I could have sworn we had the ball at our 35.

Again, go back to the first Jets game last year.

We got "BigFoot" as a kicker now.

The announcers say take no sack.

Instead of a first down run, Tanny IS SENT back to pass where he is sacked.

Now you've got to GET BACK into field goal range and there is next a drop, which has been happening all day.

Now Sturgis has a 57 yarder he has to make which he misses.

SPARANO ball seems to have returned...

KB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SPARANO ball seems to have returned...


Not Quite. Drunken sailor play calling has come.

a run would have been a smart logical call there from the spread offense, but Sherman just can't think like that.

Fire Sherman!

We shouldn't have spiked on first down either. Run it up the gut, then call the time out.

ChambersDeepBall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We shouldn't have spiked on first down either.
> Run it up the gut, then call the time out.


That would have resulted in another 20secobds off the clock for a 1 yard gain and we'd have gotten a flag since we were out of time outs.

I think Philbin learned his leason from the Jets game last year, weren't we sitting right around a 48 yrd FG before the sack

We're still trying to blame the coaches for (millionaire) pass catchers FAILING to catch the ball?

Blaming Philbin because our tackles can pass protect?

4 catches instead of 4 drops on the final drive equall one of two things.....

1. a 17 yard FG instead of 47 yards....higher trajectory: less stress....getting us to OT.

2. more first downs and more chances to score a TD and win the game outright.

Philbin did not draft Martin and sign Clabo and fail to upgrade our RG spot. Philbin did not put a low hit on Dustin Keller so that we are now relying on somewhat reliable Charles Clay at key moments.

You can coach and tell the WR's to catch the ball. You can't make them catch it under duress.

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

eesti, quite simply, you can't make DUMB play calls and then blame the players for not carrying them out.

and what's worse, like here, blame the players for taking you OUT of MAKEABLE field goal range.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesti, quite simply, you can't make DUMB play
> calls and then blame the players for not carrying
> them out.
>
> and what's worse, like here, blame the players for
> taking you OUT of MAKEABLE field goal range.

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

As we were all discussing after last week's game....this was once again a team loss, from Ireland right down to the waterboy. OL can't block; receivers can't catch; DBs can't cover; coaches making wrong calls; Ireland signed these players. Nothing has changed from Miami's loss last week.

There ya have it.

Yea. The real truth about this team/organization is coming home to roost -- and the picture ain't pretty.

The cornerstones are Ireland & Philbin. If they can't get the job done (as there's growing evidence they can't) -- then we're back to the drawing board yet again…

Having a really bad showing for 1 week is problem. Having a really bad showing for 2 weeks in a row is a sign of something really wrong.

Well coached teams don’t put the type of product on the field we're seeing… And teams with truly effective N F L GM's don’t go into the season with a high school grade OL.

Not to mention all the other decisions that are starting to look ill-conceived.

I think if this ship sinks -- Ross will unload the team because he's too old and non-NFL capable to reboot from scratch. And yea -- that's a distinct possibility IMO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2013 10:02AM by BigNastyFish.

Cap, I believe you said you are a military man and in the military that is and how it should be.

But the reality of the situation is that it's more like a business. If the mail clerk keeps screwing up the business, sooner or later the CEO will find himself fired.

But in reality, when the coach makes a decision to HAVE THE QUARTERBACK PASSING when WHERE THAT QUARTERBACK IS STANDING is OUTSIDE FIELD GOAL range when you ARE DOWN BY ONLY 3 POINTS WITH 1:54 left in the game and he gets sacked..............................how do you go back and say, "Well if Jerry doesn't allow that sack in the first quarter then.........

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cap, I believe you said you are a military man and
> in the military that is and how it should be.
>
> But the reality of the situation is that it's more
> like a business. If the mail clerk keeps screwing
> up the business, sooner or later the CEO will find
> himself fired.
>
> But in reality, when the coach makes a decision to
> HAVE THE QUARTERBACK PASSING when WHERE THAT
> QUARTERBACK IS STANDING is OUTSIDE FIELD GOAL
> range when you ARE DOWN BY ONLY 3 POINTS WITH 1:54
> left in the game and he gets
> sacked..............................how do you go
> back and say, "Well if Jerry doesn't allow that
> sack in the first quarter then.........

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

Granted, Chryen, the "logical" call would have been to run it now that the team is in FG range, if you are looking to tie the game and go into OT. With the play call selection, I would venture to say that Philbin was trying to win the game. To quote Edwards..."You play to win the game."

Now, saying that, the OLine had been getting RT killed back there. Did the coaching staff take that into consideration when calling the plays? By the looks of it, I would say that they didn't. And...with the receivers dropping the ball all over the field, that should have also been taken into consideration. Those last few plays were extremely important in Miami winning or losing the game, but...

Referring back to your comment (above) the team let many, many plays get away from them. Balt didn't play that well, but they were making the plays. Miami made some plays, but you know the old saying - one step forward, two steps back. Problem with Miami is that they took one step forward and five steps back. They just couldn't capitalize on the positives.

And yes, I was in the military, 24 great years. Thanx.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesti, quite simply, you can't make DUMB play
> calls and then blame the players for not carrying
> them out.


Sorry but that makes absolutely no sense. We ended up with 38 seconds left on the clock when we kicked the FG. Had we run (which had been stuffed ALL DAY.) we would have killed even more time. Who runs the ball in a two minute drill (1:42) when the RB is averaging 2 yard per carry?

Let alone when we had 1:01 left and it was first down.

>
> and what's worse, like here, blame the players for
> taking you OUT of MAKEABLE field goal range.

We were playing to win the game. I will never bitch about the coaches doing that. You don't call plays in expectation of failure. You expect your team to do what they get paid for.

There was just as much of a chance for the running back to get stopped for a loss as there was the QB getting sacked. In fact I'd say it was more likely since it happened on just about every other running play.

Now, if you say we should have called a more inventive play like a roll out, a screen, shuttle pass or a designed QB run then I may be more inclined to agree but not just for a running play.

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

captkoi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Granted, Chryen, the "logical" call would have
> been to run it now that the team is in FG range,
> if you are looking to tie the game and go into OT.
> With the play call selection, I would venture to
> say that Philbin was trying to win the game. To
> quote Edwards..."You play to win the game."
>
> Now, saying that, the OLine had been getting RT
> killed back there. Did the coaching staff take
> that into consideration when calling the plays? By
> the looks of it, I would say that they didn't.
> And...with the receivers dropping the ball all
> over the field, that should have also been taken
> into consideration. Those last few plays were
> extremely important in Miami winning or losing the
> game, but...
>
> Referring back to your comment (above) the team
> let many, many plays get away from them. Balt
> didn't play that well, but they were making the
> plays. Miami made some plays, but you know the old
> saying - one step forward, two steps back. Problem
> with Miami is that they took one step forward and
> five steps back. They just couldn't capitalize on
> the positives.
>
> And yes, I was in the military, 24 great years.
> Thanx.

Thought so about the military and thank you for your service. We have the Colonel here too.

Yeah, Cap, you play the game to win but winning also encompasses "not losing" and you can't win a game that you lose and if you play to assure yourself overtime you "will not lose" and then in overtime you hope to "win" the game.

All this simply means that your first obligation is to "not lose" because if you "lose" the game then you can't win it.

Philbin threw away our chance to "not lose" the game and in so doing made it impossible for us to "win" it. It's that simple. And he did the same thing early last year in the Jets overtime game but there a field goal would have won it.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> captkoi Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Granted, Chryen, the "logical" call would have
> > been to run it now that the team is in FG
> range,
> > if you are looking to tie the game and go into
> OT.
> > With the play call selection, I would venture
> to
> > say that Philbin was trying to win the game. To
> > quote Edwards..."You play to win the game."
> >
> > Now, saying that, the OLine had been getting RT
> > killed back there. Did the coaching staff take
> > that into consideration when calling the plays?
> By
> > the looks of it, I would say that they didn't.
> > And...with the receivers dropping the ball all
> > over the field, that should have also been
> taken
> > into consideration. Those last few plays were
> > extremely important in Miami winning or losing
> the
> > game, but...
> >
> > Referring back to your comment (above) the team
> > let many, many plays get away from them. Balt
> > didn't play that well, but they were making the
> > plays. Miami made some plays, but you know the
> old
> > saying - one step forward, two steps back.
> Problem
> > with Miami is that they took one step forward
> and
> > five steps back. They just couldn't capitalize
> on
> > the positives.
> >
> > And yes, I was in the military, 24 great years.
> > Thanx.
>
> Thought so about the military and thank you for
> your service. We have the Colonel here too.
>
> Yeah, Cap, you play the game to win but winning
> also encompasses "not losing" and you can't win a
> game that you lose and if you play to assure
> yourself overtime you "will not lose" and then in
> overtime you hope to "win" the game.
>
> All this simply means that your first obligation
> is to "not lose" because if you "lose" the game
> then you can't win it.
>
> Philbin threw away our chance to "not lose" the
> game and in so doing made it impossible for us to
> "win" it. It's that simple. And he did the same
> thing early last year in the Jets overtime game
> but there a field goal would have won it.

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

It's really a no win situation for Miami right now.

They can't run the ball (because of the OLine) and they can't pass the ball (because of the OLine). Yeah, Philbin could have played for the tie, but there's no guarantee that we could have made the FG. Odds are Sturgis would have made it, but then if he had....

Now we would be hoping Miami could get the ball first and do something with it. That last series of plays, if it was any indication, Miami would have failed.

Now, we put our defense on the field, and they would stuff (most) any attempts at a run, but then open themselves up to the passing game, in which our DBs failed the majority of the day.

Again, a no win situation.

We could go back and forth on this all day, Chryen, but suffice it to say, this whole team needs to look at itself in the mirror and do what needs to be done.

samsam3738 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think chren is right this time....We lost like 7
> yards on that run.....
>
> They should had ran it...........The coaches stink
> even worst than the players do.


AGREE! Part of coaching is realizing what's working, whats not and adjusting. Tannehill was being tossed like a bag of flour on those straight drop backs ALL DAY.

Even the commentators have started to question our play calling. They called Sherman out on the 3 & 1 call at NO. If your guard is a power driver why the hell do you call a zone play?

Why the hell do you call a play that isolates your rookie TE w/ an experienced pass rusher?

The buck stops w/ the coaches. They are calling as many blown plays as the players are making.

Sherman knows only one offense, the west coast. Even though he does not have the oline to run it he keeps calling plays for it. One thing I gave Shula he had 3 or for offenses he could reach into and put together a gameplan for the players he had.He could fit an offense to his players. He did not need to wait to collect players to fit his offense.

This crap lies just as much on the coaches as the players.

It was a 3rd and one inch play at Norlins the prior week, Mizzou. And you're right the announcers did call out the coaching on that one.

But even more than that, they had a 3rd and 1 early in the game this week and they flipped the finger to all us last week critics and pitched the ball back again with the same result and THIS WEEK'S ANNOUNCERS not only questioned the wisdom of that call yesterday but REFLECTED BACK on how the coaching staff had done the same thing last week.

At least when Sparano was criticized, he tried not to make the same dumb mistake again, Philbin's response is "oh, so you didn't like that??? Here! How do you like it when I do it again????"

Again the commentators asked why did we not have our power back in on 3rd and short. The commentators also thru out that the coaches said that a big part of our running game problem was our backs were afraid to stiff arm. I swear they put that out there for laughs. Not having holes or seams open by the oline has nothing to do w/ our suck line but our rb's should stiff arm as soon as they get the ball.

Don't drop this sh** all on the players. Who did the coaches keep as backups for the oline Yeatman, a string bean, Garner did not prove anything in pre season, Watkins his old team called him soft and a rookie who is not close to being ready.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cap, I would just add that the new overtime rules
> are different.
>
> Even had the Ravens got the ball first in overtime
> on the coin toss, unless they made a touchdown on
> the first drive, the Dolphins would have gotten
> the ball as well.

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

Agreed, and I go back to what I said, only it can be reversed.

mizzou15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sherman knows only one offense, the west coast.
> Even though he does not have the oline to run it
> he keeps calling plays for it. One thing I gave
> Shula he had 3 or for offenses he could reach into
> and put together a gameplan for the players he
> had.He could fit an offense to his players. He did
> not need to wait to collect players to fit his
> offense.

Thats Dead on, these 'system guys' have been screwing this team for over 10 years now. They make their name somewhere else with a certain group of players running a certain scheme and then we think it will transfer here...WITHOUT the players. It hasn't. All the greats, Shula, Landry, Knoll, even dare I say Belicheck (yuck! leaves a bad taste in the mouth) have WON with various combinations of players, talents and schemes.

RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KB.

The great coaches like Shula can win with a Griese type team and also win with a Marino type team.

A great coach takes your talent and tries to win with it.

An inadequate coach (AND ALL THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE EXCUSES FOR HIM)

a) try to get players that fit his system or

b) try to FORCE players who DO NOT fit his system into being players that do fit his system.

You guys realize we had 22 yrds rushing on the day right? Over 300 passing, what makes you think we would of gained anything? and on top of that we had no way to stop the clock, we kicked with 33 seconds left, I'll take a coach going for the win anyday over one that plays for a 47 yarder at home for OT. Plenty of stuff to bitch about this game and coaching staff, playing for the win with a couple of passes is not one of them IMO. Like Truth said, giving up the sack is the biggest blunder of that series.

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Like
> Truth said, giving up the sack is the biggest
> blunder of that series.

Now I really had a good long laugh at reading this and I don't want to spoil it with putting down internet symbols.

So that the rest of you might join in, let me put it like this.

That's like saying, when a guy uses his entire monthly salary (excuse me but the State of California only paid us state employees once a month) to buy PowerBall tickets................

"the problem was not that he did that but that he simply picked the wrong numbers."

That is SO funny.

PARTICULARLY, since we had been giving up what seemed like a record number of sacks all day BEFORE that point.

As Gomer Pyle would say "SURPRISE, SURPRISE" Tanny got sacked. Who would have thunk it?

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You guys realize we had 22 yrds rushing on the day
> right? Over 300 passing, what makes you think we
> would of gained anything? and on top of that we
> had no way to stop the clock, we kicked with 33
> seconds left, I'll take a coach going for the win
> anyday over one that plays for a 47 yarder at home
> for OT. Plenty of stuff to bitch about this game
> and coaching staff, playing for the win with a
> couple of passes is not one of them IMO. Like
> Truth said, giving up the sack is the biggest
> blunder of that series.



Exactly.

Just to recap that drive on the timeline:

1:30 left when we snapped the ball on 4th down for the completion to gibson.

After the catch, the jog downfield and the spike there was 1:01 left. If we had actually run a running play there, instead of killing the clock, it would have taken another 10 seconds to get the play called, people lined up, to read the defense to ensure its a good play call. Then another 6 seconds to run the play. Another 10-12 seconds to reset and SPIKE THE BALL. That would have left you with 35 seconds with no guarantee of having moved any closer since we couldn't run the ball all day. You most likely would have been 3rd and 8+ with 30 second left.


By spiking the ball, you get 2nd down 10 at the 34 with 1:01 left. You have two plays to get closer and you have 61 seconds to go no-huddle and actually try to WIN the game.


If you run it on the play after the long completion you are either playing for a long (49+ yard fg) or you are going to have to spike it ANYWAY on 2nd down to stop the clock. Only then you are at 3rd and 8 (based on our average YPC for the game) instead of 2nd and 10 and you have wasted 30+ seconds.

If all you cared about was a 50/50 chance at just making it to OT on a long FG, then running the ball is the correct decision based on the down, time left, and our blistering 2 yard per carry average for the day.

If you wanted to try to actually win the game with 61 seconds left at their 34, then you spike the ball.

I have ZERO issues with trying to win the game. I have many issues with our O-line failing miserably with the game in our grasp.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PARTICULARLY, since we had been giving up what
> seemed like a record number of sacks all day
> BEFORE that point.

True, you have a long but pretty make-able FG, no time outs and Tanny was being sacked like a bag of potatoes all day, especially on drop backs. So what do you do? Drop him straight back of course. IDK just seems like a dumb risk to take, sort of like the third and an inch against NO. No problem with trying to win the game but don't do something that could give up the field position you already have at such a game critical time. Seems sometimes like the game is going to fast for our coaching staff.