides of the ball. No, I think it's clear HC > QB in terms of influence.

Oh no doubt about that -- I was talking about just between the two of them, i.e., who is more influential on the other.

"cbrad wrote:

Don't make this a strawman argument. The HC is arguably the most influential individual on any football team. However, the QB is arguably 2nd (ignoring GM for the moment). All I'm saying is you're discounting #2. No question who #1 is.

I'm not discounting QBs at all. I just place much higher value on #1 than #2

"The Guy wrote:

Oh no doubt about that -- I was talking about just between the two of them, i.e., who is more influential on the other.

Oh I see. That's a different question. Hard to say but I'd still lean HC > QB in that case.

Ask yourself this: how many SB winning teams would you say won it with a great QB but with an average (or worse) HC vs. a great HC and and average (or worse) QB?

Understanding that SB winners usually have a good HC and a good QB (at least in that year), I think you'll find it easier to name SB winners with average (or worse) QB's than average (or worse) HC's. For QB's you might list the Ravens in 2000 with Dilfer, Tampa in 2002 with Johnson, and Denver in 2015 with Manning. What about average/bad coaches winning the SB? For me at least that's quite a bit harder.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

I'm not discounting QBs at all. I just place much higher value on #1 than #2

Fox and Dungy's stats with and without Manning can't be explained by an "it's the HC" view. Those difference can only be explained by the change at QB. So when you try to argue it isn't the QB, yeah you're discounting it. The relative value you place on the HC vs. QB has to at least be consistent with the data.

Can he complete a pass over 25 yards first before we call him a hall of famer?