First let me say, AWESOME game!!
Had amazing seats (45 yd ln/34 rows off the field), buried in fellow Dolphans, on the Dolphins side of the field.
I was blown away by how much aqua and orange I saw there in support!

We seriously had the Card fans s-ing their pants the whole game!!

But when it got to crunch time, the super-soft Prevent defense killed us!!
I saw corners/DBs(Carroll/Marshall) playing almost 20 yds off the WRs.
It made 3rd and 20 turn into a 4th and 4 real quick!
And then again, allowing too much cushion to let them convert the 4th and 4.
And I get it. The WR talent of the Cards, way out-matched the DB talent of the Phins, with the exception of Smith, who looks like a legit Pro-Bowl corner. But still, I think the cushion off the line should have been 10 yds max. But that what happens when you're petrified of getting beat deep. Maybe a little too paranoid??

Yeah i noticed that too. Soft defense on last drive of 4th quarter killed us.

We had a 3 man rush sometimes....and they were winded the announcer said.

We went from getting after Kolb and backing them into a 3rd and 20 hole to a prevent defense! I guess the prevent is the norm but I HATE IT, HATE IT, HATE IT!

They will think about playing that prevent defense next time. How in the world do you give a wr a 20 yard cushin....Pathetic........We are a young team and a coach with little experience and these mistakes are only going to make us better next time.

Better to get the rust as a new coach now than next year in the playoffs......

And yes i predict playoffs next year if we keep improving and draft a couple of weapons for tannehill.

It wasnt prevent defense it was short fields from turnovers..What prevented us from winning was losing the turnover battle. As well as the fact that Arizona's final 2 scores both came from a shortened field from turning the ball over in the 4th QT and OT. If you turn the ball over in the 4th QT and overtime it is hard to win...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2012 11:42AM by Crowder52.

Well, Crowder, with all due respect....duh about the turnovers.

My point was more about the other contributing factors other than the obvious turnovers, because we almost won the game despite them.

I'm saying that the ultra soft cushions the DBs were giving,in must-stop situations, allowed the Cards to move the ball at will. Kolb and the receiving corps there has the talent to fully exploit that coverage.
They really made 3rd and 20 look easy to convert on 2 downs.
Then the soft coverage by Sean Smith on Roberts for the game tie-er, was also taken advantage of.
I'm sure they will be practicing a tighter coverage approach this week. It's something that is fixable, and hopefully Carroll can develop into something that slightly resembles an NFL corner.

Right, but ultimately, the last 2 scores by Arizona, came on short fields from turnovers by the offense..
THe biggest play that bothers me from the defense would be when it was 4th down at the end of the game only 20 seconds left on the clock, they could have ended the game, and Sean Smith got beat by no one special for a 15 yard TD.. That was one play that could have won us the game and we lost...sucks

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

I took it as the defense just being gassed Two OT games in a row. Add in being on the Road, but the prevent D could have been more agressive absolutely.

As always, the "prevent" prevents nothing.

808phan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As always, the "prevent" prevents nothing.

Yep! Just ask Ron Rivera!

808phan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As always, the "prevent" prevents nothing.

Not true. It prevents whoever runs it from winning.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 808phan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As always, the "prevent" prevents nothing.
>
> Not true. It prevents whoever runs it from
> winning.


So in other words the prevent defense stinks. and technically you are both correct.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2012 10:44AM by samsam3738.

Tongue in cheek. I WAS agreeing w/ him.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It wasnt prevent defense it was short fields from
> turnovers..What prevented us from winning was
> losing the turnover battle. As well as the fact
> that Arizona's final 2 scores both came from a
> shortened field from turning the ball over in the
> 4th QT and OT. If you turn the ball over in the
> 4th QT and overtime it is hard to win...


That is why we lost. This is what happens with a rookie QB.

------------------------------------------------------------

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.

Any chance to get a rip in on Tannehill. LOL. You're so transparent.

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

DolfanKing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crowder52 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It wasnt prevent defense it was short fields
> from
> > turnovers..What prevented us from winning was
> > losing the turnover battle. As well as the fact
> > that Arizona's final 2 scores both came from a
> > shortened field from turning the ball over in
> the
> > 4th QT and OT. If you turn the ball over in the
> > 4th QT and overtime it is hard to win...
>
>
> That is why we lost. This is what happens with a
> rookie QB.

************************************************************

Sure, Tanney threw that int, but how much of the blame do you wish to put on the offensive line? Hell, Marino would have gotten killed back there on the same play if the offensive line lets guys through like they did. That goes for both his fumble and int. The OL didn't do their job!

Tanney takes the responsibility because he is the QB, but the OL should take most of the blame.

Well said, Cap.

Capkcoi ............dolphanking is going to try and blame the whole thing on tannehill because he hates him. He hated that we picked him and he hates that tannehill has shown so much in so little time.

He just cannot wait until tannehill screws up so that he can say he was right all along.

But i have a feeling thats never going to happen.

Cap- It is never a good thing when a defensive player blows threw the A gap on the offensive line, but Tannehill still could have protected the ball...... in the future if that play happens to him again, I expect him to protect the ball, that is his number 1 job.. As far as the interception in OT, he should have thrown the ball away or taken the sack, live to fight another day, dont be a heroe... He tried to do to much, he had the ball for a bit to long trying to make a play....When you are in OT, dont beat yourself, force the other team to beat u... That is my opinion... I am not bashing the guy, he had a great game... But we need him to turn around that turnover to TD ratio for us to be successfull this year. I think it is entirely possible, he made a tremendous jump from week 3 to week 4 IMO.. Here is hoping he continues to make leaps like that in his game in the coming weeks and doesnt digress..

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

I think what happened was IRONIC. I don't think the defense EVER IMAGINED THAT TANNEHILL WOULD BE PASSING.

I think ARIZONA THOUGHT that we would be running the ball.

I think it was a RUN BLITZ, NOT A PASS BLITZ.

I think the defender that blitzed up the gap figured he would be RIGHT THERE JUST IN TIME WHEN THE BALL WAS HANDED OFF.

As such, it WAS REALLY HIS INTENT TO HIT THE QB AND

in this order of priority...

1) Tackle the QB before he handed the ball

2) tackle the runner JUST AS the runner was handed the ball

and of course

3) cause a fumble if he could.

He must have thought he had died and gone to heaven BECAUSE HE PROBABLY NEVER DREAMED THAT THE QUARTERBACK WAS GOING BACK TO PASS.

That's why once he shot the gap, Tannehill had no protection.

Moreover, since the Miami coaches thought that the pass would be effective in that situation taking the defense BY SURPRISE........

they obviously did not have and would not have had Tannehill back in the shotgun.....which is why Tannehill had no blockers once the guy shot the gap.

But that shooting the gap is one of the staples of the Cardinal defense.

All around bad coaching on our part.

Chyren, I am not sure if you have seen the stats on Tannehill pertaining to his snaps under center and his snaps in the shotgun.... Granted in shotgun the circumstance could be tougher, long 3rd down etc. but Tannehill in the shotgun has around a 52 or so QBR, under center his QBR is over 100... Obviously he has been much more successful under center then in the shotgun, so that might factor into the decisions of the coaching...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

The call itself may be questionable, but the blame is on the execution.

Coaches cant block, and I'm pretty sure it's not coached to let the defender shoot the gap untouched.

Well, Crowder, in defending the coaching you may have just proven to be wrong the little slack I tried to cut them.

I tried to say that their planned pass was not adequately blocked because the defender was trying to shoot the gap.

Now, 1) obviously the pass was intended to be a surprise for all the logical reasons.

2) it was anticipated that this "surprise pass" would definitely put us in field goal range and either we run out the clock or we at least kick the field goal and take a 10 point lead.

You may not know it, but all you are saying, logically and distilled, is that since Ryan Tannehill is much better passing from under center than he is passing from shotgun.........................

and since passing from shotgun would have taken away the same element of surprise that we were counting on TO MAKE THE DAMN PLAY SUCCESSFUL IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE...................

then it was stupid of the coaching regime to try to pass at all.

Was that what you were trying to say?

If so, then all you did was to take away the little slack I was trying to cut them.

I am saying the Tannehill has been more successfull under center for reasons you stated above, the failure was in the execution of the block on the A gap, which is always crucial, and Tannehill not having better handle or control on the ball. That is why we turned the ball over in that situation at crucial time, if the A gap block is executed or tannehill didnt fumble, who knows maybe we would be winners right now...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

Every play has oppurtunity to be successfull if all of your players execute it properly and dont get beat, and beat the opposing player assigned to them..

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

Chyren you could call any play in Sherman's entire playbook and if a defensive player bust into the A gap as happened on that play you have problems, Tannehill was more liklely to fumble had he been handing the ball off then handling the ball himself.. He fumbled in a situation he should have had control of the ball, the play call had absolutley nothing to do with what the defensive player was able to do, he caught Tannehill not protecting the ball on the drop back as he busted through. He wasnt even far enough into his drop to have handed the ball off had a running back been there... If he was in shotgun he would have been stuffed or crushed by the same A gap exploitation...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Even had it succeeded, the question would still
> have been "Why in the hell did you pass the ball
> and risk an interception or an incompletion when
> we should have been running the ball?"
>
> Answer just that last question, SoCalPhin.

It's called...wait for it,,,"doing the unexpected"!

So let me get this right. If the in question play would have extended the drive or even gone for a TD, and most/all pundits would have called brilliant, you'd still have a problem with it??

But we'll never know because of the blown A-gap assignment that was the coaches fault?!

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chyren you could call any play in Sherman's entire
> playbook and if a defensive player bust into the A
> gap as happened on that play you have problems,
> Tannehill was more liklely to fumble had he been
> handing the ball off then handling the ball
> himself.. He fumbled in a situation he should have
> had control of the ball, the play call had
> absolutley nothing to do with what the defensive
> player was able to do, he caught Tannehill not
> protecting the ball on the drop back as he busted
> through.

If he HAD committed the fumble by handing off the ball, it would have been IN THE RATIONAL CAUSE OF TRYING TO WIN THE GAME. For him to have lost the ball trying to do something we should not have done in the first place is crazy.



He wasnt even far enough into his drop to
> have handed the ball off had a running back been
> there...

RESPONSE: You can't say that because his back would have been to the rusher had he gone back to hand off the ball. How often have you seen the quarterback FACING THE FRONT LINE ON A RUNNING PLAY HANDOFF.

Had his back been to the defender, he himself Tannehill the quarterback would have been between THE DEFENSIVE MAN WHO CREATED THE FUMBLE AND THE RUNNING BACK.

In other words, there very likely would have BEEN NO FUMBLE but like I said a fumble in the cause of winning the game is one thing, a fumble in the cause of trying to get a touchdown when running the clock out was all that was necessary is just stupid no matter how you slice it.

You can't shrug your shoulder and say "fortunes of war."


> If he was in shotgun he would have been
> stuffed or crushed by the same A gap
> exploitation...

RESPONSE: I never suggested to you that he should have been in the shotgun. Any pass was insane under that situation. It was just as stupid on the reckless side as Baby T was stupid on the conservative side.

But two things, first, like I said above, there would have been no shotgun because Philbin wanted to keep the element of surprise.

But second had he had five yards between himself and that gap rusher, there would have been a sack but no sack and a fumble.

socalphin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > Even had it succeeded, the question would still
> > have been "Why in the hell did you pass the
> ball
> > and risk an interception or an incompletion
> when
> > we should have been running the ball?"
> >
> > Answer just that last question, SoCalPhin.
>
> It's called...wait for it,,,"doing the
> unexpected"!

RESPONSE: No, it's called....wait for it..."doing the unnecessary and taking an unnecessary risk." ALL YOU HAD TO DO TO WIN THE GAME IS RUN THE FRIGGIN' CLOCK OUT? ARE YOU INSANE ALONG WITH PHILBIN?????????

> So let me get this right. If the in question play
> would have extended the drive or even gone for a
> TD, and most/all pundits would have called
> brilliant, you'd still have a problem with it??

RESPONSE: Hell yes because it still would have...wait for it.....IT STILL WOULD HAVE PUT AT RISK A GAME THAT WAS ALREADY IN THE BAG!!!!!
>
> But we'll never know because of the blown A-gap
> assignment that was the coaches fault?!

RESPONSE: Yes it was the coaches fault! Not the assignment being blown but ....wait for it.....THE ASSIGNMENT BEING BLOWN ON A PLAY THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN RUN THAT MADE US LOSE A GAME THAT THERE WAS NO WAY WE SHOULD HAVE EVER LOST BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY WE COULD HAVE POSSIBLY LOST THE GAME WAS TO RUN THE PLAY THAT THE COACHES EITHER ORDERED TO BE RUN OR ALLOWED TO BE RUN.

I'm gonna try to go on the Arizona Cardinal fan chat board and see what they are saying.

Man you guys will defend a leader no matter what he does.

No wonder Hitler fooled so many people into blindly following him.