Someone please explain this to me | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Someone please explain this to me

xSxPxHx

xSxPxHx

Manager
Club Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
2,859
Reaction score
2,477
Location
Los Angeles
Ill use the game against the packers as the example. When someone says lets run the ball to keep Rodgers off the field, am I right to think that the reason to do this is to limit Rodgers chances to score right? However, lets say we controlled the clock for most of the game. But Rodgers scores every time he was on the field, so how would us controlling the clock help beat the Packers if Rodgers were to score every single time he was on the field. Perfect example was that Monday night game against Manning and the Colts. We have Ronnie and Ricky running and we controlled the clock 80% of the game. But everytime Manning came on the field, he scored TD's on every drive. So the question again comes back, what do you mean when you say we need to control the clock and keep Rodgers off the field? That won't work if he scores everytime he is ON THE FIELD. Hope I explain it right and you guys get where I'm going with this.
 
I remember that game well. The real objective is to try and stop Rogers every time he has the ball. By limiting the possessions you give him less chances to try and beat you.
Does not work if like on the game you mentioned the QB wins every time he has a chance. Peyton was on fire that day. Let's just hope Roger's is not.
 
You're right on track with what people mean in that respect. You're also correct in saying it really won't matter if we allow Rodgers to score a TD on every drive, like that of the MNF vs the Colts where they possessed the ball for less than 15 minutes and still managed to score 27 points. The thinking behind such a saying is in hopes that we'll simply limit the Packers amount of possessions by controlling the clock and relying on the defense to force some stops, all the while obviously scoring points in the process on offense for ourselves, as well.
 
xSxPxHx said:
Ill use the game against the packers as the example. When someone says lets run the ball to keep Rodgers off the field, am I right to think that the reason to do this is to limit Rodgers chances to score right? However, lets say we controlled the clock for most of the game. But Rodgers scores every time he was on the field, so how would us controlling the clock help beat the Packers if Rodgers were to score every single time he was on the field. Perfect example was that Monday night game against Manning and the Colts. We have Ronnie and Ricky running and we controlled the clock 80% of the game. But everytime Manning came on the field, he scored TD's on every drive. So the question again comes back, what do you mean when you say we need to control the clock and keep Rodgers off the field? That won't work if he scores everytime he is ON THE FIELD. Hope I explain it right and you guys get where I'm going with this.
Click to expand...

It matters because time is still the enemy of any team that is behind. The less time you have the more limited your offense is. Of course though if every three plays you let a team score it wont matter.
 
Control the clock is a over hyped stat. If we can't score TDs and we have 55 minute of TOP it won't matter. Score points and play every snap hard. If we can put up TDs then make GB have to pass is playing to our strength. DL pressure. Make them have to score. We are way better than the vikes and bears.
 
Long drives that get you 7 will go a long way than when we kicked FGs and had a unreal amount of TOP. We need to keep GB from scoring and not play to lose.
 
I like the idea of running the ball and trying to control the clock.
Getting in a shoot out with Rogers is not in our best interest.
 
We're not beating Rodgers in a shootout.

Trying to run the clock out is the only (slim) shot we have.
 
controlling the clock means your offense is on the field longer. means the other team's offense is not on the field. minimizing their chances of scoring. That is always a good thing. Of course holding onto the ball for the majority of the game and not scoring, doesn't help. that Monday night game is the exception to the rule. I would bet you can't find very many more games where a team has the ball for 45 minutes, and still lose. Only the fins :lol:
 
Gun-slinging is not the way we will win I agree. We have to pound that ball and keep the clock running, but we have to score TDs to help that plan.
AR can kill you if you get into that gun fight. If RT was able to out duel AR I will be happy but I don't see RT beating AR in that regard. We have a strength to their weekness, we have to use this. Punch them in the face .
 
Lets look at it another way. G.Bay's run defense is 32nd and our run offense is top 5. If we can keep the mismatch that favors our team the best, on the field the longest, the better chance we will have to win. Think of it as a relay race where we have three runners; offense, defense and special teams, vs their relay team. The longer we can keep our fastest runner on the field vs their slowest runner the better chance we have of winning. The same goes for football, the longer we can keep the mismatch advantage in our favor the better chance we have at winning.

Another part of the theory comes from getting into a rhythm. If Rodgers is on the field a lot, the better chance he has to get things going his way, or get into his grove. The longer we stay on the field the less time he has to get a feel for what is working. But like many have already said it is going to come down to scoring TDs instead of FGs in the redzone, and who makes the fewest turnovers.

Green Bay really doesn't scare me. They looked good the other night but this game is about which dolphin team shows up, not about GB. If we get the running game cranked up and cut out the turnovers I think we have a very good shot at winning this game by more than one score.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
if your opponent scores a TD on every possession, it doesn't matter what strategy you use.
if you can limit their opportunities it improves your odds but you still have to stop them
 
We match up well against GB. Like KTOWN said in his first sentence, we really need Moreno and Miller to show up, break tackles, and continue drives.
Another positive to keeping Rodgers off the fireld is that our defense is off the field as well.
 
not just running, but balancing the attack will be key. If we run too much, they may just start stacking the box, enough bodies in tight space to make up for their poor run D. at that point Lazor and Tannehill have to be ready to use some other options like wallace's speed or Clay's versatility. Let the box empty out again and pound the rock once more with a nice rotation of 3 RB's.
Gas their defense enough and all of a sudden it becomes a shootout Tannehill's capable of winning.
 
whizafriz said:
not just running, but balancing the attack will be key. If we run too much, they may just start stacking the box, enough bodies in tight space to make up for their poor run D. at that point Lazor and Tannehill have to be ready to use some other options like wallace's speed or Clay's versatility. Let the box empty out again and pound the rock once more with a nice rotation of 3 RB's.
Gas their defense enough and all of a sudden it becomes a shootout Tannehill's capable of winning.
Click to expand...

The beauty of Lazor's offense is that opposing defenses can't stack the box against us like they can vs traditional offenses. Our formations force defenders outside the numbers. It's one of the reasons we've currently been so successful in the run game despite who lines up in the backfield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom