Fire Tony Sparano + Jeff Ireland

[Pappy13]

Only two games are determined by division finish, and Miami LOST both of those games in '08, so "they played a harder schedule" is a completely invalid excuse.

That is the lamest excuse of an argument you have ever made.

It was the 4 non conference games and the 4 conference games that made a HUGE difference.

In '07 Miami played the NFC East and went 0-4 against Washington, New York, Dallas and Philly who were a combined 40-24 and the AFC Central and went 1-3 against the Steelers, Browns, Bengals and Ravens who were a combined 32-32.  That's a 56.25 winning percentage.

In '08 Miami played the NFC West and went 3-1 against the Cardinals, 49'ers, Seahawks and Rams who were a combined 22-42 and the AFC West and went 4-0 against the Chargers, Broncos, Chiefs and Raiders who were a combined 26-38. That's a 37.5 winning percentage.

How can you even suggest the schedule wasn't easier in '08? You're better than this Spider.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

In 2007 Miami went 0-6 against the AFCE, in '08 4-2.  So against the teams they played both years they improved. 

[Spider-Dan]

That is the lamest excuse of an argument you have ever made.

It was the 4 non conference games and the 4 conference games that made a HUGE difference.

In '07 Miami played the NFC East and went 0-4 against Washington, New York, Dallas and Philly who were a combined 40-24 and the AFC Central and went 1-3 against the Steelers, Browns, Bengals and Ravens who were a combined 32-32.  That's a 56.25 winning percentage.

In '08 Miami played the NFC West and went 3-1 against the Cardinals, 49'ers, Seahawks and Rams who were a combined 22-42 and the AFC West and went 4-0 against the Chargers, Broncos, Chiefs and Raiders who were a combined 26-38. That's a 37.5 winning percentage.

How can you even suggest the schedule wasn't easier in '08? You're better than this Spider.

Your response is so filled with holes that I don't know where to start.  I guess I'll just go down the list:

1) You appear to be comparing the '07 team to the '08 team.  I think we all agree the '07 team was worse?  Your example explains away 6 wins, but the '08 team won 10 more games.
2) Every other team in the division played those same teams.  So why did Miami finish 4th place in '07, 1st place in '08, and 3rd place in '09?
3) The primary objection I was making (re: the point that Brian made) was to the notion that MIA did worse in '09 because they played a 4th-place schedule in '08 but a first-place schedule in '09.  Since Miami lost both of their 4th-place-determined games in '08, their previous-year-finish could not have been a factor relative to the rest of the division.

[Pappy13]

Your response is so filled with holes that I don't know where to start.  I guess I'll just go down the list:

1) You appear to be comparing the '07 team to the '08 team.  I think we all agree the '07 team was worse?  Your example explains away 6 wins, but the '08 team won 10 more games.
2) Every other team in the division played those same teams.  So why did Miami finish 4th place in '07, 1st place in '08, and 3rd place in '09?
3) The primary objection I was making (re: the point that Brian made) was to the notion that MIA did worse in '09 because they played a 4th-place schedule in '08 but a first-place schedule in '09.  Since Miami lost both of their 4th-place-determined games in '08, their previous-year-finish could not have been a factor relative to the rest of the division.

I didn't say the Dolphins weren't better in '08 than they were in '07 I fully believe they were, I ONLY said they played a softer schedule which you said they didn't. You're wrong, it was much softer.

That fact that Miami was better in '08 AND played a softer schedule explains your 3 points above. Not just one or the other. That fact that a guy named Brady got hurt the first game in '08 may have had something to do with it as well.

[Spider-Dan]

I didn't say the Dolphins weren't better in '08 than they were in '07 I fully believe they were, I ONLY said they played a softer schedule which you said they didn't. You're wrong, it was much softer.

Relative to the rest of the division, the '08 season was NOT softer than the '09 schedule in any meaningful way.  (I'm not sure why you are even bringing up the '07 season, since we played a fourth-place schedule that year too, and STILL went 1-15.)

I challenge to you prove otherwise.

[Pappy13]

Relative to the rest of the division, the '08 season was NOT softer than the '09 schedule in any meaningful way.  (I'm not sure why you are even bringing up the '07 season, since we played a fourth-place schedule that year too, and STILL went 1-15.)

I challenge to you prove otherwise.

I'm sorry, I misread your initial comment:

The four-year-plan is excuse making.  If MIA can go 11-5 the year following a 1-15 season, what possible reason is there for them to get WORSE?  Only two games are determined by division finish, and Miami LOST both of those games in '08, so "they played a harder schedule" is a completely invalid excuse."

I mistakingly thought you were comparing the '07 season to the '08 season because you specifically mentioned the 1-15 season and 11-5 season. Now that I read it again I see you were in fact comparing the '08 season to the '09 season. You have to admit, your comments are a bit confusing since you mentioned 11-5 and 1-15 in the first sentence and never mention '09 specifically. My bad, I probably should have known you wouldn't make such a weak argument and reread it.

Now that I've read your initial comment correctly, let me address your comments below:

1) You appear to be comparing the '07 team to the '08 team.  I think we all agree the '07 team was worse?  Your example explains away 6 wins, but the '08 team won 10 more games.
2) Every other team in the division played those same teams.  So why did Miami finish 4th place in '07, 1st place in '08, and 3rd place in '09?
3) The primary objection I was making (re: the point that Brian made) was to the notion that MIA did worse in '09 because they played a 4th-place schedule in '08 but a first-place schedule in '09.  Since Miami lost both of their 4th-place-determined games in '08, their previous-year-finish could not have been a factor relative to the rest of the division.

Primarly 2 people. Tom Brady and Chad Pennington. Brady was great in '07 and '09 and missed all of '08 to injury. Pennington wasn't on the Dolphins in '07, played great in '08 and was injured/replaced by an ineffective Chad Henne in '09. Strength of schedule had a little to do with why Miami dropped back down to 3rd in '09, but not really that much.

[Spider-Dan]

Primarly 2 people. Tom Brady and Chad Pennington. Brady was great in '07 and '09 and missed all of '08 to injury. Pennington wasn't on the Dolphins in '07, played great in '08 and was injured/replaced by an ineffective Chad Henne in '09. Strength of schedule had a little to do with why Miami dropped back down to 3rd in '09, but not really that much.

First, Miami split with NE in '08 and '09, so Brady was not a direct factor.  Second, who signed Pennington?  What was his injury history?  Who drafted Henne?  All of those things sit directly at the feet of Parcells/Ireland.

There is no such thing as a four-year-plan.  If your hypothetical four-year-plan relies on a QB that has never made it through TWO consecutive full seasons, it's obviously broken from the start.

Finally, at the risk of being coarse, let me repeat myself: Miami's strength of schedule (re: 4th- vs. 1st-place schedule) had --->ZERO<--- to do with their fall from 1st in the division in '08 to 3rd in the division in '09.  It was not a small or minimal or minor impact:  it was LITERALLY NOTHING.

'08 Dolphins: 4-2 in division play
'09 Dolphins: 4-2 in division play

'08 Dolphins: 0-2 vs. finish-determined-opponents
'09 Dolphins: 0-2 vs. finish-determined-opponents

The rest of Miami's opponents were identical to that of their divisional foes.

P.S. At most, Brady would explain a drop from 1st to 2nd, not 1st to 3rd.

[Guru-In-Vegas]

I don't get people's extremes.  One one side we have the chicken-littles who pretty much have a Superbowl or bust mentality (given a decade of inconsistency and terrible personnel / front office decisions) and on the other you have haters who really feel the Dolphins are one of the worst teams in the NFL.  SI's rankings have us at 24th; under the Chiefs, Bills even the COLTS!!!  WTF?

//////////////////////

Mr. Sunstroke, the unabashed call-out king, you crack me up. 

BTW - WHOEVER wrote that rant, Goodman sucked major ass.  Mentioning him with Roth and Satele must be pretty insulting.

I checked that other site out and where that original post came from and it didn't take more than 5 minutes to see some TDMMC cast-offs there.  No disrespect to their site but...no thanks. 

[Pappy13]

Finally, at the risk of being coarse, let me repeat myself: Miami's strength of schedule (re: 4th- vs. 1st-place schedule) had --->ZERO<--- to do with their fall from 1st in the division in '08 to 3rd in the division in '09.  It was not a small or minimal or minor impact:  it was LITERALLY NOTHING.

'08 Dolphins: 4-2 in division play
'09 Dolphins: 4-2 in division play

'08 Dolphins: 0-2 vs. finish-determined-opponents
'09 Dolphins: 0-2 vs. finish-determined-opponents

What exactly is your point? That 14 of the 16 teams that every team plays a year is identical to their divisional counterparts? Yes, I agree.

But you seem to be inferring from that the only thing that changes from year to year that explains your rise or fall in the standings is your team's relative strength. That's flat out false.

1) Just because you play the same schedule as your divisional opponents, that does not mean that you match up with those teams the same way that your divisional opponents do.
2) Health has a LOT to do with it and not just how many games you miss, but which games you miss and not just necessarily the games you miss, but how many games you are 100% healthy as opposed to say maybe 85% healthy etc.
3) When you play them also factors into it because very few teams start, end and play the entire season completely the same. Almost all teams go through ups and downs where they are either playing well or poorly.
4) The weather can effect how games are played and how much or little that effects the way the team plays.
5) Whether you play the team at home or away may change things, some teams are better at home and some are better away and then you have to take into account flying from east coast to west coast etc.
6) What day you play them can make a difference as players offen perform differently on Thanskiving day or Monday night then they do on Sunday afternoon.
7) A lucky bounce can change the outcome of a game.
8 ) The officiating crew you get can change the way a game is played.

There are litterally a million things that effect every game. Just because 2 teams play the same opponents, that does not mean they play the same schedule.

Nothing is exactly the same from 1 year to the next. Nothing. To suggest that your schedule has absolutely nothing to do with how your team ends up in the standings is short sided to say the least.

[Spider-Dan]

Your entire post would be precisely as applicable if Miami (and the rest of the league) played the exact same schedule in '09 as they did in '08.

When you reach that far to invalidate a year-to-year comparison, you have basically repudiated the entire concept of comparing teams from one year to the next.

[Pappy13]

Your entire post would be precisely as applicable if Miami (and the rest of the league) played the exact same schedule in '09 as they did in '08.

When you reach that far to invalidate a year-to-year comparison, you have basically repudiated the entire concept of comparing teams from one year to the next.

In my opinion what I repudiated is the notion that simply looking at the final standings from 1 year to the next is all that is required to determine a teams relative ability in that year. There are some who subscribe to that notion. I'm not one of them.

[Spider-Dan]

I somewhat agree with you, but only to the extent that looking at a team's record/finish (period) is a valid method of determining that team's relative ability in that year.  You can make the argument that the '08 team wasn't as good as their record, and the '09 and '10 teams were better than their record, but at the end of the day, the only team metric that counts is winning.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

but at the end of the day, the only team metric that counts is winning.

A former dolphins VP was fond of a similar saying.