Just got out-everthinged tonight v the Pats!

A bit unrealistic to expect much given the short week road game against the best team in football.

I mean seriously, Billicheat/Brady vs Campbell/Tannehill...in Foxburro... us with a new DC...and OUR LBs and secondary...I'm surprised the spread wasn't in the 20's.

That was just a flat out schooling!! Welcome to the NFL Dan Campbell!
The jury is still way out on you.
I'd love to hear the logic behind giving Brady the ball first...still can't figure that one out.
Blink...we're down 7-0. Not too bright.

Don't feel so bad OCphin. The Pats have been out-everythinging everyone but Green Bay since Nov 30 2014.

OCphin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd love to hear the logic behind giving Brady the
> ball first...still can't figure that one out.
> Blink...we're down 7-0. Not too bright.

Agree said the same thing last night. Brady and the Offense ARE the Patriots. Their defense is middling ranked and we HAD been hot on offense...I think that was crazy.

Not that it mattered in the end, but I thought the Defense fought valiantly for much of the game, given the amount of time they were on the field. Take away the 5 points our offense gift wrapped for them and they held the best offense in football to 14 points AT HOME over the first 3 quarters. But at some point you gotta maintain drives and score points or even the best defense disintegrates.

Hey, Folks. We played against (as much as it brings bile from my stomach up to mouth to say it) the consistently best team in the last decade.

We came in with a coach that fired us up against lesser opponents and did QUITE WELL for three quarters.

We did well THEN BECAUSE OF OUR DEFENSE, critically led by Suh and Wake but when Wake went out........Sayonara!

All due respect to Campbell,

The owner appoints a position coach as a head coach with no experience to right the ship !! A bit much for me to grasp but
then again what do I know... The only good thing about this move
was that Philbin is gone !!

Talk about reality, Chew on that !!

davdoldew4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only good thing
> about this move
> was that Philbin is gone !!


True, but nothing will get better until EVERYTHING that Philbin did to this team is undone. Lazor needs to go, and both the entire offense and defense need to be replaced. The Front Office needs to go too; there were HUGE holes on this roster that needed immediate upgrades at the end of last season OL, LB, D, but those holes are still there and there is no excuse for that!

This team needs a rebuild once and for all from top to bottom. It's just too bad that Ross refuses to clean house completely; he always takes half-measures and makes thing worse.

"True, but nothing will get better until EVERYTHING that Philbin did to this team is undone. Lazor needs to go, and both the entire offense and defense need to be replaced. The Front Office needs to go too; there were HUGE holes on this roster that needed immediate upgrades at the end of last season OL, LB, D, but those holes are still there and there is no excuse for that!"

Get a grip!

Rick

I don't see huge holes across the board with this team. I can't look at this team and the Patriots say that across the board the Patriots are that much superior, talent wise.

They've been playing with rookies all across their OL, their running backs are guys dumped from multiple teams. Their WRs are undrafted or cast-offs. They can't establish or maintain a constant pass rush without blitzing and their secondary is below average.

I think we have a talent deficit in a few very important areas, but its not something that requires a complete rebuild.

Yes, it was a reality check but still better than under the Philbin regime. And as much as Tanny has been criticized, I like his play in this game a lot more than his play in games before Campbell. There were some bad things but there were some good things too. He did not make his perfect rating performance of the prior game but he did not absolutely suck either.

Now it's time to see them overcome adversity.

Watch any post game video on the the team page of Campbell after this loss? He knows what happened. And he didn't need index cards. No he didn't have any head coach experience before being appointed interim. But he played the game himself enough to know what happened out there.

808phan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now it's time to see them overcome adversity.
>
> Watch any post game video on the the team page of
> Campbell after this loss? He knows what happened.
> And he didn't need index cards. No he didn't have
> any head coach experience before being appointed
> interim. But he played the game himself enough to
> know what happened out there.

What the H is that supposed to mean?!
We all knew what happened out there AFTER the game....they got out-coached and out played...which has become the norm lately.

My point is that Campbell's game plan flew in the face of his own mantra of"playing aggressive...playing on our toes...putting them on their heels...going right through them...", when he deferred, and kicks the ball to NE to start the game. In essence putting us on OUR heels from the opening snap.

With all due respect and with no anger, I still fail to see, after having watched football for 55 years what the deal is with objecting to kicking to the other team at the start of the game. Meaning all the talk on this board saying "If we want to start fast then why defer when we win the coin toss?"

You people are confusing starting fast with getting your hands on the ball earliest instead of, like it is meant to mean, scoring early WHEN you do get your hands on the ball.

First, the obvious reason you defer is that you get the second half kickoff. That means if you're leading at the end of the first half, you get a chance to increase your lead. If you're behind you get a chance to close any gap.

When people brush this consideration aside without giving it much thought it is because they AUTOMATICALLY FAIL TO CONSIDER THE INVERSE OF THIS PROPOSITION which is that if you are leading and you have NOT deferred, then the OTHER TEAMS GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE AWAY OR CLOSE IN ON YOUR LEAD.......and if you are behind at the end of the first half, the other team GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT YOU FURTHER BEHIND.

Secondly and separately, at the beginning of each game, everything is new and there are two teams that are about to test each other. With emotions running high, the defense WHOEVER THAT IS is much more likely to prevail on the opening series than the offense.

The simple conclusion that the first to get the ball is the first of score simply is NOT true!

Lastly, EVERY TEAM DOES IT. I can't remember when, since the option was first given, any team chose to RECEIVE THE OPENING KICKOFF.

So Chyren, how many of those 55 years have you fully understood it?

Choosing to accept or defer when winning the opening coin toss, is a game by game analysis. In some cases it is statistically and strategically wise to defer. But not in this case. And the results confirm my point. Going down 7-0 to new england before people have even filled their seats, is not a solid game plan IMO.

It's not like Brady historically struggles against Miami, at home, on national TV or anything.

OCphin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Chyren, how many of those 55 years have you
> fully understood it?

I thought I had as you probably think you fully understand it now. I guess one of us is wrong but that's what disagreements are made of.


>
> Choosing to accept or defer when winning the
> opening coin toss, is a game by game analysis.

For the reasons I set forth above, I don't think it is. If the other team has overwhelming superiority, I don't think that having them take possession in the SECOND possession of the game, as you are advocating, is going to make a difference to the WON-LOST column as having them take possession in the first possession of the game. Either way, you've got three quarters and about 10 minutes out of 15 minutes in the fourth quarter of playing time left.

And quite frankly, following YOUR LOGIC, they would simply cream us in that remaining time if they are so great that by deferring we are effectively conceding a touchdown.

And explain why it would be so likely they would score on the opening series and not necessarily also on the second series....and every remaining series FOR THAT MATTER.

> In some cases it is statistically and strategically
> wise to defer. But not in this case. And the
> results confirm my point. Going down 7-0 to new
> england before people have even filled their
> seats, is not a solid game plan IMO.

I used to have a friend who, with respect to gambling, used to say, "Well if a damn fool KNEW he was going to lose, he'd never make the bet."

The fact that New England scored right off the opening possession HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEFERRING, unless they returned the opening kickoff for a touchdown..........

Who's to say that if we had NOT deferred we would not have gone three plays and a punt and they STILL....would not have scored on THEIR first possession.


>
> It's not like Brady historically struggles against
> Miami, at home, on national TV or anything.


Basically what you seem to be saying is that we were destined for defeat.......then why show up?

Let's not get TOO down. We are tied with Jesters. The Jills are only 1 game ahead. The Patsies 4 but a lot of games are left.

Regarding the coin toss and watching football for a long time, both sides of the argument have made some good points.

Here's what I have to add: I may not be completely correct about this, but I seem to recall Shula's dolphins ALWAYS electing to receive when they won the coin toss. Anybody else remember this about Shula?

My point is that Campbell's decision flew in the face of what he stated his vision for the team's culture.

It's more about establishing momentum than anything else. I felt the Pats D was easier to attack than the O, as far as making an initial statement.
Going up 7-0, may have given the D the ability to play more "on their toes", and given a better effort.

If you're looking to seize the momentum and you get a choice between facing the home standing Pats #2 offense and the best QB playing today OR their 18th ranked defense...Anyone who says this wasn't silly is overthinking it.

Well, I must say, this is the first time I've seen so many people doubt or even question the traditional wisdom of always deferring to receive the second half kickoff.

JC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Here's what I have to add: I may not be completely
> correct about this, but I seem to recall Shula's
> dolphins ALWAYS electing to receive when they won
> the coin toss. Anybody else remember this about
> Shula?

Yes. It certainly seemed to be his way.

I can understand it when your QB is BRADY, or MANNING, or UNITAS,
or any other HOF caliber QB, including MARINO, and you have a pretty
solid team behind your QB. MIAMI's team is an illusion, as to its quality, as long as (a) the O-Line stinks it up more often than not; (b) the Coaching is nothing to write home about.

So while the top teams like N.E. have a HOF calibre QB, a topshelf O-Line, and a great HC who is especially good at using what talent he's got, MIAMI is in a different universe; and while MIAMI has made a lot of progress I/m/o, thereis still a ways to go. If our new HC turns out to be topshelf, MIAMI's future will quickly and substantially improve.

Good Luduporcu and I wonder what New England does when it wins the coin toss?

Billicheat usually defers because it allows him a chance at an extra possession, and allows him to play "situational football". A chance to set up a score at the end of the half, and then a chance to score again opening the 3rd qtr. He found that teams that produce this double score, win 90% of the time.

Maybe that was Campbell's thinking.

jeffmnd, I'm even surprise that it's only 2/3rds of the time that the choice is made to defer. I thought it was much higher than that.

jeffmnd Wrote:
-


> Deferring was not an option in the Pro's until
> '08. Prior to that you only could choose whether
> to kick or receive, and the other team got the
> same choice after halftime.
>
>
> Defering seems to be the trend now days


I know that the "deferral" option wasn't around in Shula's time, but for all practical purposes, how is it different than electing to kick? Hope the other team will choose to kick at the second half?

Did they have two coin tosses or one coin toss with two elections, one by each side, at the beginning of each half?

JC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jeffmnd Wrote:
> -
>
>
> > Deferring was not an option in the Pro's until
> > '08. Prior to that you only could choose
> whether
> > to kick or receive, and the other team got the
> > same choice after halftime.
> >
> >
> > Defering seems to be the trend now days
>
>
> I know that the "deferral" option wasn't around in
> Shula's time, but for all practical purposes, how
> is it different than electing to kick? Hope the
> other team will choose to kick at the second half?


If team A wins the toss and elects to kick, team B can still choose to receive in the second half. So team B could receive at the beginning of the second half. I really couldn't imagine why a team would elect to kick off.


When a team defers, they are deferring the opportunity to choose whether they want to kick or receive until the second half.

**For accuracy sake, its worth mentioning that a team can elect to choose a goal post to defend instead whether they want to kick or receive, though you never see that in modern pro football.

JC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regarding the coin toss and watching football for
> a long time, both sides of the argument have made
> some good points.
>
> Here's what I have to add: I may not be completely
> correct about this, but I seem to recall Shula's
> dolphins ALWAYS electing to receive when they won
> the coin toss. Anybody else remember this about
> Shula?

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

JC, can't really comment on whether or not Shula always elected to receive, but if he did, I can say this: At first he had the running game, i.e., Zonk, then his second phase he had Marino. Why wouldn't he elect to receive?