Patriots, Colts, Chargers, Broncos.... We beat all of the ones we had a chance to face, even in this screwed up season.... Our record against the teams 3-1... Never got a chance to face the Broncos lost once to the Patriots.... We also beat the Bengals... So against the play off teams in the AFC, we went 4-1 and didn't face 2 of them..... What gives...... Please explain this inconsistency to me...

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

If you try, and figure out this team I'm afraid you might need a straight jacket.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Patriots, Colts, Chargers, Broncos.... We beat all
> of the ones we had a chance to face, even in this
> screwed up season.... Our record against the teams
> 3-1... Never got a chance to face the Broncos lost
> once to the Patriots.... We also beat the
> Bengals... So against the play off teams in the
> AFC, we went 4-1 and didn't face 2 of them.....
> What gives...... Please explain this inconsistency
> to me...


Good question Crowder, I'll take a shot at it.

Do you know what those 4 teams have in common?

None of them have a D-Line that would physically overwhelm our crap Oline and none of them have such a great Oline that they can shut out our pass rush.

If we can protect Tannehill and put pressure on their QB we will be in any game we play.

Teams like Baltimore and Buffalo are the opposite. They dominate our Oline physically and they have powerful Olines that make it tough for our defense to force 3rd and long situations.

Its about matchups.

VERY TRUE!

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

Ridiculous. How do you explain the Jets loss??????

I agree for the most part Truth, Although we only had (2) 100 yard rushers all season... One week was miller the other Thomas, and we won both those games... Against Cinci and Pitt...

Tannehill threw for over 300 yards against Balt and we lost, reason wasn't pass rush, it was our high RB had 15 yards total...

RT threw for over 300 against Carolina, our high RB for the day was RT with 36 yards....

Our offense had zero balance... We couldn't run the ball... Which put all of the scoring on RT and the passing game for the most part... As you said if teams could pass rush us well, we were in trouble.... There was nothing else to really get points on the board but RT passing for the most part...

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

While I agree with you about the O and D lines matchup against certain teams, I don't think it always comes down to just one thing. The Jet's game was the classic example of a team playing well, but still losing. That has to be the most frustrating game I've ever watched. Just a series of bad luck incidents at exactly the wrong times: our pro-bowl punter shanks, our sure-thing full back Clay gets stuffed on a 4th and one, our sure-thing receiver Hartline drops an easy catch on a critical third down, we stop them close to their goal line, but get called for a penalty, giving them a new set of downs, Wallace beats his man for a sure-thing touchdown, but is overthrown by inches. Any one of these things could have changed the outcome of the game, but it was just one of those days when Lady Luck was not smiling on us.
Sometimes, it just comes down to luck.

But the fact remains that there was almost no pass rush in the Jets game and yet we lost so how do we blame THAT GAME on the o line?

You can't you blame it on a QB that was outplayed by a bum named Geno. The Jets will draft another QB this year, as Rex Ryans knows that he can't consistently win with Geno Smith. If Geno can outplay our QB at home with so much on the line then maybe we should draft another QB as well. It does not get much worse than losing to a crap team at home with the playoffs on the line. Those of you who think Tanne is the answer need a new question. Because he simply is not.

Like TX says, it's always a variety of things.

Week 17 Jets: 3 int's and general sloppy play all around by team.
Week 16 Bills: matchups, 7 sacks, no time to throw, no running game
Week 12 Carolina: 1 int, 3 sacks, no running game. No scoring in the 2nd half!
Week 10 TB: 1 int, 2 sacks, 4 rushing yards.
Week 8 NE: 2 int, 6 sacks, NO 2nd half scoring

Beyond that and the real common theme among all our losses....

WE DID NOT SCORE ENOUGH POINTS! We were also -2 in the turnover ratio.

Week 17 - 0 points
Week 16 - 7 points
Week 12 - 16 points
Week 10 - 19 points
Week 8 - 17 points
Week 7 - 21 points
Week 5 - 23 points
Week 4 - 17 points

That's a 15.0 point average.

Scoring...

Defense: 14 points
Rushing: 42 points
Kicker : 111 points
Tannehill: 150 points

We will never improve our record if we don't score more points. We need to be up around 25 ppg (which would have ranked us 12th in the league). We need more than 2x the output by our running game.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2014 03:51AM by eesti.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree for the most part Truth, Although we only
> had (2) 100 yard rushers all season... One week
> was miller the other Thomas, and we won both those
> games... Against Cinci and Pitt...


True. But I was boiling it down to its simplest explanation.


>
> Tannehill threw for over 300 yards against Balt
> and we lost, reason wasn't pass rush, it was our
> high RB had 15 yards total...


But thats part of the equation. Their D line dominated our interior line.

We pass protected well for 3 quarters but then we couldn't run the ball at all. In the 4th quarter our OT's were turnstiles.

Even so...we protected him fairly well, and we were in the game at the end, even if we lost.



>
> RT threw for over 300 against Carolina, our high
> RB for the day was RT with 36 yards....
>
> Our offense had zero balance... We couldn't run
> the ball... Which put all of the scoring on RT and
> the passing game for the most part... As you said
> if teams could pass rush us well, we were in
> trouble.... There was nothing else to really get
> points on the board but RT passing for the most
> part...


every team is different. I was only talking about what the AFC playoff teams that we beat (and denver) have in common.

It all starts at the line of scrimmage. Once that breaks down, the problems mount exponentially.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2014 12:08PM by THE Truth.

Denver as I said from the start of the season will win it all, its mannings year. It will sell well either way when he plays either brady or luck, though I hope the title game for the AFC is the colts and denver and not the patriots. I want the pats to lose this week hard!

Poops.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crowder52 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I agree for the most part Truth, Although we
> only
> > had (2) 100 yard rushers all season... One week
> > was miller the other Thomas, and we won both
> those
> > games... Against Cinci and Pitt...
>
>
> True. But I was boiling it down to its simplest
> explanation.
>
>
> >
> > Tannehill threw for over 300 yards against Balt
> > and we lost, reason wasn't pass rush, it was
> our
> > high RB had 15 yards total...
>
>
> But that part of the equation. Their D line
> dominated our interior line.
>
> We pass protected well for 3 quarters but they we
> couldn't run the ball at all. In the 4th quarter
> our OT's were tunrstiles.
>
> Even so...we protected him fairly well, and we
> were in the game at the end, even if we lost.
>
>
>
> >
> > RT threw for over 300 against Carolina, our
> high
> > RB for the day was RT with 36 yards....
> >
> > Our offense had zero balance... We couldn't run
> > the ball... Which put all of the scoring on RT
> and
> > the passing game for the most part... As you
> said
> > if teams could pass rush us well, we were in
> > trouble.... There was nothing else to really
> get
> > points on the board but RT passing for the most
> > part...
>
>
> every team is different. I was only talking about
> what the AFC playoff teams that we beat (and
> denver) have in common.
>
> It all starts at the line of scrimmage. Once that
> breaks down, the problems mount exponentially.


Yeah to the simplest form, our oline vs Dline had the greatest impact on wins and losses...

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

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Yeah to the simplest form, our oline vs Dline had
> the greatest impact on wins and losses...

Lookit, no one is saying we only have ONE deficiency. But where I disagree with you guys is that U want to blame EVERYTHING on OL or DL and refuse to look at anything else until that is fixed.

What crowser said.

And it applies to any team as well.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crowder52 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Yeah to the simplest form, our oline vs Dline
> had
> > the greatest impact on wins and losses...
>
> Lookit, no one is saying we only have ONE
> deficiency. But where I disagree with you guys is
> that U want to blame EVERYTHING on OL or DL and
> refuse to look at anything else until that is
> fixed.


Chyren- we lost the Jets game and most games because our offense didn't score enough points... At times they were inept, and that was largely due to our oline getting bullied by the opposing d-line, in pass rush and the run game... Our RB's also sucked.... And the fact most defense's knew whether we were going to run or pass and when the balls was going to be snapped surely didn't help any of that...

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

1....our Offense didnt score points.


2. one two three and out.


3. Our defense got tired and allowed the jets 19? was it? which is not many points anyways.


guarantee you if our offense scores points......our d wont be in the field as much......doesnt get as tired and wont allow as many as 19....

My point is "We lost games because of what you say PLUS COACHING PLUS INABILITY TO CONNECT ON THE DEEP BALL plus under-utilizing Tanny's Kaepernick-like skill sets, PLUS handing the ball back FIVE YARDS on 3rd or 4th AND INCHES plus having Tannehill sacked because of a poor offensive line in the final seconds of the game when we were in field goal range and we should have been running the damn ball anyway and even if we got stuffed, we'd still have the field goal and overtime but when Tanny was sacked we were out of field goal range or he fumbled the ball away."

You guys concentrate too much on the oL and DL, we still could have gone 12-4 except for the bonehead coaches and their idiotic playcalling and offensive schemes.

Except for this...if we have an O-Line that is effective we make the playoffs and are most likely playing our second game this weekend.

Without doing a single other thing to the team.

If we can fix the O-Line we will be a very formidable team. Because we'll finally be able to run the ball, pass the ball more efficently, limit sacks, control the clock, score more points, and keep our defense on the sidelines.

Then, if we also improve the D-Line we get more sacks, QB pressures better LB play, better secondary play, more three and outs, more offensive oppotunities, and a consistently rested defense due to less playing time.

We do have other issues to fix but everything falls into place if we fix the lines.

O line is not a panacea. I have been following this team since 1967. There was another period in which the fans were screaming off. line, off. line, off. line and we did so pick off. line for a couple of years high in the draft only to have people then complain about us spending all our picks on offensive line and not getting a franchise quarterback. That was pretty recent.

On this board, you always gotta put in your "don't get me wrongs." I'm not saying draft quarterback here, I'm just reciting history to let you know that this is not the first time our draft has not directed its attention to oline only to have people point out that good o linemen can be found in the second round or third round even.

But as far as these recent drafts are concerned, except for Sturgis and Tannehill, the coaches have given the recent draftees little playing time at all.

Is that because the coaches know the recent draftees suck?


Or is it, as I rather suspect, because the coaches themselves suck.

You know why the remaining teams are in the playoffs? There coaches play to their players strengths, and scheme around exploiting opponents weaknesses. You really think Newton, Kapernick are legit nfl qbs if they where game planned to sit in the pocket and do the same five plays over and over.....

Now, you're beginning to get it, sickofit+1.

philbin is not near as bad as sparano.