Miami in close games under Philbin

[SSnowman]

We need a poll to decide who's man crush is more obnoxious: junc and Sanchez, WV and Matt Ryan, roy_miami and Philbin

 

[Fins1971]

Joe Philbin was hired to win a championship. The plan was/is good. The problem is he got a dud at QB. Take the top 5 coaches in the NFL and give them Chad Henne at QB, what do you think their average record is going to be? To win in the NFL you need either an elite arm or the clutch factor, and the hope is you get both. Henne had neither, so that would make it extremely hard to win these "closeout" types of games. And with a QB like Henne you would find yourself in a ton of these types of situations.

so the streak of futility is on Henne - Tannehill in your opinion. Fair enough.

I did see a post from Dick Pepperwood that said that Wallace was trying to get RT17 fired up before the Green Bay drive. I'm sure Wallace was aware that they were 0-4 in this situation and wanted to change the outcome. However as receiver he doesn't have a lot of say in how the 4 minute drill will be run or if he will even touch the ball. I do agree that this step on their throat mentality has to come from the QB since he is the one touching the ball on every play.

 

[NJPHINFAN79]

Its not true that we aren't aggressive. In all 9 of those failed "closeouts" we attempted at least one pass per drive. The San Diego closeout drive ended up being an almost identical situation to the Green Bay final series, in that one we attempted the pass on third and eight but Tannehill was sacked. Rivers moved the ball back to our territory but he ran out of time. The biggest difference between those games? The punt pinned them to the 17.

Had Philbin not ran it on that 3rd and 9 against Green Bay I guarantee he'd have just as many calling for his head for not taking time off the clock, and not a soul defending the decision (except me and a couple of others). Remember that thread Hayden Fox created a few years back that had so many "no thanks" it was blacked out? That was because he was complaining about Philbin passing at the end of the Cincy game instead of running clock, he was complaining about aggressiveness.

My point is its one or the other, if you are trying to run down clock then run it three times and play def. or if you wanna be aggressive and pass on second down then pass it on third down. He tried to play both and even admitted after the game he got scared and decided to run.... It was a bad decision

 

[roy_miami]

My point is its one or the other, if you are trying to run down clock then run it three times and play def. or if you wanna be aggressive and pass on second down then pass it on third down. He tried to play both and even admitted after the game he got scared and decided to run.... It was a bad decision

Here are some rough calculations I did on the decision to pass on second down:

The premise is you think if he's going to run on third down he has to run on second down as well.

1. We can guesstimate how much time will be left on third down after either a run or pass on second down, it was exactly 2:04 for a pass. For a run we would have ran it to the 2 minute warning, we know the punt took 11 seconds so time left is 2:04 and the 2 minute warning vs 1:49. The Packers offense averages about 7 seconds a play so the difference is about 2.5 extra plays for the Packers.

2. If we pass we know Tannehill's completion percentage is 63%, so 63% of the time we will be no worse off passing on second down vs running, which means 37% of the time Rodgers will get those 2.5 extra plays we determined in point 1.

3. Of the 63% of completed passes how often do those result in winning the game? Obviously they aren't all going to go for the full 9 yards but a decent percentage will. And of the ones that don't they will put us in a very manageable 3rd down, say 3 yards or less. I'll have to completely guess here but I don't think its unreasonalbe to say 15% of the time we win the game outright and 35% of the time we leave ourselves with 3 yards or less, which we win the game on another 50% of the time. So 17% + 15% = 32% of the time passing on second down results in winning the game.

So essentially the decision on second down was to try to win the game 32% of the time and if the pass is incomplete you give Rodgers 2.5 extra plays 37% of the time.

The decision on second down was not only not dumb but it looks like a complete no brainer. Even if you don't agree with my math there is no way giving Rodgers an extra 2-3 plays is worse than taking even a 10-20% chance to win the game. And even if you try to say 10% to win is equal to 3 extra plays for Rodgers Philbins decision was still the most aggressive option of the two options available.

 

[NJPHINFAN79]

So I see some think its Philbin fault, others Tannehill.

But if we really look at the OP the problem goes back before both of them arrived.

I didn't chart all the games from 2008 to 2011 but I noticed that there were about 8-10 times that we did the same thing under Sporano/Henne

This 4 minute drive futility streak is actually somewhere near 20 in a row. Somebody just doesn't like us or something....

Exactly both play a part but the coaches call the plays, and we have had indecisive actions from the leaders, **** flows downhill

---------- Post added at 01:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 PM ----------

Here are some rough calculations I did on the decision to pass on second down:

The premise is you think if he's going to run on third down he has to run on second down as well.

1. We can guesstimate how much time will be left on third down after either a run or pass on second down, it was exactly 2:04 for a pass. For a run we would have ran it to the 2 minute warning, we know the punt took 11 seconds so time left is 2:04 and the 2 minute warning vs 1:49. The Packers offense averages about 7 seconds a play so the difference is about 2.5 extra plays for the Packers.

2. If we pass we know Tannehill's completion percentage is 63%, so 63% of the time we will be no worse off passing on second down vs running, which means 37% of the time Rodgers will get those 2.5 extra plays we determined in point 1.

3. Of the 63% of completed passes how often do those result in winning the game? Obviously they aren't all going to go for the full 9 yards but a decent percentage will. And of the ones that don't they will put us in a very manageable 3rd down, say 3 yards or less. I'll have to completely guess here but I don't think its unreasonalbe to say 15% of the time we win the game outright and 35% of the time we leave ourselves with 3 yards or less, which we win the game on another 50% of the time. So 17% + 15% = 32% of the time passing on second down results in winning the game.

So essentially the decision on second down was to try to win the game 32% of the time and if the pass is incomplete you give Rodgers 2.5 extra plays 37% of the time.

The decision on second down was not only not dumb but it looks like a complete no brainer. Even if you don't agree with my math there is no way giving Rodgers an extra 2-3 plays is worse than taking even a 10-20% chance to win the game. And even if you try to say 10% to win is equal to 3 extra plays for Rodgers Philbins decision was still the most aggressive option of the two options available.

Man U type fast that was one minute after my response....



so if we did run it twice you are saying Rogers has 2.5 plays less.... Ok we win the game then.

 

[SSnowman]

... stats ... calculations ...

You're missing the entire problem. The fact that the coach admitted he felt queasy. Even if he did, that doesn't mean he needs to admit it to the public. It's hard to inspire confidence in your players if you don't show any yourself.

 

[JJM_7]

Joe Philbin was hired to win a championship. The plan was/is good. The problem is he got a dud at QB. Take the top 5 coaches in the NFL and give them Chad Henne at QB, what do you think their average record is going to be? To win in the NFL you need either an elite arm or the clutch factor, and the hope is you get both. Henne had neither, so that would make it extremely hard to win these "closeout" types of games. And with a QB like Henne you would find yourself in a ton of these types of situations.

I'm kinda lost. You're blaming Miami's offensive woes on the fact that Joe Philbin had Chad Henne as his QB when he became our head coach?

Philbin WAS hired to fix the offense. First and foremost. He inherited a decent defense and brought in Kevin Coyle, who I think has been a good DC for us, so props to JP for that. BUT he also brought in Mike Sherman and that facilitated the selection of Ryan Tannehill in the 2012 draft. So yeah, it's not all on Philbin, but he CHOSE Ryan as his QB for the future, no one imposed that on him.

Everyone knows the success of this team relies on the development of RT as our franchise QB, and so far it's been very up and down. Philbin doesn't have a magic wand that can produce a franchise QB out of nowhere, true, but it IS his job to make sure both his defense and offense play at the highest level, and offensively, he has failed.

I have nothing against Joe, I want him to succeed and I want Ryan to take the next step and lead us to the playoffs, but you can't claim that our offensive issues are not on Joe Philbin.

 

[SkapePhin]

As this metric shows, Philbin is the definition of average, especially in situations when you need him to be above average in strategizing to win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fins1971]

Thx to slk018 for getting this from his sources.

 

[datruth55]

I'm kinda lost. You're blaming Miami's offensive woes on the fact that Joe Philbin had Chad Henne as his QB when he became our head coach?

Philbin WAS hired to fix the offense. First and foremost. He inherited a decent defense and brought in Kevin Coyle, who I think has been a good DC for us, so props to JP for that. BUT he also brought in Mike Sherman and that facilitated the selection of Ryan Tannehill in the 2012 draft. So yeah, it's not all on Philbin, but he CHOSE Ryan as his QB for the future, no one imposed that on him.

Everyone knows the success of this team relies on the development of RT as our franchise QB, and so far it's been very up and down. Philbin doesn't have a magic wand that can produce a franchise QB out of nowhere, true, but it IS his job to make sure both his defense and offense play at the highest level, and offensively, he has failed.

I have nothing against Joe, I want him to succeed and I want Ryan to take the next step and lead us to the playoffs, but you can't claim that our offensive issues are not on Joe Philbin.

And yet everyone seems to overlook the fact that Ryan Tannehill was set up to fail from the day he got here by the GM, Jeff Ireland. How many weapons did Ireland draft with Tannehill? How many offensive lineman did Ireland draft to fit the ZBS which he was fully aware that we were going to be running? Tannehill's first year he had Brian Hartline and 4 undrafted WRs on the roster. Ireland's response to fixing that was to sign Legedu Naanee...are you kidding me!?

Philbin has had his gaffs...no doubt but both him and Tannehill were set up to fail by Ireland...but continue ignoring that fact and carry on.

 

[JJM_7]

And yet everyone seems to overlook the fact that Ryan Tannehill was set up to fail from the day he got here by the GM, Jeff Ireland. How many weapons did Ireland draft with Tannehill? How many offensive lineman did Ireland draft to fit the ZBS which he was fully aware that we were going to be running? Tannehill's first year he had Brian Hartline and 4 undrafted WRs on the roster. Ireland's response to fixing that was to sign Legedu Naanee...are you kidding me!?

Philbin has had his gaffs...no doubt but both him and Tannehill were set up to fail by Ireland...but continue ignoring that fact and carry on.

So it's all Ireland's fault and now that we have Dennis Hickey as our GM this team should take the next step, right? REALLY hope that's the case, but I don't think it's that simple.

 

[datruth55]

So it's all Ireland's fault and now that we have Dennis Hickey as our GM this team should take the next step, right? REALLY hope that's the case, but I don't think it's that simple.

It actually is that simple but it doesn't happen in one season and unfortunately if Philbin doesn't win then in all likelihood he'll be out along with Tannehill and we'll be starting from ground zero again.

 

[JJM_7]

It actually is that simple but it doesn't happen in one season and unfortunately if Philbin doesn't win then in all likelihood he'll be out along with Tannehill and we'll be starting from ground zero again.

So you're saying that the combination of Hickey/Philbin/Tannehill needs more than 1 year to produce results?

Look, there's no doubt that Hickey has proven to be a HUGE upgrade over Jeff Ireland. But I personally believe that Philbin and RT have enough tools this year to be successful. If we miss out on the playoffs what will be the excuses? Still not a good enough OL? Inexperience in a new offensive system? Lack of better weapons? Super tough schedule?

No team is ever perfect or has all the weapons, but I really believe the 2014 Dolphins have enough talent and a damn good defense that should be enough to make the playoffs IF we have better production from our offense. Not even talking about Peyton Manning levels of production, just fewer turnovers, more touchdowns in the red zone, faster starts, more consistency all around.

This team is on the verge of turning things around, it just needs to play better offensively. That's all I'm asking for. Just my opinion, though.

 

[roy_miami]

Man U type fast that was one minute after my response....



so if we did run it twice you are saying Rogers has 2.5 plays less.... Ok we win the game then.

And we win the game with a better punt. And we win the game if Tannehill makes one play on the 2nd and 9. Would you rather let your QB attempt to win it on one play, or rely on your defense to stop Rodgers on 2-3 extra plays? Because that was the decision in a nutshell on second down.

 

[roy_miami]

You're missing the entire problem. The fact that the coach admitted he felt queasy. Even if he did, that doesn't mean he needs to admit it to the public. It's hard to inspire confidence in your players if you don't show any yourself.

I agree. But as Omar said, it would have been obvious he got "queasy" whether he admitted it to the media or not.

And as has also been shown he's allowed Tannehill to pass on third down many times with a lot of them resulting in disaster. The San Diego game was almost an identical situation, a 3rd and 8 that we attempted to pass on which resulted in a sack. Philbin is clearly in a lose-lose situation on third and longs with Tannehill at the helm.