The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Although this is the opinion of a backup O-lineman, I think this is worth a listen too.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/videobeta/?watchId=182bcfca-0200-4006-b760-a1ea44fff1a8

I think it is interesting when he says that Daboll is the opposite of conservative and a risk taker.  He sounds fairly convicted about that particular point.

I guess we will see soon enough.

Did you really mean convicted? :o

I suppose.  I have always viewed that term as a way to say someone feels strongly about something.  Feel free to educate me if I am using it incorrectly, but honestly I don't care.

My sense of it is that he felt strongly about his viewpoint of Daboll's offensive philosophy being the opposite of conservative.

I think the word you are looking for is conviction.

I am a science guy, not an english/literature guy.  Will I change the way I use the phrase?  Probably not, but I may consider it.  Thanks for the input. 

BTW - I say y'all all the time!  AND ITS GREAT! :)

I think the word he was looking for was convinced.

I mean, if you're going to correct someone...

confident maybe??

No, conviction.  Definition #1 from below. (From Dictionary.com)

con·vic·tion   /kənˈvɪkʃən/
[kuhn-vik-shuhn]
 
–noun
1. a fixed or firm belief.
2. the act of convicting.
3. the state of being convicted.


If he would have worded his statment "He has a conviction about that particular point", that would be the correct use of the word.

Jesus christ, now lets argue about the vernacular someone chooses to use. Is this 4th grade English class ?  I think we all know what he meant.

Doc-phin, I think that most all of the players would probably say the same thing. Well maybe not Ricky, ha ha. But you know what I mean. If they keep Henne in there, I'll believe it when I see it. Anyhow, thanks for the link Doc, it was interesting.................. ..

I think you should have capitalized Christ. :)

Calm down, no one was chastizing him, just giving some constructive criticism and who knows, maybe someone learned something. If not, well it's not harming anyone.

Done on purpose in order to get a response  ;D


I am calm. I'm too old to let the "internet people" get to me. If I lose my calm, you'll know it because I'll more than likely get banned and have to re register multiple times. But don't fret, I very rarely let anyone get to me.

Does anyone have any opinions about the original topic ?

Since you ask...

A couple of things struck me as kind of odd...

- The reporter sucked.
- Murtha said he had only seen the playbook briefly, with the apparent implication that he doesn't actually possess a copy. Why the hell not? Did the coaches just show the players the playbook and then send them on their merry way?
- The reporter really sucked.
- How can Murtha have any kind of impression of the new OC when they're not supposed to have any kind of contact due to the lockout.
- Finally, the reporter really, really sucked.

Well, you could reword the entire sentence, or you could simply replace the word "convicted" with "convinced" and the sentence makes sense.

I tend to pay attention to infliction in voices and body language (if available) to determine if comments are worth paying attention to.  Certain parts of that interview made me believe it wasn't just the company line.

Also, I am pretty sure that the players did have some time before the lockout began to meet with coordinators and review playbooks.  They had a second chance right before the draft.  It wasn't much time, but I think it is enough to see what kind of stuff was different.

Henne saw our OC in that first slot you mentioned and that definitely wasn't allowed, even though the lockout was not in effect.

There was a short period of time before the lockout when they could meet.  Apparently, they went beyond the lockout which is what got them in trouble.

I remember the post lockout interview with Henne where he said he was meeting with Daboll.  At the time, I thought he was just mis-using the present tense and meant to say that he had been meeting with Daboll until the lockout.  Once the team got fined, I realized that he was serious.  Bummer.

It makes sense, but it's not what he meant. When I read what he wrote the first time I knew what he meant and he as much as says so in his original reply.  What he described was the word conviction, not convinced.

That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

No, they were barred from meeting even before the lockout went into effect. The League gave strict instructions than any contact that was not normal for that time of year was prohibited, so you couldn't "move things up" in case there was a lockout. This was true even if the coaching staff was brand new and might well have had increased player contact even in a normal year.


Yeah, see, this is where your memory is playing tricks on you. The interview (and contact) was from BEFORE the lockout.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/01/2090077/miami-dolphins-chad-henne-says.html

This article is from March 1, 10 full days before the lockout went into effect. The rules and guidance given to the league is also detailed in the article, including a stipulation that players not receive any supervision or "direction" by coaches.

FYO - Good article to clarify.

I watched the video on the Sun Sentinel site, and may have watched it well after it was posted.  I suppose I was assuming that the lockout was the day that all normal business was to stop, and I probably did watch that video after the lockout.

At least I have some clarity on the timeline.  I am actually pretty happy that we broke the rules in this case.  It was worth the fine!