There are some pundits and fans who seem to be a tad underwhelmed by how Miami's offense has looked the last few weeks. The common complaint being the lack of big downfield shots in the passing game, and the lack of big plays in general.
Personally, I am at the other end of the spectrum. I care about winning games, especially playoff games. Football is a complimentary sport. I would rather win 24-21, than I would lose 38-34. Playing this way takes a lot of pressure off of our defense. Long time consuming drives do that. Also, I think this style of offense has a better chance of holding up against better teams, and on the road and in poor weather, although that has not been tested yet for us. Having said all of that, to be a truly great offense, we need to be able to do both things. If are only good at one thing, and it gets taken away, and you can't do the other, you will have a problem, as we saw last year.
Eventually teams will adjust to what we are doing now, and make it tougher. The offset is, when those adjustments happen, the deeper stuff will open back up. We will need to be able to take advantage of it. And, when other teams adjust, we will still need to find a way to matriculate the ball down the field in an orderly fashion, including a bruising running game.
This is where my concern with the OL returns. Many of us, including me, were petrified about the OL coming into the season. Then, maybe 5 or 6 weeks ago, after we started running the ball down other teams throats for about 3 games in a row, I felt, wow, the OL might actually be pretty darn good, and I even started a mea-culpa thread about it. Then, the last two weeks, after the opponents realized we were willing to play this way, they were able to take away the dominant running game, and left it looking somewhat average.
Average is what our OL may actually be. The OL is a bit tough to evaluate, because they have an easy job. In the passing game, the ball is out quickly. It is also easier for us to run, because the opposing defenses pay so much attention to the passing game. An average OL should look pretty good in this system. Sort of like how average CBs look pretty good when a team has a dominant pass rush. We have two really good players in Brewer and Armstead. The other 3, in aggregate, below average. Add it up, seems like we should be pretty average. Average is what it looks like when other teams don't just give us the run. I know there are nerd stats that suggest much better than average, but nerd stats are imperfect, and as I said, the job of this OL is pretty easy. Point being, after all the back and forth on the OL, maybe the answer is they are just average.
Side point, GM me would still have less in the way of draft capital and cap space tied up in the WR position, and more of it in the OL (and off the ball LBs). Look how Detroit looks with their dominant OL, a QB similar to Tua in many respects, and with only one highly paid WR.
Which brings me to the Green Bay game. We should be able to beat the Patriots, at home. They stink, and also have a rookie QB. Granted, we cannot look past the Pats, it is still the NFL, and if we do we will lose.
Assuming we beat the Pats, Green Bay is going to be a really interesting litmus test for all of this. They are the first good team we will have played for awhile. They are the first good team we will play that will have a few weeks of film on our new look offense (Buffalo had almost none). The game is on the road. The weather has a chance of being less than friendly. The game will really matter. How is it all going to look?
Our new look offense? The offensive line? All of it. Can we run the ball down Green Bay's throat if they don't just give it to us? That is a real test for the OL. If they make adjustments and take away the shorter stuff, are we able to be multiple and take more shots downfield? I think it is going to be really interesting how it looks against better teams, and Green Bay will be our first test.
If we can go into Green Bay, and the offense looks good, and we can win that game, you can start to feel a lot better about things (and also further lament the fact that screwing up the backup QB thing so badly really cost us).
Personally, I am at the other end of the spectrum. I care about winning games, especially playoff games. Football is a complimentary sport. I would rather win 24-21, than I would lose 38-34. Playing this way takes a lot of pressure off of our defense. Long time consuming drives do that. Also, I think this style of offense has a better chance of holding up against better teams, and on the road and in poor weather, although that has not been tested yet for us. Having said all of that, to be a truly great offense, we need to be able to do both things. If are only good at one thing, and it gets taken away, and you can't do the other, you will have a problem, as we saw last year.
Eventually teams will adjust to what we are doing now, and make it tougher. The offset is, when those adjustments happen, the deeper stuff will open back up. We will need to be able to take advantage of it. And, when other teams adjust, we will still need to find a way to matriculate the ball down the field in an orderly fashion, including a bruising running game.
This is where my concern with the OL returns. Many of us, including me, were petrified about the OL coming into the season. Then, maybe 5 or 6 weeks ago, after we started running the ball down other teams throats for about 3 games in a row, I felt, wow, the OL might actually be pretty darn good, and I even started a mea-culpa thread about it. Then, the last two weeks, after the opponents realized we were willing to play this way, they were able to take away the dominant running game, and left it looking somewhat average.
Average is what our OL may actually be. The OL is a bit tough to evaluate, because they have an easy job. In the passing game, the ball is out quickly. It is also easier for us to run, because the opposing defenses pay so much attention to the passing game. An average OL should look pretty good in this system. Sort of like how average CBs look pretty good when a team has a dominant pass rush. We have two really good players in Brewer and Armstead. The other 3, in aggregate, below average. Add it up, seems like we should be pretty average. Average is what it looks like when other teams don't just give us the run. I know there are nerd stats that suggest much better than average, but nerd stats are imperfect, and as I said, the job of this OL is pretty easy. Point being, after all the back and forth on the OL, maybe the answer is they are just average.
Side point, GM me would still have less in the way of draft capital and cap space tied up in the WR position, and more of it in the OL (and off the ball LBs). Look how Detroit looks with their dominant OL, a QB similar to Tua in many respects, and with only one highly paid WR.
Which brings me to the Green Bay game. We should be able to beat the Patriots, at home. They stink, and also have a rookie QB. Granted, we cannot look past the Pats, it is still the NFL, and if we do we will lose.
Assuming we beat the Pats, Green Bay is going to be a really interesting litmus test for all of this. They are the first good team we will have played for awhile. They are the first good team we will play that will have a few weeks of film on our new look offense (Buffalo had almost none). The game is on the road. The weather has a chance of being less than friendly. The game will really matter. How is it all going to look?
Our new look offense? The offensive line? All of it. Can we run the ball down Green Bay's throat if they don't just give it to us? That is a real test for the OL. If they make adjustments and take away the shorter stuff, are we able to be multiple and take more shots downfield? I think it is going to be really interesting how it looks against better teams, and Green Bay will be our first test.
If we can go into Green Bay, and the offense looks good, and we can win that game, you can start to feel a lot better about things (and also further lament the fact that screwing up the backup QB thing so badly really cost us).
Last edited:
