games of Jake Long and Reggie Bush in a Dolphins uni, I for one am all for not re-signing either guy based on recent play and the money they'll both want.
Now, if either wants to come back at a reduced salary, then that'd work, but I doubt that very seriously. Even if Long came back, it'd be negligent on Irelands part to not find a decent back up plan. Not sure if it's injury breaking him down or a different scheme, but his play has not been good this year.
As far as Bush goes, he's on the tail end of his career and Miami has other options already on the roster in Thomas and Miller, plus multiple draft choices to work with.
I know these wont be easy or popular choices for Ireland to make, but I think it's the right ones if he does go in another direction with either guy.

I agree. Long's production has dwindled way too fast. He's lost all his value this year. As for Bush, he hasn't even run for 100 yards in a single game this year, but he can still contribute. I also doubt he'll lower is asking price much, as there are definitely other teams that will pay him!

What I wouldnt pay to have Ricky and Ronnie back now

Jake gave up a sack last week but had a pretty decent game. He looked good in the running game for a change. He was downfield blocking on the Bush TD.

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

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> games of Jake Long and Reggie Bush in a Dolphins
> uni, I for one am all for not re-signing either
> guy based on recent play and the money they'll
> both want.
> Now, if either wants to come back at a reduced
> salary, then that'd work, but I doubt that very
> seriously. Even if Long came back, it'd be
> negligent on Irelands part to not find a decent
> back up plan. Not sure if it's injury breaking him
> down or a different scheme, but his play has not
> been good this year.
> As far as Bush goes, he's on the tail end of his
> career and Miami has other options already on the
> roster in Thomas and Miller, plus multiple draft
> choices to work with.
> I know these wont be easy or popular choices for
> Ireland to make, but I think it's the right ones
> if he does go in another direction with either
> guy.

I think you are probably right. I don't think either will be back but I'd take both of them at the right price.

I'd re-sign bush as a role player if he'd take 2-2.5 mill per for two years.

I'd bring long back if the contract is friendly enough. My issue wouldn't so much be paying him8-11 mill a year. It will be with the upfront money that would translate to a cap hit if we cut him.

I'd basically offer him 5 year 50-55mill contract with the signing bonus paid out in 5 equal installments if he's on the roster as of 3/1 each year. That way if he got worse you could cut him with minimal cap hit. In essence his contract would be 5 consecutive 1 year deals.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2012 06:15AM by THE Truth.

I agree. Let's get rid of our only offensive weapon and our pro-bowl LT, because LT's are so easy to replace.

The coaching staff and inconsistent play from the oline are the reason Bush hasnt thrived under this regime IMO... Explain me this, if you lack weapons on offense, why would you ever pull reggie out of the game. If you dont want to run him fine, then put him as a reciever or decoy.. Defenses have to account for Bush at all times, no matter where on the field he is playing. Having Bush on the field at all times should only help this team and offense, yet they seem to keep him on the sidelines more then in the games, that is a shortcoming of this coaching staff IMO... If Bush is on the sidelines the opposing defense doesnt have to account for him, and that helps the opposing defense IMO...

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

Bush is a homerun hitter. Did anyone see him breaking enemy ankles the last couple of weeks?

Next year people will be blaming Ireland for getting rid of Bush and not replacing him...the same way they did for Marshall. However he may be expendable but we need to get a better look at Lamar Miller. Keeping him inactive isn't helping if the plan is to let Bush go to FA.

Jake has 5 game left to prove himself.

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

@ Truth, I agree that if Bush will play for a reduced salary then sign him up, but this is probably gonna be his last contract, him and his agent would be fools to not try and get the biggest contract possible from any team that will do it.

@ Crowder, I tend to disagree about Bush's problems being coaching or the o-line (to a certain extent anyway), Bush seems to be doing a lot of dancing these days instead of just hitting the hole like he was last year. Daniel Thomas might not hit the home run, but he's been hitting the hole with authority and picking up positive yards lately.

@ samsam, Bush is not relatively young in RB years, he's on the tail end of his career, especially for a smallish back.

I think everyone would like to keep Bush and jake and give them chances to redeem themselves. But I believe the price Tag they will want will be more along the lines of EXPECTING greatness , not hoping for it. Unless Jake and Reggie come down to earth, and I doubt it because this might be their last Prime chance to get a big contract.....it might just be better to say goodbye.

Dolphaholic bush i think 26 or 27 years old. even for a back thats not too old. I believe he is only been in the league for 6 years or so.

JMO but i think he has at least 4 or 5 good years left. Especially him that is more of a sneaky back and avoids the big hit so well. Unlike daniel thomas and his contussion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2012 08:19AM by samsam3738.

Bush avg 5 yards a carry last year. This year he is averaging 4.4, not much of a decline there... Last year he had 6 TD's this year he has 5 so far.. Last year he had 4 fumbles, this year he has 3 so far... If Reggie gets his attempts he will have just as many yards as he did last year... I dont think Reggie's game has fallen off from last year as much as some of you think... The more you put Bush on the field the more he is going to accomplish.
In the last 4 games Bush has only carried the ball a total of 39 times, hard to have outstanding numbers with that few carries...

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

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The coaching staff and inconsistent play from the
> oline are the reason Bush hasnt thrived under this
> regime IMO... Explain me this, if you lack weapons
> on offense, why would you ever pull reggie out of
> the game. If you dont want to run him fine, then
> put him as a receiver or decoy.. Defenses have to
> account for Bush at all times, no matter where on
> the field he is playing. Having Bush on the field
> at all times should only help this team and
> offense, yet they seem to keep him on the
> sidelines more then in the games, that is a
> shortcoming of this coaching staff IMO... If Bush
> is on the sidelines the opposing defense doesnt
> have to account for him, and that helps the
> opposing defense IMO...

This is Gospel. Pay attention.

Crowder maybe deion sanders was right the other day when he said that was their way of telling reggie bush he won't be here next year.

__________________________________


I have no idea what they have against reggie bush. Why the benching?

Because of a couple of fumbles?

Everybody fumbles.

I never really understood why.

samsam3738 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crowder maybe deion sanders was right the other
> day when he said that was their way of telling
> reggie bush he won't be here next year.
>
>

Or maybe it was simply their way of telling him "don't fumble the ball"?

Not saying I agree or disagree with the tactic, but maybe it's just that simple.

JC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> samsam3738 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Crowder maybe deion sanders was right the other
> > day when he said that was their way of telling
> > reggie bush he won't be here next year.
> >
> >
>
> Or maybe it was simply their way of telling him
> "don't fumble the ball"?
>
> Not saying I agree or disagree with the tactic,
> but maybe it's just that simple.


But that goes without saying JC.

Of course they dont want him to fumble the ball..

Why sit him down because of one mistake? Especially when he is the best RB on the roster.

I have no issues with coaches holding players accountable. None.

Especially stars.

If it was his fist fumble of the year then I could see questioning the decision but it was his 3rd.

I dont think this team has won a game where it's lost the turn over battle yet. If we are going to play a rookie qb who will throw some ints simply as part of his growing process then we really can't afford to have a veteran team leader be careless with the ball.

Philbin made the right call.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have no issues with coaches holding players
> accountable. None.
>
> Especially stars.
>
> If it was his fist fumble of the year then I could
> see questioning the decision but it was his 3rd.
>
> I dont think this team has won a game where it's
> lost the turn over battle yet. If we are going to
> play a rookie qb who will throw some ints simply
> as part of his growing process then we really
> can't afford to have a veteran team leader be
> careless with the ball.
>
> Philbin made the right call.


Just for reference, Ryan Tannehill has just as many fumbles as Reggie Bush, plus he has 12 interceptions... SO that means Tannehill has 15 turnovers, Bush has 3... If you have no problem holding players accountable, isn't it inconsistent to not hold the QB accountable to some degree with that excessive amount of turnovers...
3 fumbles is not some horrible problem, out of the top 20 rushing leaders 9 of them have 3 fumbles or more, including Adrian Peterson, the player who is leading the league in rushing.. Do you think they benched Peterson, or Lesean Mccoy for their fumbles... Benching Reggie hurt the team, and a veteran like Bush doesnt need to be taught a lesson from a benching. If you dont want to give him as many carries fine but keep the guy on the field, he is a weapon, our best weapon on the offense... CUtting off your nose to spite your face is never a good call, especially with a guy who is as committed as Reggie Bush...

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

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have no issues with coaches holding players
> > accountable. None.
> >
> > Especially stars.
> >
> > If it was his fist fumble of the year then I
> could
> > see questioning the decision but it was his
> 3rd.
> >
> > I dont think this team has won a game where
> it's
> > lost the turn over battle yet. If we are going
> to
> > play a rookie qb who will throw some ints
> simply
> > as part of his growing process then we really
> > can't afford to have a veteran team leader be
> > careless with the ball.
> >
> > Philbin made the right call.
>
>
> Just for reference, Ryan Tannehill has just as
> many fumbles as Reggie Bush, plus he has 12
> interceptions... SO that means Tannehill has 15
> turnovers, Bush has 3... If you have no problem
> holding players accountable, isn't it inconsistent
> to not hold the QB accountable to some degree with
> that excessive amount of turnovers...
> 3 fumbles is not some horrible problem, out of the
> top 20 rushing leaders 9 of them have 3 fumbles or
> more, including Adrian Peterson, the player who is
> leading the league in rushing.. Do you think they
> benched Peterson, or Lesean Mccoy for their
> fumbles... Benching Reggie hurt the team, and a
> veteran like Bush doesnt need to be taught a
> lesson from a benching. If you dont want to give
> him as many carries fine but keep the guy on the
> field, he is a weapon, our best weapon on the
> offense... CUtting off your nose to spite your
> face is never a good call, especially with a guy
> who is as committed as Reggie Bush...

That's a ridiculous argument. QB's touch the ball on every down. RB's touch it on 1/3 of the downs if they're lucky. So, a RB's turnovers count higher than a QB's.

I believe TheTruth explained that RT is a rookie and Bush is a vet. That is part of the issue.

As stated above the QB handles the ball on EVERY play. Bush had 4 carries in the game he was benched before he fumbled. You can't just pick one stat to compare Bush's issues with fumbling. he is among the all time leaders in fumbles by RB's. It has been a big problem for him in the past. He once had 8 in a season.

RB's are taught to protect the ball from day one. There are no gauntlet drills for QB's.

RB's are running with the ball to advance it. It's not really the same as the QB getting blind sided and the ball getting knocked out as they are trying to look downfield.

Why second guess the coach when we don't know if there were other issues besides the fumbling. You can speculate all you want but it is the coaches call. It seems to have worked.

I do notice Bush is protecting the ball much better now so maybe lesson learned. Would he have thought so hard about fixing it if not for the benching?

The was we were playing...no way were going to win that game anyway. The final score was 37-3.

You have so many personalities on a team, no way you can treat them all the same. Especially at different positions.

Ladanian Tomlinson had serious fumbling issues until he got so much crap for it as did Warrick Dunn and Tike Barber. They corrected the problem by finally listening to the coaches about they carried the ball.

All rookie QB's are going to have high turnovers. No way around that for most. To compare it to a ROOKIE QB is ridiculous.

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

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have no issues with coaches holding players
> > accountable. None.
> >
> > Especially stars.
> >
> > If it was his fist fumble of the year then I
> could
> > see questioning the decision but it was his
> 3rd.
> >
> > I dont think this team has won a game where
> it's
> > lost the turn over battle yet. If we are going
> to
> > play a rookie qb who will throw some ints
> simply
> > as part of his growing process then we really
> > can't afford to have a veteran team leader be
> > careless with the ball.
> >
> > Philbin made the right call.
>


>
> Just for reference, Ryan Tannehill has just as
> many fumbles as Reggie Bush, plus he has 12
> interceptions... SO that means Tannehill has 15
> turnovers, Bush has 3... If you have no problem
> holding players accountable, isn't it inconsistent
> to not hold the QB accountable to some degree with
> that excessive amount of turnovers...



You love to compare the most meaningless stuff.

Their job descriptions are different. Bush doesn't throw 35 passes a game in fact he throws none. So his ints versus RT's ints couldn't possibly be more irrelevant. But if you want to compare apples to apples....lets look at the fumbles.

Bush gets around 20 touches a game and has three fumbles. Tannehill touches the ball on every offensive snap or a round 60 times a game.

They each have 3 fumbles. Two of tannehills were from blindside hits where defenders got free shots at him due to blown blocking assignments...you are making an absurd argument.


As I said in my post.... If you are going to play a rookie qb who is going to make a certain amount of mistakes just based on inexperience you can't afford to have players with many years of experience making rookie mistakes.

There will come a time towards the end of next year or the beginning of the next where Tannehill will, and should be held to the same level of accountability.



> 3 fumbles is not some horrible problem, out of the
> top 20 rushing leaders 9 of them have 3 fumbles or
> more, including Adrian Peterson, the player who is
> leading the league in rushing.. Do you think they
> benched Peterson, or Lesean Mccoy for their
> fumbles...

Again, an utterly meaningless comparison!

Do you really think bush would have been benched for 3 quarters if he was having Peterson's season?

Of course not. If he was producing like that our margin for error would be greater than it is with a rookie qb. But he's not, now is he?

> Benching Reggie hurt the team, and a
> veteran like Bush doesnt need to be taught a
> lesson from a benching.

If you think that lesson was just for Reggie you are missing the point by a wider margin than I previously thought.

You might not get it but Reggie got the point. he even saud after the game that he'd have benched himself.


> If you dont want to give
> him as many carries fine but keep the guy on the
> field, he is a weapon, our best weapon on the
> offense... CUtting off your nose to spite your
> face is never a good call, especially with a guy
> who is as committed as Reggie Bush...

We were getting our ASSES handed to us by a crappy team in our building. After sitting him the rest of the first half there was no reason to put him back in.

It was the absolute perfect time to send a message like that.

Oh, and by the way... Peterson has been benched in games for fumbling in the past, and he's been benched when they are far behind in favor of a better receiving RB who can pass protect (Chester taylor).

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No matter who turns the ball over it counts
> against the team the same... 15 turnovers by RT
> had more of a negative impact on winning then 3
> turnovers by Bush... especially as Truth says "I
> dont think this team has won a game where it's
> lost the turn over battle yet"


By that logic you'll be calling for Paul Soliai to play qb soon since he's never thrown an int in his life.


> It is not like Bush has 6 or 7 turnovers, he has
> 3.. He had 4 last year. Tell me how the benching
> has helped us win or helped Bush play better? The
> benching did nothing positive for our team nor
> help us win... It took our best player off the
> field to "teach a lesson" to a guy that is the
> least likely guy in the locker room that needs to
> be taught a lesson... Bravo, brilliant move...

Every RB who puts the ball on the ground too much gets yanked at some point to send a message. All of them.

If it had been a close game bush likely would have played again. It wasn't. Since Thomas is a better pass protector he played and philbin had the luxury of using a blowout loss in a losing season to send a message.

I don't expect you to get this...but that is GOOD coaching.

The point was that the BALL WAS RIPPED FROM BUSH'S HANDS BY TWO DEFENSIVE PLAYERS THAT HAD HIM IN THEIR GRASP.


The ref COULD HAVE blown the play dead.

He didn't.

That fumble was not a fumble at all but a takeaway.

If Bush had been carrying the ball carelessly and it had been punched out when he ran past a defender BY THE DEFENDER who had not touched Bush's body but only punched the ball out, I could see it.

Expecting Bush to have the strength of Superman and keep the ball while one guy holds him and the other guy pulls the ball out of his grasp is just stupid.

Punishing him for it is not only stupid but demoralizing.

If the Truth wants an accurate ANALOGY, it would be like benching Tannehill BECAUSE HE GOT SACKED!

But I bet the God Philbin WOULD.

But nobody calls him to account for his end of the game decisions that have lost us three games by my count.

The guy has 3 fumbles, that is not a fumble problem... Adrian Peterson is leading the league in rushing, but he has been given the ball 63 times more then Bush... If we gave Bush the ball 213 attempts, or 269 like Arian Foster, Bush would be right in the mix for the rushing title.. Out of the top 20 rushing leaders, only one of them has fewer attempts then Bush and that is CJ spiller.. Meaning for his attempts Bush is holding his own... Bush is averaging less then ten carries a game over the last 4 games... What do you expect the guy to do?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 11/29/2012 10:51AM by Crowder52.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>... What do you expect the guy to do?


That's easy. After 5+ years in the league, I expect him not to fumble in the first quarter of a must win home game, deep in our end of the field.


Looks like philbin and even Bush himself expect the same thing I do.

There isn't a decent coach in this league that benches his best offensive weapon after three turnovers in a 9 game stretch. Imagine the Vikings benching AP...or the Browns benching Richardson...or the Texans benching Foster. Sounds crazy, right?

That's because it'll never happen! If there's no other reason for Bush's lack of pt than a few fumbles, Philbin is NOT going to make it as a head coach.

GBOFinFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There isn't a decent coach in this league that
> benches his best offensive weapon after three
> turnovers in a 9 game stretch.

This, exactly....

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