Home
THIS SITE
  About Phins.com
  Contact Us
TEAM NEWS
  Team Info
  Twitter Feeds
  News Wire
  Phins RSS Feed
GAMES
  Schedule
PERSONNEL
  Roster
  Depth Chart
FOR THE FANS
  Forums
  Places To Watch
HISTORY
  Team History
  1972 Tribute
 
-- Advertisement --
Privacy Policy at Phins.com
 
  Phins.com Phorums
    News Wire | Roster | Depth Chart | Last/Next Game | Schedule | Links  
          Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Miami Dolphins Civilized Discussion :  Phins.com Phorums The fastest message board... ever.
This is a moderated phorum for the CIVILIZED discussion of the Miami Dolphins. In this phorum, there are rules and moderators to make sure you abide by the rules. The moderators for this phorum are JC and Colonel
Pages: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: BigNastyFish ()
Date: January 25, 2012 05:55AM

I know we “lucked” into one winning season and a quick expulsion from the playoffs, and of course the turn-around from 1-15 was fun. But in the final analysis at this point it sure looks like the whole Tunagate episode (starring Biggie T and Baby T) can be declared a resounding tin can of failure.

More and more it seems Philbin will be replacing the entire coaching staff, and now we’re looking at scraping the 3-4 D and in the process jettisoning a number of players, and of course REBUILDING in a different image. And that’s the core point here; this is quickly being exposed as a rebuild as opposed to a retooling. When you scrap something that means it’s junk, and junk is a certified failure!

So Project BIG and its assorted squandering of high draft picks on BIG DUDES with major college surgery was precisely the misguided, misdiagnosis that led to the lumbering losses and the profound LACK of the vaunted franchise coitusback – that rare breed of Asian animal capable of plucking NFL wins like ripe water chestnuts.

5 years of a LOSING philosophy culminating with the sad admission that the preceding erecter-set mentality flopped like a stinky bloated Tuna on the linoleum floor. So Philbin is here to clean-up the mess, and in the process throw-out the trash. As always, it will be interesting to watch how other teams sort through our trash and find some really good stuff…

BNF.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: THE Truth ()
Date: January 25, 2012 06:16AM

Absolutely an unmitigated failure.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: montequi ()
Date: January 25, 2012 06:16AM

JJ scrapped our offensive scheme when he came here..and that was NOT junk. So, incoming coaches don't always scrap the right thing.

I'm not defending the Tuna in any way, though. The 11-5 season, as great as it was, set us back for a while. It ruined our draft position and, even worse, gave us all false hope. After that season we all thought Sparano was a great coach, Pennington was our answer at QB, and Fasano was a pro-bowl TE. None of those ended up being true.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Date: January 25, 2012 06:24AM

Thats like asking How was the Titanic's first cruise.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: Doug-THE-Dolfan ()
Date: January 25, 2012 07:03AM

Do you hear Dollar Bill bragging about his work with the Dolphins? If there was any success he would take full credit.

You watch, in the up comming years, when they are touting Dollar Bills accomplishments, the 10 game turn around will be mentioned and nothing else will be mentioned about the Miami Dolphins.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: BigNastyFish ()
Date: January 25, 2012 07:15AM

Wow. When you examine the facts it’s really a sad case.

The only residual value from Biggie T is Ireland, who now defines himself as a “scout.” I mean really, the dude doesn’t even have any Cherokee blood, and we all know they make the best scouts. Beyond that, with Nolan leaving and Bowles being rejected, there isn’t one penny of value on the coaching staff. For all intensive purposes the Biggie T years ended in FORECLOSURE!

And it looks like our issues are a LOT DEEPER than just a few players. Starting with the D, with the switch to 4-3 we’re missing most of the key ingredients for success IMO.

1) No monster MLB
2) No dominant DE’s (Wake is an excellent 3-4 OLB but he’s not in the mold of Justin Tuck or especially that French dude Pierre-Paul. Speaking of him, weren’t we in a position to draft him?) Can you say Odd Rick?
3) Not to mention our S position is a huge question mark. YB is getting old and the rest of the group is questionable at best….
4) Do we have any REAL 4-3 DT’s? I’m thinking maybe Odrick and Soliai, but it sounds ike Soliai could walk. If so, what a freaking mess. We finally develop a player and then we lose him. The money we’ve blown on Dansby, Marshall, etc. doesn’t allow us the $$$ needed to keep our own home-grown players. WTF? Who’s the genius handing the cap situation?

Seriously, I want to be a positive fan but the reality that’s emerging is very disappointing. We’ve invested years in a losing solution, and now it’s arguable we’re “worse off” than 4 years ago. After the fall-out we’ll have maybe 50% of a roster, and the same old worn-out cycle starts again…

More than likely, the best case scenario at this point seems to be…

We go through a few more losing years in order to put the program together the right way. And of course, we have to hope (a) we chart the RIGHT course out of the box, and (b) we have the capacity to evaluate talent that fits the spec.

Since we’re apparently, at least partially, dismantling – I say go ahead and risk the future all you want because at least will be in a position to acquire dominant talent by pure ineptitude – like the Lions or 49ers have…

Miami Dolphins – bottom feeding yet again.

Man the rotten stink of that Tuna just won’t go away.

BNF.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: Ken ()
Date: January 25, 2012 09:36AM

I don't think it was an complete failue...but the outcome was indeed less than what was needed. That makes it overall a failure but one of a lesser degree.

The only thing that makes me say that, is the fact that we do have some world class players, and some very good others. If we were in worse shape now than when BP took over, then I'd say it was an unmitigated failure...just not the case however.

We won't scrap the entire program however. We will use the defensive personnel we have and we do have some that will fit a 4-3 scheme...maybe even a few that will be better than they were in a 3-4. A fast LB will be a an addition we'll have to make as well as another Cameron Wake type at DE.

As for offense, we will need to add more speed at the skill positions but that is a thing we needed to do anyway. We will also need to add a QB but again, something we neeeded to do anyway. We also need to replace Columbo but once again, something we needed to do anyway. Carey is a player that we need to take a hard look at because I think Jerry can be his replacement based on the way he played the latter part of the season.

I'll be thrilled if we start to see more three and four WR formations as a part of the base offense and a fast athletic TE as well as another RB that has geat hands and world class speed to serve as a third down option. Hartline should be replaced if possible but I wouldn't cut him outright.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: samsam3738 ()
Date: January 25, 2012 09:54AM

Do you think we could have a better 3rd or 4th stringer than hartline?

I myself do not think so.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: slipstream ()
Date: January 25, 2012 10:49AM

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The 11-5 season, as great as it was, set us back
> for a while. It ruined our draft position and,
> even worse, gave us all false hope. After that
> season we all thought Sparano was a great coach,
> Pennington was our answer at QB, and Fasano was a
> pro-bowl TE. None of those ended up being true.

I agree with that. You could even say more specifically that it was the Wildcat that set us back. In addition to all those things listed, it also led to the drafting of Pat White and the over-valuation of Dan Henning.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: montequi ()
Date: January 25, 2012 11:17AM

slipstream Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You could even say more
> specifically that it was the Wildcat that set us
> back. In addition to all those things listed, it
> also led to the drafting of Pat White and the
> over-valuation of Dan Henning.

Agreed!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: dolfanmark ()
Date: January 25, 2012 02:01PM

My belief is that Parcells used the Dolphins as an experiment. Tom Jackson said that on the set at ESPN, before joining Miami, Parcells used to talk about how the single wing (wildcat) could work in the modern NFL. Parcells then lands our job. And he hires Dan Henning as OC. The year before, Dan Henning experimented with the Wildcat in Carolina. And Henning was not afraid to be unconventional. Some of the older fans here may remember when Henning used the QB option with David Woodley in 1980. And he hires David Lee as QB coach. Lee was the architect of the Wildcat at Arkansas. And reportedly, Lee immediately told friends that he was bringing the Wildcat to the NFL.

A lot of people believe that the Wildcat was a spur of the moment decision in 2008, after the offense looked woeful in the first two games. That's not true. The Dolphins were practicing the Wildcat from the beginning of training camp. But, Ronnie Brown sprained his thumb, and couldn't catch the snaps. So, they scrapped it, until Ronnie's thumb heeled.

I believe the Wildcat was Parcells' plan all along. That's why he hired Henning and why he hired Lee. And it's why he drafted Pat White, who everyone said he was enamored with for several years. I think it was Parcells' attempt to cement his legacy. He wanted to add revolutionizing something to his resume. And it failed miserably.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: Ken ()
Date: January 25, 2012 02:07PM

samsam3738 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you think we could have a better 3rd or 4th
> stringer than hartline?
>
> I myself do not think so.


RE: Thats why I wouldn't cut him. He is a great guy to have as a fourth option.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: 808phan ()
Date: January 25, 2012 06:19PM

Were those Tuna years a certified failure? LOL!

Not drafting a franchise QB when you're 1-15 with the 1st pick in the draft is completely inexcusable, especially knowing ahead of time that Penny was made of glass. Epic fail.

And then trusting in Henne to succeed Penny? Must be because their last names rhyme and they had the same first name. Epic fail again.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: dolfans1 ()
Date: January 26, 2012 01:48AM

808phan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Not drafting a franchise QB when you're 1-15 with
> the 1st pick in the draft is completely
> inexcusable, especially knowing ahead of time that
> Penny was made of glass. Epic fail.
>

The first pick in that draft was Alex Smith, who I would not exactly call a franchise QB. Aaron Rodgers was drafted at #24 by the Packers, and no one could have predicted he would be the type of QB he is now (at least the 23 other teams that passed on him didn't). Most "experts" at the time didn't think he'd make a good NFL QB as he had too weak an arm and not enough size. The only other QB taken in the 1st round that year was Jason Campbell, who is definitely not a franchise QB. So which franchise QB would you have drafted in the first round, aside from Rodgers?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: dolfans1 ()
Date: January 26, 2012 02:40AM

Oops - getting my miserable seasons mixed up. The only quality QBs available in the draft after the 1-15 season were Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco. I'm still not completely sold on either one being a franchise QB; Ryan has still never won a playoff game despite all the talent around him, and Flacco is still very inconsistent. They were the only 2 QBs taken in the first round that year. Neither might be alive today if we had drafted them first without having Long as our LT, considering how bad the rest of our O-line has been.

We have had the misfortune of having our worst seasons in years with poor QB drafts. On the bright side, there were people on this board that wanted us to draft Vernon Gholston or Glenn Dorsey with the #1 pick the year we took Jake Long.

2009 was the year we should have had the #1 pick; we could have drafted Stafford or Josh Freeman.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: 808phan ()
Date: January 26, 2012 03:53AM

Dplphans1,

There are 31 other teams who don't have Jake Long for a LT on their roster, yet we're the team who consistently fails to make the playoffs. So who are all these other 31 LT's out there? At this point in time, ours can barely keep himself alive, let alone any QB of ours. The one who was made of glass that he was drafted to protect is already long gone.

Not drafting Matty was a mistake, not an excuse. By the time we find the right QB, our coveted LT will need to be replaced - he already can't play a full season without an ailment. So IMO, yes, the Tuna years were a certified failure.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: BigNastyFish ()
Date: January 26, 2012 08:10AM

Biggie T & Co. rolled the dice with Henne and thought they we’re smart enough to get the vaunted FLT and FQB in the same draft. That initial decision to pass on Ryan and grab the Sloth in R2 pretty much defined the ineptitude of the regime…

I think dolphinmark makes an interesting point, and I basically felt the same way about the “experiment.” And to a degree, that is still evolving in the NFL. The problem with the plan was execution, and Patty White was ZERO ready for the NFL.

Obviously to not tip their hand, they never worked Patty out, and hence they were “surprised” to find out she had horrible mechanics in training camp. And besides that, I seriously doubt they even knew what the kid actually weighed…

And of course it turns out Patty really didn’t have the heart for the NFL grind. Oh well…

sometimes you can be too tricky for your own good. But with Biggie T, who was always gambling with someone else’s money…

Quite the gansta that Biggie T.

BNF.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: dolfanmark ()
Date: January 26, 2012 08:32AM

808phan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Were those Tuna years a certified failure? LOL!
>
> Not drafting a franchise QB when you're 1-15 with
> the 1st pick in the draft is completely
> inexcusable, especially knowing ahead of time that
> Penny was made of glass. Epic fail.


Well, in fairness, you have to look at what that meant at the time. With the new rookie salary structure in place, the risk of taking a QB high is not as great. Matt Ryan got a 6 year, $72M contract without ever taking a snap in the NFL. If you make that decision, and are wrong, that choice sets your franchise back 4 or 5 years. Jake Long at LT was pretty much a sure thing. There is that risk/reward ratio you have to consider, and the salary cap implications.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: berkeley223 ()
Date: January 26, 2012 08:44AM

808phan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Were those Tuna years a certified failure? LOL!
>
> Not drafting a franchise QB when you're 1-15 with
> the 1st pick in the draft is completely
> inexcusable, especially knowing ahead of time that
> Penny was made of glass. Epic fail.
>



Penny was not on the team when Jake Long and Henne were drafted. He was signed after the draft in the offseason. If you'll recall, we went into the season with Beck, McCown, and Henne at QB before Penny fell into our laps.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: Crowder52 ()
Date: January 26, 2012 11:22AM

When you leave a team better off then when you found it, no not a certified failure.... This year was a cluster f*ck for numerous amount of reasons...but to the beginning, Tuna bought into Wayne, not Ross... He stayed with Ross out of respect for Waynes billion dollar deal to the sucker.... THe team went 11-5 as Waynes, last year... THen the sale and transfer of ownership..... threw alot of it into a tail spin... Ross took over, everything began to noticably change for the worse, from a fans perspective, the brand was reinvented, the fight song changed, a club installed in the stadium, an orange carpet, celebrities spotlight,etc... THen Parcells bailed, and the power struggle for the team between the remaining 2 members of the trifecta occurred, and CYA, took place from Ireland..... He had to seperate himself from Tony, so he didnt wind up on the chopping block with him.. Then you have the fact the offense was built around Chad Pennington type of QB play, who never could stay healthy as he did his first year here... Then the lockout, the harbaugh screw up, the dez bryant embarrassement..... This team upper management and ownership created most of the mess....imo... The sale of the team to Ross, triggered the downslide IMO...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: berkeley223 ()
Date: January 26, 2012 12:09PM

yes the team is better then when they took over. but they took over an almost historically bad 1-15 team. so it couldn't get much worse. I don't take the fact we are better now than we were then (average as opposed to awful) as a measure of success. today's NFL is geared to having crappy teams turn it around quickly.

the lions were 0-16 a few years ago and just made the playoffs. the difference of course is they got a franchise QB in the interim. Our failure to do so is what makes the trifecta years a failure.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: DarthHoodie ()
Date: January 26, 2012 03:16PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: berkeley223 ()
Date: January 26, 2012 03:31PM

who is this toko34? I only know darthhoodie the pats fan

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: DarthHoodie ()
Date: January 26, 2012 03:51PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: BigNastyFish ()
Date: January 26, 2012 06:15PM

IMO berk makes a sound argument in this case. Results need to be weighted (because nothing exists in a vacuum) and everything is relative – in the sense that the outcome needs to be considered against the possibilities.

In the NFL they call these things “wins” and “losses.”

Biggie T failed to deliver on his core promise of “changing the culture” from predominately losing to winning. The record under Biggie T’s chosen HC =

29-32

1 winning season (with a ton a certified luck including Pennington and a puffy schedule) against 3 straight LOSING seasons! How can that possibly be considered a “positive outcome?”

BNF.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: Crowder52 ()
Date: January 27, 2012 10:29AM

BigNastyFish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IMO berk makes a sound argument in this case.
> Results need to be weighted (because nothing
> exists in a vacuum) and everything is relative –
> in the sense that the outcome needs to be
> considered against the possibilities.
>
> In the NFL they call these things “wins” and
> “losses.”
>
> Biggie T failed to deliver on his core promise of
> “changing the culture” from predominately
> losing to winning. The record under Biggie T’s
> chosen HC =
>
> 29-32
>
> 1 winning season (with a ton a certified luck
> including Pennington and a puffy schedule) against
> 3 straight LOSING seasons! How can that possibly
> be considered a “positive outcome?”
>
> BNF.


Check your numbers my friend, Tuna was not around for the last 2 years... He had an 11-5 season and a 7-9 season, then he left... My math equals 18-14 record while he was with Miami..... last year was a cluster fck that is on Ross and Ireland, not tuna...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: dolphin1423 ()
Date: January 27, 2012 10:29AM

Definitely not a positive outcome. I would call it a failure because they failed to accomplish their goals. Three out of four seasons were losing. That is what failure is. They got fired for failing. Is this really a thread?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: dolphin1423 ()
Date: January 27, 2012 10:33AM

Ha Crowder nice one buddy. Last year was on Ross and Ireland but no mention of your boy Sporano. How is it on Ross? Did he evaluate talent or draft players or sign free agents or coach the players or play the game? The answer is none of the above. He may have taken some of Sporano's credibility but they are all big boys and if you honestly think that is why we were 6-10 then I don't know what to tell you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: BigNastyFish ()
Date: January 27, 2012 10:48AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Were the Tuna years a certified failure?
Posted by: Crowder52 ()
Date: January 27, 2012 10:58AM

My reading comprehension on Biggie T, was off, you made a post about Tuna, and then started calling Biggie T, Sparano... maybe its not my comprehension but your writing skills...smileys with beer

Options: ReplyQuote
Pages: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
   
Home Curt Fennell
Contact Us
DOLFAN in New England
TOP
   
© Phins.com. No portion of this site may be reproduced without
the express permission of the author, Curt Fennell. All rights reserved.