Tanney just not there yet. Never looks to push the ball down field. He is a more accurate Henne.

Offense disappears for long stretches when he is running the team.

yeah he checks out of plays, late in game his screwing around blew 2nd and 1 into 2nd and 6.

Jake Long is average at best, got abused all game.

Coaches went with a soft defense against a bunch of average WR other then Wayne.

Jake Long is no longer an elite LT. He's better than average by far but has fallen from that A+ elite category. He's an A player, and was beaten by an A player today in Dwight Freeny.

Coaches did not give Luck, IMO, lots of defensive looks today.

Tannehill was okay today, but limited with his mobility. He actions were not as fluid.

Luck had a career day--one of many for him. He now owns the rookie passing record for one game. This show's his greatness and our secondary's weakness against great QB.

The reason the Colts were able to run the ball in the 4th quarter was due to exhaustion. They were wiped after putting so much into the previous 45 minutes trying to put pressure on Luck who ran away from trouble much of the time.

The Dolphins were outplayed by a better team today.

dolphin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tanney just not there yet. Never looks to push the
> ball down field. He is a more accurate Henne.
>
> Offense disappears for long stretches when he is
> running the team.
>
> yeah he checks out of plays, late in game his
> screwing around blew 2nd and 1 into 2nd and 6.
>
> Jake Long is average at best, got abused all game.
>
>
> Coaches went with a soft defense against a bunch
> of average WR other then Wayne.

Excellent post, Dolphin but I still have to disagree. True, at the end of the game on our final drive, after the penalties disrupted the rhythmn, Tannehill came apart mentally and started throwing high. It was a "WOW" moment for me because I never thought he would do that.

But still, you have to remember, this was a 23-20 game. Most of those points came in the first half. There were a total of 30 combined points by both teams in the first half and only 13 combined points by both teams in the second half.

Why do I bring this up? Because Tannehill was under severe pressure in the first half and we outscored them in that half. I don't think Matt Moore would have stood up to that pressure and I doubt we would have scored enough TO NOT HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY BEHIND ON THE SCOREBOARD.

So without Tannehill, the game may not have been as close.

Of course, this is separate and apart from what many would say and that is that the loss here is totally on the defense. I have not seen so many 3rd and impossibly long passes completed.

Like I said, our defensive pass rushers don't do what they teach you in high school to do and that is when you approach the QB put your hands in his face and try to sack him HIGH ON HIS BODY, NOT LOW. He is much more likely to hurt you with his arms than with his feet. That's why they get so many bat downs on Tanny.

Anyone who puts this loss on anything other than the defense must have not seen the game. Yes, Luck is a great young QB, but the number of completely uncovered receivers was inexcusable. The only thing I can't figure out is how you can play defense that badly and only give up 23 points. I also thought Tannehill played well for the most part. He is clearly not 100 percent, which wasn't helped by Jake Long's impersonation of Marc Columbo.

Moore handles pressure better even before Tannehill injured his leg do yes, I believe we win today with Moore.

The defense didn't play great but they only gave up 23 points do the loss isn't on them alone. Once again, the offense had a chance to win at the end and failed. Beginning to see a pattern?

"The defense didn't play great"?? That's a bit of an understatement. I lost count of how many 3rd and longs the defense allowed. Luck throws 50+ passes and we get one sack? Potential game changing INTs dropped. This loss falls squarely on the defense. There wasn't one facet of defense that was even remotely acceptable. Hopefully, this was an aberration rather than a sign of what we might see the remainder of the season.

Fins72 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The defense didn't play great"?? That's a bit of
> an understatement. I lost count of how many 3rd
> and longs the defense allowed. Luck throws 50+
> passes and we get one sack? Potential game
> changing INTs dropped. This loss falls squarely on
> the defense. There wasn't one facet of defense
> that was even remotely acceptable. Hopefully, this
> was an aberration rather than a sign of what we
> might see the remainder of the season.

Ok, the defense sucked! But Tannehill and the offense had the ball last and all they needed to do was get in fg range so to say the loss is solely on the defense is overlooking the fact that Tannehill failed to complete a game winning/tying drive. Again.

GBOFinFan Wrote:

> Ok, the defense sucked! But Tannehill and the
> offense had the ball last and all they needed to
> do was get in fg range so to say the loss is
> solely on the defense is overlooking the fact that
> Tannehill failed to complete a game winning/tying
> drive. Again.


And they would have been in FG range if Sean Smith had held on to his 3rd opportunity of the game for an INT.

We were lucky this game was close. Had the Colts made their FGs and caught their wide open passes, it would not have been close.

The Colts converted 13 3rd downs, including 6 of 3rd and 10 or more yards, which included a 3rd and 22. That is just totally unacceptable. Smith misses chances on 3 INTs. Karlos Dansby drops a sure Pick-6. The Fins force 2 fumbles and don't recover either of them. It's a team loss, but the bulk of the blame is on the defense.

GBO, I blame the playcalling on that last drive. Like I said either above or on another thread, we were 2nd and 20 and we did not try to get a moderate amount of yardage on three downs we had left.

Instead, on three consecutive occasions we tried to throw 20 yard plus passes. If I'm not mixing up possessions, as I remember it, we ended up one yard short.

I think its time to take off the rose colored glasses......NO NOT ABOUT TANNEHILL but about Philbin and his coaching staff and the decision making (or lack of it) that they do.

Yeah, Tannehill didn't make the plays at the end of the game. But his shortcomings pale in comparison to the massive egg that was laid by the defense. Sean Smith hangs onto the interception and we at least send the game into overtime if not win the game outright. Tannehill at least has the excuse of being a rookie. The defense should be apologizing to everyone for what was a truly monumentally putrid performance.

Of course, an entirely different question (and one no one has asked) is HOW HEALTHY WAS TANNEHILL TODAY?

I did NOT see him limping or anything else. Let me make that clear.

But all I know is that the Colts got to him LIKE NO ONE, EVEN THE HOUSTON TEXANS have got to him this year.

May have been that he WAS rushed back too early.

Another stupid post.

The D was abysmal today. End of story.

Although the play calling was extremely questionable at times.

Sherman needs to lose that delayed, easy to read, running play they kept using. You know, the one that starts about 8 yards deep, with half the d-line in the backfield waiting for it. Terrible play!

dolfanmark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GBOFinFan Wrote:
>
> > Ok, the defense sucked! But Tannehill and the
> > offense had the ball last and all they needed
> to
> > do was get in fg range so to say the loss is
> > solely on the defense is overlooking the fact
> that
> > Tannehill failed to complete a game
> winning/tying
> > drive. Again.
>
>
> And they would have been in FG range if Sean Smith
> had held on to his 3rd opportunity of the game for
> an INT.
>
> We were lucky this game was close. Had the Colts
> made their FGs and caught their wide open passes,
> it would not have been close.
>

You know, I think that if their receivers had made those plays and they scored more, our offensive playcalling would've been different and we would've seen a lot more scoring on both sides. Which leads me to believe what Chryen has been eluding to. The coaching staff is not as competent as they've looked in this first half of the season.

If Tannehill is the real deal, unleash him. Let him throw the ball downfield with a lead so he can learn how to put teams away.

I socalphin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another stupid post.
>
> The D was abysmal today. End of story.
>
> Although the play calling was extremely
> questionable at times.
>
> Sherman needs to lose that delayed, easy to read,
> running play they kept using. You know, the one
> that starts about 8 yards deep, with half the
> d-line in the backfield waiting for it. Terrible
> play!

RESPONSE: Stupid Post?????

Now there is no doubt that the defense played abysmally today.

But .....END OF STORY???????

Answer me one question (I love that phrase) IF IT WAS SUCH A DEVASTATINGLY BAD PERFORMANCE BY THE DEFENSE HOW COME WE LOST BY ONLY THREE POINTS! HOW COME THEY ONLY SCORED 23 POINTS??????

This is the type of overblown rhetoric that starts fights on this board.

Here I am firmly in the camp of those who say the loss is on the defense but I get attacked by you because I am RATIONAL ENOUGH to recognize that EVEN GIVEN THAT BAD PERFORMANCE we still had an opportunity to win and that goes to the coaching, the quarterback play, the blocking ....in other words, the rest of the team BESIDES the defense.

But of course, to some people, the answer is always simple. The answer must be EITHER A OR NOT A.

When you start to critique, they act like it's an election where you can only choose one candidate.

THEY GET JUST AS MAD AS IF YOU HAD SAID THE DEFENSE PLAYED OKAY.

No one is saying that.

But of course you attacking one of my posts is not a rare thing anyway.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2012 05:22PM by ChyrenB.

Chyren,


I think SoCal means the original post is stupid. Not your post.

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

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

I don't know. He can say so if that is true. If he did, then he has to learn the difference between a post (mine came before his) and a thread, which the whole bunch of posts are.

When you post "stupid post" after someone's post then people naturally think you are talking about them.

Sorry Chryn, I meant the thread. The supposition that we win if Moore starts, was lame.

But what do you mean "only 23 points"?
The colts were one dropped pass from 30 points.
The D was getting lit! I thought it as quite obvious.

Well, I apologize to you too SoCal. I too disagreed with the notion that we would have won had Moore played.

Well, usually a poor defensive performance will yield usually 28 points or better at least. That would be 4 touchdowns.

There were what 2 touchdowns and 3 field goals we gave up.

True, the Defense WAS GETTING LIT FOR PASSING YARDAGE. Big Time!

400 yards passing by luck the most in NFL Rookie history.

But on the bottom line of points scored, the points given up by our defense was not insurmountable.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do I bring this up? Because Tannehill was
> under severe pressure in the first half and we
> outscored them in that half. I don't think Matt
> Moore would have stood up to that pressure and I
> doubt we would have scored enough TO NOT HAVE BEEN
> SERIOUSLY BEHIND ON THE SCOREBOARD.

I agree. I have watched Matt Moore since college and when he is pressured by either pass rush or tight coverage he becomes an interception machine.

IMO Tannehill played well in his 8th NFL game. He didn't lose the game, but he does need to step up and show he can WIN games like that. THAT is what a great QB does.

My lingering question about him is this, Tannehill was sold as a 'great athelete', 'ex-wide receiver with great wheels', In a word, a guy who could scramble and keep the play alive with his legs. WHY are we seeing none of that. Several times yesterday Luck broke us down by scampering for a few yards when the pressure got to him. Is Tannehill being told not to use his legs or was that all just hype?

Honest question to all who think that Moore would've won the game if he'd started. Do you think Miami would have won the game if the defense had played no betterand no worse than Ryan Tannehill. Keep in mind, he had an approximate 90 QB rating, threw for just under 300 yards, one TD and no INTs. I think that's a slightly better than average day for an NFL QB. Not spectacular, but solid. So, if the defense had a slightly better than average day for an NFL defense, what do you all think would've been the result? I'm curious because in my opinion, this loss was entirely on the defense.. 100%.

100 % on the defense?? In a team sport you can't deal in such generalities. IF all the other elements of the team played superbly then yes, 100 % of the blame falls on the defense and that was clearly NOT the case. Others have put some blame on the O-line and Jake in particular. Tanny's play was not stellar by any stretch.
It was a team loss with the QB play being the difference.
Tanny played good, Luck was very good. Advantage Indy.

regarding the title of this post...I have to agree that it is ridiculous. There is just no way to know. MM has had bad games before...not that RT even had a bad game.

Do you even realize that our defense just gave up an NFL RECORD for passing yards by a rookie. That's pretty pathetic.

The entire team was lathargic and flat. Tannehill was probably our most consistent player. Almost 300 yards passing and 1 TD....and that aint sayin much.

Our rushing game sucks right now. If not for a few spectacular runs/games by Reggie we have done nothing. We could not manage 100 yards rushing TOTAL for a team that is one of the worst in the league stopping the run. Indy was ranked 25th.

The bad news is that team now know how to beat us....just throw the ball. OC's are on to us. Coyle better step it up. Bad coaching can be blamed for this game too. On both sides of the ball.

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

KB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why do I bring this up? Because Tannehill was
> > under severe pressure in the first half and we
> > outscored them in that half. I don't think
> Matt
> > Moore would have stood up to that pressure and
> I
> > doubt we would have scored enough TO NOT HAVE
> BEEN
> > SERIOUSLY BEHIND ON THE SCOREBOARD.
>
> I agree. I have watched Matt Moore since college
> and when he is pressured by either pass rush or
> tight coverage he becomes an interception
> machine.
>
> IMO Tannehill played well in his 8th NFL game. He
> didn't lose the game, but he does need to step up
> and show he can WIN games like that. THAT is what
> a great QB does.
>
> My lingering question about him is this, Tannehill
> was sold as a 'great athelete', 'ex-wide receiver
> with great wheels', In a word, a guy who could
> scramble and keep the play alive with his legs.
> WHY are we seeing none of that. Several times
> yesterday Luck broke us down by scampering for a
> few yards when the pressure got to him. Is
> Tannehill being told not to use his legs or was
> that all just hype?


KB...you are spot on.

Moore is an interception machine, at least historically, when under pressure.

Tannehill isn't.

And our biggest problem on offense isn't who is starting at QB...both guys are good.

Its our WR's...and our o-line.

We have the SLOWEST wr's in the league.

Sure, Hartline is a legit #2 or #3. And Bess is a good #3 or #4.

But none of our guys have the speed or quickness of the Colts WR's. And you can add Fasano to that mix also.

We just don't get separation. There are few easy throws in our offense right now...and that's not going to be fixed this year. Its just a lack of talent.

Add to that the fact that our O-line is not playing at the level it did earlier in the year and we are going to have times when our offense looks bad...especially on the road.

Even so, if our defense makes a play or two on 3rd down and long yesterday and we probably win.

They ran 75 plays because they were able to extend drives that should have ended on 3rd and long. We ran 58 plays. We had been averaging 65 plays a game. They had the ball for 35 minutes to our 25 minutes.

I have to agree with those that think the idea that we win if Moore plays is nonsense.

Our QB had a 90.9 rating. He didn't lose the game...our defense did that.

Yes. It took to long for the play caller to even start rolling RT out to avoid pressure.

He could have several times picked up first downs and continued drives had he just run. They must be telling him not to do it.

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

Once again... say anything close to the truth and get bashed on this site.

I agree, a veteran QB would have had a much better chance of winning today.

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

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2012 06:12AM by DolfanKing.

Dolphanking wrote.........I agree, a veteran QB would have had a much better chance of winning today.


While i like matt moore......I support him.....>But with the kind of pressure the real deal tannehill had yesterday matt moore would had thrown at least a pick....Maybe a pick 6....

Miamis offfensive like regressed yesterday..

As much as i hate to admit it jake long is on a low as far as his career goes....We got beat up pretty good...The QB the realdeal got beat up..

Its great that he is as tough as they come....

And after an injury week he came out firing and played well......

Yup as much as you hate to admit it thats the truth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2012 06:27AM by samsam3738.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Our QB had a 90.9 rating. He didn't lose the
> game...our defense did that.


Our QB didn't WIN the game either. As bad as the defense played, He had a chance to win the game.

A lot of people here keep pinning this ENTIRE loss on the defense. Yes, they played atrocious! But as bad as they played, they only gave up 23 pts. and when it counted, they held and gave the offense a chance to WIN the game.

How can any sane person say Moore is an interception machine? Did you not see his last 9 games last year.

If Moore was starter on this team they would be 7-1 not 4 and 4.

Moore looks down field to gain yards. Tanneyhill checks down to shorter plays. Go back and watch the tape.

Tanneyhill will throw to balls to the right side, staring there the entire time. Then it is like he thinks oh i need to throw to the left side then he will staring there the entire time. Watch the tape.

Sunday he is staring left. Bess on right he beats his guy would been a 10-12 yard pick up. Tanny staring left throws incomplete to a totally covered TE. watch the tape.

Next play again staring left he hits Bess for a first down. Hartlin on right beats coverage and is streaking down field. watch the tape

He makes it very easy to defend the offense. Locking in on side of ball he is going to throw to, never looking downfield. Watch the tape.

dolphin wrote: If Moore was starter on this team they would be 7-1 not 4 and 4.


LMAO....They probably be 8-0 ....Since matt moore is matt ryan like..

Give me a break....

Do little kids frequent this board?

GBOFinFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Our QB had a 90.9 rating. He didn't lose the
> > game...our defense did that.
>
>
> Our QB didn't WIN the game either. As bad as the
> defense played, He had a chance to win the game.


That's true. He didn't. Our Rookie QB failed to make a play to win the game on the last drive.

But that's FAR, FAR cry from "losing" the game.





>
> A lot of people here keep pinning this ENTIRE loss
> on the defense. Yes, they played atrocious! But as
> bad as they played, they only gave up 23 pts. and
> when it counted, they held and gave the offense a
> chance to WIN the game.

Our defense gave up 516 yards...dropped 3 INT's and only allowed our offense on the field for 25 minutes.

They LOST the game for us. Its only because Tannehill had a good (not great) day, and their HOF kicker missed 2FG's, that we were even hanging around at the end with a shot to win.

516 yards GBO...and an NFL record for passing yards for a rookie.

That's awful...on an epic scale.