Shame of the Game - Titans

[Fins4ever]

Agree on Joe Philbin for all the reasons mentioned. He did not have the team ready to play and benching Bush did nothing but hurt the team.

[CF DolFan]

Unlike many of you I have always seen this season as a precursor to next year. I have absolutely no problem with him benching star players for mental mistakes. Just like cutting Chad Johnson I think the long term effect of benching them is more important than winning one game.

[Brian Fein]

Players fumble all the time.  Sure its not desirable but that's like benching Sean Smith for not catching balls that hit him in the hands.  When you got a guy going all out running for a first down and get tackled and the ball comes out, it sucks but you can't end his day for it.  You're only spiting yourself.

Besides, Reggie has 7 games left in a Dolphins' uniform so what do you gain in "long term effect" unless you have plans to extend him?

[Spider-Dan]

Players fumble all the time.  Sure its not desirable but that's like benching Sean Smith for not catching balls that hit him in the hands.

Sean Smith's job is not to catch balls, it's to prevent them from being caught.  He can have a year with 0 INTs and be the best CB in the league (in point of reference, the 2010 First-Team All-Pro CBs, Asomugha and Revis, had a combined total of 0 INTs).

The more appropriate analogy would be benching Davone Bess for not catching balls that hit him in the hands, and that's definitely plausible.

[EKnight]

Sean Smith's job is not to catch balls, it's to prevent them from being caught.  He can have a year with 0 INTs and be the best CB in the league (in point of reference, the 2010 First-Team All-Pro CBs, Asomugha and Revis, had a combined total of 0 INTs).

The more appropriate analogy would be benching Davone Bess for not catching balls that hit him in the hands, and that's definitely plausible.

Pretty hard to have INTs, when no one throws the ball to the guy you're covering. That's not a great apples to apples comparison. Neither Revis (best year of 6) nor Asomugha (best year of 8, and a bunch of 1's) have ever even led the league in INTs because no one throws the ball at them.

Stats can mean just about anything you loof for in them- just like the people who killed Marshall for his drops in Miami, when in reality, while he and Hartline were on the same team, Hartline dropped a higher % of balls thrown to him. Why did Marshall's look so bad? He got three times as many targets, so of course, he had more drops.

In the past three years, Revis and Smith each have 5 INTs total, and Asomugha has 4. That's not because Smith is great, it's because he's getting the ball thrown to him far more. -EK

[Spider-Dan]

Again, to the actual point being made, Smith's job is not to catch footballs.  (That's just a happy bonus.)  If he does nothing but knock down every pass thrown in his direction, he will be the best CB in the league by a significant margin.

So let's not compare Smith dropping INTs to Bush fumbling.

[Landshark]

Again, to the actual point being made, Smith's job is not to catch footballs.  (That's just a happy bonus.)  If he does nothing but knock down every pass thrown in his direction, he will be the best CB in the league by a significant margin.

So let's not compare Smith dropping INTs to Bush fumbling.

But we CAN compare Smith getting his ass burned on nearly every long past against the Colts to Bush's fumbling yesterday.

[EKnight]

But we CAN compare Smith getting his ass burned on nearly every long past against the Colts to Bush's fumbling yesterday.

Absolutely. And how many balls does he actually knock down, lol? -EK

[Spider-Dan]

I'm not defending Smith as a CB.  I'm saying that it's silly to compare Bush's fumbling to Smith's dropped INTs.  It is a major part of Bush's job to hold on to the football; it is NOT Smith's job to hold on to the football (just a nice bonus).

If Smith was doing his actual job (keeping receivers from catching the football) then I would not give a damn how many potential INTs he did not catch.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I'm not defending Smith as a CB.  I'm saying that it's silly to compare Bush's fumbling to Smith's dropped INTs.  It is a major part of Bush's job to hold on to the football; it is NOT Smith's job to hold on to the football (just a nice bonus).

If Smith was doing his actual job (keeping receivers from catching the football) then I would not give a damn how many potential INTs he did not catch.

Got to agree with Spiders anaylis.  A DB catching the football is a bonus not an expectation or as one commenatory put it, "if he was good at catching footballs he probably would be playing WR instead of DB"

[Brian Fein]

if a ball hits you IN THE HANDS, you're supposed to catch it.  I don't care if you're a WR or a DE.  Catch balls that hit your hands.  Period.

Regardless, you are all off on a tangent.  Do you bench Tannehill for throwing an INT?  He threw 3 of them.  By Philbin's standard, he should've been benched after the first one.  Apparently Philbin has a double-standard that says Reggie Bush isn't above a benching after a single turnover, but Tannehill is...?

[fyo]

Philbin,  although Tannehill would be perfectly reasonable. This was a game where he could have lifted the whole team, carried it. He didn't seize the opportunity.

However, it seemed like everyone was playing in desperation mode the whole game, trying for a huge play on every down instead of focusing on their responsibilities. Smith needs to stop looking into the backfield and just cover his freaking guy. Bush needs to go down, as most running backs do, when he's being tackled, instead of trying to get another half yard by spinning and exposing the ball. Bush and the receivers, minus Hartline,  need to focus on catching the ball, instead of turning up- field to soon. Just-signed-db-guy needs to just relax and stay in his lane on special teams and not make a huge, obvious block-in-the-back penalty. The list goes on...

Lack of concentration, poor fundamentals, and mental mistakes sunk us. And when it's every player on the team, the coach gets the blame.

[Dave Gray]

I originally thought Tannehill was the one for the goat.  However, after talking it through and cooling it down a bit, it has to be Philbin.

Tannehill sucked today, no doubt.  But I can't really think of anyone who played much better than him either.  I went down the roster trying to think of who had a good game and there was nobody.  Not even our kicking units.  For coming out flat and not having any answers in adjusting, I have to say Philbin.

[Pappy13]

Got to agree with Spiders anaylis.  A DB catching the football is a bonus not an expectation or as one commenatory put it, "if he was good at catching footballs he probably would be playing WR instead of DB"

Just as an aside, Smith was a WR in college for awhile. I would say that he was switched to DB because he couldn't catch, but he actually had a few INT's in college. Seems like most of his problems are between his ears.

[Pappy13]

if a ball hits you IN THE HANDS, you're supposed to catch it.  I don't care if you're a WR or a DE.  Catch balls that hit your hands.  Period.

Regardless, you are all off on a tangent.  Do you bench Tannehill for throwing an INT?  He threw 3 of them.  By Philbin's standard, he should've been benched after the first one.  Apparently Philbin has a double-standard that says Reggie Bush isn't above a benching after a single turnover, but Tannehill is...?

Well if you can believe Philbin Bush was not benched because he fumbled the ball. The plan was that all 3 RB's would get their share of time Sunday because of the short week of practice, they didn't want any one of them to get too much work and not be able to recover in time. Then when they went down 14-0 early they had to start throwing the ball more and therefore Bush didn't get a lot of chances.