Our offensive ranks under Fielder

[fin-atic]

It's nice to see that this sort of behavior is tolerated here.

I'm not sure what made anyone think that there were people confused about what QBs are on the roster at present, but I think we're all clear about it. The whole point here is to consider the *current* QB play by reflecting back on the prior QB play.

Relax Dude. I am just having fun with you.

But seriously, looking back is so pointless. I do not think anyone here thinks Gus is the answer, and many here knew Jay was not the answer. We are still lacking the impact QB we need.

 

[dlockz]

Might want to watch some games champ. Gus has been good the last few weeks, and if you think Gus is on his way out of Miami, you could be sorely mistaking. If we draft a QB we will need a veteran to run the offense, and with the rythem Gus is in, I wouldn't be suprised to see him back.

He was good today and at San diego. Bad at New York, Buffalo and barely average versus Tennessee . So thanks to you too Champ.

 

[dlockz]

Wow, maybe the most useles stat I've seen this week. Here's an idea, compare our offense the 2nd half of the season. I"m not a huge Gus fan, but he's played better than Jay ever did (except the one great game Jay had every year). Jay sucked, get over it. Our problem today: we are a terrible red zone offense. been like that ll year. Part of that is Gus, part of it is linehan, part offensive line.

Loo at Gus's stats over our win streak he has had two good games, knocked out of two games that he was bad in , played okay at best versus tennesee and beat up New England's backups today. I'm not saying Gus might not be better than Jay I'm saying that our offense is not much better statisically than what it was under a conservative offense with Jay Fielder. Upgrade the team that's all I'm saying and don't go into next year starting a qb ranked in the bottom quartile.

 

[Metal Panda]

You may have hated him because you wanted a prettier looking offense, but you cannot argue with the results he got out of the likes of Fiedler, Lamar Smith, and Gadsden. People are falsely wowed by Norv because he behaved himself early in 2002, but he showed his true colors by the end of that season and in 2003. There is a good reason why Chan's offense went to the playoffs twice and Norv's stayed home twice.

No, Chan’s “offenses†did not go to the playoffs, the Miami Dolphins went to the playoffs. The 2000 Miami Dolphins had an anemic offense (and no, I can’t really fault Chan for that, as he inherited Jay Fiedler and Lamar Smith and practically no receivers) and could barely move the ball, which is why the Raiders steamrolled them, and the 2001 Miami Dolphins, even with upgrades at receivers, had a vanilla offense. Chan may have worked wonders in Dallas, but I’ll tell you thisâ€â€his schemes in Miami were generic and predictable. Yes, he didn’t have the personnel he had in Dallas, but I still think he could have done a better job. Do not forget Miami got shut out twice in 2001. That’s not something an offensive coordinator likes on their resume.

 

[Jimmy James]

No, Chan’s “offenses†did not go to the playoffs, the Miami Dolphins went to the playoffs.

I know we're all aware that Chan Gailey was the OC the last time this team went to the playoffs. This is the case even though the supposedly superior Norv Turner had much better talent (a seasoned Chambers, Randy McMichael, and Ricky Williams). I don't care that you dislike admitting this fact -- it is true.

The 2000 Miami Dolphins had an anemic offense (and no, I can’t really fault Chan for that, as he inherited Jay Fiedler and Lamar Smith and practically no receivers) and could barely move the ball, which is why the Raiders steamrolled them, and the 2001 Miami Dolphins, even with upgrades at receivers, had a vanilla offense.

What you call vanilla, I call successful. Vanilla was what Jay could run, and it is better to coach to the level of the players than cry about the lack of talent at QB and piss away good talent like Norv did.

 

[Metal Panda]

I know we're all aware that Chan Gailey was the OC the last time this team went to the playoffs. This is the case even though the supposedly superior Norv Turner had much better talent (a seasoned Chambers, Randy McMichael, and Ricky Williams). I don't care that you dislike admitting this fact -- it is true.

Restating the same catch phrase over and over won't make it true, try as you might. His "offense" went to the playoffs thanks to Jim Bates' defense. The offense should have bought the defense steaks.

Norv's Miami Dolphins scored 378 points in 2002, which, in case you've forgotten, is the highest total they've put up since 1995. Jay looked more comfortable in Norv's offense and made more plays. Norv's schemes were creative and allowed Ricky to run. Norv believed in utilizing a wide variety of passing targets (including making better use of the fullbacks in that area), spreading the ball around beautifully.

With Jay as a starter, Miami averaged 347 yards per game and 27.1 points per game, and only scored under 20 points once in 2002 in games he started. Compare that to 320 yards per game under Lucas, and 17.8 points per game in games he started. And I can back it up with what I saw--the offense looked more insecure and had trouble sustaining drives under the panicked Lucas.

Your problem is that you are stating the facts in such a way that they appear to insinuate causality (aka, Miami's offensive "woes" in 2002 led to their demise). Let us not fool ourselves--Miami's 2000 team only went to the playoffs due to solid defense. The team was suffocating and only gave up 226 points on the year. In 2002, the team was solid on defense--at home only. How can you win games when your team gives up 25 points per game on the road?

Other points you've conveniently left out:

Miami's defense gave up a score on every drive of the second half of the Minnesota Vikings game. While Miami's offense was bad in that game, how can you solely blame them?

Miami's defense surrendered an 11 point lead with less than a handful of minutes left in the game against New England. The offense did have one bad series that could have put away the game, but how can you harp on that and give the defense a free pass?

Miami's defense gave up 369.6 yards per game and 26.6 points per game on the road. Somehow you're giving them a free pass. Did the defenses that played when Chan Gailey was offensive coordinator have a span of play that was that poor? No.

Miami's offense was more successful in scoring and moving the ball under Norv Turner, except for the games in which Ray Lucas played (and notoriously, that was because Norv admitted to the public he had to "dumb down" the offense for him.)

What you call vanilla, I call successful. Vanilla was what Jay could run, and it is better to coach to the level of the players than cry about the lack of talent at QB and piss away good talent like Norv did.

I really don't know what you're talking about. Norv brought up the play of his offense in 2002. In 2003 it struggled, I'll admit, but not 2002, and a lot of it was Jay Fiedler's regression combined with poor offensive line play. You cannot blame the offense solely for missing the playoffs in 2002 since the defense had just as much to do with it.

 

[Jimmy James]

Restating the same catch phrase over and over won't make it true, try as you might. His "offense" went to the playoffs thanks to Jim Bates' defense. The offense should have bought the defense steaks.

You mean the same Bates defense that sat at home in 2002 and 2003?

Your problem is that you are stating the facts in such a way that they appear to insinuate causality (aka, Miami's offensive "woes" in 2002 led to their demise).

My argument is that Norv's shoddy playcalling led to the team's demise, and I think you simply have to check out the week 17 game against the Patriots to see that for yourself. Give Chan's "vanilla" offense the playmakers Norv had in 2002, and Chan sees to it that Miami makes the playoffs.

Let us not fool ourselves--Miami's 2000 team only went to the playoffs due to solid defense. The team was suffocating and only gave up 226 points on the year. In 2002, the team was solid on defense--at home only. How can you win games when your team gives up 25 points per game on the road?

We're talking about the #3 defense in the league in 2002 by yardage and the #4 defense in the league in points. You're also neglecting that Miami's defense was the worst of the 4 years in question in 2001 when Chan's "vanilla" offense went to the postseason. Nice try.

 

[Noland]

You bring up good points but our rankings are low because our offense wasn't consistant I am not saying Fiedler was consistant but he usually always put up like 130 to 200 yards and then our RB would be good for 75-125. Then we would have the games were Fiedler did amazing(Thanksgiving game) and we would have games were Ricky Williams ran over 200 yards.

The reason why we are not ranked better on offense is because we threw the ball to much at the beginning of season we never did that with Feidler. We scored well at the end of the season because Ricky got to rush the ball 20 or more times in a game we finally has balance that is why we were winning with Ricky running more Frerotte and Sage were more accurate.

 

[Metal Panda]

You mean the same Bates defense that sat at home in 2002 and 2003?

What a silly non-sequitur. 2000's defense was the one I was trumping, and you can't make any arguments against them. They were shutdown. 2001's defense was good but struggled against the run after Daryl Gardener's injury, but offensively also got shut out twice.

My argument is that Norv's shoddy playcalling led to the team's demise, and I think you simply have to check out the week 17 game against the Patriots to see that for yourself. Give Chan's "vanilla" offense the playmakers Norv had in 2002, and Chan sees to it that Miami makes the playoffs.

The week 17 game that Miami dominated for 3 1/2 quarters and that the defense and special teams gave away at the end? How do you give the defense and special teams a free pass and put it square on the offense? I am in disbelief.

We're talking about the #3 defense in the league in 2002 by yardage and the #4 defense in the league in points. You're also neglecting that Miami's defense was the worst of the 4 years in question in 2001 when Chan's "vanilla" offense went to the postseason. Nice try.

Did you not even read a word I typed? That comes across as disrespectful, since you did not bother responding to any of the claims I made against 2002's defense. I have already brought up, and broken down the misleading 2002 defensive statistics, which you apparently didn't read. #3 defense in the league by yardage and #4 by points, thanks to their play at HOME, where they went 7-1....and yet they surrendered 369.6 yards per game on the road, and 26.6 points per game where they went 2-6. Did you miss that the first time around? I can tell you only read part of my post.

Further proof that stats do not tell the whole story in their "raw form". Miami's defense ranked #3 in total yardage due to the fact that at home, they never gave up a 300 yard game and averaged giving up only 215 yards a game. Compare that to their road numbers.

Miami's defense "rank" wise in 2001 was the weakest, but it was more consistent than 2002's, which played terribly on the road.

 

[Jimmy James]

What a silly non-sequitur. 2000's defense was the one I was trumping, and you can't make any arguments against them. They were shutdown. 2001's defense was good but struggled against the run after Daryl Gardener's injury, but offensively also got shut out twice.

It's not a non-sequitur at all. Let me lay it out for you nice and slow.

B-A-T-E-S + G-A-I-L-E-Y = P-L-A-Y-O-F-F-S

B-A-T-E-S + T-U-R-N-E-R = N-O P-L-A-Y-O-F-F-S

Deny that.

The week 17 game that Miami dominated for 3 1/2 quarters and that the defense and special teams gave away at the end? How do you give the defense and special teams a free pass and put it square on the offense? I am in disbelief.

If you put ANY of the 31 other OCs in Norv's shoes at the most critical time in that game, Miami walks away with a win. How can you defend a man who clearly lost his mind at go time and left our boys at home?

Did you not even read a word I typed? That is insulting.

I read every bit of what you typed. I choose what I argue.

I have already brought up, and broken down the misleading 2002 defensive statistics, which you apparently didn't read. #3 defense in the league by yardage and #4 by points, thanks to their play at HOME, where they went 7-1....and yet they surrendered 369.6 yards per game on the road, and 26.6 points per game where they went 2-6.

Weren't you the one who told me that repeating the same stuff over and over would do nothing to advance the argument? You seem to believe that there is something magical about home vs. road, but I don't buy it at all. What I see here is that Norv acted like a first rate assclown on the road. He rushed Ricky all of 14 times against KC, 20 times against Denver, 14 times against the Packers, 20 times against the Jets at their house, and 15 times against the Vikings. There was no excuse for ever failing to give Ricky the ball 25 times that year, particularly when it wasn't a blowout. Norv abandoned the run like a moron, and he hung the Bates D out to dry as a result.

 

[Metal Panda]

It's not a non-sequitur at all. Let me lay it out for you nice and slow.

B-A-T-E-S + G-A-I-L-E-Y = P-L-A-Y-O-F-F-S

B-A-T-E-S + T-U-R-N-E-R = N-O P-L-A-Y-O-F-F-S

Deny that.

Apparently you've failed logic school. Let me use an example modeled after your own.

Baltimore Ravens+Trent Dilfer=Super Bowl
Baltimore Ravens-Trent Dilfer=No Super Bowl

Obviously Trent Dilfer is the reason the Ravens won the Super Bowl, right?

The point is, you make statements like this which sound good when not properly analyzed but completely ignore other underlying causes of the said result and imply incorrectly that the two items paired together were the precise reason that it happened. You are doing the same thing as a statistician finding a statistical correlation between two types of data and drawing a conclusion and determining causality without doing an experiment first.

I read every bit of what you typed. I choose what I argue.

And offered no refutation. Great!

Weren't you the one who told me that repeating the same stuff over and over would do nothing to advance the argument? You seem to believe that there is something magical about home vs. road, but I don't buy it at all. What I see here is that Norv acted like a first rate assclown on the road. He rushed Ricky all of 14 times against KC, 20 times against Denver, 14 times against the Packers, 20 times against the Jets at their house, and 15 times against the Vikings. There was no excuse for ever failing to give Ricky the ball 25 times that year, particularly when it wasn't a blowout. Norv abandoned the run like a moron, and he hung the Bates D out to dry as a result.

So, in your opinion, 369.6 yards per game, and 26.6 yards per game surrendered on the road was the fault of the offense? You might be the only person I've ever met that considers a 154 yard per game difference in yardage and a 14 point per game difference in points "insignificant".

You haven't given me one good explanation for that. I'm done arguing with you. All you have done is danced around or avoided points I've made.

One final refutation for you--Ricky ran only 14 times against Kansas City because the team played from behind the entire game, 20 times against Denver as he was unable to find room to run....and Ricky ran 383 times the entire season, which is a LOT of carries. I fail to see your point.

 

[Jimmy James]

Apparently you've failed logic school. Let me use an example modeled after your own.

You're not going to get away with switching to personal attack mode as a distraction for avoiding the point. We'll explore that a bit farther below:

Baltimore Ravens+Trent Dilfer=Super Bowl
Baltimore Ravens-Trent Dilfer=No Super Bowl

Obviously Trent Dilfer is the reason the Ravens won the Super Bowl, right?

I wouldn't be laughing if I were you. Do you really think the Ravens would have even come close with Tony Banks under center? :shakeno: Dilfer was an important part of that success, just as Chan Gailey was an important part of the success of the Dolphins in 2000-2001.

That point kind of backfired on you, huh?

You still haven't acknowledged that unlike Norv Turner and his fancy offense (0-2 in the playoffs at Miami), Chan was a key part of Miami making their last two playoff runs. I don't know what is so damned hurtful about that to you, but it is the fact.

The point is, you make statements like this which sound good when not properly analyzed but completely ignore other underlying causes of the said result and imply incorrectly that the two items paired together were the precise reason that it happened. You are doing the same thing as a statistician finding a statistical correlation between two types of data and drawing a conclusion and determining causality without doing an experiment first.

You find me a lab with Norv, Chan, and clones of every one of the players involved in the 2000-2003 NFL seasons at precisely that point in their careers, and I'll do whatever experiments you like. Until that happens, I'm stuck with what information we have. It's that Chan properly used inferior talent and got the Dolphins to the playoffs two out of two years while Norv improperly used superior talent, getting the Dolphins a prime seat on their respective living room couches to watch the playoff action.

And offered no refutation. Great!

My points are so obvious, there is no reason to delve into the things I didn't delve into. Why should I waste time that way?

So, in your opinion, 369.6 yards per game, and 26.6 yards per game surrendered on the road was the fault of the offense?

26.6 yards per game sounds pretty good to me.

Yes, I do think that the offense hung the defense out to dry quite a bit in those games.

You might be the only person I've ever met that considers a 154 yard per game difference in yardage and a 14 point per game difference in points "insignificant".

What I think is damned funny is that you're committing precisely the same fallacious reasoning that you accused me of committing above.

I'm done arguing with you.

Good choice. Come back when you're better prepared.

One final refutation for you--Ricky ran only 14 times against Kansas City because the team played from behind the entire game,

You don't think that has a lot to do with Norv's decision to let KC get him off of his game plan? Had Norv rushed Ricky properly in that game, Miami may have still lost. The defense wouldn't have been abused like it was, though.

20 times against Denver as he was unable to find room to run....

Ricky is a wrecking ball. You can't abandon the run just because it doesn't work the first 15 times.

and Ricky ran 383 times the entire season, which is a LOT of carries. I fail to see your point.

What's sad here is that it is right in front of your face. He ran 83 times in the 5 outrageous road games. He ran 300 times in the other 11 games. That's a pretty damned big difference, isn't it? Yeah, that's what I thought.