The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I saw this link on Twitter and thought it was interesting...  Its a summary of all 58 sacks the Dolphins o-line let up last season.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZourGM6KRo

Now, I went through and tallied who I think was at fault for each to try to get a handle on what the real problem was...  The results are somewhat surprising:

Tyson Clabo: 10
Bryant McKinnie: 9
Jonathan Martin: 7
Coverage/holding ball too long: 6
Edge blitz not picked up: 5
RB missing blitz pickup: 5
Richie Incognito: 4
John Jerry: 4
Nate Garner: 3
Tight Ends: 2
Sam Brenner: 1
Mike Pouncey: 1

(for some reason there was one play against the Colts that was an incomplete pass that I didn't count)

Notes:
- Clabo was clearly the worst, as most of us knew, but most of his "highlights" came during or before the first Buffalo game.  I think he only gave up 3-4 the second half of the season
- McKinnie got absolutely abused during the second Buffalo game.
- For having only played half the season, McKinnie's numbers look very bad.
- For having played every game, Mike Pouncey only gave up 1 sack all season.
- Considering he only played 7 games, Jonathan Martin's 7 sacks were on pace for team worst.

Going Forward:
The Dolphins need to work on blitz pickups by the backs, and letting Tannehill take off with the ball.  There are at least 16 sacks that could have been avoided if there is improvement in these areas.

It's a whole new offense this year so some of the problems will go away with the way the offense is just run overall. Sherman was clueless in a lot of areas. Not having a "rolling pocket" at times so Tannehill wasn't a sitting duck and not trying to hide weak-spots and give our tackles help when they were having bad days...stuff like that.

Hadn't Clabo already allowed more sacks (in one fewer game) than Martin by the time Martin left?

It's hard to say that Martin was "on pace for team worst" when someone else was already on a worse pace when he left.

^^ by the end of the season, Clabo had 10.  Martin was "on pace for" 1 per game, or 16, which would have been the team's worst.

And, no, by the time he left, he was leading Clabo by 1.

Is there a reason you defend Martin at every turn?

The fact remains that Clabo was on an even worse pace (more sacks in fewer games) when Martin left.

Clabo gave up 8 sacks in his first 6 games (http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/30/3786713/miami-dolphins-lineman-tyson-clabo.html) (and didn't play in the 7th game).

You're arguing who's the stinkier turd.  They both sucked, who cares?

Based on that video above I don't see how they give Martin 7 sacks for the year. I counted 8 in his first 5 games. I thought the guy that Martin seemed to be responsible for hit the QB first...

1 vs Cleveland (11:15)
1 vs Indy (14:00) At least a 1/2 sack here. 2 guys hitting Tannehill at the same time, not sure which guy got credit for the sack.
2 vs Atl  (4:56), (10:53) Missed blitz pickup (maybe this is only a 1/2 sack since there are 3 guys hitting Tannehill almost together any which could have been the first one.)
2 vs NO  (9:03), (8:09)
2 vs Bal (11:30), (5:24)

How did you count 7 for Martin? Is he only getting tagged for 1/2 sacks on those 2 or is one or the other credited to someone else?

Well, Clabo finished the season, and gave up 2 sacks in the final 9 games.  Maybe if Martin didn't WALK OUT ON HIS TEAM, you'd have an argument.  Too bad we'll never find out.

I did the counting, and I didn't assign "half" sacks.  I will go back and review, but its possible that I felt that one of them someone else was MORE at fault than Martin.

edit to add - I reviewed, the play vs Atlanta at 2:17 where Tannehill got buried I gave to John Jerry because he looked like he got blown off his block early and his man was the first there.  I debated that one for a while, because that was everyone's mistake.  It could go either way, I guess.  I could definitely see giving that one to Martin as well.

The 1 against Indy that you cite was an incomplete pass, not sure why it was counted as a sack.  I didn't count that one for anyone

Ah. I'm wondering if they called that a fumble so it was a sack? That was confusing for me as well, but I assumed there was a reason that it was credited as a sack. That might be where we differ and why Martin was only credited with 7.

You know, its possible.  Now that you say it I seem to remember a play being reviewed and reversed as a fumble...

It's amazing Tannehill didn't cough up the ball more given the complete lack of protection from the tackle position all year.

It was a position we badly needed to fix, hopefully with the moves made to date we are on the way to that now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZourGM6KRo

Although blame can be spread for all 58 sacks, it should be clear to most that on an overwhelming majority of these, Tannehill simply wasn't getting time to do anything.

Wow that's a bad video.    I could hardly watch it all.    If Miami cut that sack total in half, how many more games could they have won last year?   How many drives were stalled because of bad sacks?   It's amazing they won as many as they did with that swiss cheese offensive line.      Man that was bad. 

And you have to wonder why Pouncey was kept but Jerry was not despite the fact that the Wells report implicated them both.  It seems like this new GM's philosophy is to get rid of you if you're a bad person and a bad player.  But if you're a bad person and a good player, here's a fat contract offer and please join our team.

Sounds like the same philosophy most professional sports teams have.  Pouncey didn't even kill another human, so he's far from the most glaring example.

Nothing has really changed when it comes to the o-line.  Pouncey stays and they added Albert. After that they got garbage and no depth. Better hope Martin falls to them at 19 or else its gonna be another real long year on the o-line. Starting 2 rookies and Shelly Smith (an unproven guy who has limited reps)....a recipe for disaster.  With $16 mill or so under the cap it wouldn't have hurt to spend $1-$2 mill on another proven o-linemen. Still aroudn $14 mill or so under the cap and would be in much better shape heading into the draft.

^^There's still time to make changes after the Draft. There's probably not much left in Free Agency but there's always trade possibilities. I still say it would be smart for Miami to sign Incognito to some really team friendly contract as an insurance policy. I know they won't do it, but I still think it would be smart to do. They would get crucified for it, but honestly people forget all about that stuff a month later. By the time the season was a month old everyone would have forgotten all about it. If he can help the team win, I'm all for it. I still don't think he's a bad guy, at least not as bad as some people think he is. Martin is back in the NFL, it's time to let Incognito back in as well.

They are NOT signing Incognito. Not in a million years, nobody is going to forget about that story anytime soon.

There is nothing left in free agency per the way of quality offensive linemen. There will be no trades made after the draft for anyone that is any good. Just for other teams garbage. The o-line is a disaster still, and the front office (or at least Hickey/Philbin)  must be under the impression they have more than one offseason to fix it. Little do they know if they win 6, 7, or 8 games they are all fired and will be out of work.

Or one may think so. Knowing Ross he just might keep them around.

Ross wants that new stadium and the tax break, another losing season hurts fan support. Keeping the current group in place after ANOTHER losing season just kills any fan support he may have. He needs the fan support to pressure the politicians to get that tax break....no way Philbin/Hickey survive a 6-8 win season

I have the answer to this question now. The play was ruled a sack and a fumble. Below is the actual play by play. I can only assume they are calling this a empty hand sort of thing, but how the ball moves forward through the air approximately 10 yards without being thrown is a mystery to me. The play was reviewed and upheld. Notice that the fumble was recovered at the Mia 41 and the play started on the Mia 30 and Tannehill was on the 21 yard line when he "fumbled" the ball forward 20 yards before it was recovered. Amazing. Anyway it went as a sack and was credited to Freeman who was Clabo's man. Count that as a sack against for Clabo.

"3-10-MIA 30 (14:03) (Shotgun) 17-R.Tannehill sacked at MIA 21 for -9 yards (50-J.Freeman). FUMBLES (50-J.Freeman), RECOVERED by IND-35-J.Lefeged at MIA 41. 35-J.Lefeged to MIA 39 for 2 yards. The play is recorded as a sack for 0 yards. The Replay Assistant challenged the fumble ruling, and the play was Upheld."

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

You're going to fire a new GM after 1 season of work?  Good luck ever finding a new guy to take that job. 

Thank goodness MikeO isn't the owner of a team.  Everyone would be fired after 1 bad play. 

Rome wasn't built in a day, and I'm sick and tired of this fan base and their "fire everyone until someone lucks into a 12-win season" mentality.

You get guys you trust, and let them do their job.  Despite your ridiculous beliefs, it takes time to turn a franchise around after 10 years of shit.  We don't have a talent base that other teams had, and these guys are trying to change the culture and national perception.  All I want to see this year is a step in the right direction.

I'd hate to tell you this but I'm also under the impression that both Hickey and Philbin are under a "make the playoffs or else" type season.

^^ Fine, you're allowed to think that, and I still think that's ridiculous.  It would make the Dolphins even a bigger laughing stock than they already are.

If we are going to continue down this road I may split this to a new thread since it is unrelated. I can give you guys Philbin being on a hot seat but to suggest a year one GM (on a team that has not been to the playoffs in five years) is in a playoffs or done scenario is reactionary at best and idiotic at worst.

I actually disagree with the "experts" in regards to the amount of O-line talent in this draft class. I think that not only is the top tier more elite-ceiling than they are getting credit for, but that the depth of talent is pretty impressive. I'd like to see Miami draft at least 3 offensive linemen this year, and maybe even add one or two UDFAs after the draft.

^^^ I've been hearing there is good depth at O-line. Granted you read up on this stuff more then me but I'm wondering why we have heard different things.

Exactly are! Win or else!

Nobody wanted the GM job THIS time around, so what will change?!  EVERYONE turned them down, nobody wanted to take the Fins GM job. The key is to hire and fire the GM/HC TOGETHER, not one at a time like we have been doing for years now. The Fins must STOP forcing a GM on a head coach or forcing a head coach on a GM! That's why no quality guys interview when Miami has job openings.  The one perk with hiring Hickey since he was Miami's like 6th or 7th choice to be GM and not who they really wanted... IF he fails (not saying he will just IF) then firing him with Philbin is a lot easier since you really didn't want him anyway.

Hickey was hired because nobody else wanted the job. He is tied with Philbin now. They win and stay together or they lose and get fired together. Which could possibly be after this season. Sucks to be Hickey but that's reality for him. Miami can't keep forcing a GM on a head coach or a head coach on a GM. You can maybe do it once and get away with it, Miami has done it multiple times now and its a cycle that needs to stop. It prevents quality guys from even entertaining the notion of going to Miami. They tried it once forcing Ireland on Philbin...it failed. If forcing Hickey on Philbin fails...its time to blow the whole thing up and start new. Not keep Hickey and force a head coach with him. We know what the result will be!!

So yes, if Miami has a bad year Hickey has to go. Not his fault, just the situation he got stuck in.

Were the Dolphins a laughingstock when they fired Cameron after one year to bring in Parcells?

If Philbin/Hickey get fired, it will be because someone like Cowher or Jon Gruden becomes available.  If Ross lands someone like that, "laughingstock" won't apply, regardless of the circumstances.

They are available. They are happy with their current positions though.

TODAY they are happy. In 9 months will they still be? Nobody knows.

I have to agree with Brian here. In the event of a losing season Hickey will be given the task of deciding Philbin's fate which will probably mean getting rid of him, but Hickey will be staying.

Zero chance in hell of that happening. If Hickey was their 1st (hell or even 2nd) choice then you may have a point. The fact that Farmer, Dawson, and Caserio flat out turned the job down. And numerous others who Miami were hot after refused to even interview such as Licht, Gamble, Decosta, Paton, and McCloughan before Miami even considered or brough in Hickey for a first interview.  That doesn't give Hickey a big vote of confidence from Ross or the Dolphins.  It's only a 2 year deal as well, which is all you need to know. Same amount of time Philbin has left on his deal. They sink or swim together

Exactly!

Everthing! I think you are SEVERELY overestimating the role that Ross has or wants on the team. He's NOT a hands on owner who wants to oversee the day to day stuff and hire a new GM everytime the team doesn't perform well. He hired Hickey to do a job, to make the Dolphins better however he can. Ross understands that takes time. Ross wanted to give Philbin one more year at the reigns and he wanted Hickey to have a year under his belt before he started making decisions about the head coach, but I can easily see Ross telling Hickey at the end of next year if things don't go well that it's his decision on whether or not to fire Philbin and if he decides to fire Philbin then he'll also have to find a replacement that is suitable to Ross. If we were talking about Jerry Jones or some other owner where running the football team is their only job then you would be right, but that's not Ross. That's not who he is and it's not who he wants to be. Why do you think it took as long as it did to get rid of Ireland? Ireland wasn't even Ross' hire he was already here when he took over. You think he's gonna fire the guy that he hired one year later? I don't see it.

I agree wholeheartedly with the "Philbin's on the hot seat; Hickey isn't" comments. If Ross axed Hickey after his first year as GM, after almost no one wanted the job last year, then he'd end up having to fill the position with an ad on craigslist.

Did you just happen to forget the new role Dawn Aponte has in Miami?!  Aponte is running the show now, Ross put her in that role to keep his hands clean from the messes and put some distance between himself and the operation of the team.

The same Ross who wanted to Fire Sparano one year after owning the team....yeah I think he and Aponte will have no problem firing Hickey and Philbin and doing a total housecleaning if its a 6 or 7 win team. Especially as he pushes for the stadium upgrades and needs fan support and support of the local politicians. If they fail this year he will need to create a buzz with a new flashy hire.  That means good bye Hickey and Philbin.

Actually it would be easier to fill the job because then the new GM can have a say in who the coach is (remember Ireland wanted McCoy NOT Philbin, Ross ignored him.) Or if its a big name proven coach he can hand pick his own GM. Nobody is forced on anyone and you can have a well run working unit.

Going to Rd 3 of lets force a HC on a GM (or vice versa) is just insanity. It won't happen. Hence Hickey ONLY getting a 2 year deal and not 4 or 5 like almost ALL GM's do in this league when they are hired.

Actually I did forget Aponte till you mentioned it. I really hope that Ross isn't relying on her to make decisions about the coach or roster. I thought her expertise was in contracts, I thought her football knowledge was limited. If you are right, god help us.  :'(

Different situation because he didn't hire Sparano. Firing the guy you just hired makes it look like you didn't know what the heck you were doing when you hired him.

I think what you are saying Mike may make the most sense from a completely X's and O's perspective but it doesn't from an image standpoint. It's almost the exact opposite stance you are taking on Incognito. You are saying they won't do it because it would be an image problem even if it could help from the X's and O's standpoint. I'm having a hard time understanding how you can be so adamant one way for one situation and take the exact opposite stance on the other situation.

Because bringing in Incognito would hurt the team. A flashy coach or GM hire would help the team.

Let's just hope the Dolphins win enough games and have enough success to where nobody will get fired. But for those of you thinking Hickey with his stinkin 2 year contract makes him safe beyond this year....well I hate to break it to ya lol

That's a horrible analogy. One guy is a clear lunatic who can't be trusted to behave in an NFL lockeroom or in an NFL atmosphere in general. Bad image in that way. The other is making a move at GM/HC because the current guys just didn't get the job done. And one in which Philbin was given 3 years and the GM was like 7th or 8th on the list of guys they actually wanted.  The Dolphins have no strong ties to Hickey because they didn't want him, he was just the only guy not named Brian Gaine who would take the job.  Apples and Oranges and not a fair analogy at all.

Quote edited to provide a "big picture" reality check...

No personal attacks; stay on topic, please.

They are different situations clearly, but in either case I think it boils down to whether or not you care more about the on the field production or the image the team projects. Personally I'm more concerned with the on the field production and couldn't give a rats ass what anyone thinks about the image the Dolphins portray. Winning cures everything including your image, so that's the direction I lean. Ross, I'm not so sure about and that's why I don't think he'll can Hickey after 1 bad season unless of course the season is so bad that it would hurt the image to keep him. Something like a 1 or 2 win season and all bets are off.

If he loves Hickey so much then why only a 2 year contract? Give him 4 or 5 years like every other new hire GM gets. Hickey and Philbin are tied at the hip. Hickey got 2 years so he and Philbin's deals expire at the same time. Aponte/Ross did that for a reason. They both stay or they both go.

2 years is still more then 1. After 2 years, if there's no progress, sure get rid of them both and bring in all new and start fresh. I just don't see it after 1 year unless like I said it goes REALLY south.

But when a head coach or GM is heading into the last year of their deal (ie Lame Duck year) they get an extension or fired 9 times out of 10. You NEVER want a lame duck head coach and GM. Scares away free agents and its tough for the players to respect them.

Last year of your deal does not mean lame duck for a GM, or even a head coach.  It means "perform or else"

Just because he is in the last year of his contract, there's no reason to believe that, if things go well and there is notable improvement, he won't get an extension.  Its only "lame duck" if it is publicly stated that he will not be renewed.

Your a "lame duck" Brian if you are going in your last year of your deal as a coach or GM with no extension given. It's the very definition of it.

Not quite. I don't think I've ever heard of a coach referred to as lame duck (it is usually for politics) but by definition a replacement needs to have been named in order to be a lame duck.

lame ducknoun
1. an elected official or group of officials, as a legislator, continuing in office during the period between an election defeat and a successor's assumption of office.
2. a president who is completing a term of office and chooses not to run or is ineligible to run for reelection.
3. a person finishing a term of employment after a replacement has been chosen.
4. anything soon to be supplanted by another that is more efficient, economical, etc.
5. a person or thing that is disabled, helpless, ineffective, or inefficient.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lame+duck

Describes every head coach we have had since Shula

"lame duck" is the term given to a president who is serving his term through January 22nd, even though his replacement has already been named.  He is a lame duck from November to January.

Are you telling me that, since Obama has no hope of being re-elected, he is a lame duck right now?  That's your reasoning...

You can type with authority and make yourself sound right but you're not.  If a GM is in the last year of his contract, and performs, of course he will get his extension.  But he needs to perform.  If not, then he can hit the road, no strings attached.

The term "lame duck" is only applicable if you have NO HOPE of returning.

Agree to disagree on the term and how its used. Bottom line is in the NFL you almost NEVER see a head coach or GM go into the final year of their deal without an extension. You almost never see a head coach coach the final year of his deal, he gets an extension going into that final year or is fired. Same for GM's.

After this year Philbin/Hickey will get an extension or fired. Bank on it!

I wouldn't say it's that uncommon. Didn't that just happen with Rex Ryan last year? Everyone assumed he was gone, but nope.

NOPE, Rex had 2 years left on his deal. This upcoming season would have been his final year and they gave him an extension after last season because that's what NFL teams do. When you enter the final year of your deal you get a new deal or are fired.

In fact here is how LaCanfora reported it....interesting term he used.....just sayin!
https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/statuses/423884428604366848

Ok, but there have been a few lately and not all of these guys were just hired one year before. John Fox is in the final year of his contract this year and he's done fairly well with Denver so not everyone is just given an extension or canned before their last year of a contract. Again I want to stress that I'm not saying that there's no way that they don't let Hickey go after one year, I'm just saying it's gonna take more than a 6-10 season to do it.

http://members.jacksonville.com/sports/football/jaguars/2011-01-08/story/nfl-confidential-lame-duck-coaches-no-longer-rare-birds

John Fox this offseason got a 3 year extension worth $16.5 mill. So that example doesn't work. Try again!

Hickey and Philbin are tied at the hip. They gave Hickey ONLY 2 years so he and Philbin's contract end at the same time. So they get extended together or fired together. If you want to put your head in the sane on this one go for it, but no GM who is hired is given 2 years. Most get 4 or 5 year deals. The Dolphins didn't want Hickey,, they tried hiring a laundry list of guys before him!! He was their 7th or 8th choice and the ONLY person who would take the job. There is no strong tie to him. But if you want to believe otherwise feel free to be wrong.

Ah, I hadn't seen that, I see now it just happened this month.

And Ross told you this, yes?

So because he was given 2 years then it HAS to be that it was for the SOLE reason to tie him to Philbin's contract? Not maybe that he wasn't sure how Hickey would do as a first year GM and would like to see him prove himself a bit before he commits to 5 years knowing full well that if he does well his first year or 2 he can extend the contract and if he does POORLY then not?

And Ross told you this, yes?

Actually they didn't, they had several guys they either interviewed for the position or they wanted to talk to. That's what an interview session is for, to find out if you want to the hire him.

As far as we know he's the ONLY person they offered the job to. Just because you get an interview or would like to be interviewed doesn't mean you have been offered a job. Generally speaking they don't offer you a job until after the interview.

My opinion is just that, my opinion which like yours means next to nothing, but I never said there was a strong tie to him, only that I believed a 6 win season wouldn't mean that they would fire him. Maybe they fire Philbin and let him bring in who he wants as head coach and he's tied to that guy. Maybe they just don't give either Philbin or him an extension and they both become lame ducks and they see where the chips fall in 2015. Maybe they give him an extension anyway. Who the hell knows what they'll do a year from now. I sure don't. I don't think you do either.

^^lame duck coaches in the NFL never work out. Tough for that coach to control the locker-room since the players know that this guy has no vote of confidence from the owner and will most likely be gone in a year and many of the players have guaranteed deals that will keep them there on the team beyond that 1 season. Not a great attitude to have and not all have that attitude but we know what brain surgeons some NFL players are these days.

Same with a GM. Yes players follow the money but if the money is equal might as well go to a stable franchise than when where the GM/HC are out the door.

And P.S...they offered that GM job to guys who flat out said no. Trying to spin it like they wanted Hickey is laughable. Many guys formally turned the offer down and that is hard facts.

What I DO KNOW 100% for sure....is either Hickey/Philbin will get an extension or be fired together. One won't stay while the other goes. They ARE tied at the hip. If I'm wrong I will give ya $100!

So, let's say the following scenario plays out:  Miami does very well in the draft, netting players who contribute well on the field, including at least one late round pick that turns out to be a gem. In spite of the solid draft, Miami ends up going 7-9, due to Philbin doing a shit job as HC, from game-planning to poor clock management, etc... You really think that Ross is going to fire both Philbin and Hickey under those conditions?

Either fire them both or give them both an extension ....yes!

Wrong.  They offered the job to Ray Farmer, Nick Cesario and Lake Dawson.  All three turned it down.

Wrong. Ray Farmer withdrew his name before the second interviews, he was not offered the job. http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/01/24/3889206/miami-dolphins-gm-candidate-ray.html

The other two appear to have turned down an offer though.

Turning down a 2nd interview is essentially turning down the job. Especially since at the time he was going to stay in a lesser position with the Browns and since Miami offered that job to everyone possible.  You can play semantics all you want but he turned the job down when he turned down that 2nd interview

Unless you're willing to say that every 2nd interview equals a job offer, then Farmer didn't turn down a job offer, he turned down a 2nd interview. By turning down that 2nd interview, Farmer certainly signaled his intentions that he would have turned down a job offer, had Miami made one, but Miami didn't make the job offer. That isn't semantics, it's specifics.

Just so we have all the facts are we talking about 2015 or beyond? Lets say that Hickey stays 15 years and Philbin stays 20. Do you still owe me $100?  >:D

I am not playing semantics at all. You are the one with word play. Read Thrawn's post. It said Miami offered Farmer the job which I showed is wrong.