The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Armando Salguero had a good point in one of his recent columns (http://miamiherald.typepad.com/dolphins_in_depth/2014/10/look-there-is-plenty-of-blame-to-go-around-for-the-miami-dolphins-losing-to-the-green-bay-packers-on-sunday-just-read-thisa.html):

So here is where Joe Philbin strategy came into play. His thinking?

“Well, I’ll have to go back, but when we met as a staff, all the coordinators – we know the type of quarterback that we’re playing against – we decided," Philbin said. "I told Bill [Lazor] that we were going to do whatever we have to do to get a first down, whatever the call. I told them to be aggressive. Kevin [Coyle] knew that, Bill knew that, Darren [Rizzi] knew, everyone in the department knew that and that’s what we decided to do."

And so on second-and-nine from the 36, the Dolphins called a pass out of the shotgun formation.

I understand the logic. First, the Packers had both their starting cornerbacks out of the game. Secondly, there was that big meeting of the coaching minds that decided the team was going to be aggressive.

I understand the reason to pass. But why not a bubble screen? Or a quick slant? Something fast and safe, right?

Instead Tannehill took the snap and as he was dropping, immediately was swarmed by two blitzing defenders. So the QB threw the ball out of bounds, stopping the clock for a team that didn't have time outs.

And Philbin blames the offensive line, which was outnumbered, for the failure.

"I didn’t think we protected the quarterback very well on those plays," he said. "We have to do a much better job. But that was decided before. We knew – you have to do whatever you have to do to gain a first down. Dom [Capers] was playing coverage zero, there were eleven guys down, you executed. Again, you have to give them enough credit. They executed better."

Again, how about executing a quickie slant? Or this: Take the sack! It runs clock. Running clock at that point is a good option.

Anyway, the idea of doing whatever is necessary to gain a first down apparently didn't carry over to third down. Miller took a handoff and ran left for one yard.

So, you have this premeditated idea of moving heaven and earth to gain a first down by passing on second down but on third you go into a shell to play the clock? That does not make sense to me. Either the strategy exists or it does not.

Half-measures are for losers, folks.
---

I don't agree with Armando's suggestions of "throw a slant" or "take the sack" (as those are not aggressive calls either), but his basic point is sound: either run the clock, or be aggressive and go for the win.  Philbin made a half-assed attempt at both.

This is the epitome of Monday morning quarterbacking by Armando.  He faults Philbin for passing, then running, yet Armando can't make his mind up which to criticize him for.  I don't fault the pass, then run call; its good to see Miami push for the first down on 2nd down.  Certainly it was a mistake by Tannehill to not take the sack, however 99% of the game you would want him to throw the ball away; hopefully Tannehill learned from this mistake.  On third down running the ball was the right call to use up the clock.  Had Miami passed on third I could just imagine Armando lampooning Philbin for running two passing plays.

Well, you're always going to be criticized if you lose.

But if you pick one strategy (try to win the game with a first down) or the other (run the clock and minimize GB's time remaining), you at least have some consistency.  If you are, as Philbin said, doing "whatever we have to do to get a first down, whatever the call," you don't call a run play on 3rd-and-9.

I agree.  Either get the first down or chew up as much clock as you can. 

I understand the logic of being aggressive and calling a pass play in that situation. You can make an argument that it should have been a "safe" screen or quick slant but it is one of those things where if the pass play works, it was a "brilliant and aggressive call" and if it doesn't, it was a "horrible dumbass call".    Tanny played a great second half so I'm not going to rag him, but when he threw that ball away, I was yelling "Noooo, take the sack there to keep the clock moving."  But then, of course you could say, "What if in the course of taking a sack he fumbles?"    See, a million variables come into play when second guessing and Monday morning Quarterbacking.  Bottom line, it broke my sports heart to see the Fins lose a game that they could/should have won.  To be honest, they made it a closer game and gave the Packers a better fight than I thought they would.  And Aaron Rodgers is a hell of a QB.   

Forgot to add in my last post that I totally agree with you guys saying that regardless of whether you are going to be aggressive or try to run the clock down, you have to be consistent.  Throwing it on 2nd down and then running it on 3rd and 9 reeked of not sticking to the plan (whichever plan it was) or not really knowing what you wanted to do. 

It is also the epitome if hitting the nail on the head.


No, he's faulting Philbin for half assing it. If they wanted to be aggressive, then be aggressive, don't resort to half measures.

The fact that Philbin got "queasy" says it all.

I said it during the game... I would have rather gone down swinging. Our defense wasn't up to the challenge in my opinion and Rodgers is well, Aaron Rodgers. Our only option was to move the ball and try to score again. I had already felt it was a lost cause once we decided to allow them to get the ball back. 

I think the key decision was not taking the field goal early in the game.

Points are at a premium, especially when you play the Packers.

The statement "points are a premium" usually implies that they will be hard to come by and that you expect a low-scoring game.  GB has a high-powered offense and a low-ranked defense, so I agree with the decision to be aggressive; MIA wasn't going to beat them by kicking field goals.

But in this case that non field goal proved to be the difference maker

take three sure points, especially after you've been stuffed three times in a row

Never give up easy points in the first quarter. If it was the 2nd half and you are trying to gain momentum or need a TD to stay in the game, that is one thing. In the first half never pass up easy points

Not scoring turned out to be the difference maker.

A field goal would only have resulted in a tie with 3 seconds remaining, at which point anything could still have happened.  Had MIA scored a touchdown there, the timeout blunders would not have mattered, because MIA would have been up by two scores on that final drive.

Many posters have already agreed that against a high-scoring offense like GB, you need to be aggressive and score TDs; the Dolphins were never going to FG the Packers into submission.  If you want to say that the TD attempt was a bad decision because it didn't work, then fine... but had MIA kicked a FG there and ended up losing in OT, I suspect that many people would be saying that Philbin was dumb for kicking a FG from the 1-yard line.

At the end of the day, if you can't score a TD on three attempts from the 1, what does that say about your chances of winning?