The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Just got a text from the Sun Sentinel. It's official but hasn't shown up in print as far as I can tell.

"Head coach Joe Philbin announces that Ryan Tannehill will start the season as the No. 1 quarterback."

Showed up on Twitter Philbin named him the starter. Not what I would have done, but that's why I'm here and he's there. Glad they made a decision. My fantasy team name now makes more sense- Saving Private Ryan Tannehill! -EK

I won't guarantee him success but I will say that he seems to be the most poised rookie QB we have had.  Now I guess we will see which way he goes from here.

Just glad it's over and done with. Good luck to the young man I hope for him and us as fans he turns out to be a good one.

Well, that settles that debate. Not the decision I would've made. But I wish #17 all the luck in the world. The sooner he learns to stop "staring down his receivers" , the better. Go Dolphins!

I hope, for the sake of the team and its fan base, that I am wrong.

Okay everybody, it's time to get aboard that Ryan Tannehill bandwagon.... Superbowl bound!!!!!!!!

Not a surprising move. Obvious call once Garrard went down to injury. Gotta find out if the kid is for real now. Let him take his lumps and get the rookie mistakes out of the way. And if Tannehill is good but the team loses for just lack of overall talent, well then you can finally Kiss Ireland GOOD-BYE I think.

Miami tried to replace Moore time after time since the end of last season, he never had a shot.

Edit::: Just read that Jason Cole is now reporting Miami (along with 1 or 2 other teams) is interested in trading for QB Tavaris Jackson. They want a long-term back up for Tannehill. BUT, I believe Jackson is in the final year of his deal too, so I don't understand it.

and tavaris jackson sucks.

Why would you get Jackson over Moore? 

This front office really does not like Matt Moore.  They bring in Garrard off the street and are chasing down bums from other teams just so they can avoid putting him in uniform.  It's embarrassing.

Matt Moore can't play. He is a bad QB. I get that, I understand why Miami wants to get rid of him. But I don't understand this either. If Jackson had 2 or 3 years left on his deal that is one thing, meaning you can trade for him and you have him locked up for a while and he wont be going anywhere. You solidify your QB position.  But Jackson is in the same boat as Moore, he can walk at seasons end. So why make a move for him? I don't get it. Now this report is just coming from one guy Jason Cole. So it might be BS. Nobody else is reporting Miami is interested. 

The only team I've seen interested is GB. -EK

https://twitter.com/JasonColeYahoo/status/237660366774099969

Jason Cole of Yahoo

Matt Moore is not a west coast offense kind of guy. Never has been and he's not picking it up in Miami either. Now I don't know squat about Tavaris Jackson so for all I know he's not a west coast kind of guy either and this is all just speculation, but I too see why they are not that excited about Moore.

Edit: Did some research and Tavaris has played nothing but West coast offense. That most likely is why Miami would be interested or why they are rumored to be interested.

Could it be they are now scarred of keeping Gerrard ? He is due that money Sept 1st and if they can dump him before then for a healthy Jackson, is that what they are thinking ?

Moore just doesn't fit this offense. Once Philbin was hired, he was doomed.

Garrard is free, Tavaris Jackson costs draft picks.  Why?

Please, no.

Makes no sense dumping either Matt Moore or Garrard for Tavaris Jackson.  Garrard will be back before the season's a quarter of the way through. 

Moore is a fine option as #2.  Watching him in the preseason though, it's easy to see why they're going with Tannehill.   Moore just doesn't have Tannehill's arm.

Also this notion of a long-term backup is ridiculous.  No quarterback is going to come in as a #2, sit for a couple years and NOT want the opportunity to go play somewhere else.  And I'm not sure I'd want a player on my roster who was that content to sit over a long period, especially when we live in a time where they throw tens of millions of dollars at guys like Whitehurst and Flynn who haven't really proved themselves yet.  If you want a "long term backup," you might as well keep Pat Devlin and cut either Moore who will jet as soon as he becomes a free agent or demand a trade or Garrard who will want to be a starting quarterback again.

Slightly off topic -

I think its funny how when Moore went 6-3 as a starter last year, everyone said he did a nice job and was a decent short-term option at QB.  Now that everyone has the Tannehill bug up their shorts, suddenly Matt Moore sucks.

No he did not.  He went 6-6 as a starter and with him at the helm, this is what happened:

- Blew a 14 point lead with five minutes remaining against Denver

- Blew a fourth quarter lead against the Giants because suddenly they couldn't move the ball

- Blew a tight game against Dallas because they kept settling for field goals and Moore kept taking sacks

- Went turnover crazy against New England causing the defense to be on the field almost the entire third quarter and blowing a 17-0 halftime lead

- Kept settling for field goals against the Jets and eeked out a 19-17 win despite a dominating performance by the defense.

Fact is, they win those four close losses, they're 10-6 and in the playoffs. 

LOL....not me I have been consistent on Moore! LOL

Also turned the ball over on the 5 yard line and handed the Cowboys a gift TD.

And the Defense giving up the points had nothing to do with the losses??

Was Moore doing all the play calling for the stalled drives??

The opposing Defense had nothing to do with stopping the Miami Offense??

The Giants won the Superbowl, Denver made the playoffs, NE is a perennial SuperBowl contender, yet your going to place the blame on Matt Moore for these losses??  C'mon gimme a break.  I'm not saying Moore is an All-Pro, but given the fact he came in off the bench in the middle of the season I was satisfied with his play.  He's not gonna take a team to the SuperBowl but he is a decent player.

Yes, Matt Moore blew all those leads.  Maybe that is the problem - QB's shouldn't be playing defense.

Surely you must read what you write, no?

I HATE that writers consistently put that Moore finished the season 6-3, well he STARTED the season 0-3 and that doesn't include the San Diego loss that he came in the 1st quarter to a scoreless game in which the Dolphins lost as well.  I was Ok with Moore, but knew in January (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=19615.0) that we needed an upgrade at QB when I said this about Daboll...

'I liked what I saw the last half of the year from Moore, Bush, Marshall, Fasano and Clay. It took too long to get it going, but once he got it going it was going pretty well. Get him a young QB to groom, get your LT healthy and bring in a new RT, but don't get rid of Daboll."

I had no way of knowing then that they would also switch to a West Coast Offense and Moore wouldn't pick it up that well and then when they got a young QB to groom he would so clearly outplay Moore in the preseason. Once I saw that, I had seen all I needed to see. Moore never impressed me, he simply did OK, but even that was in a different offense. In THIS offense he has been even less impressive.

Miami's defense in the 4th quarter was bottom five in the league, and gave up a ton of points even in many of the games they won. That's not on Moore. I said before the draft that safety, pass rush, and receiver were better options than reaching on an unproven QB like Tannehill given Moore's play to finish the year. You can lay all the field position blame you want on Moore, but if the defense was as good as they were billed to be, they'd be giving up 3 instead of 7 when the game is on the line. I think Miami fans are in for a reality check this year when last year's 15th ranked D drops to 20th or worse. Until they can cover somebody in a passing league, Tannehill or Moore doesn't make a difference.

Edit to say that although I didn't love the pick, nor was I a fan of him starting so soon, now that he is, I'm 100% on board and will support him the same way I did Henne. -EK

Being the question is NOT does he belong in the HOF, probowl or deserving of the MVP, the 0-3 start is not particularly relevent.  The issue is should be be starting now, which means the last game of the season is a lot more relevent than the first game of the season. 

At the end of Peyton's second year NOBODY in Indy was going, "I am not sure about the QB he is only 13-13", No they were focusing on the fact he had won 13 of the last 16 and thus improving.

Seeing as how they are running a different offense then they were at the end of last season, it bears no relevance whatsoever. The last 2 preseason games are relevant and he was lousy.

I already debated whether the 6-3 record was the result of Moore starting or more the result of Bush's running, I'm not doing it again.

http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=19784.0

No one should be making judgments on preseason games in which no game plan is assembled and they merely are exercising guys in effort to make roster decisions.

Someone needs to explain that to Joe Philbin then. I think he considered the preseason games a valuable tool in the evaluation process. Moore didn't exactly impress in practice either.

Of course the coaching staff does.  That doesn't mean fans can, if they don't know what the player was asked to do.

The other day one of the Patriots QBs threw 3 int during practice and the press was all over that, Belichick later explained that he had told the QBs to take chances as he wanted them to get a feel for what they could and could not get away with because during the 4th quarter of an actual game is not the time to find out a closely you can thread the needle, practice is.

So YOU might think a RB is doing great if you see him break a tackle and run down field and get tackle 30 yards down field.  But if the team was practicing the 2 min drill and he had the oppertunity to get 25 yards and run out of bounds stopping the clock instead of getting an extra 5 yards and being tackled inbounds.  Likewise you might think a QB doing bad when in fact he is doing exactly what the coaching staff asked him to. 

Practice is one thing. Games, even preseason games, are a bit different. I just don't buy that they would purposefully make Matt Moore look worse in games than Ryan Tannehill. It's a nice theory though. :)

PHilbin knows what he's looking for out of a guy during a game.  He has a specific reason he's asking guys to do what they do.

Do you know what he's looking for?

Philbin sees these guys every day.

You are judging based on a broad scope of QB play, and that is inappropriate in a preseason setting.

Seriously? Now I can't tell how a player is performing based on a preseason game because I don't know what the coaches are looking for? How about if I listen to what Philbin said after the game was over? Does that mean nothing too? Like how he has said a dozen times or more that Tannehill is looking good. That the game doesn't seem bigger than him? That he's been able to recognize when they have the wrong play called for the defense and has gotten them out of the bad plays? Like when he's said that he's checked down when he was supposed to? Like when Philbin said repeatedly that Tannehill gives the Dolphins the best chance of winning right now? Do you guys even listen to Philbin's press conferences after practices and after games?

How about Sherman, do you listen to him? Did you listen when they asked him about the 4 batted balls and he said that
part of that is on the offensive line, that on 3 step drops that they know they have to "punch" the defensive lineman to keep their hands down and that most of those 4 batted balls were on 3 step drops?

And if I'm so wrong then why is it that I pretty much guaranteed that Ryan Tannehill would be named the starter and then he was? Lucky guess? Yeah, that's what it was, lucky guess.

The level of denial you guys are in is impressive to say the least. It's one thing to be skeptical and I wouldn't blame any of you if you say it's only preseason and the real games haven't started. I agree, it's only preseason, but to even suggest that we can't tell who has played better, Tannehill or Moore in the preseason because we don't know what they are asked to do is ludacris. They are both asked the same thing, to score points any damn way you can.

No one is discussing Tannehill. 

Link me to the press conference where Philbin and Sherman got in front of the media and said "Matt Moore is a terrible QB"

LOL Yeah right. You must think that Philbin and Sherman are idiots.

Here's what I know, NO ONE ever asks anything about Moore. All they ask about is what he thinks of Tannehill. They all have eyes. They all watch the game too. They all talk to the players. It's not rocket science guys, it's football. The idea is to score more points than your opponent. Since Tannehill and Moore don't play defense, there's not much point in comparing the defensive production all you have to do is compare the offensive production when both are playing. It's not really all that difficult.

You stated this:


Your statement was to refute the use of last year's games as a judgment of Moore's performance.  I was stating that you can't use preseason games to judge either.  I find last year's performance FAR more relevant than preseason.

You are welcome to your opinion.

Hey, here's a thought, how about you listen to Matt Moore's press conference? See what he's had to say about his preseason performance. I'm sure he'll tell you that the coaches told him not to score when he was in the game.

Thankfully I am not alone on this one. lol

To quote one of our fellow members in another thread:

"When your team loses 38-24 and gives up over 600 yards of combined offense to the opposition, you can blame the defense.

When your team loses 24-6 (with three turnovers by the offense, including a pick-6) and your defense held the opponent under 300 combined yards, you don't get to blame the defense.
When your team loses in OT 18-15 and your defense held the opposing team to 308 combined yards, you don't get to blame the defense.

You can easily remove personal opinion from the comparison.  Take a look at PFR's season summary page for MIA and look at the expected points differential for games that Moore started (higher positive numbers are better):

- of the 6 wins, the defense outplayed the offense in 4 of them
- of the 6 losses, the offense underplayed the defense in 4 of them

Matt Moore cannot point fingers at the defense.  Only a fool would look at the fourth-quarter defensive stats and ignore the fact that the offense had three quarters to build a lead (while the defense was suffocating the opponent) and instead chose to sit on their hands."

Ok but if the defense is so good, why couldn't they hold teams to field goals instead of touchdowns? When given the opportunity, they failed to do so in at least four games if I remember, and gave up 29 points in the fourth quarter of two of the games Miami won. How does the D get no blame for that? And how about the Denver game? Up 2 TDs with less than 5 minutes left and they lost. That's not on Moore. -EK

I fail to understand how your QB hands the defense a 2 TD lead in the 4th quarter, and its HIS fault for it not being a 3 or 4 TD lead?  its HIS fault they blew it?  Its HIS fault they couldn't recover an onside kick?

You can blame the QB for a lot of things but be reasonable.  Blowing leads in the 4th quarter isn't one of them.

Is everyone forgetting the fact that Moore was a backup to Henne ? If you asked me he did his job as a backup QB and did it better than the starting QB at the time with much less preparation and practice. The thing that stands out to me is that starting Tannehill too early will probably get him injured at some point and then we are gonna have Moore playing as a back up again. We are in a rebuilding phase whether you like it or not. We're not going anywhere or winning anything this year, so what's the point ? To win a couple extra games at the expense of the rebuilding process. I hope we aren't creating Henne 2.0 with this move.

If its nothing but 3 and outs the ENTIRE 4th quarter and a turnover or two (like the Giants game) then yeah its on the QB, sorry. He didn't even have to score, just eat some clock up and get a couple first downs to keep Eli on the sideline. He couldn't even do that.  Put the defense in a position to fail enough times and eventually it will fail.

Giving the Cowboys the ball on the 5 yard line and expecting the Defense to hold a quality team like that to a FG is unrealistic and silly. Moore handed them a TD. Period. Any sort of spin on that is foolish.

Nobody asked Matt Moore to win games by himself, just DON'T do anything foolish to lose them. He made the foolish mistake over and over again that LOST this team games. WHen you have the #6 scoring defense in the league, its tough to blame losses on them when only 5 teams gave up less points in the entire league. Nobody is claiming them to be the 85' Bears but if Moore didn't make the BIG mistake this team wins more games.

Doesn't matter now anyway, new year, new coaches, new schemes, and Matt Moore has a new baseball cap to wear instead of a helmet! He can assume his old position. 

Again with the #6 scoring defense? Seriously? Why do you never mention they were the 27th scoring D in the 4th or that they were the 15th over defense in the league? The "6th best scoring defense" is as misleading about them as you can get. They were an average- at best- defense, and nothing about them last year or now is making anyone afraid. Every team they played knew the formula to beat them- double Wake and there's no pass rush, then keep it close and the secondary will fall apart late. It happened when Henne was there, just like it happened with Moore. The defense gave up 24 fourth quarter points through the first three games when Moore wasn't even on the field. Suppose that was his fault too? All season long, the defense gave up over a TD a game in the fourth, irrespective of who was under center. Nothing about them indicates 6th ranked anything. -EK

All I know is Tannehill was slow getting rid of the ball and Moore looked like he pretty much knew where the ball should go before the snap.  That is a big deal for a NFL quarterback.

I am not excited by this move if it is true.  I wish I could get a refund on my Sunday ticket.  I can't see how this year is going to be any good unless we can really get our run game going.  Boring!  Did we really have all that much to lose by letting a veteran start the season and bring the rookie in if things go bad?  At least there would have been some hope to start the season off with.

Are there any vehicles with two clutches?  I am looking for a nickname for Tannehill for this year.

As much as statements of fact can be "misleading," sure.

As you are so fond of pointing out, the team plays 4 quarters of football.  And while you might like to pretend that the 4th quarter is the only one that counts, it is no more important than any other quarter.  You don't get a half-win for allowing 3 TDs in the first half and then shutting them out (en route to a loss) in the second half.  Mark Sanchez can attest to this personally.

The bottom line is that when you account for the entire game, the Dolphins had the 6th-best scoring defense in the league.

Which game?

That's fine and dandy, but when it is repeatedly pointed out how the defense was the "6th best scoring" D in the whole NFL, there's an expectation that comes with it, and that expectation is not 6-10. No one gives a crap about scoring defense when every team you play knows when the game comes down to it they can burn your secondary and pull out a win. -EK

2nd Preseason

Spider just nailed it. Home Run Post! Football is a 4 quarter game. NOT JUST the 4th quarter. All the stats from All the quarters count. Only 5 teams gave up fewer points than Miami last year. I don't care which quarter they gave the points up in! That is meaningless. What that silly 4th quarter defensive ranking proves is the Defense was GREAT the first 3 quarters and was worn down late in games because it had no f'n help from the offense! They were on the field all day and got not help. That is what that stat proves, it helps proves MY point! Once again, Matt Moore's fault! Any way you spin the stat it comes back to being Matt Moore's fault and the way he lead the offense. He had a 1,000 yard rusher and a so called "TOP" WR and he still couldn't do anything with this offense. It always comes back to Moore.

And since they were 6-10  and STILL had the #6 scoring defense, that slaps most reasonable people in the face that the Dolphins offense sucked. And it did. The offense is why this team lost many games. NOT the defense! While I say that, I NOR ANYONE IS CLAIMING THE FINS DEFENSE WAS ELITE OR SOME GREAT UNIT! It wasn't! It was just very very good! And maybe Miami SUCKS this year on defense under Coyle, I don't know. If they do I will say it. But in 2011 it is a FACT that they were a very good defense that gave up few points! That can't be denied. This year in 2012, we will see.  Maybe they suck maybe they are great, maybe they are just the same as last year. I don't know. All i do know is I judge each year individually. So time will tell.

Nobody expected or asked Matt Moore to win games by himself in 2011, all he was asked to do was NOT lose them by making the big mistake. Just manage the game.  And Moore made the big mistake over and over and over again in big spots (especially vs teams that were good, ie Giants, Denver, Dallas, NE.) Moore lost this team games. That's why he is the backup now and he is shopping for these....

http://www.amazon.com/Saunders-Recycled-Hardboard-Clipboard-05612/dp/B000783SRW/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1345673237&sr=8-3&keywords=clipboard

http://www.amazon.com/Reebok-Miami-Dolphins-Sideline-Structured/dp/B005I6VK4G/ref=sr_1_1?s=office-products&ie=UTF8&qid=1345673257&sr=1-1&keywords=miami+dolphins+baseball+cap

So 15th in the league is very very good? Stop cherry picking the "6th scoring" stat and look at the ENTIRE defense. Since you're so hung up on looking at the entire game, look at the entire defense. Using your own words, it "slaps most reasonable people in the face" that the Dolphins defense- at 15th overall, is not very very good. Out of 32 teams, 15th means they are almost the definition of average- not very, very good, not very good, not good. Average. For every time you pop off about the 6th ranked scoring stuff, keep in mind that against the pass they were 25th. See? I can cherry pick stats, too! In what world, please, please, PLEASE tell me, does the 15th ranked defense in football amount to "very, very good?" This is the most laughable thing I've ever seen. -EK

In a world where only 5 teams gave up fewer points in the entire league. Only stat that matters.  How much did ya give up total.  Because in the NFL they keep score in points! The fewer ya give up the better of a defense you are. PERIOD!

But lets not have this debate for the 10,000,000th time. You ain't changing my mind so save yourself the trouble of trying. Let's not go in circles...again! You know where I stand I know where you stand.  It's last years stats anyway, so who cares. Time to move on to this year.

The game where Moore was 5 of 15 against 2nd and 3rd string defense and Tannehill was 11 of 22 against first string defense? It seemed to you that Tannehill was slow in getting the ball out and Moore seemed to know where to go with the ball before the snap? Well if that's the case then Moore's accuracy is suspect or his pre-snap reads were wrong and since Tannehill was still able to complete more passes against the 1st string defense even though he was slow getting the ball out, imagine how good he'll be once he's able to get the ball out on time.

You're right; it isn't.  With the 20th ranked offense that MIA fielded last year, the expectation should have been around 8-9 wins.  However, if you are determined to find a unit to place blame on, the defense is not the right choice:

Of the 13 defenses MIA faced, only 2 allowed fewer points on the season than MIA's did.
Of the 13 offenses MIA faced, 9 scored more points on the season than MIA's did.

Want more facts?  Look at who they played:

Games against top 10 scoring offenses: 6 (NE, NE, SD, NYG, PHI, HOU)
Games against bottom 10 scoring offenses: 4 (CLE, KC, DEN, WSH)

Games against top 10 scoring defenses: 3 (HOU, CLE, PHI)
Games against bottom 10 scoring defenses: 6 (SD, DEN, NYG, BUF, BUF, OAK)

The offense had a significantly easier road than the defense and they still performed MUCH, MUCH WORSE.

How many more ways do I have to put it?  The offense was the reason the team sucked in 2011.

Another home run post by Spider Dan! On fire today!

Spider- it doesn't matter how many ways you put it. I disagree. I'm clearly not the only one. You can continue presenting your POV in any way you wish. You will never- under any circumstance- convince me that the 15th ranked D, that gave up fourth quarter leads in what- 5 or 6 games?- is not blameless in Miami's horrible season. Nor will Mike ever convince me that #15 is "very, very good." You can both save your breath. -EK

The offense and the defense sucked last year. Hell, the whole team sucked last year. If you want to blame someone, blame the coaching staff and the front office.

Exactly. The offense and defense both had good and bad moments during the season. There were times when they were ahead late. And failed to hold on. There were times they were behind and they failed to catch up. That falls on the coaching staff. On the surface a 6-10 record suggests that one side of the ball was significantly worse than the other.  Not entirely true.
Spider did a great job in breaking down the season. However, it was still misleading. New England had top 10 scoring offense. However, they weren't in the bottom or top 10 in scoring defense. Our offense scored more than their average in both. So why was that a sweep?
 Denver was bottom 10 in both offense & defense. That was a loss. Both SD & NYG had top 10 offenses and bottom 10 defenses. Both losses. Against the bottom 10 in offense we went 2-2. Against the bottom 10 in defense, we went 3-3. They even out. Much like the offense scoring 20.6/GM, while the defense gave up 19.6/GM. To say it was the "offense's fault" is not entirely accurate. They both failed to step up in critical moments.

We played 6 games against bottom-10 defenses and still finished with a low-ranked offense.
We played 6 games against top-10 offenses and still finished with a high-ranked defense.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

How did Miami finish with a "high ranked" offense? They were 15th overall. That's NOT high ranked. It doesn't matter how often or in what way you claim they were. 15th is middle of the pack. -EK

Miami finished with a 20th-ranked scoring offense, and no one said they were high-ranked.

Oh, are you going to respond that you obviously meant defense, and that I shouldn't be so pedantic and asinine as to pretend that I didn't know what you meant?  At the same time that I have repeatedly referred to Miami's scoring defense and not mentioned their defensive-yards-allowed a single time?

I look forward to your hypocritical reply.

Did you watch the game?  Nearly every incompletion was a dropped ball or receiver issue. 

Nothing hypocritical. It was a typo. You said high ranked defense. That's what I was referring to. 15 is not high ranked. I have repeatedly referred to the fact that looking at only the scoring defense on a team that went 6-10 is misleading, and the TOTAL defense is a better indicator of their play- which was far from "very very good."

Consider that Pittsburgh, Arizona, Seattle, Denver, and Kansas City ALL scored fewer points than Miami and all finished with a better record. How did that happen if Miami's defense was so good and the ONLY stat that matters is points scored? Shouldn't Miami have had a better record than those teams? They scored more points didn't they? How is this possible?? -EK

Yes, I did watch both games and Tannehill is throwing to the same receivers.

Players who have "dropped the ball" (figuratively) for Moore:

Bess - 2
Clay- 1
Gates - 2
Moore - 1
Wallace - 1
Johnson - 1
Pruitt - 1
Miller - 1
Egnew - 1
Fuller - 1
Thigpen - 1
NA - 1 (I guess they couldn't figure out whom Moore was throwing to on this one.)

That's a total of 14 "dropped" balls for those players out of 19 passes thrown to them. That same group of players have "dropped" 13 passes for Tannehill, but he's thrown to them 35 times. I guess Tannehill just throws a more catchable ball.

*Note - Tannehill has not actually thrown any passes to Gates, Johnson, Thigpen or NA.

I find it interesting that Marshall was vilified for the number of drops he had in Miami, but it looks as though the current group has all of the stone hands and none of the big yardage potential that he brought. Someone from this group- even in a West coast, spread the ball around system- needs to step up. -EK

Bess is a perfect 2 for 2, Pruitt is 6 for 7 and Fuller is a perfect 2 for 2 with Tannehill at QB. I'm actually quite surprised that Naanee hasn't seen more passes thrown his way, he's only had 2 and I expect to see more on Friday.

I expect that Bess, Hartline, Naanee and Pruitt will be the top 4 WR's for Miami going into the season and will get most of the work this year. I think Wallace will be #5 and I think it's possible that Fuller is #6 and makes the team. I suspect that Miami would like to put Cunningham and/or Matthews on the practice squad and they might get a chance too if one of the others goes down.

Hartline has great hands. Is he ever going to be healthy for 2012? -EK

Pappy,

I really don't have a problem with you supporting Tannehill.  But please get off this notion that I am supporting Matt Moore.  After you brought it up, I looked at myself and asked honestly if I am being biased.  I truly believe I am not.  

I am not a big stat guy.  I know a good bit about football and use my eyes to make judgements.  In my opinion, there are too many variables that affect stats and their accuracy.  Even if I looked at the stats, they seem to back me up as far as the drops are concerned.

My personal feelings are that they are GIVING the job to Tannehill, instead of him taking it.  Tannehill now has 1 half of starting football experience and it wasn't too good.  It wasn't bad, but it wasn't good.  I think this decision is another step toward losing the locker room.  It would have been better to wait for Moore to struggle and Tannehill to get a little more preparation time.  We aren't going to the Super Bowl with Tannehill, so what is the rush?

Yes. They know what they have in Hartline, he did practice some in OTA's. There's no reason to rush him back as he's recovering from surgery as well. He's not going to be in game shape for game 1, so probably won't see him much the first week or 2, but by week 3 or so I expect he'll be one of the starting WR's.

I tend to agree here. I've heard several "talking heads" note that this sends a message to the locker room that they acknowledge they won't be competitive and are giving in to the premise of "it's a rebuilding season, we know we won't win." Not a good message to send. -EK

You are welcome to your opinion and I'm allowed to have mine. I'm not trying to be combative, just giving everyone here the counterpoints to your points. As you can see I AM a big stat guy because I believe that while using the "eyeball" test is certainly valid, I think the stats should at least partially back you up. If the stats show something completely opposite of what the "eyeball" test is telling you, I think you have to consider the possibility that you're not being as objective as you think you are.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

I've heard that said as well, but typically they preface that by saying "Regardless of who the QB is".  Tannehill is not going to stunt the development of this team, rather the team is probably going to stunt the development of Tannehill. I don't care. I want to see how Tannehill does. I think it will be valuable experience that he can't get by holding a clipboard. Most of the talking heads agree with that sentiment.

We are cool.  Just wanted to keep this from going to far.

I meant scoring defense, which should have been apparent from the multiple times that I have already referenced "scoring defense" in this thread.

6 is.  And for you to say "15th is not high ranked" when it is clearly obvious that I am still referring to the 6th-ranked scoring defense is... well, pedantic and asinine.

What an outstanding metric to use!  I wholeheartedly consent to this line of logic.  So let's see... 5 teams (actually 6; you missed Tennessee) with worse scoring offenses than MIA's finished with a better record.  I wonder how many teams with superior records had a worse scoring defense than the Dolphins?

SEA, TEN, CIN, PHI, KC, NO, CHI, NE, DAL, ARI, ATL, GB, NYJ, SD, DET, DEN, NYG, OAK.  18 teams.

Five of these teams (ARI, SEA, DEN, KC, TEN) are on both lists, so we can't exactly use them to prove one way or the other, now can we?  Gotta cross them off.  So that leaves your list with... the Pittsburgh Steelers, otherwise known as the team with the best scoring defense in the league last year.   So yes, while PIT's was able to win with a scoring offense was even more pathetic than MIA's, their scoring defense was better than literally every other team!

So, to summarize: excluding the teams that were worse in scoring on both sides of the ball, EXACTLY ONE team with a worse scoring offense than Miami finished with a better record (the team with the best scoring defense in the league).  In contrast, THIRTEEN teams with a worse scoring defense than the Dolphins finished with a better record.

Every response you post makes my point clearer and clearer.  The offense was the lead balloon on this team.

I don't follow how this makes your point clearer. It seems much more straight forward to me. If the fault of the 6-10 record was ONLY on the offense, Kansas City- with the next to worst offense in football- should not have won more games than Miami. -EK

Marshall was vilified for constantly being arrested, having a contract he never lived up to, dropping a ton of balls, punching teammates in the lockeroom and throwing coaches and teammates under the bus in the press. It was more than just drops.

Whether another WR "steps up" this year has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Brandon Marshall and why he was let go.

In the NFL the less points you give up the better defense you are. That's all that matters. POINTS ALLOWED! Nobody cares about total defensive rankings which accounts for a bunch of things that mean little to the big picture. It's POINTS SCORED and POINTS ALLOWED!  Only two team stats that count for offense and defense.  I constantly read "why couldn't the Fins defense hold teams to FG's instead of TD's".......DUH, THEY DID!!! Hence only 5 teams gave up fewer points in the entire league. More times than not the Fins defense in 2011  forced teams into FG's instead of TD's! That's how you become 6th ranked in scoring defense! That's the sign of a very good defense.

2012 may be a very different story but in 2011 its not even debatable. The offense was miserable most weeks and was the reason the team lost. If the offense was so damn good how come an entire new coaching staff came in and cleaned house (Moore, Marshall, Vernon, Columbo, Hillard...all starters that are gone). And on defense except JT (who was a backup) retiring and Langford who was nice but nothing too special, damn near the entire unit came back pretty much in tact. Tells you ALL you need to know right there.

Then explain once and for all how multiple teams who scored LESS on offense or gave up MORE points on defense had better records. There's no portion of a 6-10 team- offense, defense, or special teams- that should be given the praise you keep giving the D ("very very good"). But since you pointed out how they basically have the same team this year, how do you account for the crap product the starters have shown so far this preseason? Injuries to the front line has nothing to do with the secondary giving up massive yards by poor coverage and penalty alike. So if the same guys are all there, why does this very very good defense suddenly suck so bad? Cam Newton hung 17 on Miami in the first quarter and he never ran the ball. What are you going to say when the D still can't cover anyone and they give up a bunch of leads again this year and the team is still under .500? Same guys. They're very very good. It's completely coincidental that the team lost 10 games- which is the REAL stat that matters, wins and losses, not how much you score or hold other teams to. -EK

1) What Cam Newton did was in a PRESEASON game
2) It was also in 2012 not relevant to this debate
3) I have stated numerous times I judge each year individually and on a year to year basis. If the DEFENSE SUCKS this year with Coyle then I will say it. Doesn't change the fact they were VERY VERY GOOD last year and 6th in scoring defense.

Sort of like if Puljos wins the MVP in Year X and the next year he only hits .250 it doesn't change the fact he won the MVP the year before and was good then. Each year is graded by that year and there is NO carry over!

1. You think the secondary is suddenly going to flip a switch, wake up and say- "oh, the preseason is over, these games count now, let's start playing for real" and cover receivers when they couldn't cover anybody at all last year?
2-3. Just because YOU judge them separately doesn't mean others do, and YOU were the one who introduced the fact that the defense didn't change it's primary personnel, which indicates to me an expectation that its results should be equally similar. If you didn't want this year's performance taken into account, you shouldn't have mentioned this year's team being the same. You did that, not me.
It's outlandish to believe Miami had a very very good defense last year.
So, if Pujols wins the MVP in a contract year, his new contract and the expectations should not be based on previous results? He should get, what- league minimum? League average? It's absurd to believe there's no carry over. There's nothing but carry over. The seasons don't happen in a vacuum. -EK

Every team starts the season at 0-0, yes its a vacuum!! lol lol

Last years records and stats don't carry over...lol.

Very nice way to ignore the Pujols example which I completely turned around on you. If it's in a vacuum and nothing from previous seasons matters, why doesn't Vegas give every team the same shot of winning the Super Bowl? After all, they're all 0-0. It's getting to the point that I think you're responding out of habit and not even thinking your posts through. -EK

Because the Puljos example you gave is so beyond foolish and silly. I wasn't going to point that out to try and keep things "civil" around here. It's so bad I am not even going to try and respond because it would be an utter waste of time. I was gonna let it slide but you asked. So.

I didn't ignore the other example either, just see above for my thoughts on that example and its the same for this one. I was gonna let is slide to keep things "civil", but once again, you asked. The "vegas super bowl odds" is a tangent that means nothing to the debate at hand.  The roster and coaching overhaul from year to year is to great in the NFL for there to be carry over. What actually happens in a given year actually does happen in a vacuum. Everyone starts 0-0 each year! No carry over! That is the very definition of a season happening in a vacuum.

As always, believe what ya want! Best of luck to ya.  And have a nice day! :)

You cited 5 (but really 6) teams with worse scoring offenses that won more games than MIA.
I cited 18 teams with worse scoring defenses that won more games than MIA.

If we are to determine, based on points (you know, the metric in which the outcome of games is determined), which unit outplayed the team's record, empirically speaking, the defense wins that comparison BY A LANDSLIDE.  This should not be at all surprising when you consider that the defense finished 6th in points allowed, while the offense finished 20th in points scored.

...?

You want an explanation for how multiple teams that gave up MORE points on defense had a better record?  I just explained it: their offenses were better than Miami's.  This accounts for 13 of the 18 teams that gave up more points while getting more wins.  The other five teams had both worse offenses and defenses than MIA.

This ridiculous logic would also mean that there is no portion of a 15-1 team that should be criticized, even when they are in the bottom half of the league in points allowed and dead last in yards allowed.

The 2010 Chargers were #2 in points scored, #1 in yards gained, and #1 in yards allowed.  They finished out of the playoffs at 9-7, because they had one of the worst special teams units in the history of the game.  The 2000 Rams were one of the highest scoring teams in the history of the league.  They finished 10-6 because they had the last-ranked scoring defense.

Are you serious with this preseason talk?  PRESEASON RESULTS ARE MEANINGLESS.  The 0-16 2008 Lions were 4-0 in the preseason.  Get out of here with that "preseason" noise.

Your grading of a football team is suspect if you think any part of last years team was "VERY VERY GOOD". The most you could say about ANY part of last years team is MEDIOCRE bordering on horrible. Glad you ain't on the coaching staff or front office.

Thank you Badger. Mike you're wrong. Deal with it. Second time in what- a week? Losing your touch. -EK

LOL, deal with what?! Because Badger agrees with  you it makes me wrong"?! Are you kidding me! LOL LOL

Home run posts by Spider today explaining this and breaking it down into very simple terms. Great work Spider! One of the valued members of this board I actually look forward to reading even when we disagree at times.

I don't even know what you guys are bitching about, just barely skimming through this thread before bed. Me agreeing with EK doesn't make you wrong. Just like Spider agreeing with you doesn't make you right. Who the f is Spider ? Jesus or something ? Your assessment of ANY part of last years Miami Dolphins as "VERY VERY GOOD" makes you (and Spider by default if he agrees with you) wrong. Last years "TEAM" sucked donkey ass as a mater of fact. And no one is kidding you about that !!!

I am not bitching at all. I am laughing though!  I have complimented people and wished others a nice day in this thread. What more do you want from me! lol

The Fireman saying I was wrong did make me laugh though because he was ONLY basing it on you agreeing with him. Am I not allowed to laugh anymore? Jees! What is the world coming too. Maybe the terrorists have actually won!

I know that a new coaching staff brought back the entire defense minus 1 guy, to me that is a clear sign they think very highly of this defense. Otherwise they would have overhauled it like the offense was overhauled. The defense didn't suck last year. Sorry. Numbers don't back it up. Maybe they will suck this year, we will see. Time will tell. Different year, different scheme, different play caller.

6-10. When the offense scored less than their average they went 1-8. When the defense allowed more than their average, they went 1-8. This states that neither side could help the other out when they were having a less than average performance. That's what a team does. This team didn't do it. They were 5-2 when both sides lived up to their average. Live as a team. Die as individuals.

If you say so.....


The coaching staff thought highly of their players last year too. Shit, now that I think of it most coaching staffs would think highly of their players if they value their jobs at all. And once and for all, yes, the defense sucked last year, just like the offense and special teams sucked. The whole fucking team sucked period. If the defense was very very good they would have stopped some of the comebacks that we lost last year. But they didn't do their job and lost those games by giving up those points. Last I saw was that this was a "TEAM" sport. The "TEAM" is either good or bad. And they were fucking bad as a "TEAM". The only number that matters is wins and losses.

Without all the cursing, I disagree! This is a NEW coaching staff with no ties to these guys. They could have pushed to clean house some if they wanted on defense like they did on offense. They didn't. That says something.

Blanket statements like"the whole team sucked" is just ignoring to many things. Football isn't that black and white.  This team was solid on special teams last year in their coverage units. Carpenter was very good as was Fields. The special teams did not suck.  That is just an incorrect statement. Where they all world or outstanding, no. Did they suck, oh hell no! Rizzi did such a good job the NEW staff kept him. Once again, that speaks volumes. Rizzi had no ties to Philbin but Rizzi's results speak for themselves. Defense, you can claim they suck but only 5 teams gave up fewer points. You might not think they were "very good" as I do,  but suck? No. Incorrect.

I dont want to go in circles for days on this. With you, I will just agree to disagree! And let's move on.

What does any of this have to do with Tannehill starting?

(http://sircommunity.com/forums/images/smilies/DancingLock.gif)