Well said and I could not agree more.
Did Miami Under or Over Perform Last Season?
- Thread starter So Be
- Start date
Well said and I could not agree more.
I don't know about you, but I had no such expectation about the line. We had lost our left tackle and the disruption of what occurred changes whatever misconceptions one might have had.
To suggest that what transpired was not unsettling to the line is ridiculous in my opinion.
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 4,100
- Reaction score
- 925
- Age
- 60
I'm not sure I understand if you're suggesting that I think what transpired with the line was not unsettling, because I would say "unsettling" is yet another understatement. However, losing Long was generally seen by many as an upgrade to a younger, supposedly "up and coming" left tackle, after a season of mediocrity and injury ... as was the addition of a supposedly proven right tackle in Clabo and the anticipated maturation of Pouncey.
So I would argue that anyone who now claims to have seen the o-line disaster coming, or at least, that there were no expectations of improvement, is doing a bit of history revision..
Fin Thirteen
Club Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 4,656
- Reaction score
- 1,070
If you are in the top 3 defenses in the NFL in stopping touchdowns, I think you can possibly get away with having opponents get big yardage totals against you. Like it or not, our defense is a bend-don't-break style which surrenders yards in the hope of turnovers, without giving up TDs.
What you can't get away with is scoring 18 or 19 points a game and expect to make the playoffs. Even taking away the abysmal last two games from an offensive point of view, our average score per game still wasn't good enough. Playoff teams typically score min. 25 points a game, even when they have good or great defensive units.
We were quite efficient in the redzone, we just didn't get into the redzone enough. With our crappy playcalling and mediocre run game, we had too many 3rd and long situations and Tannehill wasn't effective at converting those. Part of that was the lack of protection when it's a clear passing down, part of that was Tannehill's substandard pocket presence, which he'll have to work on.
So it's patently obvious we over-achieved, whatever that means. If the new offensive system delivers us one thing, it better be fewer 3rd and longs, which will mean longer drives, which will mean more trips to the redzone, where we're actually not bad as a team at all (an improvement over past seasons).
To get more 3rd and short situations (or prefereably fewer third downs at all) we need our run game to be less vanilla and to use our RBs more as receiving options for those crucial 5 or 6 yard pickups. We also need Tannehill to get the ball out quicker and - when he can't - to pick his way up the pocket better as he goes through progressions.
I can live with our yardage conceded. I can live with our redzone efficiency. I can live with an above league-average sack total conceded (that, I'm afraid in inevitable). I can't live with us constantly stalling drives and therefore scoring one too few TDs a game to make the playoffs.
With our crappy rinky-dink WCO offense under Sherman, we didn't have enough chunk yardage, so inevitably we put ourselves in more 3rd down situations, which - it was patently obvious - we were crap at converting. Such a self-defeating offensive strategy, I could have cried. It appears that we're moving away from the overreliance on the 7-yard comeback route so beloved by the previous offense. Couldn't happen fast enough.
What you can't get away with is scoring 18 or 19 points a game and expect to make the playoffs. Even taking away the abysmal last two games from an offensive point of view, our average score per game still wasn't good enough. Playoff teams typically score min. 25 points a game, even when they have good or great defensive units.
We were quite efficient in the redzone, we just didn't get into the redzone enough. With our crappy playcalling and mediocre run game, we had too many 3rd and long situations and Tannehill wasn't effective at converting those. Part of that was the lack of protection when it's a clear passing down, part of that was Tannehill's substandard pocket presence, which he'll have to work on.
So it's patently obvious we over-achieved, whatever that means. If the new offensive system delivers us one thing, it better be fewer 3rd and longs, which will mean longer drives, which will mean more trips to the redzone, where we're actually not bad as a team at all (an improvement over past seasons).
To get more 3rd and short situations (or prefereably fewer third downs at all) we need our run game to be less vanilla and to use our RBs more as receiving options for those crucial 5 or 6 yard pickups. We also need Tannehill to get the ball out quicker and - when he can't - to pick his way up the pocket better as he goes through progressions.
I can live with our yardage conceded. I can live with our redzone efficiency. I can live with an above league-average sack total conceded (that, I'm afraid in inevitable). I can't live with us constantly stalling drives and therefore scoring one too few TDs a game to make the playoffs.
With our crappy rinky-dink WCO offense under Sherman, we didn't have enough chunk yardage, so inevitably we put ourselves in more 3rd down situations, which - it was patently obvious - we were crap at converting. Such a self-defeating offensive strategy, I could have cried. It appears that we're moving away from the overreliance on the 7-yard comeback route so beloved by the previous offense. Couldn't happen fast enough.
Last edited by a moderator:
You can still make the case that they underperformed because they had the potential to get 5.5 ONYPPA, and did not achieve that potential.
Losing Jake Long was an upgrade?....In what universe?
I can see your point I guess if your qualifying this based on preseason perceptions.
I was basing over performing on taking into account the realities of what transpired, what this team had to overcome as the actual season progressed.
Preseason perceptions are often covered in a lot of hope and optimism, which is fine but not a very good way to assess this sort of thing IMO.
Injuries....scandals...etc etc....can all greatly alter the course of a season and adjust that seasons potential.
they have only kept sack #s since 1982 so that is a bit misleading if that top 10 stat is even true.
1985 NY Jets, Ken O'Brien sacked 62 times. Jets won 11 games and made playoffs.
the OL issues were behind you heading into last 2 weeks after you beat Pitt and NE. You had the pieces to make it, you failed and underachieved.
While I agree that Miami has sucked for years, how can you say the OL issues were behind them the last 2 weeks when Tannehill was sacked 7 times at Buffalo? He was sacked 7 times the previous 3 games combined (at NYJ, at PIT, vs NE).
My point is no one was talking about the Ol heading into the last 2 weeks. all the controversy was behind them at that point. yes they stunk at Buf but they did a great job against us and the controversy returned b/c of the teams play on the field. Had you won one of those 2 games the book is written completely different, it is about what a great job they did to overcome distractions and they did until the final 2 crucial weeks.
It is true...visit Pro Football reference for the stat.
The Jets are an anomaly on that list as most suffered poor seasons.
A further inspect of the 85' Jets is very telling as to how they had a winning year with so many sacks:
1) They suffered 10 of those sacks in week 1 (over 16% of their total) against the Raiders where they were shut out.
2) Overall they suffered 31 of their sacks in their 5 losses (50% of their total sacks).
So.............in the case of the 85' Jets they clearly played very poorly in certain games and well in others which accounts for a 11 win season and early exit in the playoffs.
The Dolphins consistenly provided poor protection for Tannehill, both the O-line and the Backs. They O-line also couldn't run block which compounds the problem.
truedolfan57
Active Roster
You know, if a QB has no faith in his Oline, how can you expect him to play at a high level. after getting clobbered all year, and then have the game like the last buffalo game, as a QB, you'd probably be "looking over your shoulder" more often than not. Yes, Tannehill had a horrible game vs the jets and wasn't sacked. That doesn't mean the oline issues were resolved. Yes, if Tannehill would have stepped up and HELPED win one of the last two games of the season, they would have made the playoffs. And yes, had the oline played better all year, they would have made the playoffs as well. It works both ways.
Regardless of all that they had a great chance to make the playoffs and SHOULD have made it.
we also only attempted more than 30 passes in 2 wins, we averaged 33 a game in losses.
The jets were sacked 7 or more times 3 times(7,7,10), Miami once(7)
The Jets won 2 games where they were sacked 6 and 7 times, 5 sacks was the most allowed in a Miami win
Miami had 7 of their sacks in week 16 being shutout
in 8 losses Miami was sacked 30 times, 3.8 per game. Not an astounding #.
Miami allowed 2 or less sacks in 5 of 16 games, the '85 jets in 5 of 16 games.
Very similar.
Please show me the link to that top 10 in sacks allowed season and again sacks have only been official since 1982 so that is misleading either way.
---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------
sure, both could have played better but your OL dominated our DL in BOTH games and Ryan was awful week 17 and mediocre at best the first meeting. we can make all the excuses we want but only 1 game in the 2nd half of the year was he sacked more than 4 times in a single game. That doesn't mean he has to curl up in the fetal position.
Also....the 2013 Jets were a mediocre pass rush team....only 40 sacks and much closer to the worst team in the league (Jacksonville 31) than they were the top team (Carolina 60).
Why did Buffalo sweep us and give us so much trouble? They were number 2 in the league with 57 sacks....they clearly could rush the passer.
The Jets? Not so much. They didn't get to Tannehill much in either game....we beat them with ease in game 1, in game two Tannehill clearly played poorly as did other areas of the team.
Why did Buffalo sweep us and give us so much trouble? They were number 2 in the league with 57 sacks....they clearly could rush the passer.
The Jets? Not so much. They didn't get to Tannehill much in either game....we beat them with ease in game 1, in game two Tannehill clearly played poorly as did other areas of the team.
we got absolutely no pressure on Ryan, we may not have been a great sacking team but we pressured the QB and had one of the best DLs in the league. A DL your OL manhandled TWICE.
Game 1 should have been w/ ease but Ryan's poor play kept us in the game for over a half.