Winning Sustainability? What Are the Essential Attributes of a Team That Has It? | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Winning Sustainability? What Are the Essential Attributes of a Team That Has It?

Well here's my simplified back of a napkin thought proccess.

  • Making the playoffs is the #1 objective. Single elimination formats involve alot of variance, especially in the game of football where a couple bad breaks can make a underdog win and advance. You simply need to put your team in there as frequently as you can and getting a bye should be high on the list.
  • You get to the playoffs by winning games.
  • Historically, scoring points is more important than stopping your opponent from scoring points to win games.
  • So logically, focusing on scoring points should be a priority.
  • How do you score points on offense? Well in the early 90s the Running game started getting some traction when it comes to its correlation with points scored and made peak actually getting close to the passing in 2004, when the rules changed. The running game has been taking a deep dive ever since. Seems logical to me that building a strong passing game would be a solid strategy for scoring points on a regular basis.
  • View attachment 36372
  • The most important elements to building a passing game are QB, OL and WR. QB being by far the most expensive position to fill. Goes without saying that having a QB on a rookie contract for essentially 5 years gives you alot of options when it comes to surrounding him with talent.
  • The second most expensive position is Tackle, these guys cost alot of dough even when they are mediocre. So its a good idea to get those on rookie contracts also. WRs are are pretty much the same going in 3rd.
  • Whats really interesting is that QB, T and WR are actually, in that order, the most significant valuable positions to draft on your whole team based on vet salaries, their rookie contract and the odds of getting different player tiers through the draft. In other words the top 3 in draft expected value(relative to salary cap) are QB, T and WR.
Now Im really not saying this is the only way to win, Im saying its the approach thats most likely to give you a shot consistently, year after year.
Really nice post, NBP81. Well thought out. I can't take issue with any of it, really. Seems pretty accurate to me. I think the question for us this off season is how patient we want to be about getting those assets. If we go by your priority, maybe we should do what it takes to be set at QB this year?

The problem for me is, if it turns out we aren't actually set at QB, after an extreme investment in one, how much does that set us back, if QB is the clear priority? Is there a way to minimize risk here? If there is, do the best perennial playoff teams consistently manage that risk better than others?
 
Really nice post, NBP81. Well thought out. I can't take issue with any of it, really. Seems pretty accurate to me. I think the question for us this off season is how patient we want to be about getting those assets. If we go by your priority, maybe we should do what it takes to be set at QB this year?

The problem for me is, if it turns out we aren't actually set at QB, after an extreme investment in one, how much does that set us back, if QB is the clear priority? Is there a way to minimize risk here? If there is, do the best perennial playoff teams consistently manage that risk better than others?
The real priority is the passing game IMO and realistically, the Fins have put themselves in position to build it in a 2 year window with all of the assets they have accumulated for this off-season and next one.

They could very well decide to focus on building a passing offense by solidifying the lines and receiving options first. Realistically, the OL needs a good amount of players, there are 5 starters in there and if you want a robust line, you also need solid backups.

The real problem with solidifying everything and punting the QB till next year is, if they succeed in building a solid environement for a QB, they are alsmost certain to win 8-9 games. This will put them in a bad position to aquire good talent at QB next off-season.

The argument for QB now isnt because its the only way to succeed, its because if Grier is any good, they wont ever be in as good a position as they are now to aquire one.
 
The real priority is the passing game IMO and realistically, the Fins have put themselves in position to build it in a 2 year window with all of the assets they have accumulated for this off-season and next one.

They could very well decide to focus on building a passing offense by solidifying the lines and receiving options first. Realistically, the OL needs a good amount of players, there are 5 starters in there and if you want a robust line, you also need solid backups.

The real problem with solidifying everything and punting the QB till next year is, if they succeed in building a solid environement for a QB, they are alsmost certain to win 8-9 games. This will put them in a bad position to aquire good talent at QB next off-season.

The argument for QB now isnt because its the only way to succeed, its because if Grier is any good, they wont ever be in as good a position as they are now to aquire one.

Well **it, no pressure, right? :chuckle: Here's to hoping our hopefully brilliant new organizational leaders nail it. :cheers:Not much to be done but wait and see. They have surprised us all many times this past year already.
 
Since you think it starts and ends with the QB, do you also think an organisation built the right way must get the best QB available at any cost?
Not at any cost for the moment. Especially with the team lacking in so many areas. Building a team through the draft and allowing the board to fall to them is a very astute way in sustaining a winning team. But at some point a team will eventually make a move for a QB, much like Kansas City, Houston and Buffalo. Usually that's an indication they feel they are close or have identified a QB who they feel is their guy. But letting the board fall to you, might allow a QB worth investing in, drop into your lap. Miami is in a very good spot at 5. The only question is Tua's health, not talent. I'm not Miami, but I'm not sure I'd be willing to trade up at the moment.
 
I would argue that winning sustainability and winning a Super Bowl are two different designs.

If you are seeking to sustain winning, offense and scoring points are the priorities.
If you are seeking to win a Super Bowl, defense and balanced offense are the priorities.

How many times have we seen that top scoring offenses fall short and balanced teams advanced to win Super Bowls.

No team has won on offense alone. Even those remembered for offense possessed a defense that drastically improved during the post season or over the course of the year.

Even if it happened with teams built around their offense, it wasn't until their defense elevated its play did the team win a championship.

High scoring teams almost always find their exit in that one game they are held below their average or inexplicably shut out by a well schemed defense.

You can't be a champion with only offense.
 
It's coach and QB.

We've had neither, or at least, not together...for a long time.

Defenses and running games can be built, lost, rebuilt....you want some cornerstones....but QB and coach are the secret sauce to long-term, consistent winning.

And yet with generational coach in Shula and generational talent in Marino we didn't win the big game (and even had a mediocre season or two in that run). I freely acknowledge they sure as hell help and make building a great team a LOT easier. But it also seems to scream "don't sell your soul to move up in the draft" because more talent at the top you can draft (a numbers game), especially as second contracts start to strip resources, the better off the team will be.

The value of having a great QB is they are better than a middle of the road QB, but the middle of the road QB costs approximately the same -- so, once you commit to a QB, switching becomes tricky and on the contracts schedule, and not necessarily the teams. People throw around the "elite" label a little too easily. There are only 2 or 3 QB's that deserve the label and cap busting that comes along with it. I'm really starting to wonder if teams should ALWAYS be churning picks looking for a late round gem (and team plan B) so they don't have to commit "elite" dollars to a merely very good player.
 
I would argue that winning sustainability and winning a Super Bowl are two different designs.

If you are seeking to sustain winning, offense and scoring points are the priorities.
If you are seeking to win a Super Bowl, defense and balanced offense are the priorities.

How many times have we seen that top scoring offenses fall short and balanced teams advanced to win Super Bowls.

No team has won on offense alone. Even those remembered for offense possessed a defense that drastically improved during the post season or over the course of the year.

Even if it happened with teams built around their offense, it wasn't until their defense elevated its play did the team win a championship.

High scoring teams almost always find their exit in that one game they are held below their average or inexplicably shut out by a well schemed defense.

You can't be a champion with only offense.

Here's my perspective, phinfan40353.

I grew up watching Shula's Dolphins from about 1970 onward. I think in the earlier years, Shula could get better players from the draft because he was still reaping the rewards of a previously very bad team. So, he managed to build a dominant team and won some Superbowls because of it.

Once the WFL caused that dominant team to dismantle somewhat, the Dolphins came back down to earth. Yet, Shula was still able to compete at a high level for many years. Something like 25 years. An incredible run. He still managed to make it to the Superbowl a few more times with them, too. Which goes to prove just being in the dance gives you a chance to win it all.

I think, if have to choose between building to ensure an invitation to the dance every year, or letting my team slide in a major way every few years in hopes making serious runs at occasional championships, I will choose the yearly invitation every time.

That is why I feel more comfortable with being prudent in our FA acquisitions and our drafting. This means I won't likely go for the high dollar diva FA saviors. I also won't reach in the draft. It does me much more good to have many quality picks, than to jump ahead for one super deluxe (and extremely risky) spin of the wheel. Nope, I would not reach at all. I seek long term solutions to this team's woes. Not quick fixes that have as much chance of sputtering as to actually benefit this team at the right time.
 
And yet with generational coach in Shula and generational talent in Marino we didn't win the big game (and even had a mediocre season or two in that run). I freely acknowledge they sure as hell help and make building a great team a LOT easier. But it also seems to scream "don't sell your soul to move up in the draft" because more talent at the top you can draft (a numbers game), especially as second contracts start to strip resources, the better off the team will be.

The value of having a great QB is they are better than a middle of the road QB, but the middle of the road QB costs approximately the same -- so, once you commit to a QB, switching becomes tricky and on the contracts schedule, and not necessarily the teams. People throw around the "elite" label a little too easily. There are only 2 or 3 QB's that deserve the label and cap busting that comes along with it. I'm really starting to wonder if teams should ALWAYS be churning picks looking for a late round gem (and team plan B) so they don't have to commit "elite" dollars to a merely very good player.

Bolded section is where your agenda becomes clear.

The OP asked about sustained success. Dan Marino won over 61% of his starts with the Dolphins. That's an average of 9.8 wins a season, over the course of 17 seasons. If that's not sustained success, then I don't know what is.

He didn't ask about winning a Superbowl. That requires a number of things to go right, typically a great defensive unit, and it still generally requires...you guessed it, a great coach and QB.

In conclusion, get a QB. Until you have one, you won't be in contention year in-year out, and you won't have sustained success.
 
I would argue that winning sustainability and winning a Super Bowl are two different designs.

If you are seeking to sustain winning, offense and scoring points are the priorities.
If you are seeking to win a Super Bowl, defense and balanced offense are the priorities.

How many times have we seen that top scoring offenses fall short and balanced teams advanced to win Super Bowls.

No team has won on offense alone. Even those remembered for offense possessed a defense that drastically improved during the post season or over the course of the year.

Even if it happened with teams built around their offense, it wasn't until their defense elevated its play did the team win a championship.

High scoring teams almost always find their exit in that one game they are held below their average or inexplicably shut out by a well schemed defense.

You can't be a champion with only offense.

I've already posted data showing only 5 times in 20 years has a team won the SB without a top 10 D and 4 of those had a top 10 OL. 11 of the losing teams had a 11th best or less, with 7 of those having a top 10 OL.
The flip side is only 6 times has a team in the SB NOT been in the top 10 in scoring, so scoring does matter. I'll note only 5 times has a top 5 scoring team WON the SB, so scoring, by itself, insures nothing.
Elite QBs? Ben has been in 3 in 16 year and each time had a top 5 D.
Rodgers has been in 1 in 12 years and that was with the 2nd best D.
Brees has been in 1 in 18 years and that was with a top 10 Dand the NFL best OL
PManning has been in 3 in 17 years and twice had a top 10 D, and in the off year had a top 10 OL.
Brady has won one SB without a top 10 D or top 10 OL and in that year the D was 12th. And people seem to forget NE went 7 years without a SB win, coinciding with a weak D.

That's ammo for the 'we need scoring' group and the 'you can't be a champion with only offense' group. If provides little comfort for those demanding an elite QB. It seems to me the best way to build a winning team is top 10 scoring, top 10 D, and top 10 OL. Don't need ALL of those, but any two out of three are common for teams in the SB.
I realize the topic is 'sustainable' winning seasons, but I doubt the formula changes much.
 
I think it is all about a "system". Not just the offensive or defensive scheme, but a top notch system from scouting, training, coaching, promotions, etc... The team needs to be run like a well oiled machine. We can use Shula as an example because he is the best one. He changed players and schemes and still won. We still don't know if Belichick can sustain success without Brady (I think he can) but otherwise, he changes players, coaches, etc... and keeps winning. He has a good "system" for running the entire organization. Now if I was coaching, my focus would be on the lines. Get a dominant offensive line and your running backs will have holes to run through, your QB will have more time to throw and your receivers will have more time to get open. Get a dominant defensive line and you don't need to blitz to get to the QB, leaving your LB's to cover, it also means that your defensive backs don't have to cover the receivers as long and the run game will be minimal.
 
I think it is all about a "system". Not just the offensive or defensive scheme, but a top notch system from scouting, training, coaching, promotions, etc... The team needs to be run like a well oiled machine. We can use Shula as an example because he is the best one. He changed players and schemes and still won. We still don't know if Belichick can sustain success without Brady (I think he can) but otherwise, he changes players, coaches, etc... and keeps winning. He has a good "system" for running the entire organization. Now if I was coaching, my focus would be on the lines. Get a dominant offensive line and your running backs will have holes to run through, your QB will have more time to throw and your receivers will have more time to get open. Get a dominant defensive line and you don't need to blitz to get to the QB, leaving your LB's to cover, it also means that your defensive backs don't have to cover the receivers as long and the run game will be minimal.

Agree. One thing people don't like to admit (and I omitted in my previous post) is luck. Getting the right FO AND the right HC AND a top staff AND being marginally successful in the draft is necessary. That doesn't mean it's ALL luck (e.g., the difference between Philbin and Flo), but there's a reason bad teams take years, going through HCs, high R1 picks, and an assortment of OC/DC. Once the system is in place, the priority is keeping it in place.
 
I've already posted data showing only 5 times in 20 years has a team won the SB without a top 10 D and 4 of those had a top 10 OL. 11 of the losing teams had a 11th best or less, with 7 of those having a top 10 OL.
The flip side is only 6 times has a team in the SB NOT been in the top 10 in scoring, so scoring does matter. I'll note only 5 times has a top 5 scoring team WON the SB, so scoring, by itself, insures nothing.
Elite QBs? Ben has been in 3 in 16 year and each time had a top 5 D.
Rodgers has been in 1 in 12 years and that was with the 2nd best D.
Brees has been in 1 in 18 years and that was with a top 10 Dand the NFL best OL
PManning has been in 3 in 17 years and twice had a top 10 D, and in the off year had a top 10 OL.
Brady has won one SB without a top 10 D or top 10 OL and in that year the D was 12th. And people seem to forget NE went 7 years without a SB win, coinciding with a weak D.

That's ammo for the 'we need scoring' group and the 'you can't be a champion with only offense' group. If provides little comfort for those demanding an elite QB. It seems to me the best way to build a winning team is top 10 scoring, top 10 D, and top 10 OL. Don't need ALL of those, but any two out of three are common for teams in the SB.
I realize the topic is 'sustainable' winning seasons, but I doubt the formula changes much.

Nice info. Thanks, FSGW :) You are probably right.
 
Bolded section is where your agenda becomes clear.

The OP asked about sustained success. Dan Marino won over 61% of his starts with the Dolphins. That's an average of 9.8 wins a season, over the course of 17 seasons. If that's not sustained success, then I don't know what is.

He didn't ask about winning a Superbowl. That requires a number of things to go right, typically a great defensive unit, and it still generally requires...you guessed it, a great coach and QB.

In conclusion, get a QB. Until you have one, you won't be in contention year in-year out, and you won't have sustained success.

1. I was replying *directly* to your post, so OP said doesn't enter into this conversation
2. Your argument in that post is you *have to have* a great coach and QB to be successful. Yet with one of the best coaches and QB's in the history of the game we won on average less than 2 games over .500%. That doesn't seem to support your argument or at the very learn, it isn't terribly compelling.
3. Your argument seems to ignore there were a couple of other players during the Marino years that weren't half bad and might think they had a small part in some of those 9.8 wins a year.
4. The goal of a football team IS to win the super bowl. Coaches don't keep their jobs for years of 9.8 wins, or at least, they shouldn't.

In conclusion, your conclusion is the one pushing an agenda.
 
Back
Top Bottom