In essence, Dolphins start their playoffs in Oakland

[Spider-Dan]

I didn't say I would rather lose than win by 3 points.  That's not what I said.

That's exactly what you said.

I'd rather see us lose by 30 than win by 3 the last 6 games.

Lest you try to play the "context" card, here is the very next sentence you posted:

Seriously?  You WANT to see us win games?  Why?

Please explain how NOT wanting to see us win games squares up with wanting to see us win games.

Again, I don't understand your logic.  We lost by ~30 in the NE game... was that gameplan better than the one against PIT?  We were completely dominated by CHI... was that better than the last-second loss against NYJ?  Do you prefer the stomping that BAL gave us to the close wins over GB or MIN?  How does getting blown out indicate a better job by the coaches?

Let me give ya'll another example of what I'm talking about.

I'd love to have Mike Martz as our offensive coordinator.  There are people that think Mike Martz is too aggressive and that his style only works if you have the necessary players to pull it off and if you don't then you take too many risks.  Well I don't believe there is such a thing as being too aggressive on offense and I also don't believe that there are any pre-requisites to which players can pull it off.

This is the same Mike Martz that lost the Super Bowl to the second-biggest underdogs of all time, right?  The one that has never won anything as a head coach and won ONE, singular, Super Bowl (as a coordinator) with 3 years of some of the greatest offensive talent to step on the field at the same time?

To clarify exactly what you are asking for: you are looking for a coach that, when wielding an offense that is one of the best of all time, facing a defense that was 26th in the league in points allowed, still managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  You want a coach that goes down as losing to one of the worst Super Bowl champions ever.  OK.

That's what St. Louis did back when they were winning Super Bowls one Super Bowl.

Fixed that for you.

[Phishfan]

I don't think you really understand what I said.  Read the previous post by me and see if that clears it up any.

Maybe what you wrote isn't what you meant, but I completely understood what your wrote. Maybe you didn't understand?

[Pappy13]

That's exactly what you said.

Maybe what you wrote isn't what you meant, but I completely understood what your wrote. Maybe you didn't understand?

That sentence was at the end of a paragraph which explains the sentence as well as the previous paragraph.  If you take that one sentence out of the post it has a different meaning than if you read it as part of the whole post.  The sentence also contained the words "the last 6 games" which you have carefully omitted.  Whether you want to admit it or not you are both taking it out of context to try to prove a point.  That's fine.  I'm not going to argue with you about what I said.

[Frimp]

I would rather see a blowout loss than a game robbed from us like Pittsburgh. I'll take a one point win over ANY loss any day.

[MaineDolFan]

Watching my favorite team lose.  Hmmmm.

Yeah.  That's what I want to do. You know, because there hasn't been enough losing around these parts over the last seven or so years.

Holy God.

[Spider-Dan]

That sentence was at the end of a paragraph which explains the sentence as well as the previous paragraph.  If you take that one sentence out of the post it has a different meaning than if you read it as part of the whole post.  The sentence also contained the words "the last 6 games" which you have carefully omitted.

So let's play the context game, then.

In "the last 6 games," based on what you have said, this appears to be your preference on outcomes:

1) win by 30 (or some undetermined large amount)
2) lose by 30
3) win by 3
4) lose by some other undetermined amount

In your list of desired outcomes, a loss (by 30) is higher than a win (by 3).  How is that anything other than preferring a LOSS over a WIN?

The last 6 games are still Miami Dolphins football games, right?  They count exactly the same in the record book as any other regular-season game in any other year.  You have declared that you would prefer a loss by 30 to a win by 3 in said games.

Now, you may have whatever rationalizations you like as to why you want us to lose.  I didn't mention them because I don't care about them; they are irrelevant.  The point is that you prefer a loss (in a specific manner, but still a loss) to a win (a specific kind of win, but still a win).

That's what I categorically object to.

[Pappy13]

^^ Guess Phishfan was right after all.  Should have stopped 1 sentence sooner because nothing I have said prior to or since has been heard by you.  I doubt very seriously anything else I say will be.  I get it, you don't like what I said.  I can live with that.

[Spider-Dan]

It's not that I don't like what you said (or at least, that's only part of it).  It's that you're trying to pretend that you said something different than what you did.

Hey, if you would really rather see us lose by 30 than win by 3 over the last 6 games (<--- I guess this part is important?), that's your prerogative.  But at least own up to your statements.  Don't try to tell me that it means something other than the clear and unambiguous meaning that you attached to it: a boring, unimpressive, close victory is "worse" than a blowout loss in which we try to be creative.

[Pappy13]

Not creative.  Aggressive.  Yes, I'll take a 30 point loss where we try to accomplish something different than what we have tried to accomplish the first 10 weeks of the season over a win that accomplishes nothing.  You seem to be just as convinced as Tony Sparano that we can't win that way, well I'm not.  I'd like to see it be given a chance to work.  I'd like to see Henne do a no-huddle offense with 4 wides for a half to see what happens.  I'd like to see us blitz every down of every play and see what happens.  I'd like to see us go for it on 4th and 5 rather than punt and get a net gain of 20 yards.

If all that results in a loss by 30 points, so be it.  And it doesn't really have to be that exotic, just throwing the ball downfield on go routes to Hartline about 5 times in a game would be enough for me.  I wouldn't even care if 4 of them were picked off, if just 1 hit for 50 yard TD, that would tell you something.  It would tell you that it can be done, because at this point we don't know if it's possible or not because it's never happened.  And if you run it 5 times a game for the rest of the year and you don't hit a single one then I think that tells you something too.  It tells you that you either have the wrong personnel on your team or the wrong coaches coaching them how to do it.  If Buffalo can do it, there's no reason that Miami can't.

[Spider-Dan]

Yes, I'll take a 30 point loss where we try to accomplish something different than what we have tried to accomplish the first 10 weeks of the season over a win that accomplishes nothing.

There is no such thing as a win that accomplishes nothing.  The win IS the accomplishment.

[dolfan13]

yeah i don't get the whole rather see the dolphins lose thing, but to each his own...

anyway, being able to do something one time or on very rare occasion at the nfl level proves nothing. even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. what separates the real ballers from the wannabe's is the ability to make plays consistently. being able to sack a qb, when everyone knows your rushing and they are double teaming you. being able to complete the pass downfield, when everyone knows you are throwing it deep and they are double teaming the receiver. being able to pound the rock against a stacked line, etc...

consistently being good at something, anything, is what this team lacks. other than kicking field goals, the dolphins aren't consistently good at anything. it's not the coaching, it's the players.

[fyo]

yeah i don't get the whole rather see the dolphins lose thing, but to each his own...

Pappy has made it abundantly clear that during a season where no SB run is realistic, he'd rather see the team actually try something on the field, even if they risk getting beat. Although his initial statement may have been unclear, his subsequent explanations leave little to doubt. He's further stated that he actually believes trying something on the field would improve the team's chances of winning.

I agree with him on both points... a rarity, believe me.

So could the dead-horse-floggers give it a rest, please?

[Dave Gray]

I see what Pappy is saying.

I think he's trying to say that winning isn't relevant if they are smoke and mirrors wins.  When you know you're out of it, you're better of trying to use your time with your team as an assessment for future years, than to try to eek out wins, that in the context of a lost season, don't mean much.

We all have that mentality, but just maybe not as extreme.  There are times when we've been done for the year, and I wanted to see us play different, less experienced players, down the stretch, to see if they were up for it.

I don't agree with him overall, necessarily -- I think that there is moral victory in winning; it creates a culture over time.  Losing breeds complacency with losing.  However, I don't think his point is entirely without merit.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I see what Pappy is saying.

I think he's trying to say that winning isn't relevant if they are smoke and mirrors wins.  When you know you're out of it, you're better of trying to use your time with your team as an assessment for future years, than to try to eek out wins, that in the context of a lost season, don't mean much.

We all have that mentality, but just maybe not as extreme.  There are times when we've been done for the year, and I wanted to see us play different, less experienced players, down the stretch, to see if they were up for it.

I don't agree with him overall, necessarily -- I think that there is moral victory in winning; it creates a culture over time.  Losing breeds complacency with losing.  However, I don't think his point is entirely without merit.

I would actually take it to the extreme.  Once the team is completely eliminated, (BTW the Dolphins are not, I mean it would impossible to make the playoffs even if you won every game and every game you needed went your way you could not make the playoffs.  e.g. Bills and Carolina).

I would do the following:

1. Any player that will be a FA next year that I did not plan to resign and would not sign a contract large enough for comp pick gets cut.

2. Any player that doesn't need experience and has as much as a paper cut gets sent to IR.

3. With my freed up roster spots I sign promising players off the PS and raid other teams PS looking for talent for next year.

4. On game day I play the rookies and second year players that need the experience.  Benching vets that don’t.  My 6 best players are the ones not active on game day.

5. On game day WE PLAY TO WIN.  Balls to wall aggressive win.  Go for it on fourth.  Try 2 point conversions instead of PAT.  On side kicks in the first quarter when winning. 

[Pappy13]

5. On game day WE PLAY TO WIN.  Balls to wall aggressive win.  Go for it on fourth.  Try 2 point conversions instead of PAT.  On side kicks in the first quarter when winning. 

This is ALL that I'm asking for.  Nothing more.  On 3rd and 19 if my QB throws a dump off to a RB, I'm yanking him and putting in someone who will throw a damn 20 yard pass even if the WR is double covered.  If I have the ball and there's 20 seconds left in the half and we are on our own 20, I'm putting the ball up and trying to score points before the half.  Once we get inside the 35 yard line, on first down I'm taking a shot into the endzone with the ball and again I don't give a freaking shit if the guy is double covered, throw the damn thing up and see if our man can come down with it.  Marshall is supposed to be able to do that, right?  Try it.  That's all I want.  Just try to win rather than play not to lose.  Hell it might even work and you might end up saving your season.  Who the hell knows?