A Failure of Leadership

[Dolfanalyst]

The problem isn't necessarily that you don't post when the Dolphins are playing well.
The problem is that you are a fixture when they aren't.  You only want to post when the team is doing poorly.

A person who only shows up when they can claim they are right but disappears when others have strong evidence they are wrong has no intellectual credibility.  The moment the facts on the ground contradict your position, you'll just disappear again.  You've shown this multiple times.

Again you're not grasping the point:  the facts have never contradicted my position.  McDaniel has never distinguished himself from coaches who are eventually fired and do nothing extraordinary in the league.

[Spider-Dan]

Yet you didn't have the confidence (or intellectual honesty) to make that argument when Tannehill was playing in the AFCCG, or when the Dolphins were sitting in the #1 seed with their best offense in 30 years; instead, you preferred to log off.  But the moment the cracks started to show, your schedule suddenly freed up and you were right back offering your "See, I told you this wouldn't work" analysis.

It is easy to claim prescience in hindsight.  An Eagles fan who disagreed with Andy Reid's hiring can disappear during his four straight CCG appearances, but pop back up in 2012 saying, "I told you he would never win anything."  A Patriots fan who disagreed with Belichick's hiring can go hide in a hole during his six titles, then miraculously resurface in 2023 saying, "See, I told you it was all Brady this whole time."

[Dolfanalyst]

Yet you didn't have the confidence (or intellectual honesty) to make that argument when Tannehill was playing in the AFCCG, or when the Dolphins were sitting in the #1 seed with their best offense in 30 years; instead, you preferred to log off.  But the moment the cracks started to show, your schedule suddenly freed up and you were right back offering your "See, I told you this wouldn't work" analysis.

You keep doing the same thing.  Neither of those is a valid or reliable criterion for the overall success of a QB or head coach.  Therefore they don't adequately determine the (in)correctness of anyone's position regarding the overall success of Tannehill or McDaniel.

[Spider-Dan]

Neither of those is a valid or reliable criterion for the overall success of a QB or head coach.

OK, fine:

Jason Taylor always said Nick Saban was his favorite coach because he cracked down on the lazy, low effort players that undermined Taylor's exceptional efforts.

Nick Saban was not a successful NFL coach.

If you're coaching the Philadelphia Eagles for example, you want a hard-nosed blue-collar type head coach who has a Brett Favre type at QB and a central leader on defense whose style of play reflects that as well.

Andy Reid was not a successful NFL coach in Philadelphia.

This is what attracted Dan Campbell to the Detroit job for example -- he had a certain kind of respect and admiration for how that city functions and what it stands for, and he wanted to infuse that into the organization both with his own personality/style and with the players he obtained.

Dan Campbell is not a successful NFL coach.

We can play the "winners are winners" game... but then there are exactly 7 successful NFL coaches in the league.  (Unless "only one ring" doesn't count, in which case there is exactly one successful head coach and one successful QB employed in the NFL today.)

The good news is that Doug Pederson and Joe Flacco should both be available next year if Miami wants to hire people with a proven record of success.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The good news is that Doug Pederson .... available next year if Miami wants to hire people with a proven record of success.

Not to mention the coach with the greatest post-season proven record of success of all time. 

[Spider-Dan]

His entire line of argument is so vapid and useless.

So in order to be successful at football, you need a "hard-nosed blue-collar type" attitude.  You know, the kind of atmosphere that a city like San Francisco (with 5 rings to their name) is well-known for.  Furthermore, the "laid back, glitzy, glam sort of environment" in Miami isn't consistent with successful football... which is why the winningest coach in league history spent his career there.

Meanwhile, the "hard-nosed blue-collar type" cities of Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Chicago have a total of one Super Bowl win among them.

This is astrology for men.  Absolutely worthless.

[Dolfanalyst]

OK, fine:
Nick Saban was not a successful NFL coach.
Andy Reid was not a successful NFL coach in Philadelphia.
Dan Campbell is not a successful NFL coach.

We can play the "winners are winners" game... but then there are exactly 7 successful NFL coaches in the league.  (Unless "only one ring" doesn't count, in which case there is exactly one successful head coach and one successful QB employed in the NFL today.)

The good news is that Doug Pederson and Joe Flacco should both be available next year if Miami wants to hire people with a proven record of success.

I don't hold positions about any of the above.

[Dolfanalyst]

His entire line of argument is so vapid and useless.

So in order to be successful at football, you need a "hard-nosed blue-collar type" attitude.  You know, the kind of atmosphere that a city like San Francisco (with 5 rings to their name) is well-known for.  Furthermore, the "laid back, glitzy, glam sort of environment" in Miami isn't consistent with successful football... which is why the winningest coach in league history spent his career there.

Meanwhile, the "hard-nosed blue-collar type" cities of Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Chicago have a total of one Super Bowl win among them.

This is astrology for men.  Absolutely worthless.

I've done enough posting on message boards to know that when accurate reading comprehension becomes the issue in a conversation, it's not worthwhile to continue it.

[masterfins]

Spider you seem to think that because the Dolphins went 11-3 two years ago that McDaniel and/or Tua should never be criticized, sorry but it doesn't work that way.

[Sibster]

Spider you seem to think that because the Dolphins went 11-3 two years ago that McDaniel and/or Tua should never be criticized, sorry but it doesn't work that way.

11-6 and two key losses at the end of the season blew the divisional title for them.   It's amazing to think that this team has won the division only twice since Shula left. 

[Dolfanalyst]

Spider you seem to think that because the Dolphins went 11-3 two years ago that McDaniel and/or Tua should never be criticized, sorry but it doesn't work that way.

Same thing occurred with Tannehill -- he had a brief period of elevated play with Tennessee that didn't distinguish him favorably from a similarly elevated brief period of play Jim Harbaugh for example experienced in 1995, during his otherwise more or less mediocre career as an NFL QB.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HarbJi00.htm

A swallow doesn't make a summer.  When the stars align around a QB, he can elevate his play significantly.  The problem is that it's very difficult to maintain the stars in such an alignment due to free agency, injuries, retirements, trades, etc.  The great QBs play at a sustained elevated level even when the stars aren't aligned, and neither Harbaugh nor Tannehill was one of them.

[Spider-Dan]

Spider you seem to think that because the Dolphins went 11-3 two years ago that McDaniel and/or Tua should never be criticized, sorry but it doesn't work that way.

You forgot to include Ryan Tannehill, whom I am also defending.

In any case, criticism is entirely valid and warranted.  What isn't valid is launching a barrage of attacks on a person when they are doing poorly, disappearing to avoid accountability when they are doing well, then reappearing the next time they are doing poorly to say, "Well, the time that they did well didn't actually count because they are doing poorly again now."

If the Dolphins were playing well right now, the person who posted this thread would not be here saying, "Oops, I was wrong."  They would simply not show up at all.

[Spider-Dan]

Same thing occurred with Tannehill -- he had a brief period of elevated play with Tennessee that didn't distinguish him favorably from a similarly elevated brief period of play Jim Harbaugh for example experienced in 1995, during his otherwise more or less mediocre career as an NFL QB.

For a person who claims to base his opinions on analytics, I have yet to see any statistics from Pro Football Focus (or similar outlets) on "most hard-nosed coaches" or "top 5 culture rankings of the 2010s."

As I said before, you're basically just pushing astrology.  It's totally vapid circular reasoning; "successful" teams have "good culture" and it's impossible to prove otherwise.

[Dolfanalyst]

What isn't valid is launching a barrage of attacks on a person when they are doing poorly, disappearing to avoid accountability when they are doing well, then reappearing the next time they are doing poorly to say, "Well, the time that they did well didn't actually count because they are doing poorly again now."

When they are doing well doesn't actually "count" unless it distinguishes them in such a way as to make the position held by someone invalid.  Thus there is no onus on anyone to avoid "disappearing" as a measure of "accountability," as whether they are appearing or disappearing is irrelevant to the correctness of the person's position.

If someone's position for example was "McDaniel is going to be a terrible coach," should that person have "appeared" here merely after McDaniel's first win for example and eaten crow as a measure of the person's "accountability"?

Of course not, because a single win doesn't invalidate their position.  Neither do the samples of play you've nominated here, with regard to the positions I've held about Tannehill and McDaniel.

So your expectation of my "showing up here for the sake of accountability" is off-base.  There should be no "accountability" expected in these instances, because the samples of play you've nominated here aren't influential enough to invalidate my positions.  They're influential to that degree only for you, apparently.

[Dolfanalyst]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/46575310/tagovailoa-calls-some-dolphins-player-meeting-attendance

What you're seeing here is a head coach who is derelict in his duty as a leader, having established a free for all country club culture in the locker room, where players can flout rules and give low effort with insufficient consequences.

Some of the players are trying to compensate for that by asserting their own leadership and holding players-only meetings and such, though they are limited in their ability in that regard because they have neither the power nor the authority to levy consequences for other players' actions (missing those meetings, showing up late, etc.).

The whole thing stems from a head coach who would likely be great in the capacity of an offensive coordinator, where he doesn't have the responsibility of leading and establishing the culture for an entire team, but who is woefully miscast in his current capacity as head coach.

Jason Taylor always said Nick Saban was his favorite coach because he cracked down on the lazy, low effort players that undermined Taylor's exceptional efforts.  Mike McDaniel is at the opposite end of that spectrum.

Yet another former player saying exactly what I said here:

https://youtube.com/shorts/hzrTckY7-rk?si=bdUa3TxZvNdqyoiV