Saban is building a dynasty

[endorphin]

what the dolphins need to do is get rid of saban. the man cannot coach a pro team and it shows.

they need to go out and hire Shulas son.

:sidelol:

Which of your 2 remaining brain cells did it take to post this?

 

[ChambersWI]

reading this thread, I realize that a lot of people are looking too much at the short term than the long term.

Saban has inherited a lot of aging players, and a lot of players that don't fit his system. He has gotten a lot of quick fixes, but it's going to take more than 2 years to clean up a 5 year mess.

I'm not going to say we're building a dynasty, but I do believe our team is better than our record. I put part of the blame from that on offensive playcalling, ST (Mare), and secondary play (ie, playing Tillman and Lehan over Bell and Allen).

I think some fans need to be patient. I also think some people are setting unrealistic goals for Saban. I fully expect Saban to make us contenders, and hopefully, win a Super Bowl before he's done as our coach.

But I don't expect him to win 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. Though those Pats teams had a lot of good players they got from the draft with some good vets sprinkled in. Why do I bring the draft picks up? BB built 2 of his 3 SB teams through the draft (along with having a lot of good players the Pats had drafted in the past). Yeah they added guys like Dillon,Washington,Vrabel,Traylor,and Harrison, but a lot of their talent was homegrown; and unlike our team, a lot of BB's guys were still in their prime on defense.

The Pats had the right formula, Crennel is following that formula in Cleveland, Saban has tried to here (though he's not had many draft picks. 5 first day picks in 2 years is not the same as what Crennel has had). So atleast give Saban a chance to build his team. Not a team with a bunch of Wanny/JJ leftovers, not a team filled with a bunch of quick fix FA signings by Saban, but guys he drafted. Ronnie and Crowder have gotten better each week, Daniels is starting to look healthy, and Roth is starting to make plays (not sacks, but he's making stops in the run game). Hagan has looked good when he's played, and J. Allen has had a couple solid outings as a nickle/dimeback.

So just to reiterate my main point. BE PATIENT, especially since the offensive and defensive systems are changing dramatically (though I would worry abit with Mularkey and the offense).

 

[adamprez2003]

The 1 small difference( ) is you don't have a Tom Brady and Brady was the biggest reason for the NE dynasty.

Nah, Vinatieri and now he's gone:sidelol: :sidelol: :sidelol:

 

[Finole]

What a crock. Saban will NEVER equal or come close to Belichick's success.

Brilliant observation and insight.

 

[Finole]

do you know how much the previous year's record contributes to a team's strength of schedule?

There are 16 games.
6 of those games are against your division rivals. Doesnt matter what their record was, you gotta play them.
4 games are played against the teams from another division within your conference. Doesnt matter what their record was, you gotta play them. Each year you play a different division.
4 games are played against the teams from a division within the opposing conference... doesnt matter what their record was, you gotta play them.
Again, each year you play a different division.
Thats 14 games.
the last 2 games are played against teams from the other 2 divisions within your own conference(besides your own division and the division you are already scheduled to play)
This is where finishing record comes into play, but even here its not necessarily fair.
You have to play 1 team from each of these divisions, so if every team in one of these divisions is bad, then you play a bad team... even if you are the SB champion. Conversely, if every team in one of those divisions finished 8-8 or better, then you have to play a winning team even if your team is coming off a 1-15 season.


How a team finishes has almost no bearing whatsoever on how strong or weak their schedule is the following year

you are correct BUT in '01 the old scheduling format was in place where 4 games were determined by previous year's finish. In '01 the AFC east played the NFC West so NE had 8 games against the AFC East, 4 games against the NFC West and the last 4 were determined by their finish in '01. NE played Cincy(4-12), Cleveland(3-13), SD(1-15) and Denver(11-5). In '01 Cincy was 6-10, Cle was 7-9, SD was 5-11 and den was 8-8 so none of thoe teams turned out to be as bad as the year before. Buf in 4th place played Pitt(13-3), jax(6-10), SD(5-11) and Seattle(9-7) so NE's sched was slightly easier than Buf's.

You got shown up by a Jets fan, yankeehillbilly. That's gotta hurt.

As I said, the Pats benefitted from a weak schedule due to their previous year's record.

The Patsies played...
San Diego 5-11
at Cincinnati 6-10
Cleveland 7-9
New Orleans 7-9

They actually lost to Cincy, but they beat SD, Cleveland, and N.O.

Compare that to the Fins...
at San Francisco 12-4
Oakland 10-6
at Seattle 9-7
at Tennessee 7-9

Miami lost to SF but beat Oakland, Seattle, and Tennessee.

Think 4 games doesn't make a difference? It's the difference between 7-9 and 11-5.

Both the Fins and the Pats finished 11-5 but NE won the division. What if the Patsies had to play SF in the regular season? They might have gone 10-6 instead of 11-5. Then they would have played Baltimore in the Wild Card instead of us. 2001 could have turned out way different for both teams.

 

[nyjunc]

You got shown up by a Jets fan, yankeehillbilly. That's gotta hurt.

As I said, the Pats benefitted from a weak schedule due to their previous year's record.

The Patsies played...
San Diego 5-11
at Cincinnati 6-10
Cleveland 7-9
New Orleans 7-9

They actually lost to Cincy, but they beat SD, Cleveland, and N.O.

Compare that to the Fins...
at San Francisco 12-4
Oakland 10-6
at Seattle 9-7
at Tennessee 7-9

Miami lost to SF but beat Oakland, Seattle, and Tennessee.

Think 4 games doesn't make a difference? It's the difference between 7-9 and 11-5.

Both the Fins and the Pats finished 11-5 but NE won the division. What if the Patsies had to play SF in the regular season? They might have gone 10-6 instead of 11-5. Then they would have played Baltimore in the Wild Card instead of us. 2001 could have turned out way different for both teams.

I didn't show up YankeeHillbilly, it's easy to forget the format was changed after '01.

Apparently you do not read as you continue to say the reason they had an easier sched(still not an easy sched when you consider the AFC east had 2 more playoff teams) was b/c of their '00 finish but the teams they played in '01 based on '00s sched were Cincy, Cleveland, SD and Denver and not one of those teams was terrible and they were all alot better than the year before. Cincy went from 4 wins to 6, Cle went from 3 to 7 and SD went from 1 to 5. Schedule had little to do w/ NE's success that year, if it did they never would have been able to win in the playoffs.

 

[nyjunc]

You got shown up by a Jets fan, yankeehillbilly. That's gotta hurt.

As I said, the Pats benefitted from a weak schedule due to their previous year's record.

The Patsies played...
San Diego 5-11
at Cincinnati 6-10
Cleveland 7-9
New Orleans 7-9

They actually lost to Cincy, but they beat SD, Cleveland, and N.O.

Compare that to the Fins...
at San Francisco 12-4
Oakland 10-6
at Seattle 9-7
at Tennessee 7-9

Miami lost to SF but beat Oakland, Seattle, and Tennessee.

Think 4 games doesn't make a difference? It's the difference between 7-9 and 11-5.

Both the Fins and the Pats finished 11-5 but NE won the division. What if the Patsies had to play SF in the regular season? They might have gone 10-6 instead of 11-5. Then they would have played Baltimore in the Wild Card instead of us. 2001 could have turned out way different for both teams.

The NO game had nothing to do w/ the pevious year;'s sched. They rotate divisions and when there were 5 teams in a division they played 4 of the 5 based on a rotational basis. 8 division games and the 4 NFC West games were not determined by the '00 record. The 4 games for Miami that were:

Oakland(12-4 in '00, 10-6 in '01)
Seattle(6-10 in '00, 9-7 in '01)
Denver(11-5 in '00, 8-8 in '01)
Tenneessee(13-3 in '00, 7-9 in '01)

Sure it was tougher(only by 8 games which isn't that much, your 4 opps averaged 8+ wins and the Pats averaged 6+) but you won the division in '00 and Miami made the playoffs as well in 2001, why couldn't they win a playoff game at home? NE beat Pitt at Pitt who thrashed Baltimore who thrashed Miami at Miami. Stop w/ these silly excuses why NE has been great and why Miami is the next dynasty. Worry about getting into the playoff race before thinking about dynasties.

 

[Trucanes99]

I personally think that Nick Saban is a good coach... atleast a good defensive coach..... so all those people trying to compare him to his dad, or cousin, or bill beli**** can go **** themselves... he's been here only 1 1/2 seasons and people have already expected him to have 4-5 superbowl titles... **** off!

 

[TampaFinsFan01]

Lets all hope he doesn't build a Dynasty in Miami like his dad did at Buffalo.

1972....4-9-1

1973....9-5

1974....9-5

1975....8-6

1976....2-3.....left or was fired....and went to the college ranks.


By the way.....thru these years....the Bills NEVER beat the Dolphins...nice job Shula and the 70's players.

Lou isn't Nick's dad. You just think they are father/son because they have this "mediocre thing" in common. Both are/were average coaches.

 

[TampaFinsFan01]

New England had to surrender their first round pick to the Jets in 2000 in order to hire Belichick, and they did trade a 2nd for Dillon. Their success has as much (if not more) to do with hitting on the Brady draft pick and finding useful, mid-level veteran free agents as it has with the rest of what they've drafted.

...all true, plus incredible game planning by their coach. The gameplanning is a key ingredient missing from the Fins. We weren't ready to play Buffalo or Houston or the Jets. BB would have had the Pats ready.

 

[TampaFinsFan01]

Good post. Don't listen to these pessimistic people, they are the exact opposite of what Saban's philosophy embodies. The future will be bright.

When? Why?

 

[cnc66]

When? Why?

ehh, don't worry, you'll still have plenty of time to hate on him some more...

 

[bill54]

Im thinking more like this.

I am currently reading Nick Saban's book, and I have to tell you, I am impressed. Belichick wrote the introduction. They're good friends.

And then I watched the Pats dismantle the Vikes this past Monday night, and I got to thinking... How the hell does Belichick do it?

Well, the Pats did go 5-11 Belichick's first year. BTW, Brady rode the bench that entire season. But then they won the Super Bowl his 2nd year. Why hasn't Saban enjoyed this kind of success?

The simple answer: luck.

Yep. The Pats benefitted from a weak schedule because of their 5-11 finish. 9 of their 11 victories came against teams with losing records. A win is a win to be sure. But it's a little easier to win when your opponents aren't very good. Their two other wins came against division rivals: the Jets and the Fins.

The best team they played that year was St. Louis. They lost. But Belichick got to study his future Super Bowl opponent up close. Brady threw one touchdown pass in 3 playoff games! They benefitted from the tuck rule, and Vinatieri made a 48-yarder to win the Super Bowl. This is not a team that dominated opponents.

The Pats were exposed in 2002. With a tougher schedule, they finished 9-7 and failed to make the playoffs.

So what I'm getting at is this: Belichick got lucky early on, but his dynasty wasn't completely built until 2003. It took him four years:

2000: 5-11 (rebuilding year)
2001: 11-5 (due to a weak schedule and good luck)
2002: 9-7 (exposed)
2003: 14-2

Here's my prediction for Nick Saban:

2005: 9-7 (due to a weak schedule and good luck)
2006: 5-11 (exposed)
2007: 11-5
2008: 14-2

2005: 9-7 (due to a weak schedule and good luck)
2006: 10-6 (overcame slow start won superbowl)
2007: 19-0 (undefeated first team to do it twice.)
2008: 19-0 (first team to go back to back undefeated) :dolphins:

 

[BigChief]

Just remember your predictions at this time next year when we are 2-7. Hope your right but I doubt it. I do not expect a superbowl ring just a respectable team which has only occurred the last two weeks. Before that we were a joke due to poor coaching.

 

[muscle979]

Just remember your predictions at this time next year when we are 2-7. Hope your right but I doubt it. I do not expect a superbowl ring just a respectable team which has only occurred the last two weeks. Before that we were a joke due to poor coaching.

All of you fire Saban guys are quick to call out poor coaching but I dont think I've seen any of you giving credit where it's due for the past two games. Maybe some of you have but a lot of you haven't. You want some kind of perfect coach who always gets personnel calls right and always calls the best game plan. It's ridiculous b/c you want somebody who doesn't exist. Even Bellichick has been getting outcoached the past couple of games. It can happen to anybody. Even the boy wonder Mangini's team has laid an egg this season, more than once. The heralded Romeo Crennell has only won 8 games so far compared to Saban's 12. The "great" Lovie Smith was outcoached by your own whipping boy Saban and Marvin Lewis has his team underachieving big time. We won't get into Bill Cowher and Pittsburgh. The standard some of you hold the coach too is unrealistic. Just b/c he doesn't react to things the way you think he should doesn't mean he's doing things wrong.

We were all angry about the losing but at least some of us look at things a little logically and realize that the coach is realizing mistakes and doing the best he can to fix them. He's done good things too believe it or not.