Someone please explain this to me

[LDaniel7]

Controlling the clock only works against a great offense and QB IF...

1. Your defense plays shut-down D on third downs and red zone.
2. You score TDs when you're in the redzone.
3. You don't settle for field goals unless the down and distance is very prohibitive. In other words, 4th and 2 on their side of the field you're going for it.

A team has to have a scoring mentality when playing against a high scoring team.

A team that cheers for field goals is D.O.N.E. against a great team.

LD
p.s. a pic that applies: Miami can't be happy w. field goals against high-octane teams.

 

[BlueFin]

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.

See the 70's Dolphins.... ball control....if we run and score...we win.

If Rogers can score every time...we can't beat him anyway.

But...I'll take my chances on giving him less chances...more time off the field to not get in rhythm.

 

[DuderinoN703]

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.

See the thing about that game vs. Manning is, the defense was supposed to actually stop him every now and again. Not allow a 1st play 80-yd TD pass to Dallas Clark like the bitches they were. The strategy behind clock management is fine assuming your defense has balls and can actually do what they're supposed to do.

That wasn't the case vs. Indy.

 

[slk018]

TOP is very overrated IMO-
Score TDs in the red zone, hold them to FG in red zone as much as possible.
Don't have special teams gaffes, and don't turn the ball over.

 

[hoops]

i remember years ago in a prime time game we played the colts and peyton manning...we possessed the ball for like 45 minutes the colts got like 4 total possessions scored tds on all 4 and we lost by like 4 points cause we played for a fg in the clutch...

ahhh the memories...couldn't stop peyton if our lives depended on it yet we played it safe on offense...good times

 

[Daytona Fin]

i remember years ago in a prime time game we played the colts and peyton manning...we possessed the ball for like 45 minutes the colts got like 4 total possessions scored tds on all 4 and we lost by like 4 points cause we played for a fg in the clutch...

ahhh the memories...couldn't stop peyton if our lives depended on it yet we played it safe on offense...good times

Yep that's the game that first popped into my head when I read this thread.

 

[where's th'fish]

It's just one of those moronic cliches. You can have the ball 40 minutes and the other team only 20. They'll still have one possession for each one of yours. Bills-Giants Super Bowl anyone?

The real point of running the ball is creating good down-and-distance situations for your offense. If you run well, your offense is more likely to succeed. A successful offense that runs well will have more time of possession than a offense that is unsuccessful, but it's confusing the cause with the effect. Simply having the ball longer doesn't do anything for you.

It's like those stats where team X almost always wins the game when player X carries 30 times. Really? No relation to player X getting a bunch of carries when protecting a lead, then?

 

[where's th'fish]

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.

Now let's look at it this way: you can keep your best unit against their worst unit for 1 minute per drive or for 10 minutes per drive. You can still only score 7 points per drive either way. You win by stopping the other team more than they stop you, not by having to the ball longer.

 

[roy_miami]

Against Indy had we just kept running the wildcat we would have eaten up the rest of the clock and/or scored a TD. They had no answer for the wildcat on that day. Why we went away from it at the most crucial time you'll have to ask Henning/Sparano.

As far as running the clock in an attempt to shorten the game think of these extremes: If both offenses have 100 possessions Rodgers is going to win every time in that scenario. But if both offenses have only one possession anything can happen. Shortening the game increases variance which is what you want to do when you are clearly outclassed at the most important position. Don't take this as a knock on Tannehill, Rodgers is arguably the best QB in the game right now.

 

[where's th'fish]

Against Indy had we just kept running the wildcat we would have eaten up the rest of the clock and/or scored a TD. They had no answer for the wildcat on that day. Why we went away from it at the most crucial time you'll have to ask Henning/Sparano.

As far as running the clock in an attempt to shorten the game think of these extremes: If both offenses have 100 possessions Rodgers is going to win every time in that scenario. But if both offenses have only one possession anything can happen. Shortening the game increases variance which is what you want to do when you are clearly outclassed at the most important position. Don't take this as a knock on Tannehill, Rodgers is arguably the best QB in the game right now.

This is true and an elegant explanation at that, but the main error in this whole idea is that a ball-control offense doesn't really exist, it is nothing but misnomer for a very good run offense. This is because only a very good run offense runs a lot of clock. A bad run offense doesn't run a lot of clock as it goes three-and-out. Only a very good one can get one first down after another. But if you already have a very good run offense, you don't really need to increase variance, because you are very good.

 

[Sarnics13]

It's this simple.....If he scores EVERY time he is on the field, then the objective is to let him on the field as little as possible. You do so by creating long drives that eat up the clock. Obviously we have to score on those drives, but if we don't eat up the clock the chances of keeping up with him are slim bc instead of him getting 5 chances to score, now he has 9. Also in doing so you are beating their D down and wearing them out for the end of the game creating better opportunities for our O if it's needed.

HOWEVER.....our offense has to score too or it doesn't matter how few attempts he gets. 1 point wins a game.

 

[BlueFin]

i remember years ago in a prime time game we played the colts and peyton manning...we possessed the ball for like 45 minutes the colts got like 4 total possessions scored tds on all 4 and we lost by like 4 points cause we played for a fg in the clutch...

ahhh the memories...couldn't stop peyton if our lives depended on it yet we played it safe on offense...good times

Yes.....then you have our last playoff win...where we ran Lamar Smith 40 something times for 200 plus and beat Peyton....I was there.

 

[hoops]

Yes.....then you have our last playoff win...where we ran Lamar Smith 40 something times for 200 plus and beat Peyton....I was there.

yeah i remember smith carrying around people on his shoulders that day...and then promptly the next week he had no gas in the tank and we got smoked...

 

[AquaInferno]

Some people get it otheres aren't. This team has to control the clock to win and the defense has to make a few key stops. If the clock is controlled yet GB had a 0 punt game Dolphins lose plain and simple. The clock control game is very beneficial when your defense plays right the opposing defense gets tired and running it down their throat is a bit demoralizing. Plus if they are down 10 and the running continues then the pressure is on the QB. Don't forgrt how special Peyton Manning is especially during his Indy days.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[KTOWNFINFAN]

Now let's look at it this way: you can keep your best unit against their worst unit for 1 minute per drive or for 10 minutes per drive. You can still only score 7 points per drive either way. You win by stopping the other team more than they stop you, not by having to the ball longer.

There is no plan in the world that works every time. But you have to play the percentages. Yes one time long long ago in a galaxy far far away the dolphins lost a game where we had a huge lead in TOP. But there was also about a bizillion games where Czonka and Kick ran the ball down everyone's throat, won the TOP and won an amazingly high percentage of games. You can always find exceptions but as a rule you want your best vs their worst for as long as possible.

See the part you are not taking into affect is that the longer our D is on the sideline resting the better chance they have at stopping Rodgers when they do have to go out, and the longer the packer D is on the field the less chance they have at stopping our offense. CAN they still score, of course, but you have to play the percentages. Some of the stances some of you are taking is like saying "well we won the pats game while losing the turnover battle", so lets go out there and see how many times we can fumble the ball.

I predict that if we lose the TOP we lose the game, and the bigger we win the TOP the better our chance of winning THIS game. I am certainly not saying it is the only important stat, or even one of MOST important stats, but it is something that would help us. If I had my choice I would much rather win the turnovers, 3rd down conversion rate, or redzone %, but TOP in this game is certainly going to be one to add to that list.