All is not lost. We can hang with the big dogs and learn from this win.

[spiketex]

Many commentators were predicting a blowout win for Green Bay. Tim Brown said it would be a shellacking and the Dolphins wouldn't get within 2 TDs. However, we were very competitive against a very good team, with the top NFL QB playing in top form.
I went to the game and thought the win was there for the taking but all of this doom and gloom talk on here is misplaced. We have a lot of talent on the team and we can still be a good team this year. Jarvis Landry is a stud.

 

[Alex Trevelyan]

Yeah, Rogers and Jordy should have been shut down easily. oookay

That's not what I said. I said that TEAM should of been dispatched with relative ease. Do you know what the heat index was on the field during the game? Rodgers and the passing offense are one freaking component of their team. No one argues their passing offense is mediocre, but the rest of their team is average to below average! They were 23d in rushing going into the game. Dead last in rushing defense going into the game. 18th in scoring defense. 22d in average scoring defense. You've got a coaching staff with intimate familiarity with Rodgers and their offense, we even knew their audibles. You add that up, we had every advantage and should of won the game by more than a score, not lose it the way we did.

 

[Alex Trevelyan]

is a bull mastiff a big dog? who gives a **** about big dogs...the packers are a good team, they have been for long time. We lost a tough game against a good team with a current top 3 qb who is a future hall of famer.

Sounds like last year...and the year before...and the year before. Who gives a **** about playing good teams tough? How about beating a few? Or better yet, how about dominating a few? Because good teams do that to other good teams every now and then. I have no interest in playing good teams tough, I have interest in beating them.

 

[AL R]

The closest thing to a moral victory would be the performance of the Raiders today. If I were a Raiders fan I would be stoked to see my rookie QB have a 4-TD day with a chance to guide the team to a win on the final drive.

As I said, even if the Dolphins won, it would've been similar to the opening win against the Patriots i.e. a hollow win despite mediocre QB play.


I want to see progress and consistency from Tannehill; otherwise, win or lose, this team is going nowhere and the inevitability of starting over is looming on the horizon.

Just curious - how many 4-TD days has Tannehill had? I'm sure the answer is none. In fact, I doubt he has more than three 3-TD days.

Did you look that up? He has had exactly 3-3 TD games all in 2013.

 

[nyashfan]

You're kidding! Just an educated guess.

Did you look that up? He has had exactly 3-3 TD games all in 2013.

 

[Padfoot]

1. I said who cares if they were easy plays? He made them. I answered that one.
2. Ill give you one, if you want more you can go back and watch it. The one where he broke outta the pocket rolled out to the right and hit wallace.
3 & 4. why dont you give me some examples of these "easy plays" you keep referring to? I know tannehill made the plays he had to to keep those drives going and get touchdowns.
5, 6 & 7. I brought up the run game because green bay had the 32nd ranked run defense and we had what like a total of 8 yards rushing going into halftime if you dont count tannehills yards. I also said if teams dont respect the pass like you claim they do and they can stack the box then why have we had success this year running the ball. You keep talking about 20 yard runs skewing it for some reason but thats a run that went for a first down and moved the chains and moved us down the field so i dont get why it would skew anything especially when it comes to the point i was making.

you can keep coming at me like i didnt answer with anything sensible but you kept talking in circles. You want me to describe every play to you. Id like you to explain some of these so called easy passes he made that he gets no credit for in the touchdown scoring drives. I really cant recall any "easy plays"...an easy play is like when brent grimes falls down and jordy nelson is standing there wide open.

1. Saying who cares isn't an answer. You were trying to argue that Tannehill played well in the second half. If he only made 3-4 good plays that's not much evidence to support your claim. Doing easy things doesn't mean you're playing well, it means you're not playing bad.
2. I will give you that one, I forgot about it. But that's it. So for Tannehill's entire second half, these are the good plays we have:
(i) Roll out to Wallace deep
(ii) Option run
(iii) Floater to Landry for TD
(iv) Good pocket movement for short TD pass
3/4. Here are the rest of his completions in 2nd half:
(i) Screen pass to wide open Sims (db was 10+ yards off)
(ii) Short throw to RB
(iii) Short throw to Williams who gets good YAC
(iv) Screen pass to Miller (went for 20 b/c GB was caught blitzing)
(v) Short pass to Landry who gets ~15 YAC
(vi) Short pass to Landry across middle
5. That doesn't excuse all the faults from Tannehill I listed. The opportunities were there, Tannehill didn't execute properly.
6/7. The point you were making was that the dolphins have had success running so far. But you are ignoring the poor performances by the NE & Oakland defenses. And the very simple point about the 2-3 20 yard runs is that Miller went untouched on those plays, that was poor defense on those plays which made up for the bulk of Miller's yards that game.

 

[joenhre]

Sounds like last year...and the year before...and the year before. Who gives a **** about playing good teams tough? How about beating a few? Or better yet, how about dominating a few? Because good teams do that to other good teams every now and then. I have no interest in playing good teams tough, I have interest in beating them.

I am tired of this too. Do you think the damn Patriots would have been happy playing the Packers tough but losing in the end? No of course not. If you want to compete with teams that expect to win every game you can't be satisfied with playing good teams tough and still losing. The AFC is looking tough this year and the Patriots are looking better now. So both routes to the playoffs are going to be tough. You must win games at home against teams like the Packers if you want to contend for anything. Sorry but that's just reality. Being happy about playing tough teams close and losing is what this team has been doing for way too long.

 

[Alex Trevelyan]

Why does everybody have to share the same whiny bitch mentality? Why is somebody a homer for trying to find positives in a tough loss to a good team? If the babies of the forum could hang on every negative and create countless threads bitching about the same **** why cant a guy make a thread pointing out positives?

I once had a pastor tell me that if you're religious and your only reason for being so is you have "faith", then you might as well chuck it, because blind faith is worse than no faith at all. You can find positives in almost any debacle, if the overall trend lines are down and you're clasping to the tenuous positives, you're doing nothing more than engaging in self-delusion. If the team's detractors or naysayers are just bitchy whiners as you say, they have a larger body of evidence on which their bitching and whining rests. Individual facts must be placed into a larger mosaic of reality, not looked at in a vacuum. No one can seriously look at today's game, then place it in the larger context of generalized ineptitude under this coaching staff and this owner and spin the positive into a greater good, you just can't unless you're clinging to that "blind faith". We saw nothing today that was any different then what we've seen in previous losses to teams like the Packers. This was just wash, rinse, repeat, like we've seen many other times.

 

[Dthrill_08]

That is clearly not our biggest need.

Weakside Linebacker.. .As soon as I saw Wheeler lined up on Quarles I knew it was a TD>

 

[Sons Of Shula]

The Packers haven't won a playoff game in four years! Why even bring up that 10 of the past 13 years factoid? It has zero relevance to who they are today, zero. Is Brett Favre and Ahman Green still prowling the sidelines in GB? If not how is them making the playoffs in 2001 or 2002 relevant? It's not relevant, but it sure sounds good! Who are the Packers today? They've beaten 2 teams that are a combined 3-9. They've played 2 teams that currently have a winning record and lost to both of them. If not for a tie game last year they would have been .500. So what you really mean to say is they're still a very good offensive team, but when your defense ranks 25th in the league, like their defense did last year, or 22d in the league this year, you ain't no big dog. When you're down 21-3 to Geno Smith and the Jets in your home opener, you ain't no big dog.

[buzzer] Wrong Pal. They won a playoff game just a two years back in 2012. And if you want to talk about just when Aaron Rodgers has been thir starting QB then the Pack has only missed the playoffs once in his first season and that still includes the SB championship. Trying to make the GB Packers sound like a bottom dwelling team is ignorant; plain and simple.

...moving on.

 

[slk018]

The "doom and gloom" talk has less to do with yesterday and more to do with the last 15 years.
Who cares if we were "close" we found a way to lose like always. That's what the Miami Dolphins have done my whole entire life. They look the better team and find ways to lose when it matters most

 

[flynryan15]

The "doom and gloom" talk has less to do with yesterday and more to do with the last 15 years.
Who cares if we were "close" we found a way to lose like always. That's what the Miami Dolphins have done my whole entire life. They look the better team and find ways to lose when it matters most

I thought you slit your wrist?

 

[Dick Pepperwood]

Accepting this Loss, is like accepting fat chicks...

 

[Ben Had]

or having to put pepper on your wood.

 

[Nawledge]

1. Saying who cares isn't an answer. You were trying to argue that Tannehill played well in the second half. If he only made 3-4 good plays that's not much evidence to support your claim. Doing easy things doesn't mean you're playing well, it means you're not playing bad.
2. I will give you that one, I forgot about it. But that's it. So for Tannehill's entire second half, these are the good plays we have:
(i) Roll out to Wallace deep
(ii) Option run
(iii) Floater to Landry for TD
(iv) Good pocket movement for short TD pass
3/4. Here are the rest of his completions in 2nd half:
(i) Screen pass to wide open Sims (db was 10+ yards off)
(ii) Short throw to RB
(iii) Short throw to Williams who gets good YAC
(iv) Screen pass to Miller (went for 20 b/c GB was caught blitzing)
(v) Short pass to Landry who gets ~15 YAC
(vi) Short pass to Landry across middle
5. That doesn't excuse all the faults from Tannehill I listed. The opportunities were there, Tannehill didn't execute properly.
6/7. The point you were making was that the dolphins have had success running so far. But you are ignoring the poor performances by the NE & Oakland defenses. And the very simple point about the 2-3 20 yard runs is that Miller went untouched on those plays, that was poor defense on those plays which made up for the bulk of Miller's yards that game.

So when tom bradyhits his easy throws (like he did to welker forma ny years) hes just "not playing bad"....do u see how stupid your ass backwards logic is? You make the plays that are there to be made, so yes i thought he played well in the 2nd half and led us to 3 tds.

---------- Post added at 12:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------

Why does everybody have to share the same whiny bitch mentality? Why is somebody a homer for trying to find positives in a tough loss to a good team? If the babies of the forum could hang on every negative and create countless threads bitching about the same **** why cant a guy make a thread pointing out positives?

I once had a pastor tell me that if you're religious and your only reason for being so is you have "faith", then you might as well chuck it, because blind faith is worse than no faith at all. You can find positives in almost any debacle, if the overall trend lines are down and you're clasping to the tenuous positives, you're doing nothing more than engaging in self-delusion. If the team's detractors or naysayers are just bitchy whiners as you say, they have a larger body of evidence on which their bitching and whining rests. Individual facts must be placed into a larger mosaic of reality, not looked at in a vacuum. No one can seriously look at today's game, then place it in the larger context of generalized ineptitude under this coaching staff and this owner and spin the positive into a greater good, you just can't unless you're clinging to that "blind faith". We saw nothing today that was any different then what we've seen in previous losses to teams like the Packers. This was just wash, rinse, repeat, like we've seen many other times.

Ok but still, if the guy who created this thread prefers to find positives out of a tough loss why cant he without being attacked and called a blind homer and whatever other crap you guys say...