What we mean when we say we're "soft"

[ForksPhin]

On the contrary, I think players like Jerome Bettis and Joey Porter will take over anywhere they go.

My problem is we lack those players. You can't expect a 1-yr contract guy who's the 7th most important guy on your defense getting paid $2M/yr to act like the most important guy on the field.

We lack that kind of voice among our most established players because none were drafted for that quality. I didn't advocate for Wilkins in the draft because I ever imagined him being that guy. He's not. He wasn't at Clemson and he isn't in the NFL. He's a "nice" guy. Always has been. He's smart. He's hard working. He makes the occasional play. I advocated for Wilkins because he was a low-risk pick and a solid prospect. I didn't expect Joey Porter-esque speeches.

But at some point you have to draft some Joey Porters too and they have to be just as good (if not better) so they become the #1 guy on their unit.

Wilkins wants a payday based on his play. I understand that. But the top contracts are only "worth it" when those guys improve the team around them and that happens when there's an element of (physical) leadership. Cam Wake was a great player--never a leader.

It doesn't make anyone bad. What I'm saying is that we--as a team--lack a player that's simultaneously great and a physical leader.

Christian Wilkins is problem the closest we have (among those we drafted) and to me, that says something.

The Dolphins have to go and buy those type of players: Long, Elliott, Ramsey, Chubb....it doesn't grow in Miami. We buy that stuff.

That's got to imply something bad.

Didn’t the Steelers “buy” Jerome Bettis?

 

[Jamesw]

There is a big difference between the term “soft” and “undisciplined “

I don’t think we are soft. And it amuses me that some of our tough guy keyboard warriors toss that out from the safety of their parents basements.LOL!

What we need is more discipline. That starts with McD, who must show it himself in his play calling. He should install his version of a Takes No Talent practice penalty for players who make repeated mistakes in practice.

Our players do a great job of supporting each other, they seem to genuinely care, but they need to get in each others face more often. Tua needs to show the passion and fire he has inside (and he does have it) to his teammates consistently.

We aren’t soft. But we definitely need to be more disciplined and passionate And violent!

 

[Highzenga]

I've been thinking about whether I want the Dolphins to retain Wilkins and I started wondering about something weird.

Ever notice how Grier does pretty well pulling in these high-character guys: Wilkins, Holland, Baker, Van Ginkel, etc? Offensively it's the same way: Tua, Waddle, Ajax, Hunt, etc. Everybody's a nice guy.

And listen, I'm not saying I want criminals, LOL, but who's the bully here? Who's the tone-setter? Who brings the mean and nasty mentality? Who's the elite, high intensity player around whom everyone rallies?

Elandon Roberts was that guy under Flores but he was a cheap outsider. Minkah probably was one of those types but we traded him. Jeff Wilson Jr runs that way but he's a guy off the SF scrap heap who's RB3 at best.

It feels like too often Miami is stuck. None of us really see these nice guys who are productive as the kind of tone-setters they'd need to be to earn those big deals. Wilkins is a strong player to be sure but a $25M player needs to be the focal point of the entire DL (and probably the entire D to be real). Part of being Ray Lewis or Aaron Donald is being those guys, mean and disruptive as they are.

Wilkins makes plays and to that end so do many of our productive guys but who brings the intensity to the level that it blocks out the shine of those around him?

Whose personality infuses this team?

I don't think it's fair to call Miami a "soft" team but too often their productive guys and their "dogs" aren't the same people. The guys earning the payday and the guys setting the tone aren't the same people.

What worries me is that this isn't just about Wilkins. It's going to be the case with almost anyone you look at: Holland, Baker, Van Ginkel and a million others. None really set the tone. Productive? Yes. Inspiring? Meh.


So I guess the question becomes whether this is a feature or a bug?

TBH, I think you can make the case that this team is more about the guys who produce on team-friendly deals: Deshaun Elliott, David Long Jr, Jerome Baker, Zach Seiler, Andrew Van Ginkel, etc. To me, those are the places where this team really "makes money" because there is no singular, tone-setting personality on the team.

To that end, Wilkins may be too expensive for his own good and perhaps we need to read the tea leaves there? Guys like Phillips, Holland and Waddle are fine, too, so long as they're on rookie deals. But when the time comes, they'll have to accept something at a friendly number or sign elsewhere because none look like tone-setters. Phillips may be the exception but that's only if this year's injuries are the exception--which his history leaves open to debate.

What the team does with Wilkins and Hunt will say a lot. I think there's a greater chance we see more mid-level contracts handed to Hunt/Williams than something epic to Wilkins. I'm anxious to see how it pans out.

That is an organizational philosophy that began under Shula. They want high character guys. I don’t agree with it but that’s the way this franchise has operated forever.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

Here is the opposite of that:



That Steelers team was the lowest-seeded AFC playoff team and won three playoff games on the road as an underdog before winning the Super Bowl as a decided underdog against the top-seeded team from the NFC. If you don't believe the kind of team culture and player leadership seen in the video above was the prime mover in that extremely rare accomplishment, I don't know what to tell you.

It's not a good move to post that type of thing if I'm around. You'll get away with it otherwise, as evidenced by numerous Likes and nobody calling you out on the gross errors. You would have been instantly called out in the confines I'm accustomed to.

The 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers were anything but a rah rah underdog. They had a superb regular season, with dominant stats including Roethlisberger at 8.9 YPA and a defense allowing only 6.3 YPA. It equated to the second best YPPA Differential in the league.

I've touted that team countless times around here as one of the great teams that was hidden via a lowly seeding that didn't come close to representing the true value of the team. Green Bay 2010 was another one. They were virtually the clone of the 2005 Steelers, a 6th seed that won 3 road playoff games and the Super Bowl. Green Bay likewise had a terrific YPPA Differential, with Rodgers at 8.3 YPA and a defense allowing 6.5 YPA. The mainstream sports media does a fabulously inept job at identifying the most important variables. They are too busy subjectively overreacting to the most recent game.

The 2005 Steelers hardly won 4 games as underdog in the playoffs. They were 3 point favorites at Cincinnati in the wild card game. It closed -3.5 in some joints. Carson Palmer was healthy entering that game yet the Steelers were favored anyway. That's how highly regarded they were. The huge matchup was the following week at the Colts. That was considered the statistical Super Bowl because they were #1 and #2 in so many key categories. I was on a radio panel in which 3 different panelists including myself said it looked like the two best teams in the league playing in the divisional round.

Once the Steelers survived that game they were 3 point underdogs at Denver. Mike Shanahan did a great job getting that Broncos team to overachieve. But they were led by journeyman Jake Plummer at quarterback and 32 year old Mike Anderson at running back. It always seemed destined to crash. Plummer had a modest 7.4 YPA, a full yard and a half lower than Roethlisberger. Fans tend to forget how great Roethlisberger was early in his career.

My main objection to your post was the assertion that the Steelers were "decided underdog against the top-seed team from the NFC." Come on, how did that survive more than 2 or 3 subsequent comments?

Pittsburgh was a 4 point favorite. And when the 6th seeded Packers won the 2010 season Super Bowl against Pittsburgh, the Packers were 3 point favorites.

If the Dolphins in this era ever enter the playoffs with a healthy quarterback averaging 8.9 YPA and a defense allowing 6.3 YPA, I'll take my chances no matter who is calling the plays or what the team chemistry looks like.

 

[MARINO1384]

I don’t see it as an issue aside from the buffalo game in buffalo and the ravens game we were 1-2 plays from different outcomes. Even that ravens game i still feel like if tyreek caught that easy td it’s a different ball game. Think it’s just made up by the talking heads to sound cool.

 

[BrowardDolfan]

Mike McDaniel's.

The way "a team takes on the personality of its coach" as they say is by determining the kinds of players who are likely to become leaders and thereby shape the culture of the team via the effect of their leadership on their teammates. If your head coach is a goofball, players like Hill and Wilkins are likely to rise to the stature of leaders and will feel permitted to lead their teammates from that angle -- i.e., fun and games and elaborate and rehearsed end zone celebrations.

If on the other hand your head coach is the gruff and tough Bill Cowher for example, players like Joey Porter and Jerome Bettis are likely to become player leaders and lead with toughness and physicality. If your head coach is the serious and cerebral Bill Belichick, someone like Tom Brady is likely to become a key player leader and lead in that vein. The head coach's personality essentially "prescribes" the kind of player leader who's likely to rise to that stature among his teammates.

McDaniel has to start by being less of a goofball. Toughness and physicality (Cowher's Steelers), as well as a serious and cerebral approach (Belichick's Patriots), are consistent with winning in the game of football. What's not consistent with winning in the game of football is a goofball fun and games approach that can't become serious when the need arises, and the need arises very frequently in the NFL.

The team is soft because McDaniel is soft, and because the leaders among the players follow his lead.

Here is the opposite of that:



That Steelers team was the lowest-seeded AFC playoff team and won three playoff games on the road as an underdog before winning the Super Bowl as a decided underdog against the top-seeded team from the NFC. If you don't believe the kind of team culture and player leadership seen in the video above was the prime mover in that extremely rare accomplishment, I don't know what to tell you.

I'd say there are many ways to skin a cat. Andy Reid's teams were always viewed as being soft in the big games, up until he got Mahomes on his squad. Pete Carroll just needed a pair of pom poms and a skirt to make him the biggest cheerleader on the sidelines.

Now, does Captain Capri pants have it in him? We'll see in the next year or 2. Aside from his physical appearance (and sorry, no matter what he wears, he is still going to look like Lucas on the sideline with the players), I don't see too much fun and games on the sideline when they are competing in close games, but maybe I'm missing something.

I'd say that when healthy, the D line is not soft at all. Even the OL was pretty tough early in the season before injury, but I think they could use another guy or 2 to make it more dependable.

 

[fishfanmiami]

I'd say there are many ways to skin a cat. Andy Reid's teams were always viewed as being soft in the big games, up until he got Mahomes on his squad. Pete Carroll just needed a pair of pom poms and a skirt to make him the biggest cheerleader on the sidelines.

Now, does Captain Capri pants have it in him? We'll see in the next year or 2. Aside from his physical appearance (and sorry, no matter what he wears, he is still going to look like Lucas on the sideline with the players), I don't see too much fun and games on the sideline when they are competing in close games, but maybe I'm missing something.

I'd say that when healthy, the D line is not soft at all. Even the OL was pretty tough early in the season before injury, but I think they could use another guy or 2 to make it more dependable.

I don't think our softness was the reason we lost games either. I thought it was a fun season until the end and things just did not go our way when it counted most (Tennessee at home)

 

[AMakados10]

The media has been calling the Dolphins soft, or breakdancers, the last few weeks of the season for a reason.

Grier and McD are both pieces of that puzzle imo.

Bradley Chubb and Roquan Smith hit the trade market at about same time last season. Both are great players that make great plays, but Roquan brought gravitas and immediately changed the mentality on Ravens D.

McD has a pro bowl FB and kept using empty back sets with 5 WRs on 3rd or 4th and short in the 4th coldest game in NFL history.

 

[Fan Since the 70s]

It's not a good move to post that type of thing if I'm around. You'll get away with it otherwise, as evidenced by numerous Likes and nobody calling you out on the gross errors. You would have been instantly called out in the confines I'm accustomed to.

The 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers were anything but a rah rah underdog. They had a superb regular season, with dominant stats including Roethlisberger at 8.9 YPA and a defense allowing only 6.3 YPA. It equated to the second best YPPA Differential in the league.

I've touted that team countless times around here as one of the great teams that was hidden via a lowly seeding that didn't come close to representing the true value of the team. Green Bay 2010 was another one. They were virtually the clone of the 2005 Steelers, a 6th seed that won 3 road playoff games and the Super Bowl. Green Bay likewise had a terrific YPPA Differential, with Rodgers at 8.3 YPA and a defense allowing 6.5 YPA. The mainstream sports media does a fabulously inept job at identifying the most important variables. They are too busy subjectively overreacting to the most recent game.

The 2005 Steelers hardly won 4 games as underdog in the playoffs. They were 3 point favorites at Cincinnati in the wild card game. It closed -3.5 in some joints. Carson Palmer was healthy entering that game yet the Steelers were favored anyway. That's how highly regarded they were. The huge matchup was the following week at the Colts. That was considered the statistical Super Bowl because they were #1 and #2 in so many key categories. I was on a radio panel in which 3 different panelists including myself said it looked like the two best teams in the league playing in the divisional round.

Once the Steelers survived that game they were 3 point underdogs at Denver. Mike Shanahan did a great job getting that Broncos team to overachieve. But they were led by journeyman Jake Plummer at quarterback and 32 year old Mike Anderson at running back. It always seemed destined to crash. Plummer had a modest 7.4 YPA, a full yard and a half lower than Roethlisberger. Fans tend to forget how great Roethlisberger was early in his career.

My main objection to your post was the assertion that the Steelers were "decided underdog against the top-seed team from the NFC." Come on, how did that survive more than 2 or 3 subsequent comments?

Pittsburgh was a 4 point favorite. And when the 6th seeded Packers won the 2010 season Super Bowl against Pittsburgh, the Packers were 3 point favorites.

If the Dolphins in this era ever enter the playoffs with a healthy quarterback averaging 8.9 YPA and a defense allowing 6.3 YPA, I'll take my chances no matter who is calling the plays or what the team chemistry looks like.

Certainly appreciate the correction there. Admittedly I was relying on conventional wisdom in assuming the lowest seed would be an underdog in every playoff game, especially on the road. Do you by chance remember what their Super Bowl odds were in comparison to the other playoff teams in the NFL at the start of the playoffs? Curious about that.

 

[Fan Since the 70s]

The media has been calling the Dolphins soft, or breakdancers, the last few weeks of the season for a reason.

Grier and McD are both pieces of that puzzle imo.

Bradley Chubb and Roquan Smith hit the trade market at about same time last season. Both are great players that make great plays, but Roquan brought gravitas and immediately changed the mentality on Ravens D.

McD has a pro bowl FB and kept using empty back sets with 5 WRs on 3rd or 4th and short in the 4th coldest game in NFL history.

That's a great example of a player you target for important team culture/emotional reasons in addition to physical ones. Great point. And as someone else recently said very well here, the team is unlikely to have a tough/resilient identity until it has ass-kickers at linebacker, as those players set the tone for the whole team.

 

[Fan Since the 70s]

I don't think our softness was the reason we lost games either. I thought it was a fun season until the end and things just did not go our way when it counted most (Tennessee at home)

The game against Tennessee was a study in softness. What else explains the inability to match and withstand or overcome the opposing team's charge during the final three minutes, to the tune of one of the most improbable losses in NFL history? It certainly wasn't inferior physical talent against the likes of Tennessee.

 

[Fan Since the 70s]

I'd say there are many ways to skin a cat. Andy Reid's teams were always viewed as being soft in the big games, up until he got Mahomes on his squad. Pete Carroll just needed a pair of pom poms and a skirt to make him the biggest cheerleader on the sidelines.

Now, does Captain Capri pants have it in him? We'll see in the next year or 2. Aside from his physical appearance (and sorry, no matter what he wears, he is still going to look like Lucas on the sideline with the players), I don't see too much fun and games on the sideline when they are competing in close games, but maybe I'm missing something.

I'd say that when healthy, the D line is not soft at all. Even the OL was pretty tough early in the season before injury, but I think they could use another guy or 2 to make it more dependable.

While there may be many ways to skin a cat and win in the NFL, I believe we have yet to see the one in which the head coach is a goofball and the team culture revolves around fun and games and the team wins the Super Bowl. Where is the historical exemplar of that?

 

[Fan Since the 70s]

...I don't see too much fun and games on the sideline when they are competing in close games, but maybe I'm missing something.

Right, you saw it in the end zones, in the form of rehearsed and somewhat elaborate end zone celebrations, even while the team was playing poorly (e.g., Tennessee). That's what distinguished this team from every other one in the NFL this year, and what was strongly indicative of their team culture. Any team doing such celebrations while playing poorly obviously has its priorities out of whack and the fun and games have taken over to the degree that they've determined the culture. When you're playing poorly, the team culture should involve players' cracking each other's skulls on the sideline and imploring each other to do better, not doing rehearsed wheelbarrow races in the end zone.

 

[pags77]

I do think this organization has done a very mediocre job at having a master plan to set them up for future success and have shied away from drafting alpha leaders because they had questionable character flaws. We have had too many HC failures and too much change since Shula retired to have any consistent success. Can anyone define what Dolphin football is in 1 sentence since Shula retired? Until we actually beat a physical team like the ones in the AFC central in a meaningful game we will be considered “soft.”

McDaniel has given us 2 winning seasons and something to build on. His offense needs to evolve and learn how to take what the defense gives him. We need to feature a power running game when needed. Tua needs to become the leader of the offense.
The defense needs to add athletes that can cover TE and RB’s. We need ILB and safeties that punish receivers in the middle of the field. It needs a leader in the middle.

 

[Fan Since the 70s]

Just a few observations on all this tough guy talk..

Cowher was head coach of the Steelers for 14 years before he won a SB with his tough guy persona.

Belichick was a head coach for 7 years before he won a SB with his tough guy persona and we know what that SB appearance record is without Brady, 0.000.

Tomlin hasn't won a SB in 15 years with his tough guy persona. They are ready to toss him into one of the rivers up there.

Parcells went 11 more years after his last SB win with that tough guy persona.

Notorious tough guy Coughlin went 12 years before winning a SB.

Tons more but some of you can do your own homework for once. I tire of it and have other fun **** to do.

Oh, and if I make another list, it will be all the tough guy coaches who never won a SB.

How long you think THAT one will be

When you're done with all that, outline the primary personality characteristics of all the head coaches who've won Super Bowls and determine whether any of them were similar to Mike McDaniel.

While being tough certainly isn't a guarantee of winning a Super Bowl -- because nothing causes a guarantee of an extremely low-probability event -- being the opposite of tough (a non-serious goofball) may just guarantee you don't win one.

Necessary but not sufficient. Having a certain kind of personality may be necessary but not sufficient for winning a Super Bowl. If you have that kind of personality you need other things as well to win one, as the personality alone isn't sufficient for winning one. But if you don't have that kind of personality you're guaranteed not to win one, as that kind of personality is necessary.