1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ugh! Burrow going to be a stud!

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by pumpdogs, Sep 18, 2020.

  1. pumpdogs

    pumpdogs Well-Known Member

    3,898
    1,462
    113
    Sep 22, 2009
    delaware
    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!
     
  2. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,057
    9,531
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    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.
     
    pumpdogs and KeyFin like this.
  3. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,050
    9,225
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    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.
     
    pumpdogs likes this.
  4. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Staff Member Club Member

    31,063
    32,299
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    I didn't feel like Burrow looked special at all. Not into Tua either, though.
     
  5. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    9,236
    7,657
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    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.
     
  6. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,050
    9,225
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    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.
     
  7. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    9,236
    7,657
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    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***
     
  8. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    9,236
    7,657
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    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
     
  9. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,057
    9,531
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    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.
     
  10. Destroyer

    Destroyer There for every play.

    2,884
    1,038
    113
    Oct 25, 2010
    Maryland
    Henne never had a good career and Matt Moore was on the Chiefs...
     
  11. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,057
    9,531
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    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.
     
    The Guy, resnor and KeyFin like this.
  12. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    9,236
    7,657
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    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
     
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  13. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,057
    9,531
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    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.
     
  14. FphinFantastic

    FphinFantastic Member

    35
    29
    18
    Aug 25, 2019
    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.
     
  15. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    9,236
    7,657
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    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
     
  16. FphinFantastic

    FphinFantastic Member

    35
    29
    18
    Aug 25, 2019
    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...
     
  17. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,057
    9,531
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    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.
     
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,540
    1,074
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    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.
     
    xphinfanx likes this.
  19. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,057
    9,531
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    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.
     
    Pauly and Cashvillesent like this.
  20. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent Well-Known Member

    635
    472
    63
    Dec 8, 2019
    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.
     
    xphinfanx, jakezog3rd and pumpdogs like this.
  21. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,540
    1,074
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Oh no doubt about that -- I was talking about just between the two of them, i.e., who is more influential on the other.
     
  22. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    9,236
    7,657
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    I'm not discounting QBs at all. I just place much higher value on #1 than #2
     
  23. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,057
    9,531
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    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 Guy likes this.
  24. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,057
    9,531
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    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.
     
  25. TheHighExhaulted

    TheHighExhaulted Well-Known Member

    2,409
    1,916
    113
    Jan 15, 2008
    New York
    Can he complete a pass over 25 yards first before we call him a hall of famer?
     
  26. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,305
    3,276
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    He may turn out to be a stud, but if his OL keeps playing like that he’s more likely to be a smear on the grass.
     
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,540
    1,074
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    About halfway through the third quarter the Browns' win probability was 94%, so the whole world knew Joe Burrow had to pass. You'll find very few offensive lines that will play well in that scenario, especially in front of a rookie QB whose opposing defensive coordinator knows that with the QB's inexperience he stands little chance of overcoming an aggressive pass rush.

    I'm willing to bet that the variance in the functioning of offensive lines throughout the league is far more a function of game situation than any other factor.
     
    AGuyNamedAlex likes this.
  28. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,305
    3,276
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Game script/situation is a huge hidden variable, I completely agree with that. However the Bengals OL were missing assignments like Philbin/Gase era Dolphins.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  29. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,540
    1,074
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Right, but I suspect that's the kind of offensive line functioning you'd see pretty much league-wide in that scenario -- whole world knows you have to pass, rookie QB. Obviously that's a highly unfavorable situation for the offensive line and could easily overwhelm it.
     
  30. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,722
    2,173
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I would say from the mid third quarter on offensive line play becomes very dependent on the situation.

    Up to that point unless you're getting absolutely smacked around you can generally keep some semblance of balance on offense if you want to.

    There are also downs like 3rd and long where it becomes more dependent too.
     
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,540
    1,074
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sure, as that's typically when win probability can become highly slanted, thus eliminating offensive balance.

    I've just heard many people comment in game threads about poor offensive line functioning during a scenario in which the team is forced to pass almost exclusively, as though it's indicative of the line's dispositional ability, while bemoaning its effect on the quarterback's ability to succeed. That could actually be a scenario however in which the offensive line's poor functioning is primarily the quarterback's fault!
     
  32. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    10,509
    3,780
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    They were pretty bad from the start though, especially the interior. The Center was consistently getting pushed back into Burrow and Mixon. That dude was awful. Left no room for Joe to step up when Garret and Clayborn came around the edge.

    Gary Kubiak, Mike McCarthy and Brian Billick all come to mind fairly recently. Barry Switzer.
     
  33. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity Staff Member

    12,767
    7,942
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
     
  34. mlb1399

    mlb1399 Well-Known Member

    2,008
    1,130
    113
    Mar 6, 2010
    I jumped on the Burrow train about half way last season. We always seem to be just not quite bad enough to get the really good ones.
     
    xphinfanx likes this.
  35. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    9,236
    7,657
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    This is where the logic of a "stats man" fail. You're evaluating the totality of Dungy's term in Tampa Bay in terms of total wins and total losses. You're aren't looking at his term in Tampa Bay for each season. That is faulty logic as it fails to address each individual season. During Dungy's term in Tampa Bay, he had only 1 losing season, his first. The Buccaneers appeared in the playoffs 4 of his 6 seasons including 3 Widlcard games, 2 Divisional playoffs and 1 NFC Championship game. To call Dungy's term in Tampa Bay anything but a resounding success diminishes the game of football to nothing more than a video game. It's juvenile and disingenuous, considering the NFC during this time frame was dominated by NFC heavy hitters Dallas Cowboys, Green Bay Packers, St Louis Rams and New York Giants.

    Upon Dungy's arrival in Indianapolis, he didn't inherit a team with the same problems he had encountered in Tampa Bay. He inherited a teams that already had a collective powerhouse offense in Manning, James, Harrison, Wayne and Pollard (Credit to Bill Pollian, the same GM that built the Buffalo Bills of the 80's). That was a head coach's wet dream to inherit a team with an offense already set. Like Shula, Dungy adapted. Shula had always...ALWAYS been a power running offensive minded coach with the strength of defense. That's what Dungy created in Tampa Bay. When Shula drafted Marino and saw what he had, he adapted and changed his offense to play to the strength of his quarterback. Dungy seeing the strength of his offense adapted his overall game philosophy to play to the strength of the offense. Dungy had phenomenal success in Tampa Bay and had phenomenal success in Indianapolis...PERIOD!

    John Fox took over the Panthers in 2002. In nine seasons, Fox had four losing seasons, many of those seasons the team was injury plagued but Fox still took the Panthers to 2 Wildcard games, 3 Divisional Playoffs, 2 NFC Championships and 1 Super Bowl, all with such names as Jake Delhomme, Mushin Muhammad and DeAngelo Williams. To say Fox wasn't successful in Carolina is ludicrous. Fox's first year in Denver in 2011 still resulted in a playoff appearance, winning the Wildcard game against Pittsburgh with Tim Tebow under center and a Divisional loss. The following year, the signing of Peyton Manning is an example of what I've already stated before...getting a quarterback to a team that was already set offensively. That was the final piece of Denver's puzzle, so it's not so much Peyton Manning was key to Denver's success as it was a collective team, much like Manning had in Indianapolis.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking anything at all away from Peyton Manning. He was a great quarterback but he was a great quarterback as he had great coaching, from Phillip Fulmer at Tennessee, Jim Mora, Tony Dungy and John Fox. To give all the credit to Manning due to your stats, that only tell a partial story without giving equal credit to the coaches that made the teams he played on great degrades the sport all together.
     
  36. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,722
    2,173
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I agree and I definitely give the line more leeway in those situations myself. Though I think in the past a major problem was losing too many of those matchups.

    Regardless of whether you agree it happens or not, you would agree its inherently easier to avoid one rusher than two, and two easier than three so on, I'd assume.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  37. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,057
    9,531
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The flaw in logic is completely on your part. Those offensive production stats coincide precisely with when Manning was there. Those stats simply CANNOT be explained by saying "it's the HC". Actually, I'm not even sure you looked at the offensive production stats since you keep ignoring them. Let me repost one of them.

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

    Fox's offenses were terrible before Manning in Carolina, terrible before Manning in Denver, and terrible after Manning in Chicago. Yet the first year Manning replaces Tebow in Denver the offense became elite, and remained so for 3 consecutive years. And you're saying "it's the HC". Ludicrous.

    Also, please stop making strawman arguments. I never said those coaches weren't successful before Manning. I said from the outset they had a pedigree before Manning. My argument is that you can't explain the sudden increase and decrease in offensive production and win% with "it's the HC". It's clearly not.
     
  38. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    9,236
    7,657
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    You keep arguing the irrelevant offensive production. I’m arguing team success. If anyone is making a straw argument it’s you with you drum beating in quarterback and success. I’ve clearly demonstrated to you that team...TEAM success is more dependent on a team’s head coach and not the quarterback.

    Both Dungy and Fox went to the playoffs and/or Super Bowl with the likes of Trent Dilfer and Jake Delhomme as well as Peyton Manning.

    Offensive production doesn’t mean squat if the TEAM isn’t successful and under Fox and Dungy, the Buccaneers, Panthers and Broncos were successful.

    Based on your irrelevant straw man argument of offensive production being the be all end all, “The Sheriff” should have what, 10 Super Bowl titles under his belt?
     
  39. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,057
    9,531
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    lol.. I show you huge increases in win% precisely when Manning was there and you say I'm not showing you team success. That IS team success dude. You want playoffs and SB's? Sure.

    John Fox without Manning: 10 playoff games in 13 seasons (0.77 playoff games per season)
    John Fox with Manning: 5 playoff games in 3 seasons (1.67 playoff games per season)

    Tony Dungy without Manning: 6 playoff games in 6 seasons (1 playoff game per season)
    Tony Dungy with Manning: 13 playoff games in 7 seasons (1.86 playoff games per season)

    + 1 SB win for Dungy with Manning.

    But sure.. according to you this isn't at all evidence of team success.

    Once again, there is NO way you can twist these stats to suggest "it was the HC". Whether it's offensive production, win% in the regular season, playoff appearances or playoff success, it's the same: there were huge increases that coincided precisely with when these head coaches had Manning. These increases are due primarily to the QB dude.
     
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,540
    1,074
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Do you have a belief that there are no differences in individual ability among QBs, and any differences in their performance are due to their surroundings?
     

Share This Page