Chryen, don't give up a quick TD, BUT call time outs for them so they can take their time to score.... amazing

We needed to keep some time on the clock to get the ball back...duhh

we lost because we couldn't run the clock out when we had the chance.

the did it's job. at some point the offense has to put a game away by getting a couple of first downs.

we have to be able to close games out on OFFENSE.

we were up 3 and forced a punt. we got the ball back with 3:35 on the clock.

we need to be able to close the game out right there.

jsm08 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> we have to be able to close games out on OFFENSE.
>
> we were up 3 and forced a punt. we got the ball
> back with 3:35 on the clock.
>
> we need to be able to close the game out right
> there.


I agree JSM08.

We need to be able to close out on offense. This is what...the 3rd time we had a chance to kill a game with a 1st down or two and couldn't do it?

We have a good defense. Its not great. But its really good. Can't ask them to stop the best QB's in the league with the game on the line.

So your point is that we would not have lost if our offense had not give up the ball.

That's true.

In fact, it's so true that it is what one would call a "truism". It's like saying water is wet.

Why not ALSO SAY that

1) If we had been ahead by more than 7 points, we would have won the game.

Yes, but duhhhhhhh!

You take the situation given to you.

The fact was we were only ahead by 3 points.

The fact was that they found themselves in SURE FIELD GOAL RANGE with about 2:40 seconds or more on the clock.

Their strategy was to run that clock down as far as possible to prevent us from having a scoring opportunity afterwards.

But where we screwed up is not in failing to score a TD rather than a FG. (and what specifically JSM08 can you point to that says the offense flubbed that opportunity as opposed to just were beaten because I don't blame players for being outplayed, I blame teams from going away from what's working and/or sticking with what is failing).

Here we went away from what was working, i.e., pressuring Stafford.

Again, most likely out of fear of "the big play."

When the clock is against you, the "big play" is not the worst thing in the world, slow strangulation is.

chryen, it's well known you hate the coaches. you go out of your way to blame them for every loss.

we were beaten by a better team. we had a chance to ice the game again and couldn't do it. when you get those opportunities you have to take advantage of them. that way I don't have to read you narrow minded nonsense after a loss.

jsm08 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chryen, it's well known you hate the coaches. you
> go out of your way to blame them for every loss.
to 40 seconds on the clock.

Yeah, that's why, in another thread, I'm DEFENDING the decision to call timeouts in this game and arguing with GBOFinFan who is saying that calling the timeouts lost the game for us.


>
>
> we were beaten by a better team. we had a chance
> to ice the game again and couldn't do it.

You could say that about EVERY GAME, even a game where we are beaten 100-0, you could say, "Well, if we'd only scored 101 points, we would have won."

Sounding ridiculous to you now. Or at least it should be sounding like you're not making a very incisive point.

The question is taking the game as it was, what could we have done to win.

With the Packer game, we could have NOT called the timeouts.

WITH THIS GAME, we could not have decided to TAKE THE PRESSURE OFF THAT WE HAD BEEN PUTTING STAFFORD UNDER ALL DAY AND DECIDE TO LET HIM STAND BACK FLAT FOOTED AND PICK OUT HIS RECEIVERS.

A high school QB will beat you if you do that.


when
> you get those opportunities you have to take
> advantage of them. that way I don't have to read
> you narrow minded nonsense after a loss.


As shown above, you are the one speaking non-sense and uniformed nonsense.

And I won't call you narrow-MINDED because you have NO MIND AT ALL.

I can't blame Philbin for this one. Can't blame anyone. The injury bug bit us on the ass and we were just a few plays short . That's it. They played lights out.just not good enough yet.

GO DOLPHINS!!!!

jsm08 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You could say that about EVERY GAME, even a game
> where we are beaten 100-0, you could say, "Well,
> if we'd only scored 101 points, we would have
> won."
>
>
> if you can't tell the difference between the two
> then this is a waste of my time.

If you are saying something deeper than the simple minded observation that if we had score more points than the other team, we would have won, then what is it?

So according to you, the defensive coach doesn't have to do his job, all he has to do is rely that the offensive coach will put more points on the board than he (the defensive coach) lets the other team score.

You do this every game, JSM08.

When we critique the game and point out the failures, along comes you pointing the finger at another aspect of our game and say, "Well if they had only scored more points...."

In the next game, you'll say "well if the defense had only played better...."

So if everybody is to blame, nobody is to blame. So you never get better because you really believe in that ole crap "We win as a team and we lose as a team."

It's nice for psychology purposes but it's bullsh*t.

Often, not always but often, you can point to one thing that causes a loss.

With the GB, it was probably calling those timeouts, in this game, it was deciding to NOT PRESSURE Stafford on the last drive.

jsm08 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You could say that about EVERY GAME, even a game
> where we are beaten 100-0, you could say, "Well,
> if we'd only scored 101 points, we would have
> won."
>
>
> if you can't tell the difference between the two
> then this is a waste of my time.


Its a waste of your time.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TreasurecoastPhinsfan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I can't blame Philbin for this one.
>
> I for one am mainly blaming the defensive
> coordinator if anyone. But you're not really one
> of the anti-Philbin folks anyway.
>
>
> >Can't blame
> > anyone. The injury bug bit us on the ass and
> we
> > were just a few plays short .
>
> If we had blitzed the QB on that last drive, I
> would not be flapping my gums but we tried to play
> basically an almost "prevent defense." Whereas we
> had been rattling him with pressure earlier.
>
>
>
> >That's it. They
> > played lights out.just not good enough yet.
>
> Didn't see that until the final drive and even
> then, we provided the best setting for them to
> playing lights out by letting up on the pressure.

Dude, that last touchdown play they had a 5 reciever set!! FINNIGAN was injured. WTF were we going to blitz with!? Shit hsppens.I'd love to blame Philbin. I still think he sucks and has no kill instinct. But they were better. They knew Finny was out and they came 5 strong. Lights out.

GO DOLPHINS!!!!

Treasure is ok with losing.....

We went toe to toe w/ a better team at their place and got the short end of the stick. Phins are coming along fine. Hate to lose Albert like that, he has quietly provided the leadership that the line sorely needed. I hope he comes back 100% next year.

The D SHOULD get a LOT of the blame!! Yea they played pretty well for a much of the game...but damn it, when you have a top 5 defense going against an offense ranked in the bottom half of the league (19th I think), they are 80 yards away and there is 2:00 min left...well YOU SHOULD feel good about things! YEA, the conservative play calling sucked and WHY we keep calling timeouts when WE want the clock to run and the OTHER TEAM wants it to stop defies explanation but, If you have a great defense (as we all think) they HAVE to play great when a BIG game with playoff implications IS ON THE LINE...NOT just when they are 37 points ahead or playing a team thats won 1 or 2 games all year.

THe O actualy did better than I expected. I assumed the 'top 5' rushing attack would get a dose of reality, but also assumed Tannehil would become a sack dummy as the rushing game floundered. That didn't happen, he played pretty cool (Griese like?) and had us in a position to win at the end. If the O should be paddled in the meetings today for anything, it's the continued SORRY RED ZONE EFF. What 4 scoring opportunities in the first half and we net 6 points?!?!?! Really??? With a mobile QB you should do MUCH better in the Red Zone. Seems this is another area where play calling/strategy needs work.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2014 05:10AM by KB.

I hear you but good lord, it's like the fiedler era blaming the d because it couldn't get one last stop.

their last stop should have been the 3 and out they forced after we took the lead.

any offense worth it's salt closes that game out.

The O takes as much blame as the D on this one one. Not going to join in the nitpicking about this game. Fans and the S Fl sportwriters are doing enough. While they are complaining this team is coming together and getting better. The 2012 Phins would not have been competetive in this game.

I agree.

There has to be a call where Tannehill can roll out or something to run or pass, if not WIDE open you run it....

why not go back to the wallace play TD again down there?

Fake to Wallace throw back to TE .... something.

Why was Miller not in there on the final drive?

same ole mistakes in close games at end. do we run or pass? or neither or both.... coaches way too confused.

TreasurecoastPhinsfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > TreasurecoastPhinsfan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > Dude, that last touchdown play
> > they had a 5
> > > reciever set!!
> >
> > RESPONSE: I was complaining about the LAST
> SERIES
> > OF PLAYS, NOT THE LAST PLAY THAT WAS A
> TOUCHDOWN
> > PLAY.
>
> Why? The damage was done when they scored a
> touchdown instead of being forced to just tie the
> score with a field goal......
>
RESPONSE: Where did you get this quote? I didn't say it. Certainly not about this game instead of the Green Bay Packers game. I used the "search" function on this board for the word "damage" and only came up with this post of yours that made it a quote but where did you get it from. Please state the title of the thread wherein I (or somebody else) stated it.
> And who will cover the five receivers? They
> couldn't blitz.

So what pressure are you talking
> about?

RESPONSE: Corner blitzes are even more rare than safety blitzes. Your blitzes usually come from the linebackers on the theory that an open tight end presents less of a risk. You blitz with your linebackers.


>Best we could hope for was a blocked pass
> and a field goal attempt to tie the score. They
> blew it. No ones fault.


RESPONSE: No one is talking about one play. On that LAST SERIES OF DOWNS BY DETROIT, (gotta make clear what game I'm talking about and what series) We basically played a version of football wherein we covered every receiver and let Stafford (who is NO Aaron Rodgers) stand flat footed and select his targets. We played coverage.

With most series before that, we pressured his as*s and sacked him a couple of times.

But like Philbin, he felt he had it won then and all we had to prevent was "THE BIG PLAY." Well, once they got down to the 27 yard line with 1:21 to play, that strategy was demonstrated to be a failure.

>

>
> LOL. You said it yourself you missed most of the
> first half. You have NO IDEA how bad we played in
> the first half.

RESPONSE: Well maybe so but there must have been a completely different look in the second half because I saw too even teams with us having their number.


> OK. And I'm defending him here. What's the big
> deal? He wasn't to blame here. We had injured
> players and came up short. This loss was not for a
> lack of trying so I'm OK with that. Tannehills
> play was incredible. I so enjoyed him tackling
> that defender and Grimes interception on the next
> play was awe inspiring.

You have to be a coach the WHOLE game, Treasure. This is the point that none of you seem to understand. Players can be forgiven for lapses in performance in game. Coaches get no slak from me.

A coaching error can cost a close game wherein the players played out their hearts. This game was a good example. Had Philbin and the DE pressured Stafford in that last drive, we most likely would have won.

Who Knows? If we had blitzed them on their first series of downs in that possession, maybe Stafford would have thrown a touchdown and we would have been down by the same amount we lost by with them having only run ONE PLAY AFTER THE PUNT.

But you know what??????????????????????

We would have had more than enough time to comeback instead of being left with the 40 or so seconds we had.

They flushed Stafford out of the pocket on the last TD Chyren, what more can you ask for?