What's our record today if Keller, Patterson, and Gibson started in 16 Games in 2013? | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

What's our record today if Keller, Patterson, and Gibson started in 16 Games in 2013?

D

DEFENSE

Rookie
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
I'm not trying to play the what if game or make excuses for our shortcomings this season--every team deals with injuries, and none of ours were to "star" players--I'm just curious to hear what y'all think about the impact that these injuries may, or may not, have had on our season.

Would Keller's presence have hurt the wins we got from key Clay performances (like the Pitt game?)

Would Patterson have allowed less TDs than Carrol? Did Carrol (3 INTs/12PD) make up for most of Patterson's potential impact?

How many more points would our offense have scored with Gibson continuing to be a red-zone threat?

Bottom line: Is our record worse, better, or the same if those three had stayed healthy? How much worse? How much better?
 
Any consideration of this idea has to take into account the injuries the teams we played had, and how much better they would've been (against us) without them.

We weren't the only team with injuries, obviously.
 
shouright said:
Any consideration of this idea has to take into account the injuries the teams we played had, and how much better they would've been (against us) without them.

We weren't the only team with injuries, obviously.
Click to expand...

Atlanta, Pittsburgh, New England, Cleveland (no Gordon), Cincy (lost Atkins during the game) all had their issues against us. 8-8 seems more than fair.
 
I think Keller in particular would have helped, but the fact is that I'm not sure this team's record would have been any different. Keller and Gibson aren't blockers, they aren't running backs, they aren't linebackers, and they can't sub in for Nolan Carroll.
 
Probably the same or maybe 9-7. It doesn't matter who you have on the roster if they lose confidence in the coaching and flat out give up.
 
I think if we had Keller, Clay would not have emerged as he did, but Keller could have gotten more TDs and Clay blocks more so Tannehill gets a few less sacks. Gibson going down was big. Rishard Mathews did OK, but not nearly as well as Gibby could have. Nolan Carroll had like 2 good games, where people started to think he wasn't as bad as he really is, but then the real Nolan Carroll returned (yes, he was hurt, but he sucks). Patterson, if healthy, gives up less and creates more turnovers.

With that being said, there is no way to know what would have happened. I think maybe we win 2 more games, but who knows? Doesn't matter now anyway. Here's to next year. UGH!
 
I think the Gibson loss was pretty significant. I don't even really count Keller since we went into the regular season without him. Gibson was really starting to get into a groove. No excuses though. We are an 8-8 team. It is what it is.
 
DEFENSE said:
I'm not trying to play the what if game or make excuses for our shortcomings this season--every team deals with injuries, and none of ours were to "star" players--I'm just curious to hear what y'all think about the impact that these injuries may, or may not, have had on our season.

Would Keller's presence have hurt the wins we got from key Clay performances (like the Pitt game?)

Would Patterson have allowed less TDs than Carrol? Did Carrol (3 INTs/12PD) make up for most of Patterson's potential impact?

How many more points would our offense have scored with Gibson continuing to be a red-zone threat?

Bottom line: Is our record worse, better, or the same if those three had stayed healthy? How much worse? How much better?
Click to expand...

No way to tell b/c it's impossible to assume the accurate number.
 
I think the same. If Tannehill doesn't improve his accuracy it won't matter who's on offense. Wallace got open consistently and our QB just couldn't get the ball to him.
 
shouright said:
Any consideration of this idea has to take into account the injuries the teams we played had, and how much better they would've been (against us) without them.

We weren't the only team with injuries, obviously.
Click to expand...

Agreed, this team doesn't exist in a vacuum, the same reason why people get so giddy in the offseason while completely ignoring the fact that 31 other teams are also busy addressing their needs and trying to improve their teams.
 
who knows? if keller plays then Clay may not have emerged and he was huge for you this year. Maybe you have more wins, maybe less, maybe the same? injuries are part of the game though and the teams that deal w/ them the best are the ones that are still playing.
 
I think that if Keller had been healthy then Clay's numbers would hav been lower than they were. With Gibson not getting hurt then Mathews would not had gotten a chance. Patterson would have been an improvement over Carroll of course. But our record would have been the same imo.....not think about NE for a second.....they were missing the best TE and TD maker and they were missing their top run stuffer and best LB too. Every team goes thru it but when you think about it, NE was missing some super stars and they still won the east.

Ozzy rules!!
 
compared to our division we had a pretty injury free year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom