Game played out exactly like I expected | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Game played out exactly like I expected

Sirspud

Pro Bowler
Club Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
21,857
Reaction score
14,846
Age
39
Location
Haines City, Fl
I knew the Phins were going to get crushed in this one because after losing ISA for the season and Maxwell out we just didn't have the defense to stop the Steelers anymore. Before the season, if we were imagining a secondary with Lippett, a second round rookie with like five starts, a street free agent, and Michael Thomas at safety, you would have rightfully expected it to be one of the worst in football. This defense isn't the one that excelled in the middle of the season. With the injuries to key players that it had along with the lack of depth left by poor roster management and poor drafting over the last few years, there's a good portion of that defense that is flat out not NFL caliber seeing significant time in a playoff game. And as we saw in a lot of games last year, if pass rush isn't at least complemented by other parts of the defense, it can be easily neutralized by the other team's offense simply gameplanning to not give it opportunities, and when you face a team like the Steelers, easily having the talent to do it. It's how the Ravens beat us, and it's how the Pats beat us over, and over, and over. Michael Thomas had a lucky easy INT, but he's been a disaster for weeks. Rambo played really well for stretches but hasn't taken a good angle on a runner or receiver for nearly a month. Safety isn't considered an impact position unless you have an all pro there, but I learned in 2007 just how bad it can be if you don't have at least a competent safety. And that's really, really bad.

I knew defensively this was going to be a bloodbath. I knew the run game was going to have a harder time going this time because we haven't moved people off the ball in all but one game (Buf) since Pouncey has gone out. You can only expect an offense with a backup QB on the road to be able to overcome so much. I like Moore a lot, and if the game is competitive and he's not asked to do too much, you can win with him, and he can win some games in ways that I'm not sure Tannehill can do. But I knew this one would be an early deficit, and it being 20-3 before the offense has even had its third possession is tough to ask any QB to overcome against a quality opponent. The more we had to overcome on offense, the more the fact that we were playing with a backup QB who isn't completely in sync with the offense and isn't accustomed to having to overcome a specific gameplan against him would be exposed. It sucks that we had three turnovers. It sucks that the announcing crew could see from the get go of the game that we couldn't protect for empty sets and we still went with it in key situations repeatedly with disastrous results.

I think we all knew that one way or another this team wasn't SB bound. We had some things exposed today but for once we know we have a staff that is capable of causing a mediocre roster to over achieve. Here's to the future.
 
vance joseph

There will be a lot of venom against Joseph and I'll admit that I feel it too. But the reason is because he's being talked about as the top HC candidate on the market when we all know his defense is leaving a lot to be desired in recent weeks. I think a head coaching job is premature for him right now but teams are starting to treat the head coach position like they do the QB position, they are desperately trying to recreate the work of young phenoms and are swinger young over and over to get that, resulting in there being a lot of reaching. We know he is not as good as the talk because we see what happens on the field, and naturally it makes us a little upset. I get it because I'm not immune to feeling it.

You can't say a coordinator whose unit has sucked in recent weeks is doing a good job in that time period. Still, I'm not willing to blame it all on him when the talent disparity between the Steelers offense and our defense was so great. Two of the Steelers position players are arguably the best at their position, with a QB who will in the HOF. Their offense is flat out prolific and has done that to teams over and over, year after year. We have two really good pieces on defense, both on the same unit, and weaknesses that you could drive a truck through. Our defense didn't underperform today, it overperformed in a lot of weeks. We were in a playoff game to begin with because of some VJ playcalls at the right time turning a decent game into a win.
 
A good backup QB should be able to fill in for a few games (they got that with Moore), but they are never a real replacement for your starter come playoff time.
As disappointed as us phin fans are, imagine being a Raider fan. What a disppointment after the season they had.
 
A good backup QB should be able to fill in for a few games (they got that with Moore), but they are never a real replacement for your starter come playoff time.
As disappointed as us phin fans are, imagine being a Raider fan. What a disppointment after the season they had.

Moore could have won this game if the offense wasn't playing with its back against the wall from the get go, and for the second week in a row to boot. Tannehill would have handled that better with his experience in this offense and with these players, but even he would have struggled to bring us back and would certainly have taken his own share of sacks and a forced mistake or two.
 
The game plan by the Steelers was to take away the run and make Matt Moore beat you throwing the ball. They did that. If RT was playing, their strategy would have been different......This was the same thing the Pats did to us last week.

Our running game is much better when the threat of RT and his mobility and arm strength are in the game. That is not a knock on Matt Moore, they are just different styles of QB's.
 
Moore could have won this game if the offense wasn't playing with its back against the wall from the get go, and for the second week in a row to boot. Tannehill would have handled that better with his experience in this offense and with these players, but even he would have struggled to bring us back and would certainly have taken his own share of sacks and a forced mistake or two.

What did that offense do when they went down by 7 on the opening drive? How many turnovers did that offense have? The turnover right before halftime killed us. If we get at least a field goal there, the second half may have played out differently. Not saying we win...
 
What did that offense do when they went down by 7 on the opening drive? How many turnovers did that offense have? The turnover right before halftime killed us. If we get at least a field goal there, the second half may have played out differently. Not saying we win...

In what world should one ineffective drive by an offense to open a game mean they should play the entire game with a double digit lead? Yes the fumble at the end of the half was huge, but that is one I really put on coaching. They showed early on they had an answer for the empty set (which has some obvious flaws) and we went with it even when it actually didn't make that much sense considering the game situation.

Unless an offense is nearly completely shut down the entire game, I'm not going to blame them for the loss of a game on the road when the defense gave up touchdowns on its first three drives and wasn't exactly that great at any other point either.
 
The game plan by the Steelers was to take away the run and make Matt Moore beat you throwing the ball. They did that. If RT was playing, their strategy would have been different......This was the same thing the Pats did to us last week.

Our running game is much better when the threat of RT and his mobility and arm strength are in the game. That is not a knock on Matt Moore, they are just different styles of QB's.

If RT was playing, the strategy would have been exactly the same. They wanted to stop Ajayi first like every team except Buffalo did since week 6, regardless of who was at QB. And Pittsburgh wanted to score a lot of points early, not because of who was at QB, but because scoring a lot of points and also not giving the other team the ball is a pretty good way to win. It's also a lot of fun.
 
In what world should one ineffective drive by an offense to open a game mean they should play the entire game with a double digit lead? Yes the fumble at the end of the half was huge, but that is one I really put on coaching. They showed early on they had an answer for the empty set (which has some obvious flaws) and we went with it even when it actually didn't make that much sense considering the game situation.

Unless an offense is nearly completely shut down the entire game, I'm not going to blame them for the loss of a game on the road when the defense gave up touchdowns on its first three drives and wasn't exactly that great at any other point either.

Agree with your comments on defense.....but you are giving way too much leeway to the offense. Gase deferred the kickoff and had us in a good position for that strategy to pay off. If we get points at the end of the first half instead of a fumble.....and then we are driving to begin the 2nd half and get another fumble.....if those two things don't happen and we get points....we are either tied or down less than a TD. This game completely changes if that happens.

Moore gave it all he had, but there were some offensive letdowns that contributed as well. Saying that fumble at the end of the half is on coaching is BS. Albert blew his assignment and allowed Harrison in untouched. That isn't coaching....that is execution which is on the players.

---------- Post added at 08:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 PM ----------

If RT was playing, the strategy would have been exactly the same. They wanted to stop Ajayi first like every team except Buffalo did since week 6, regardless of who was at QB. And Pittsburgh wanted to score a lot of points early, not because of who was at QB, but because scoring a lot of points and also not giving the other team the ball is a pretty good way to win. It's also a lot of fun.

No, I don't think so...
 
In what world should one ineffective drive by an offense to open a game mean they should play the entire game with a double digit lead? Yes the fumble at the end of the half was huge, but that is one I really put on coaching. They showed early on they had an answer for the empty set (which has some obvious flaws) and we went with it even when it actually didn't make that much sense considering the game situation.

Unless an offense is nearly completely shut down the entire game, I'm not going to blame them for the loss of a game on the road when the defense gave up touchdowns on its first three drives and wasn't exactly that great at any other point either.

See? You're missing the point. They had a LOT of ineffective drives! Don't want to play when the opponent has a double digit lead? Then score! Don't turn the ball over!

Unlike you blaming the defense, I'm not blaming the offense for the loss. The TEAM lost. Neither squad played well.
 
Yes the fumble at the end of the half was huge, but that is one I really put on coaching. They showed early on they had an answer for the empty set (which has some obvious flaws) and we went with it even when it actually didn't make that much sense considering the game situation.

Huh? Coaching caused that fumble? Man, even if all you said is true. Take the sack. Just don't fumble the ball!
 
See? You're missing the point. They had a LOT of ineffective drives! Don't want to play when the opponent has a double digit lead? Then score! Don't turn the ball over!

Unlike you blaming the defense, I'm not blaming the offense for the loss. The TEAM lost. Neither squad played well.

I have to agree. The defense was ugly....especially early, but the offense also had it's chances and we turned the ball over way too much.

We needed to play better on both sides of the ball and didn't. We learn from it and we improve.
 
Back
Top Bottom