Was his mobility in the pocket, ability to extend plays, avoid the rush and make plays happen with his own legs... I wonder if his injury slowed him down a bit the last couple weeks... Or maybe he just had better pocket awareness as he gains experience feeling the pressure and avoiding it...

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

But Philbin would never never never have played him before he was fully healed would he have? Not the God Philbin.

Hey Chyren--what's your beef with Philbin? Your posts are awfully hostile towards this guy. What's up? (Email me if you want.)

colonel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Chyren--what's your beef with Philbin? Your
> posts are awfully hostile towards this guy. What's
> up? (Email me if you want.)


First it was ireland now he going on philbins direction.

Im telling you some people are never happy.

colonel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Chyren--what's your beef with Philbin? Your
> posts are awfully hostile towards this guy. What's
> up? (Email me if you want.)


He can't seriously have a beef with Philbin at this point can he?

Ireland I understand but Philbin?

Wow.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> colonel Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey Chyren--what's your beef with Philbin? Your
> > posts are awfully hostile towards this guy.
> What's
> > up? (Email me if you want.)
>
>
> He can't seriously have a beef with Philbin at
> this point can he?
>
> Ireland I understand but Philbin?
>
> Wow.

agreed.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> colonel Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey Chyren--what's your beef with Philbin? Your
> > posts are awfully hostile towards this guy.
> What's
> > up? (Email me if you want.)
>
>
> He can't seriously have a beef with Philbin at
> this point can he?
>
> Ireland I understand but Philbin?
>
> Wow.

To Truth and Colonel.

I blame him for the overtime loss to the Jets by having, directing, say it how you will but even ALLOWING Tannehill to throw a bomb when we were on the very edge of Carpenter's field goal safety distance of 47 yards on 2nd and about 8, I'm going from memory.

It was a wasted play and we got stuffed on a run on 3rd and 8 or so.

Carpenter misses the field goal. I would not have complained if that play had come when we were on the 15 yard line and Carpenter had missed an easy field goal but that was a wasted play.

The next week, Philbin can be blamed by having, directing, say it how you will but even ALLOWING Tannehill to go back to pass in a similar situation against Arizona late in the game and Tannehill was sacked and fumbled. WE WERE LEADING 21-14. WE WERE AT MIDFIELD. THERE WERE ONLY 3:00 MINUTES LEFT IN THE GAME.

You run the clock down right? You run as much time off as you can, make them use their timeouts, even an INCOMPLETE PASS STOPS THE CLOCK, the last thing you do is go back and pass? Yet Philbin has or allows either his offensive coordinator or a rookie like RT make the decision to pass and the football gods rightfully punish us with that fumble which allowed Arizona to tie, take us into overtime and win.

I have seen other such examples in other games. One recently wherein we were behind with our last drive of the game wherein a field goal or a TD would have tied or won. It was either the Colts or the Bills game.

It was late in the game. We were about at the opposition 40 yard line and got a penalty on first down and were 1st and 20.

This is going to be your last drive. It's like you only have a certain limited amount of money to spend for the whole month and you've got to stretch it out.

What do YOU DO? COACH????????? You've got FOUR DOWNS TO MAKE 20 YARDS. That's what it boils down to. YOU NEED TO GET AN AVERAGE OF 5 YARDS A DOWN.

What does Philbin have, direct, say it how you will but even ALLOW Tannehill to do???????? He has Tannehill PROMPTLY throw FOUR PASSES OF 20 YARDS OR MORE. All are incomplete and we lose the game.

That my friends is why I have begun calling him the God Philbin.

That is why we have traded a far too conservative coach for a reckless one.

Want more. Was RT REALLY READY TO PLAY AFTER THAT INJURY? I'm not sure "Reckless Joe" was assured he was.

Secondly, our players have repeatedly got the same penalties over and over on the field. Great kickoff returns constantly nullified by "block in the back" penalties.

Defensive Backs constantly dropping interceptions.

Pass rushers failing to put up their arms to obstruct the vision of opposing passers.

Just the overall sloppy play of the team.

Now you guys called me out and asked what could I possibly have against Philbin.

I have given you a long explanation but you could just as well limited the answer to the last simple sentence "Just the overall sloppy play of the team."

And you guys act like he's some head coach with a good history behind him like "Chucky."

This guy HAS NEVER BEEN A HEAD COACH BEFORE, EVEN IN COLLEGE, EVEN IN SMALL SMALL COLLEGES.

And that is showing.

Chyren is right about the Arizona game, we were running the ball well on that drive and went to pass, the a gap got run through and he fumbled, it was not smart playcalling at all, we had the game wrapped up... And there has been some other questionable play calling at times.... However, Philbin isnt calling the plays, Sherman calls the offensive plays from upstairs, so I dont think you can crucify Philbin for how his offensive cordinator calls the game...

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

Not trying to castrate him, Colonel, just letting him know that he is mortal and has to follow traditional football gametime strategy philosophy and can't be reckless just because he has finally become a head coach.

Yes, every head coach has to have his "first head coaching job". Logically that is true. What I was pointing out, however, is that if you wikipedia Joe Philbin, you will see that he has had about 20 prior coaching jobs, some at very small colleges but he was never a head coach. That I find unusual. I would venture if you look at every other NFL Head Coach, you will find that either 1) their entire coaching experience has been in the pros or 2) they were head coaches in college prior to going to the pros.

Your other comment centered on playing RT after the injury. RT may have been fully healed. But you're right, my comment speaks more of my lack of confidence in Philbin than any hard evidence I have about RT's injury. Just funny that RT was playing great before the injury. Went down in performance afterwards and also has starting getting better lately. Sounds like the way a guy performs right before the flu, during the flu, and when he begins recovering from the flu.

I think they started RT earlier then they could of after his injury in the Jets game, so as to not create controversy in case Moore played really well.. It was also good for a young player to battle through the pain and play banged up.. Do I think Matt Moore might have given us a better chance to win a game or 2, possibly. But I understand the decision Philbin made, and it was probably best long term for RT and his development... We arent winning a superbowl this year, so this year is about RT developing ultimately.

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

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Not only that Colonel, it implies that Philbin
> would recklessly play someone who was unfit to
> play. That he'd ignore the longterm future of his
> rookie QB and his new team by ignoring the medical
> opinions of his team doctors (not that they ever
> held such an opinion).
>
> Its a delusional fantasy constructed to support
> some preconceived opinion about Philbin in the
> face of a lack of actual evidence.
>
> The idea that Philbin COULD even force an injured
> player out on the field before he was cleared by
> team physicians in this day and age is laughable.
> The NFLPA would sue the Dolphins so fast you
> wouldn't know what hit us.
>
> The fact that any fan would push that cockamamie
> notion half way through Philbin's first season
> with absolutely no evidence to back it up isn't
> only libelous, its an ringing indictment of that
> fan.
>
> Absolutely scary.

Leave it to the Truth to go all the way over to a conspiracy theory.

Colonel was concerned that I thought Philbin was so egotistical that he would rush a player back into action when (regardless of whether he was medically eligible to play) he was not back to 100% of his old self.

That's a rational discussion in which I was participating.

Leave it to the Truth, who cannot adequately understand a fine distinction, to over interpret it to say that Philbin would have Tannehill playing with an open wound bleeding that Philbin was only covering up with constant applications of bandages.

LOL. LOL. LOL.

But there's a difference in knowing whether a player declared medically fit to play is 100% of his ole self.

All I am saying is that Philbin could have risked a poor performance by Tannehill on one hand with the chance that he was not 100% (EFFECTIVENESS WISE LEST THE TRUTH AGAIN MISINTERPRET) and thus really risk our best chance to win the game therebyj.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think they started RT earlier then they could of
> after his injury in the Jets game, so as to not
> create controversy in case Moore played really
> well.. It was also good for a young player to
> battle through the pain and play banged up.. Do I
> think Matt Moore might have given us a better
> chance to win a game or 2, possibly. But I
> understand the decision Philbin made, and it was
> probably best long term for RT and his
> development... We arent winning a superbowl this
> year, so this year is about RT developing
> ultimately.


I'm confused.

Are you saying that you believe that Philbin started Tannehill before he was ready in order to avoid a QB controversy and that you agree with it because that avoiding said controversy was in the best long term interests of Tannehill and his development?





I really don't understand all the hubub about this subject with some of you guys. This is the NFL. NOBODY is 100% healthy halfway through the season.

Some guys are certainly banged up more than others, but there are very few guys out there who aren't banged up.

It boils down to this: either a guy is cleared medically to play or he isn't. Either he is healthy enough after being cleared to go out there without risking further injury (or hurting the team)...or he isn't.

Either you guys are accusing Philbin of ignoring medical advice and ordering an injured player into the game in order to avoid a QB controversy (or to some other nefarious purpose), or you are complaining he played a player who wasn't 100% healthy, but healthy enough to play...something that happens every week in the NFL on every team.

One of those arguments is crazy. The other is just silly.

I think Tannehill could have sat and was not as mobile or agile following the Jets game. I think starting Matt Moore again after his Jets win, opened up a can of worms if Moore performed like he had the previous week and got a victory. I don't think that can of worms was good for the team or Tannehill. Plus Qb's need to learn to play hurt to a certain degree.. Which is why I understand the move, but I think the move was more about the future then the now. I don't think an 80 percent rookie Tannehill gave us the best chances to win over a 100 percent healthy Moore.

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

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Tannehill could have sat and was not as
> mobile or agile following the Jets game. I think
> starting Matt Moore again after his Jets win,
> opened up a can of worms if Moore performed like
> he had the previous week and got a victory. I
> don't think that can of worms was good for the
> team or Tannehill. Plus Qb's need to learn to play
> hurt to a certain degree.. Which is why I
> understand the move, but I think the move was more
> about the future then the now. I don't think an 80
> percent rookie Tannehill gave us the best chances
> to win over a 100 percent healthy Moore.


That's what I thought. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm going to take a different view of our head coach until he gives me reason not to.

I agree its pretty clear that Tannehill wasn't 100%. But I have no reason whatsoever to believe that avoiding a QB controversy had anything at all to do with his decision. I think that in Philbin's eyes, as with most fans, there is no QB controversy. Tannehill is our starter for this year and at least the next two. Moore probably won't even be here next year.

I agree with the last part of your statement. In fact, I think that's precisely why he played.

He was healthy enough. He's your team leader. He needs to experience playing at less than 100% and it would set a horrible example if not weaken his leadership in the clubhouse if you only played him when he was 100%.

It sends the right message to his teammates and builds team chemistry if your QB is out there playing through the pain (when possible) just like his teammates.