Dolphins Are A Playoff Team This Year

[IMAWriter]

SoBe...agree with all from your original posting. The addition of the new assistants...and upgrade IMO will surely help in the players upward progression.

I believe if Joe Philbin can somehow grow into the gig, that alone could mean 2 games. Those last 2 losses last year must surely rest, at least in some part on game prep and attitude.
I believe Tanny has the talent to be 2nd in the division, only to Brady. The only thing you didn't mention was the 6 (at least) TD's left on the field by the Tanny-Wallace disconnect.
Another game lost there.
I have a feeling this O-line will coalesce somewhere just after the early bye. In this case, the early bye may actually work to the Fins advantage, giving them a chance to iron out any O-Line problems early on.

 

[roy_miami]

Yes. The people who pick 4 or 5 wins are far more rare and as a result get flamed by most posters.



Viewed in a bad light by whom? It's the prevailing view on this forum and on every forum for every team that this is the year the next step is going to be taken. Don't pretend you're some kind of victim here, because you're not.



Of course it doesn't change anything. But the people who tend to be optimistic in May tend to take the positive view from every preseason game and ever regular season game.

We were only a play away. If only *fill in the blank* would have happened. The refs screwed us.

There's never any accountability by these people. This time when the team "sucks" and we're supposed to let them hear it... those people never do that.



It's a public forum. If someone wants to offer the opinion that the status quo of mediocrity is going to change and they don't offer anything substantive as to why, why should I act like the parent of a grade schooler who doesn't say anything when a child says that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny actually exist? Especially when their opinion is laced with the suggestion as there's no such thing as their opinion being wrong?

Everything ever uttered on these boards is all moot until we have some evidence that our QB is anything but mediocre. I can easily envision Tannehill blossoming into a good QB this season, he looked great at times after we traded for McKinnie. His passer rating the first 7 games with Martin in the lineup was 80 and he upped it to 94 his next 7 games after we "upgraded" the o-line slightly, and if he can play at the 94 level all season we should easily win 9.5ish games. So if somebody wants to predict Tannehill will continue his development and become a good QB I have no issue with that.

On the other hand I can just as easily envision continued inconsistent play and just one terrible game, or even one bad decision in the final minute of a game is one too many for a franchise caliber QB. So if somebody wants to predict we'll be mediocre again I have no issue with that either.

 

[TheWalrus]

Everything ever uttered on these boards is all moot until we have some evidence that our QB is anything but mediocre. I can easily envision Tannehill blossoming into a good QB this season, he looked great at times after we traded for McKinnie. His passer rating the first 7 games with Martin in the lineup was 80 and he upped it to 94 his next 7 games after we "upgraded" the o-line slightly, and if he can play at the 94 level all season we should easily win 9.5ish games. So if somebody wants to predict Tannehill will continue his development and become a good QB I have no issue with that.

On the other hand I can just as easily envision continued inconsistent play and just one terrible game, or even one bad decision in the final minute of a game is one too many for a franchise caliber QB. So if somebody wants to predict we'll be mediocre again I have no issue with that either.

Quarterbacks are incredibly important but it's important to remember sometimes that they're not everything. Without a good one you can't contend, but having a good one does not automatically make you a contender. I mean, the Steelers have won two Super Bowls with Roethlisberger but they've also gone 8-8 the last two seasons with him. Similarly, the Giants have won two Super Bowls with Eli yet have gone 9-7 and 7-9 the last two years.

At the end of the day this has been a mediocre to below mediocre team because we have mediocre to below mediocre talent and mediocre to below mediocre coaching (and all the root of all of that is our **** eating owner, imo). What I see when I look at this offseason is only one major coaching position that's been changed (and not the one I would have changed, only given one option), and a pretty normal -- no game changers, in other words -- influx of free agents.

For what it's worth I actually really like Tannehill, as I've said many times, and I think he helped us overachieve last year based on the talent around him on both sides of the ball and the talent of our coaching staff. But there are just too many obvious mistakes being made all around him to keep the ship at anything but even.

 

[jason_taylor]

All depends on QB play. This team will go as far as RT can take them.

True in a way , BUT Tannehill has to have time to throw the ball , instead of 3 step bk and sack , if he gets the protection he needs , then Miami will go as far as Tannehill can take them......

 

[roy_miami]

For what it's worth I actually really like Tannehill, as I've said many times, and I think he helped us overachieve last year based on the talent around him on both sides of the ball and the talent of our coaching staff. But there are just too many obvious mistakes being made all around him to keep the ship at anything but even.

80 passer rating on the season and he made a terrible game management mistake at the end of the first Buffalo game doesn't add up to overachieving for me. By my count thats twice now in his career he's done something completely idiotic as far as end game management. The team has only lost one game when they get a good QB performance with a passer rating of 88+, they are 12 for 13 and the only other team in the league better is Jim Harbaugh's 49ers.

 

[TheWalrus]

80 passer rating on the season and he made a terrible game management mistake at the end of the first Buffalo game doesn't add up to overachieving for me. By my count thats twice now in his career he's done something completely idiotic as far as end game management. The team has only lost one game when they get a good QB performance with a passer rating of 88+, they are 12 for 13 and the only other team in the league better is Jim Harbaugh's 49ers.

Are you under the impression that QB rating not affected by the performance of players other than the QB?

 

[roy_miami]

Are you under the impression that QB rating not affected by the performance of players other than the QB?

It most certainly is...to an extent. To me Tannehill = Dalton and Dalton had an amazing team around him and Dalton's rating was still only 88. So I can buy that his rating would be higher with a much better team but it would only be maybe 5 points, not something crazy like 15-20

 

[TheWalrus]

It most certainly is...to an extent. To me Tannehill = Dalton and Dalton had an amazing team around him and Dalton's rating was still only 88. So I can buy that his rating would be higher with a much better team but it would only be maybe 5 points, not something crazy like 15-20

Why?

 

[roy_miami]

Why?

I believe the Bengals have one of the most talented rosters in the league and the Dolphins had one of the worst so if the QBs are about even in skill then can't roster talent be quantified as about +/- 5 passer rating points?

Anyway, like I said until I see hard evidence he's anything but mediocre I'm not falling for the excuses anymore and projecting he would be just as good as other top QBs with similar talent around him is just as much fantasy land as predicting we'll win 10 games this season.

 

[JTC111]

I believe the Bengals have one of the most talented rosters in the league and the Dolphins had one of the worst so if the QBs are about even in skill then can't roster talent be quantified as about +/- 5 passer rating points?

Anyway, like I said until I see hard evidence he's anything but mediocre I'm not falling for the excuses anymore and projecting he would be just as good as other top QBs with similar talent around him is just as much fantasy land as predicting we'll win 10 games this season.

My mind is pretty much the same. I have no idea where Tannehill's ceiling is. For all any of us know, he might have hit it. There was a play last year that hinted at a lack of field vision/awareness and has me concerned that there may not be much more upside. I don't remember what game it was, but RT took the snap and was looking to his left. The DE shed the LT block and was coming at RT directly in his sight line. RT had enough time to throw the ball away but he took the sack as if he hadn't even seen the defender coming at him ...as if he was looking past him and never noticed he was about to get tackled. That worries me. I still think we need to give him a bit more time and I haven't made up my mind about him just yet, but he has to start showing better than he has.

 

[Rick Cartman]

Good to see a post like this instead of another post preaching patience for the umpteenth time. A trip to the playoffs should be expected this year.

 

[TheWalrus]

I believe the Bengals have one of the most talented rosters in the league and the Dolphins had one of the worst so if the QBs are about even in skill then can't roster talent be quantified as about +/- 5 passer rating points?

That just seems like a number picked out of thin air to me.

Take Peyton Manning for example. In his last year in Indy -- with a roster around him terrible enough to go 2-14 when he left -- his passer rating was 92.

His first year in Denver, with a talented roster, it was 106. And last year it was 115.

 

[Digital]

That just seems like a number picked out of thin air to me.

Take Peyton Manning for example. In his last year in Indy -- with a roster around him terrible enough to go 2-14 when he left -- his passer rating was 92.

His first year in Denver, with a talented roster, it was 106. And last year it was 115.

Well said by TheWalrus.

Even the great Peyton Manning had a rating fluctuate by a lot when changing the surrounding personnel and game situations. Heck, once he and his receiving corps were on the same page it went up 9 points and that is in N area where improvement is extremely difficult because it was already so high.

Comsider Tannehill's situation. Year 1 with a rookie QB having only 19 collegiate starts. Year 2 he gets 3 new receiving targets (Keller, Gibson, and Wallace) to integrate--2 of which went out with early season ending Injuries, a new RB, new OT and an OL that allowed one of the NFL's Top Ten most sacked seasons ever. Oh yeah, locker room scandal requiring leadership during troubled times And he still improved in almost every metric.

I agree with TheWalrus here. It's hard to imagine a situation more ripe for improvement than the one Tannehill finds himself in this year. Look at the strides Nick Foles made last year under Lazor. Look at the production the OL's coached by Benton over the last few years.

Frankly, I'll be shocked if Tannehill only improves by 5 points ... and I have far less faith in our OL draftees and Shelley Smith than most of this board.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[TheWalrus]

Well said by TheWalrus.

Even the great Peyton Manning had a rating fluctuate by a lot when changing the surrounding personnel and game situations. Heck, once he and his receiving corps were on the same page it went up 9 points and that is in N area where improvement is extremely difficult because it was already so high.

Year 1 with a rookie QB having only 19 collegiate starts. Year 2 he gets 3 new receiving targets (Keller, Gibson, and Wallace) to integrate--2 of which went out with early season ending Injuries, a new RB, new OT and an OL that allowed one of the NFL's Top Ten most sacked seasons ever. Oh yeah, locker room scandal requiring leadership during troubled times And he still improved in almost every metric.

I agree with TheWalrus here. It's hard to imagine a situation more ripe for improvement than the one Tannehill finds himself in this year. Look at the strides Nick Foles made last year under Lazor. Look at the production the OL's coached by Benton over the last few years.

Frankly, I'll be shocked if Tannehill only improves by 5 points ... and I have far less faith in our OL draftees and Shelley Smith than most of this board.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Well this is where we part company, then. Because I don't think the talent around Tannehill has really improved all that much, and more importantly I don't think the coaching has improved very much either. I am somewhat encouraged by the offensive line if for no other reason than I think we now have a top flight coach running that unit, but the WRs are still in general not suited to Tannehill and our running backs are crap. Also I don't think Philbin is much of an HC.

 

[Digital]

We both agree that in a passing offense Albert, if healthy, is a large upgrade over anyone we had at LT last year right? I would be so bold to also suggest that we probably both agree that Tannehill will have better chemistry with Gibson, Wallace and Clay than last year at this time. Right?

As I mentioned in my previous post, and many others on this site, I'm not nearly as impressed with Shelley Smith, JuWuan James, and Billy Turner as most on this site. Smith graded worse than either of our OG's last year, Turner is making a big jump up in quality along with a slight position change, and I do t like James' work ethic or technique (inconsistent and sloppy). But, we had the worst pair of OT's last year, an that will not be the case this year. It's our OG's that are more problematic at the moment.

So, not sure which part you disagree with TheWalrus, except the expected improvement of Tannehill.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk