This game was closer then should be | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

This game was closer then should be

Dolfndav34

FinHeaven VIP
Joined
Apr 27, 2004
Messages
406
Reaction score
0
Location
Chesapeake, VA
If it wasnt for a couple of crazy turnovers, This game was a blowout ! If Griffith wouldnt have had that freakish fumble, they would of scored :fire:
Our defense was overmatched and our offense was typical with some :shakeno: playcalling. Im just thankful it was as close as it was, we should of lost by 3 TD's :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire:
 
shoulda woulda coulda


falcons still suck....we SHOULD have beat them...thats how i look at it...gus cost us the game
 
Dolfndav34 said:
If it wasnt for a couple of crazy turnovers, This game was a blowout ! If Griffith wouldnt have had that freakish fumble, they would of scored :fire:
Our defense was overmatched and our offense was typical with some :shakeno: playcalling. Im just thankful it was as close as it was, we should of lost by 3 TD's :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire:

Thank the defense for keeping Miami in this game.

Not that it matters, since Gus probably couldn't move the offense with no defense.
 
Thats right, we turned the ball over on them fair and sqaure! Our probowl punter did an excellent job! Channing Crowder laid a hit on the RB and he dropped the ball! Cus he got Hit hard! Its part of the game! I am sick of hearing how bad we were yesterday when the whole game rested on us converting 3rd downs in all seriousness! We had them figured out yet our great OC decided to run double reverses and end arounds and sideline passes.
 
Phin-o-rama said:
shoulda woulda coulda


falcons still suck....we SHOULD have beat them...thats how i look at it...gus cost us the game

seems like every time the fins lose, they SHOULD have won.

but then again, i feel the same way when my team doesnt get it done.
 
ch19079 said:
seems like every time the fins lose, they SHOULD have won.

but then again, i feel the same way when my team doesnt get it done.

Its funny, I watched that New England game last sunday night and Mcgahee dominated them all game, and then what? Hey, lets pass with Kelly Homcomb! Yeah thats it! Lets try to make a big play when your big play was stuffing it right up New Englands AZZ! But no! You gotta pull a Linehan and pass that damn ball!
 
Game should've been out of reach, but the bottom line is, it wasn't. It was within reach and a tie was iminent if we run the ball I think....or Gus throws it away! I think that is my biggest problem with Gus right now, is that is the first 2-3 games he would throw it away when he had nothing. Now, he tries to squeze it in, and he can't. Especially in the red zone were the field shrinks so much. Call a pass, fine, but you CAN'T turn it over. You just can't. You have to know that it is 3rd down, and we have another chance. If that was a 4th down play, I'm not as upset, but on third down.....no way he throws that ball.
 
Dolfndav34 said:
If it wasnt for a couple of crazy turnovers, This game was a blowout ! If Griffith wouldnt have had that freakish fumble, they would of scored :fire:
Our defense was overmatched and our offense was typical with some :shakeno: playcalling. Im just thankful it was as close as it was, we should of lost by 3 TD's :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire:

No I don't see it the way you do Mr. Negative man, I saw a game where we were winning the physical battle, our O-line got the job done on theirs, and our defense pretty much contained their running game, what you can't defense is a quarterback on fire.

Vick hit 71% of his throws, he came in hitting 52.4%.

The vaunted 85' Bears defense couldn't stop an onfire Dan Marino and we couldn't stop a Michael Vick hitting a much higher percentage of his passes than normal.

Despite that we still could have won the game if our Quarterback would have been more accurate.
 
BlueFin said:
No I don't see it the way you do Mr. Negative man, I saw a game where we were winning the physical battle, our O-line got the job done on theirs, and our defense pretty much contained their running game, what you can't defense is a quarterback on fire.

Vick hit 71% of his throws, he came in hitting 52.4%.

The vaunted 85' Bears defense couldn't stop an onfire Dan Marino and we couldn't stop a Michael Vick hitting a much higher percentage of his passes than normal.

Despite that we still could have won the game if our Quarterback would have been more accurate.
The Falcons beat us in every aspect of the game except turnovers. I'm not usually a big stats guy but when the is such a big deviation between the two teams, it has to mean something. They had almost double the yards we had and they dominated time of possession by more than 10 minutes. We had a little more than 100 yds passing. This isn't high school football. Teams don't usually win games where they only have 100 yds passing.
 
Dolfan4life! said:
The Falcons beat us in every aspect of the game except turnovers. I'm not usually a big stats guy but when the is such a big deviation between the two teams, it has to mean something. They had almost double the yards we had and they dominated time of possession by more than 10 minutes. We had a little more than 100 yds passing. This isn't high school football. Teams don't usually win games where they only have 100 yds passing.

Again, our runningbacks were having no real problem running on them. It was our QB who couldn't convert passing plays.

We were playing from behind all day and our OC chose to pass the ball more than run it and our QB couldn't hit the plays.

Atlanta's runningbacks did not do that well against us, it was Michael Vick having the game of his life hitting 71% of his passes that was the difference, its why there was a such a disparity in time of possession.

All of that is the reason for the difference in yardage.

And from where I was sitting, we were much more physical than Atlanta was.

This game was a classic example of good quarterbacking versus bad quarterbacking IMO.
 
BlueFin said:
Again, our runningbacks were having no real problem running on them. It was our QB who couldn't convert passing plays.

We were playing from behind all day and our OC chose to pass the ball more than run it and our QB couldn't hit the plays.

Atlanta's runningbacks did not do that well against us, it was Michael Vick having the game of his life hitting 71% of his passes that was the difference, its why there was a such a disparity in time of possession.

All of that is the reason for the difference in yardage.

And from where I was sitting, we were much more physical than Atlanta was.

This game was a classic example of good quarterbacking versus bad quarterbacking IMO.
Hard to disagree with that. But, the falcons did have 4 drives of over 70 yards. That is dominant, regardless of who was being more physical.
 
but that hit chrowder made to force the fumble was a HARD HIT, I think it was our best hit all year
 
Dolfan4life! said:
Hard to disagree with that. But, the falcons did have 4 drives of over 70 yards. That is dominant, regardless of who was being more physical.

And the defense that many consider the "best ever", couldn't stop Dan Marino when he was hot(85' Bears).

Vick was extremely hot, the Falcons were not dominant.
 
BlueFin said:
No I don't see it the way you do Mr. Negative man, I saw a game where we were winning the physical battle, our O-line got the job done on theirs, and our defense pretty much contained their running game, what you can't defense is a quarterback on fire.

Vick hit 71% of his throws, he came in hitting 52.4%.

The vaunted 85' Bears defense couldn't stop an onfire Dan Marino and we couldn't stop a Michael Vick hitting a much higher percentage of his passes than normal.

Despite that we still could have won the game if our Quarterback would have been more accurate.

I dont agree with your winning the physical battle assessment. We were dominated on TOP, so I dont know how it's possible to be winning the battle physically....we didnt have the ball enough to do that. I personally think we were lucky to have had the opportunity to tie the game at the end. This team still has a way to go before they can win big games like this, BUT I think we're headed in the right direction. Still a good QB away from being a much better team.
 
Phin-o-rama said:
shoulda woulda coulda


falcons still suck....we SHOULD have beat them...thats how i look at it...gus cost us the game
I disagree. Even had Gus scored the tying TD, I believe that the Falcons would have marched downthe field in the last seconds or in overtime and beat us regardless. They had sustained drives of over 75 yards 4 times. We had NO defensive answer to their offense yesterday. The odds of us winning that game were slim.
 
Back
Top Bottom