Do we have too many holes in the rowboat?

[Baba Booey]

Stills is the favorite WR of Gase and is our only deep threat. Miami will keep him most likely unless some team overpays for him Steen stays and may be your starting RG next year if Bushrod walks or retires. I think we keep all the TE's as they can be kept cheap and are playing well. They drafted the YOUNG QB to groom in Doughty last year so I think they are all set there.

They will pay Branch as he is a beast this year at DE. They could lose Branch if some team breaks the bank for him which they may as he has been outstanding this year. Mario will be cut about 10 seconds after they are allowed to cut him by league rules. Maxwell has earned his salary he is staying. Kiko will get paid but he loves South Florida and the Cuban lifestyle so I see him doing whatever it takes to make it work and stay.

It's all about Linebackers and CB's in the offseason. Then just keep adding depth across the board.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I think Fyo is on point with depth.  Dolphins players 1 to 25 are solid.  Problem Miami has is a team like Ne 26 thru 53 absolutely blows way Mia 26 thru 53.  

[Dolfanalyst]

I think at some point you just have to get lucky to make that jump up to the premium level.  So many things have to go right within a two year period - drafting, free agent signings, coaching, gm management, etc.  IMO the least need in all of this is a Top 5 QB.  A top 5 QB can't overcome bad defense, bad receivers, bad coaching, and bad O-lines; BUT if most of the other pieces are in place you can have a successful team with a mediocre QB.  Look at Denver, they have had great success with average QB play, and now less than average QB play.  Look at Seattle, Russell Wilson has developed into a pretty good QB, but there are a dozen QB's (if not more) that could have down what he did initially because of the team around him.

The concept of exception to the rule applies here (to the bolded portion), where if there is a very small minority of teams that can achieve that, the probability of any one team's doing the same thing is very low.

[masterfins]

The concept of exception to the rule applies here (to the bolded portion), where if there is a very small minority of teams that can achieve that, the probability of any one team's doing the same thing is very low.

Well it's an exception in that they have a stellar defense.  If you have a stellar defense you will go far.  The Ravens won a SB because of their defense.  Kansas City & Oakland are doing pretty good this year primarily due to solid defenses, and not super great QB's.  The Giants' defense carried them to a SB a few years back.  So maybe it's not as big of an exception as you think.

[masterfins]

FYO makes some really good points.  If the Dolphins aren't going to lose a bunch of talent to free agency this off season then they are actually in really good shape.  They could actually improve a couple starters, and add some much needed depth at other positions; making them a true contender.

[Dolfanalyst]

Well it's an exception in that they have a stellar defense.  If you have a stellar defense you will go far.  The Ravens won a SB because of their defense.  Kansas City & Oakland are doing pretty good this year primarily due to solid defenses, and not super great QB's.  The Giants' defense carried them to a SB a few years back.  So maybe it's not as big of an exception as you think.

Right now the game revolves around whether one pass offense can outdo the other, and so yes, pass defense is very important.

However, that merely illustrates how important the quarterback is, because if you don't have one of the league's best, you now need virtually an entire unit of players on the other side of the ball to stop the opposing team's quarterback.

And again, the difficulty in that venture is that you have to overcome the obstacles of the draft, the salary cap, free agency, age and retirement, and injuries, with regard to a rather large percentage of those eleven players.

Compare that with having just one player for 10-plus years, who lessens dramatically the need to amass that degree of talent on the other side of the ball.

Look at Oakland and Dallas right now for example.  If Derek Carr and Dak Prescott keep playing the way they are, those will likely be your teams at the top of the standings for the next decade.  And they are this year, as well.  There won't be nearly the need for them to pull off the unlikely feat of amassing a field full of talent on the other side of the ball, to stop an opposing team's QB.  Their QB will help them outdo the opposing team's QB!

[fyo]

^ Dallas is an interesting case. Dak Prescott probably has the best supporting cast a new quarterback could ever wish for (I'm not saying he's not great!) and it isn't cheap. One thing that is very clear if you go back and look at Super Bowl champions (and playoff teams in general) is that the top teams almost always have a salary hit that is very high compared to the rest. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out with the new rules, but let me just point out that Dallas is currently $10 million over the cap for next year (and cutting Romo would only shave that in half). They'll need to dig up another $5-10 million for the draft and they are losing free agents with a combined salary of over $20 million this year (so if they replaced them with equally expensive players, it would cost around $20 million).

In other words, Dallas is built to win NOW. Not next year. Now.

That's not to say they won't be good for the next decade, but they are paying a high cap price for their current "window" and it will certainly be interesting to see how they navigate the next couple of years.

EDIT: The Cowboys' situation is, by the way, in start contrast to that of the Raiders who are more than $40 million UNDER the cap for next year, despite similar losses to free agency.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Of course it all revolves around the QB that is why all pro qbs like Prescott and Carr are leading their teams to the playoffs while bums like Rodgers and Brees will be watching the playoffs on tv.  /sarcasm off


It is a team sport.  And while Tannehill is not in the Rodgers and Brees class of qb he is better than Prescott or Carr.

[Run Ricky Run]

Of course it all revolves around the QB that is why all pro qbs like Prescott and Carr are leading their teams to the playoffs while bums like Rodgers and Brees will be watching the playoffs on tv.  /sarcasm off


It is a team sport.  And while Tannehill is not in the Rodgers and Brees class of qb he is better than Prescott or Carr.

Lol every gm would take carr over tannnehill. Holy genius.

[Dolfanalyst]

^ Dallas is an interesting case. Dak Prescott probably has the best supporting cast a new quarterback could ever wish for (I'm not saying he's not great!) and it isn't cheap. One thing that is very clear if you go back and look at Super Bowl champions (and playoff teams in general) is that the top teams almost always have a salary hit that is very high compared to the rest. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out with the new rules, but let me just point out that Dallas is currently $10 million over the cap for next year (and cutting Romo would only shave that in half). They'll need to dig up another $5-10 million for the draft and they are losing free agents with a combined salary of over $20 million this year (so if they replaced them with equally expensive players, it would cost around $20 million).

In other words, Dallas is built to win NOW. Not next year. Now.

That's not to say they won't be good for the next decade, but they are paying a high cap price for their current "window" and it will certainly be interesting to see how they navigate the next couple of years.

EDIT: The Cowboys' situation is, by the way, in start contrast to that of the Raiders who are more than $40 million UNDER the cap for next year, despite similar losses to free agency.

Dallas is probably in the most enviable position in the league with regard to the salary cap, having a quarterback who's playing better than almost any other in the league and making a fourth-round rookie salary.

This is where Seattle was with Russell Wilson from 2012 through 2015, and that was their strongest period of dominance.

Obviously if you have a QB who's very cheap and playing very well, you've gotten way ahead with regard to winning, while still having the ability to amass highly-paid players elsewhere on the field.  Usually it's the case that you're paying such a QB a ton of money, which then prevents you from amassing such talent elsewhere.

Dallas may not be as good next year, but I suspect they'll be very good for at least the next three years.

[Dolfanalyst]

Of course it all revolves around the QB that is why all pro qbs like Prescott and Carr are leading their teams to the playoffs while bums like Rodgers and Brees will be watching the playoffs on tv.  /sarcasm off


It is a team sport.  And while Tannehill is not in the Rodgers and Brees class of qb he is better than Prescott or Carr.

Compare the win percentages of the Packers and Saints during Rodgers and Brees's careers, to the win percentage of the league in general.

I'll do that for Rodgers here:

Since 2008, the year Rodgers became a full-time starter, the Packers' win percentage in games in which he has played has been 64%.  Of course the league average during that time has been 50%.

There is also a strong correlation between Rodgers's QB rating and the Packers' win percentage on a season-by-season basis.  The better he plays, the more they win.

High-level QB play is almost always necessary but not sufficient for high-level competitiveness in the league.  You're pointing out here the instances in which it hasn't been sufficient for some teams (i.e., there are other parts of the team needed, as well), but that doesn't minimize the importance of QB play.

[fyo]

Dallas is probably in the most enviable position in the league with regard to the salary cap, having a quarterback who's playing better than almost any other in the league and making a fourth-round rookie salary.

They are getting great value from their quarterback, no question, but they are have a lot of money tied up in other players and they're about $30 million over where they want to be to resign free agents and/or sign established players to replace them (I'm assuming they cut Romo). In other words, the money they're saving on their quarterback is spent several times over and they will need to find a place to reduce spending. That could give them a rough year or two, but then they'll have at least one more year with Dak on his rookie contract.

[Dolfanalyst]

They are getting great value from their quarterback, no question, but they are have a lot of money tied up in other players and they're about $30 million over where they want to be to resign free agents and/or sign established players to replace them (I'm assuming they cut Romo). In other words, the money they're saving on their quarterback is spent several times over and they will need to find a place to reduce spending. That could give them a rough year or two, but then they'll have at least one more year with Dak on his rookie contract.

This brings up the notion that Tannehill is about to finish yet another year playing in some way that can't be called any better than average, which puts the Dolphins in the difficult position of deciding whether to draft a QB or a pass defender in the first round in 2017.

[Baba Booey]

This brings up the notion that Tannehill is about to finish yet another year playing in some way that can't be called any better than average, which puts the Dolphins in the difficult position of deciding whether to draft a QB or a pass defender in the first round in 2017.

They are not going to pay Tannehill $20 mill next year and pay a QB Round 1 money as well. I know you have a deep seeded hatred of Tannehill but your comments are now going totally over the top

[Dolfanalyst]

They are not going to pay Tannehill $20 mill next year and pay a QB Round 1 money as well.

I agree.  The decision would be whether to move on from Tannehill in favor of a first-round QB who would be mentored by a cheaper stopgap.