The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Nice addition to an already outstanding offense!

I think this is a great signing for Atlanta!!!!!!

Their offense is gonna be scary good. Problem for Atlanta though is even if they go 15-1....their season is a failure if they don't at least REACH the Super Bowl

I wonder how much is left in Steven's tank.  I don't think he's completely spent, but considering his use in St. Louis, his best days are definitely behind him.

I predict that the city of Atlanta...or at least its NFL fans, are really-really-really going to hate the NFC West for the next 3-4 years.

We'll see, when they're hosting the NFC Championship again next year.

I don't think anyone who is a fan of a perennial top 15 draft pick team should be allowed to point a finger at Atlanta- whether they get to the Super Bowl or not- and label anything they do "a failure." Perspective, people. Switch Miami and Atlanta's records for the past five years and no one here would be saying "Anything less than Super Bowl next year is a failure!"

Put another way- if following up the past 5 seasons' 56-14 with a hypothetical 12-4 record and a second round playoff loss is a failure, what does Miami's 38-42 record over that time say about them? People who live in glass houses should not throw such hyperbole stones. -EK

The last time Miami was a perennial playoff team (and had won playoff games three years in a row unlike, ahem, Atlanta), the prevailing perspective WAS, "Anything less than the Super Bowl next year is a failure."

So I'm not sure how that's hypocrisy.

Steven Jackson and Michael Turner are the same person.  Except Michael Turner doesn't get hurt as often.

Jacquizz Rodgers is going to have a breakout year this season.

And I'm saying that's a ridiculous stance, especially from anyone whose team hasn't had a winning record in a number of years. I don't think it's reasonable for a fan of a losing team to label another team's season as a failure for not winning a Superbowl. Does that mean that every year 31 teams were failures? -EK

Expectations matter.

Even though the 2001 and 2008 Dolphins had the same record with the same end result (home loss to BAL in wild card round), 2001 was an incredibly disappointing underachievement that signaled a move in the wrong direction, while 2008 was a glorious miracle season.

The expectation of Atlanta's ownership and fanbase (given their roster) is at least to go to the Super Bowl.  The expectation of Miami's ownership and fanbase is... not.  If Miami got a wild-card playoff win and lost in the divisional round, this season would be a success for the Dolphins.  If the Falcons, Patriots, Broncos, or Packers did the same, that would be considered a failure.

I don't see why this is hard to understand.

WTF does it matter what team a person roots for when laying out expectations for any other team given that teams current roster? The 2013 Falcons have an elite roster and a Super Bowl caliber roster.

This is crazy talk! Like saying if your a fan of the Pittsburgh Pirates you can't say the Yankees choked in the playoffs given all of the hall of famers and high priced superstars the Yanks have because the Pirates suck and you root for them.

This is idiot logic!

Very well said!

I disagree. I happen to feel it's "idiot logic" to have the mentality that anything less than a Superbowl is failure. Of course that perspective does seem to reflect the bipolar POV I see in these boards a lot (a guy either sucks or is the second coming- no room for any gray), but honestly, I think if a coach has several seasons in which he averages 11 wins a year, no sane person will label him a failure.

Were the Elway Broncos "failures" before they won the Super Bowl in 97 even though Elway led them to 4 conference championships and a 70% win clip for the previous ten years? -EK

EKnight, have you ever heard the acronym:

Boy
I
Love
Losing
Super Bowls

Are you confused as to why someone would make a derogatory joke about the only team in NFL history to win four consecutive conference championships?

When you figure that out, then maybe you'll understand why someone would consider Atlanta's 2013 season a "failure" if they don't make it to the Super Bowl.

In 2012 if you lose the NFC Championship at HOME. Go add a talent like a Steven Jackson to your roster, and don't reach that same point or go further the next year....your season is a failure. Sorry. No one person is a failure, just the season as a whole is for that organization!

and i still don't understand why a fan of another team (no matter how bad that team is) can't have that opinion? Makes no sense!

Spider- So then you're honestly saying that it's a greater failure to get to the Superbowl and not win it than to not make it (or even the playoffs) at all?

Don't dodge my Denver question. Do you consider the Broncos for the decade before 1997- with a coach of the year twice, an offensive player of the year, and a league MVP during that stretch- failures?

Mike- you can have any opinion you want (you always do). But let me point out that for all the shit you love to give me about how "great" certain Miami players were last year, by YOUR OWN STANDARDS, the team is filled with failures. Hey- Marino and Shula never won a title together either; guess they were failures as well. -EK

^^Marino and Shula weren't failures individualy. Some of those years the Dolphins season as whole were YES failures. 1992 and 1985 come to mind. AFC Championship game at HOME with the better team , and lost! Season was a failure.

EKnight, you seem to have a problem understanding the concept of expectations.  I didn't create that Bills acronym.  Someone else did, and many, many, many people talk about the failure of the Bills to win a ring.

Your Elway question is, um, stupid.  Prior to 1997, Elway was considered an epic choker, who made repeated trips to the Super Bowl just to get blown out.  The Broncos were literally a joke (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fbj61a8M1w).

And funny that you bring up Marino.  What is the primary context in which people mention Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, LeBron James (until a year ago), etc.?

Why am I explaining one of the most basic ideas in competitive sports?

Oh, no, no, no. They never won a Superbowl- by your standards, the ones you set up in this thread- you've defined them as being failures as a whole. In fact, they were specially failures in the 1984 season because they came off of a 12-4 record, two years removed from being in the Superbowl, added the league MVP and offensive player of the year, and didn't win the Superbowl. So the team that historically had one of the top offenses in the history of the franchise- and the only one to EVER top 500 points was a failure? How can you justify that? Why don't you just admit that "failure" was too strong of a word and you were wrong?

Spider- the "primary context" those guys are mentioned is not because they're failures. If you don't get that, there's nothing I can say to explain it to you. -EK

Again, does the word "expectations" mean anything to you?  The 1984 Dolphins lost to a team with a better record that was favored to beat them.

If you don't understand how expectations define what is and is not considered failure then I don't know what to tell you.

exactly. This is basic common knowledge stuff.....or so I thought!  :-\

And the 2013 Falcons team will likely not be favored to win the Superbowl either. That's EXACTLY my point- no one outside of a few outliers has an expectation that they will be a sure thing Superbowl favorite (in fact at this moment, they're 16-1 odds, with 4 teams MORE likely to win according to future odds sites). So, in actuality, failure would be if they finished worse than fifth. Anything more than that would be meeting their expectations.

Point blank- unless when the season starts, they leapfrog Denver, SF, New England, and Seattle, then their EXPECTATIONS are not that they will be favored to win the title, and thus, not winning does not constitute failure. Whatever expectations you two have don't matter outside of your own thinking. They're your own expectations, and not held by the people making the odds (you know, the actual REAL expectations). -EK

I think the "expectations" thing is overblown. 

The Bills being the only team to win 4 conf champ in a row is an accomplishment (not withstanding the joke)

I know some like to claim that the one win over the Ravens made the Dolphin's season superior to NE's one loss in 2007.  I view it as Bullshit.  I will take 2007 over 1990 without question (NE's 1-15 season). First place is much better than second.  But second beats the hell out of 32nd. 

So then, I presume you are saying that if the Broncos or 49ers do not WIN the Super Bowl, their respective season would be a failure, according to The Actual REAL Expectations?

Is your problem here with the idea of a team being expected to play in/win the Super Bowl, or just the idea that Atlanta is a team in that position?

No, Spider, that's what you two seem to be saying. Im saying it's bipolar assinine stupidity to label anything but a Superbowl a "failure." There are levels of success that go beyond a single game. As Hoodie pointed out, 2nd place and 32nd place are not the same.

Awesome way to dodge my point and try to turn it around though. I admire the effort, but it doesn't hangs the fact that no one but you and Mike seem to share the expectation that it's Superbowl or "failure" for Atl, and the oddsmakers indicate that. -EK

Is it bipolar assinine [sic] stupidity to label anything but a playoff win a "failure"?  How about anything but a division title?  How about making the playoffs?

Expectations exist, and they shape perception.  The overwhelming majority of Marino discussions include the fact that He Never Won A Title.  The overwhelming majority of 2007 Patriots discussions include 18-1.  The overwhelming majority of '90s Bills discussions are framed as 4 straight SB losses, not 4 straight conference titles.

To continue with your earlier example, the fact that Marino lost that SB against the 49ers most certainly is used to label him a "failure."  It is prominently mentioned in ANY AND EVERY discussion of the best QBs of all time, and is almost universally used to disqualify him from the top spot.  I'm not sure why you would post something like that to a Dolphins message board, as if other MIA fans are somehow unaware of it.

You should also realize that there is a difference between failure and sucking.  The 2002 Dolphins were a better team with a better record than the 2012 Dolphins, and yet the '02 squad was a failure while the '12 squad was not.

Failure is always relative to expectations.

If the broncos and the 49ers don't make it to the superbowl this year their seasons will have been failures.

Yep! Throw in NE and Atlanta too!

Just because I know what's coming:

There is no contradiction in saying that both the 49ers and the Falcons would declare their season a failure if they don't make the Super Bowl, even though only one of them can make it.  Expectations are not always fair; there is no happy ending for all.

Yesm but no one other than you and Mike have the expectation that ATL will win the Superbowl. That's my point. It's why I listed the teams who have better odds right now than them. Either address this point or be done. If their generally accepted EXPECTATION is not to win the Superbowl- and that's what odds are, the expecation of a team's performance- agreed upon and published by oddsmakers who make expectations for a living- then their season is not a failure if they do what is expected of them, and not win it. No amount of circular logic on your behalf will circumvent that- you teo made an expectation yourselves and labeled ATL a failure if they do not meet it. No one else in the sports world agrees or ATL would have the greatest odds of winning. -EK

Any argument that in order to be successful rests on labeling a player that has been inducted into the Hall of Fame a "failure", is a weak argument. 

While Marino's  lack of a ring keeps him out of any serious discussion of "top 5 QBs of all time", it doesn't keep him off the top 25 lists. His career was not a failure.  Not elite, but not a failure. 

Don't forget that Spider also listed Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, and Patrick Ewing- all Hall of Famers- as failures in this thread as well.  ::)  -EK

Neither of us said that ATL is expected to win.  Try reading.

You should also make up your mind as to whether you want to continue to lean on the oddsmakers or not, because every time you make that statement, you reinforce the idea of "SB or failure"... you're just saying it should be a different team.

I ask again: is your problem here with the idea of a team being expected to play in/win the Super Bowl, or just the idea that Atlanta is a team in that position?

Were Ryan Leaf and JaMarcus Russell failures?  They were almost certainly better football players than everyone you ever knew or will know.

FAILURE
IS
RELATIVE
TO
EXPECTATIONS

Mike said if they don't get a Superbowl, the season is a failure (or something to that effect, using the word "failure").  Given that they are 5th on the list of odds to make it, the oddsmakers disagree- whether the argument is getting there or winning. Asking me to repeat my position because you can't figure it out after the multiple times I've stated it, leads me to believe you have no ground to stand on and are simply looking to argue. I'll compile them here, so you won't be so unclear:



You can keep pouting out your failures is relative to expectations" all day and night- it doesn't change the fact that your position on the expectations of the Falcons is wrong. I'm not going to further debate this with you. Go ahead and say whatever you want about Atlanta's expectations and failures and how your list of Hall of Fame players is full of failures as well. Not a further fuck will be given.

(http://www.thelas.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/someone-on-the-internet-is-wrong2.jpg)

-EK

Is your argument that it is unreasonable to expect any specific team to get to the Super Bowl, or that is unreasonable to expect the 2013 Atlanta Falcons to get there?

Please make up your mind, so I know exactly what I'm rebutting.  Because your "oddsmakers" defense does nothing at all to refute the former, even though you appear to have said that the former is "idiot logic."

1) I said that and stand by it! If you are at HOME in the NFC Championship game one year, add top players (Steven  Jackson) and fail to go further, then you failed that season. Short of a rash of serious injuries, if they stay healthy ...yes its a FAILURE of a season if they don't surpass what they did in 2012!

2) who the F' cares what the "oddsmakers" say on March 15th. FA is a week old and the draft hasn't happened yet. The odds are WORTHLESS right now!!!

Gotta scratch my head a little at this one. Steven Jackson and Michael Turner have never, at any point of their career, been even similar in RB style. Start with Jackson being 4+ inches taller (and, ahem, 10 lbs lighter) and a galloping RB, while Turner is more of a one cut RB who relies on his power to break through initial tackles. Steven Jackson is arguably one of the best receivers out of the backfield among tailbacks (no fewer than 38 receptions every year), while Turner couldn't catch a cold in a pediatrics ward (never more than 19 receptions in a season). To put it in perspective: Jackson had 24 more receptions in 2006 alone than Turner has had in his career (90-66).

If you saw Turner play this past season, you wouldn't compare them in production either, as Turner looked pretty horrible. No burst, no power...lower body warranty: expired.

Over the last 8 seasons, Jackson has been automatic for 240+ carries, 38-50 catches, 1,000+ yds rushing , 200-350 yds receiving. He's the model of RB consistency.  Jackson is also two years younger than Turner...

As far as the injury nonsense goes, Steven Jackson has missed 2 games, total, over the past 4 seasons. If you use "injury-prone" to describe Jackson, then you should really include "but he plays through them all" as an honesty-driven caveat.


I'll make ya a small $5 side bet, payable at the "following" YJFF draft. This season, Rodgers stats (carries, receptions, offensive yards) will be no more than 10% above last season's modest numbers, when he was playing behind Turner, rather than Jackson.

The Falcons signed Jackson as an upgrade over Turner, which it definitely is, and I believe part of the reason for that is because they know that Rodgers, at 5'6" and less than 200 lbs, isn't a real workhorse feature back, and is most effective as the speedy change of pace RB and extra WR behind a larger feature back.

I think it is an excellent pick-up for the Falcons, and one that significantly upgrades their offense. Not like their offense really needed a lot of upgrading...

At this point, I think the NFL should consider revamping the NFC schedule and just have a 4-way season-long tournament between the 49ers, Seahawks, Falcons and Packers. That would be fucking awesome. ;D

As NFL players they were failures.  As college players they were not. 

As professional athletes, they reached an elite pinnacle (#2 and #1 overall) that placed them at the top of a football talent pool consisting of millions of players.  They earned more money than most of us will see in our lives.

Yet the very mention of their names invokes scorn and derisive laughter.  Professionally speaking, were they failures?  That depends on who you are comparing them to, doesn't it?

No they didn't.  Being drafted number one means you reached an elite pinnacle as a college player, not as a professional athlete. 

Ryan Leaf was an elite college football player, but a failure as a pro player.

Tom Brady is an elite professional football player, but only a so-so college player.

Tim Tebow is a so-so professional football player, but was an elite college player.

Peyton Manning is an elite professional football player and was also at the college level. 

Your draft level is a measure of your success or failure as a college player, it says nothing about your status at the professional level. 

How many players at the professional level had signed bigger contracts than Leaf or Russell?

Money talks.  Professionally speaking, they signed elite contracts and made elite money.  Maybe not for very long, but money is money.

Same goes for the Heisman Trophy, although the draft level and the Heisman trophy don't always go hand in hand.

I'd say over the past 20 years, about 1/3 of all Heisman Trophy winners went on to be NFL Standouts, 1/3 were so-so players, and 1/3 were complete busts.

I think you are arguing just to argue....

But going back to were the deviation came from. 

In that case, the ONLY expectations we should use is not ESPN pre-season poll but team payroll.

Last year the Texans and Lions spent the most money of any team.  So unless those two teams met in the super bowl they failed to meet expectations by your standard.  And Jacksonville spent the least so unless they had the worst record, they exceeded expectations. 

You're mixing comparisons.  If you are talking about dollars, then whichever team made the most money was the most successful.

But since you don't seem to like the money comparison, we'll go back to the draft.  You claim that the draft is not an indication of professional status, but of college status.  If that's true, why did Tim Tebow get drafted 24 spots after Sam Bradford, when Tebow was clearly the superior player in college?  Why did Gino Toretta, a College Football HOFer, last until the 7th round of the NFL draft?

And to bring this back to the original point: how can you say that a player who was drafted top 2 and started over 20 NFL games is a "failure as a pro player"?  There are plenty of NFL players who don't start anywhere close to that many games.  The only reason you can call Leaf or Russell a failure is because the expectation was for them to do much more than they did.

Any player, be it an UDFA or a first round pick that loses job without accomplishing much when he is on the field is a failure as a pro-player.