Home
THIS SITE
  About Phins.com
  Contact Us
TEAM NEWS
  Team Info
  Twitter Feeds
  News Wire
  Phins RSS Feed
GAMES
  Schedule
PERSONNEL
  Roster
  Depth Chart
FOR THE FANS
  Forums
  Places To Watch
HISTORY
  Team History
  1972 Tribute
 
-- Advertisement --
Privacy Policy at Phins.com
 
  Phins.com Phorums
    News Wire | Roster | Depth Chart | Last/Next Game | Schedule | Links  
          I'll man up
Miami Dolphins Civilized Discussion :  Phins.com Phorums The fastest message board... ever.
This is a moderated phorum for the CIVILIZED discussion of the Miami Dolphins. In this phorum, there are rules and moderators to make sure you abide by the rules. The moderators for this phorum are JC and Colonel
Pages: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2
Re: I'll man up
Posted by: ChyrenB ()
Date: September 24, 2009 04:57PM

Come on, Phinsfan2,

Again, we're not talking about stats.

We're talking about who was regarded the "primary receiver."

All of the discussion about Ginn above is whether he is a true "no.1" receiver, i.e., the main man, the primary target.

Wasn't that the discussion above?

As far as Nat Moore and Paul Warfield is concerned, I am giving you a true statement I heard Nat Moore make late in his career.

Are you going to shoot me? Shoot him, he said it. He was obviously talking about when he first begin to play and was catching all of those balls because they were double-covering Warfield.

What gives?

And as far as Moss and Welker is concerned, I'd say that Moss is the primary target. And I'll bet if you look at the defenses, they will target him more than Welker, which, again, is why Welker will have better statistics.

That is the nature of the beast, Phinsfan2. The better you are, the more attention you get, the more attention you get, the less you are thrown to, the less you are thrown to, the more you catch, the more you are covered, the less you are thrown to.

Am I conducting an elementary school class here?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I'll man up
Posted by: montequi ()
Date: September 24, 2009 05:19PM

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, Montequi:
>
> If by number 1 receiver, you are referring to
> stats, that's not the discussion, Curt, I, and
> Phins Fan 2 are having. If the two of them
> disagree, then let me know.
>
> If you look at my post, I say, that Duper was the
> primary target and that he was so covered that
> Clayton got the Stats.
>
How does the primary target catch fewer balls than the #2? Maybe Duper was the #1 in Marino's rookie year, but Dan soon found Clayton was open more often. Consequently, he started looking for Clayton FIRST. Hence, all those TDs. Remember Marino/Clayton had the career record for TDs between a QB and WR. How can you still think Duper was the #1?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I'll man up
Posted by: ChyrenB ()
Date: September 24, 2009 05:57PM

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No, Montequi:
> >
> > If by number 1 receiver, you are referring to
> > stats, that's not the discussion, Curt, I, and
> > Phins Fan 2 are having. If the two of them
> > disagree, then let me know.
> >
> > If you look at my post, I say, that Duper was
> the
> > primary target and that he was so covered that
> > Clayton got the Stats.
> >
> How does the primary target catch fewer balls than
> the #2? Maybe Duper was the #1 in Marino's rookie
> year, but Dan soon found Clayton was open more
> often. Consequently, he started looking for
> Clayton FIRST. Hence, all those TDs. Remember
> Marino/Clayton had the career record for TDs
> between a QB and WR. How can you still think
> Duper was the #1?


RESPONSE: Read the post above yours. It explains all. I can't make it any plainer.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I'll man up
Posted by: Phinsfan2 ()
Date: September 24, 2009 06:02PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I'll man up
Posted by: montequi ()
Date: September 24, 2009 06:03PM

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RESPONSE: Read the post above yours. It explains
> all. I can't make it any plainer.

Your argument holds no water. You're suggesting Duper was the better receiver and, consequently, was double-teamed opening up Clayton. Did you even watch games back then? Marino used ALL his receivers (TE's, RB's, FB's) making it, essentially, impossible for a defense to double-team anyone. Duper was good, I agree, but Clayton was better. The lesser receiver wouldn't hold a long-standing NFL record while the better receiver holds none. If you can't admit that, in retrospect, Clayton was not only the better receive but the #1 in Dan's eyes, then there's nothing I can do to convince you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I'll man up
Posted by: ChyrenB ()
Date: September 25, 2009 03:06PM

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your argument holds no water. You're suggesting
> Duper was the better receiver and, consequently,
> was double-teamed opening up Clayton.

RESPONSE: I'm saying that Duper was regarded as the number 1 receiver, certainly when they both started out, and for a considerable time afterwards. This started with the discussion above. The discussion above about Ginn was, as even A & O's Bagdad post states (and he wasn't part of the original discussion he just picked up on what others had said about how Ginn was not performing up to par for being the No.1 receiver), what is expected of the No. 1 receiver. That No. 1 receiver was regarded as Duper. Do a Google Advanced Search in the "All these words" search box type "Marino Duper Clayton" in the "exact wording (or whatever) search box type "Primary Receiver," you will see an article called "Marino Passes find their MARKS" by the Eugene Oregon (something newspaper). In the article dated January 5, 1985, you will see a lineman referring to Duper(who had just been quoted in the paragraph) saying that "he is Marino's primary target."

Now, Montequi, if your definition of No. 1 receiver is who is the best or who has the better stats after their careers are over, that's not an argument I'm interested in pursuing.

What I was getting into was saying that Duper was regarded as Marino's no. 1 receiver.

> Did you
> even watch games back then?

RESPONSE: LOL! I've been a rabid Dolphin fan since September of 1967, (really in the Spring of 1967, when they drafted Bob Griese).

How old are you, youngster!


>Marino used ALL his
> receivers (TE's, RB's, FB's) making it,
> essentially, impossible for a defense to
> double-team anyone.

RESPONSE: Yes, that's true.

> Duper was good, I agree, but
> Clayton was better.

RESPONSE: I might not even disagree with that but that's not the point.


> The lesser receiver wouldn't
> hold a long-standing NFL record while the better
> receiver holds none.

RESPONSE: Again, besides the point. The question is who was regarded as the primary target.


> If you can't admit that, in
> retrospect, Clayton was not only the better
> receive but the #1 in Dan's eyes, then there's
> nothing I can do to convince you.

RESPONSE: I would say that over the long haul it came to be realized that although Duper brought blazing speed that made him the same type of threat that Randy Moss is regarded as now, he was regarded as the No. 1 receiver and the number 1 threat.

After the passage of time, Clayton's ability as a clutch receiver, as the maker of difficult catches, as the guy who could more often get open in smaller confined spaces, would make him the person I would draft if you showed me a crystal ball spreading before me the careers each would have.

But you have to realize that just as now Randy Moss is going to be considered the number 1 threat whereas clearly Wes Welker is the more valuable of the two, nobody is going to, at least at this point in history, call Wes Welker the primary receiver when Randy Moss is on the field.

Unfortunately sometimes a guy spends his whole career as thought of as being second-fiddle until they look back at the stats and see that he was actually better than the first fiddle. So it will be with Welker and Moss and so it was through much of the time Duper and Clayton played together.

Back then, they always said "Duper and Clayton" and never said "Clayton and Duper."

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I'll man up
Posted by: ChyrenB ()
Date: September 25, 2009 03:55PM

Phinsfan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Ok, on what are you basing you conclusion that
> Duper was the "Primary WR" in that offense?
> Sure, he was fast but what else?

RESPONSE: The fact that like everyone considers Moss the Primary receiver in the NE Offense, the answer is the fact that Marino, the Dolphins and all of the opponents considered Duper the primary target.

> Again, the "primary reciever" is the guy you go to
> when it counts the most even if he's covered.
> Sorry, but Duper was NEVER that guy. Clayton
> was.

RESPONSE: The primary receiver is the number 1 target. It is the guy that you want to get the ball to. You're being silly. You don't throw to a covered guy unless everyone else is also covered. You don't throw to a covered guy when another guy is wide open. You go to the open guy. That's what I meant when I said that if the primary guy gets blanketed most of the time, the secondary receiver will often end up with the better stats.

> I think we stopped talking about Ginn a while ago.

RESPONSE: Well I am sorry but when Curt WAY BACCCCKKK WHENNN, made the off-hand remark that Duper was number 2, that's when I posted. Now, you blame me for talking about an old subject. Helllooo. That's when I joined in.
> I'm not arguing Moore's claim that the game was
> easier for him because he lined up opposite a HOF
> WR. It makes perfect sense he'd say that. It's
> true.
>
> I'm pointing out that YOUR assertion (not moore's)
> that Moore was "piling up better statisitcs" and
> as the #2 to Warfield's #1 is poppycock. Which is
> exactly what it was. That's what gives.

RESPONSE: He WAS!!!!! At the beginning of the short time he played with Warfield, That's what his comment was about! Why would you think he would make that comment! He made it because it was EASIER FOR HIM.

The
> numbers don't support your premise

RESPONSE: You gotta be either kidding or Autistic. Are you seriously saying that I was arguing that Nat Moore had better lifetime statistics than Paul Warfield????

You know, maybe, you should learn how to take an argument for what it is and not to extrapolate so wildly that you have the other person taking ridiculous positions because of your lack of understanding how to correctly perceive what point the person is making. I said that when Nat Moore first started playing, he was getting less coverage because they were worried about Warfield. I never said he had better stats than Warfield.



and therefore
> your example of Moore/Warfield doesn't support you
> claim that Clayton had better stats than Duper
> because Duper was the "primary reciever" and that
> his presence as such made clayton's job easier.

RESPONSE: But again you miss the point. You think I am saying that Clayton was not as good a receiver as Duper. I didn't say that. I think Clayton was more valuable but it wasn't seen that way when they first started.

If I were running the Patriots and I was told I had to get rid of either Moss or Welker, Moss would be out of here.

>
> No doubt that Moore's life as a rookie WR was made
> easier by Warfieled's presence, but he didn't
> outproduce the #1 guy when they were both on the
> field.
>
RESPONSE: Well, we don't have stats on that.

>
> Except that Welker doesn't have better statisitcs.
> He has more catches, by a wide margin, which is
> what you'd expect from an outlet reciever but he
> trails in yardage (which is surprising when you
> consider he has 56 more catches), and he has 1/3rd
> the TD's of the primary receiver in their offense.
> Over their two years together:
> Moss: 167 catches, 2501 yards and 33 TD's
> Welker: 223 catches, 2340 yards, 11 TD's.

RESPONSE: But that's exactly my point! Welker will have more catches because he will be covered less. But Welker is not going to breakaway and run past anyone with blazing speed. Moss will and will have more TD catches. On the other hand, Welker is not going to outjump anyone in the endzone for a touchdown ball, but Moss will and will have more TDs.
>
> This example doesn't support your argument...it
> supports mine. The 'primary' guy isn't the wr
> with the most catches.

RESPONSE: You're getting confused, I said the primary receiver is the "go to" guy. The guy you go to when he is open. The number 1 guy, the big cheese, the head honcho. How many ways can I say it. More often then not, it is the guy with the blazing speed. It is Moss over Welker, It was Duper over Clayton. The problem with you stats geeks is that you think every sentence in language relates to stats.

Its the guy with the most
> TD's. The guy they go to when they NEED points
> and big plays.


RESPONSE: Noooo.... It's the guy who IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO SCORE THE TOUCHDOWN.
> > Am I conducting an elementary school class
> here?
>
> I hope its not a logic class: eye rolling smiley

RESPONSE: LOL. Now I see why! Because you would get an "F."
>
> "..the less you are thrown to, the more you
> catch,..." WTF ????



RESPONSE: Now, I don't feel so guilty about the "autistic" comment. Let me show the readers how you are taking a phrase out of context.

This is the exact quote separated by dashes for the different points "That is the nature of the beast, Phinsfan2. The better you are, the more attention you get,--- the more attention you get, the less you are thrown to,---- the more you catch, the more you are covered, the less you are thrown to. "
>

> Look, you'd have a better argument if you said
> they were co-#1's. Duper's stats are close enough
> to Clayton's that you can make that argument.

RESPONSE: Yeah, at the end of their careers, it became obvious that speed isn't everything and Clayton was probably more highly regarded but for most of their careers, it was "Duper and Clayton."

> But I saw them both play their entire careers and
> I know that while Duper was a deep threat and made
> a lot of plays down field,


most of those plays
> came against single coverage.

RESPONSE: As is the case with most successful deep throws. They are rarely made against double coverage.


He was fast, but if
> you want to beat constant double teams deep you
> need to be fast and big. He wasn't big.

RESPONSE: In an era before the Randy Moss's and the Terrell Owens'. In an era of the Jerry Rice's etcs. You can't mix up different eras.

Because
> of that he saw more than his saher of single &
> zone coverages. Clayton drew more than his share
> of defensive attention which is what made them
> such an effective pairing.

RESPONSE: Not only Clayton but as Montequi points out, Bruce Hardy and others.

> Either way, I'm sure you aren't going to change
> your mind and I know you haven't schooled me to
> even a pre-K level let alone an elementary school
> level, so I'm not going to capitulate.
>
> I suggest you and I try e-mailing Dan Marino or a
> local sports writer to see if we can get an answer
> to the question.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I'll man up
Posted by: DolphinSam ()
Date: September 25, 2009 04:54PM

Someone mentioned Chambers...how was Chambers' performance unacceptable on our team and Tedd Ginn's is not? Ginn is making catches Chris didn't?

And as far as the defense, sure we could use upgrades, and you're not going to make older guys younger, we have what we have. But I think we have a good defense. To say to them, ok now go in there are stop Peyton Manning from scoring, is ludicrous.

Do you think the NFL has become a successful, exciting, money-making machine by making it difficult for teams to score touchdowns? Come on. You can't touch a receiver down the field. Any little shove and they've got a first down right where they dropped the ball.

If you want to find success in this league, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to keep up. You have to score touchdowns. And if you don't have the wide receivers, tight ends, and quarterback to do that, then you'd better get them.

We could have beat the Colts. We had them. Their defense was gassed. They suffered the side effect of having a too-quick scoring offense, and were on the field way too long. We had half of the equation - ball control. The other half was scoring. We had an opportunity to put them away and we didn't.

And although I think part of the problem was that no one stepped up on either side of the ball and made a big play, that kind of thing can change from game to game. We can get that INT, or get a lucky break here or there. But systemic offensive problems will dog us all year long until we the day comes that we address them.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I'll man up
Posted by: MiamiThunder ()
Date: September 25, 2009 08:37PM

Its called to much conservative ball play.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I'll man up
Posted by: DolphinSam ()
Date: September 26, 2009 04:40AM

Yes, it was way too conservative. It was as if they had no idea they were playing against Peyton Manning. They thought Joey Harrington was on the Colt's sideline.

Coaching decisions are horrendous. And they've been bad for the 2nd year. I want them to do well, and I squinted and shifted and turned the other way and pretended that 1st year that they weren't doing as bad a job as what I saw. Sparano was in his rookie coaching year, and it was a whole new staff. I allowed them that. But this is year two. Time not to embarrass the shit out of yourself in front of a national audience.

And I'll say it again, we did nothing to improve the offense except add Jake Grove, which is up for debate anyway. And we are paying for that right now.

We sat on our hands in FA and the draft went like this - 2nd round Pat White, 3rd round Patrick Turner, 4th round Brian Hartline. Did White, Turner and Hartline win that game for us? If we didn't need a 2, 3 and 4th round pick then we should have TRADED those picks and moved up in the draft to get a playmaker.

angry smiley

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I'll man up
Posted by: MiamiThunder ()
Date: September 26, 2009 10:34AM

Actualy, they didnt play hartline nearly enough, or Turner at all, in the red zone, we should have had turner hartline, bess, Fasano, and Haynos in a 5 wr set, and we might have won, but our coach's dont never go more than 4 out, and look who we had when we did, our coaching staff is playing stupid, flat out stupid, we got turner, and haynos 6.5, and 6.7, with fasano 6.4, and you would think that would be our red zone unit, nope its Ginn, and bess and cam, all 6'1 or shorter.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I'll man up
Posted by: MikeO ()
Date: September 26, 2009 06:25PM

Turner isn't active for these games. Tough to play when you haven't dressed for any games

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I'll man up
Posted by: DolphinSam ()
Date: September 27, 2009 04:55AM

I know, Turner wasn't active. Wilford didn't dress for a long time too, and not he's no longer on the team.

I was not pleased that we didn't pick up a good wr. But when we drafted turner, I was hoping he would at least fill a need - that big target with sure hands in the red zone. He can't make it on the field, either because he's not good enough or the coach doesn't have confidence in him. Either way, that's not good news.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I'll man up
Posted by: montequi ()
Date: September 27, 2009 08:45AM

DolphinSam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was not pleased that we didn't pick up a good
> wr.

Did you forget Hartline? I didn't expect both rookie WRs to be playing early in the season, and early in TC it looked like Turner would be the better one. Hartline, ultimately, emerged as the better WR. He IS a good WR.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I'll man up
Posted by: DolphinSam ()
Date: September 27, 2009 09:26AM

I know but it's not enough. We have too many slot guys, too many guys who basically do the same thing.

It's the same situation as before - NE took Welker because he was a waste on our team, and made him part of a superbowl package. Some other team could come in here and take Bess. Or take Hartline, who is pretty good. But we don't have all the pieces working together.

Honestly, I love Penny to death, but we need a better QB, a much better TE and a better #1 WR.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I'll man up
Posted by: montequi ()
Date: September 27, 2009 12:48PM

DolphinSam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Honestly, I love Penny to death, but we need ... a much better TE

YES! We need a TE!!! It's so obvious.

Options: ReplyQuote
Pages: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
   
Home Curt Fennell
Contact Us
DOLFAN in New England
TOP
   
© Phins.com. No portion of this site may be reproduced without
the express permission of the author, Curt Fennell. All rights reserved.