Why can't Brian Hartline be a "number one" receiver?

Hartline may not be as physically gifted as most #1 revievers in the league. But at least he has adressed that this off-season and is going to work on it.

What has Ted Ginn ever tried to improve on to make him a better player???

 

Repeated postings of the same silly notion won't automatically make it true. Were we to draft a receiver with the basic talent level of a Marshall or Jackson and then develop them, fine. But that's not what this regime has done, which is a problem. (No, Patrick Turner means little to nothing, as he apparently lacks the basic skills necessary to play receiver in the NFL, including getting off jams and running identifiable routes.)

Up to a point, yes. He really needs a second gear. Hartline is like Bess in that regard: what you see after 10 yards is what you get after 10 yards.

Camarillo has already hit his ceiling, so just because he'll be further removed from his injury won't turn him into a 1200 yard/10 TD receiver. In fact, we seemed to consciously not throw to him at times last season. Hartline faces a sophomore slump and Ginn has yet to do anything with all of this supposed raw talent he possesses. I'm in permanent "show me" mode with this motley crew of ours.

 

Upgrade our Def to a top 5 and we can win alot more games just the way we are.

 

I know Hartline's numbers for the year project out to over 1000 yards in a season and that has everyone excited but Hartline wasn't given the type of coverage that a number 1 receiver sees. Ted Ginn got more coverage when he was on the field. If teams game plan for Brian they will likely be successful in shutting him down.

 

Pats have Brady, and now 3 years they've had Moss and Welker, yet won 0 SB's with those two & Brady. Takes more than just passing and #1 WR's folks. Not that I don't want to draft Dez Bryant at 12, don't get me wrong here

 

We're fewer players away from a top 5 offense than we are a top 5 defense. In an offense driven league.

 

Well what about the last part? "In an offense driven league"

Because if you believe that then shouldn't you want your offense to be the unit you focus on foremost?

 

nah man, Colston is a BEAST. came in day 1, and was a pro-bowl WR.

 

We are an average Offensive team at best... we will not score enough points to help the Defense against high power Offenses consistantly... it was proven last year...

To improve on that there are certain skill positions that need to have better results in order of achieving better production Offensively...

How we get that done is in a few ways IMO, more suitable skilled players and/or a game plan to use those positions more agressively...

 

can you give us some more info on both those subjects? is there an article out there that has Hartline training hard this offseason and Ginn is not?

 

Geez, you make it sound like they were bad teams...they were one fantastic pass reception from an undefeated and untied season, they lost Brady for a year (or very nearly a full season) and by a fluke of scheduling didn't make the playoffs. Then Brady returns last season and they win the AFCE with a 10-6 record. Granted they haven't won any SBs, but I'd take their record in lieu of SB wins if SB wins weren't in the cards. The reasons they haven't won the SB is basically, as many are saying here, it takes more than just a good offense to win in this league. Their D is very suspect and has let them down. I'll take the Pats O any day of the week, whether or not anyone thinks Brady, Welker and Moss can't get the job done...

 

Why can't Brian Hartline be a #1 WR?

If he preforms better than every WR on our team, he will be the #1.

Why can't he? Because hopefully the front office won't put all their eggs in Brian Hartline's basket. If we ever get to the point where Hartline is mentioned in the same breathe as Reggie Wayne or Andre Johnson, then I'll be thrilled more than anyone. But that is a huge stretch.

 

You mean, the bench press, squat, and vertical match, and are suspicious because they fall under the High School heading despite being written in present-tense. It's almost certainly the measurements he did in the same kind of workout Phillip Merling did, not combine or pro day.

 

Yes, "we" do. There's a significant portion of the population is going to complain that if we get anything other than Dez Bryant or complain that they could have used the same draft pick to work out for a trade for the 2nd round asking price Brandon Marshall supposedly had, or that we didn't use it to trade up, etc.

I'm sure people would be happy after the fact if one develops, and will make no recognition whatsoever of how they felt before.

I've said or implied none of this.

The thing is, I would be perfectly fine if they spend a high amount of resources to get Dez Bryant, or even Brandon Marshall or any of these other guys.

I just think the moping, sopping, and whining should have some basic grounding or perception three weeks into it.

It takes however many years it takes, because it's not a necessity, no matter how much caterwauling contrary goes on. Don't mortgage the back, reach, or compromise basic principals to get one, because you're more likely to stumble upon one than outright get one through throwing cash or picks at it.

 

Austin never went to the combine. He was allowed at Rutgers Pro-Day.

 

This is exactly the kind of ridiculousness I'm trying to point out here. How Patrick Turner inherently was not a good faith attempt to actually find a quality number one receiver, it was apparently just them ****ing off or something.

Without Googling, tell me who this is-

 

Either way, it's a far cry from the 4.29 being promoted.

 

He apparently was, judging by his unimpressive college performance resulting in a 3rd round selection based, it seems, on measurables rather than production. Turner could turn into something nice, sure, but the odds are so extremely low considering that he hasn't shown basic NFL competency. Guy needs to crawl before he can run. And just for the record, I don't hold his draft status against him, I hold his inability to adapt to the NFL level against him. I find it very hard to count on Turner to pull a Marshall or an Austin when he doesn't exhibit the basic skills necessary just to get on the field in this league.

As for your other point, a "good faith" attempt to find a quality #1 WR would be the selection of Dez Bryant, based on his college production. Could we find a #1 WR in lower rounds? Sure, but it's very unlikely. There's a train of thought that WRs can be found in later rounds, and to a certain extent that's true: guys like Marshall, Austin, and Colston embody that. But they're exceptions, not the rule. Later round picks generally flame out and find themselves out of the NFL sooner rather than later. The "throw enough stuff at the wall and it'll stick" strategy is somewhat irresponsible considering the (growing) importance of the position, IMO.

 

I'm sorry but this is bull. Every report that has come out about Ginn is that he is an incredibly hard worker and very humble kid. His ability to get separation this year shows he worked hard last year. He would have NEVER been open enough to have all those drops during his first two years He has a learning disorder and definitely hasn't shown he can grasp an NFL offense but to say he isn't working seems crazy.

And what reports have shown Hartline working on his faults? I haven't read every report this offseason, but in my hours spent daily on the board I would think I would have seen it.

Not saying Hartline isn't working hard - everything about his character says he has been - but can you actually cite where Ginn isn't working and Hartline is?

 

Crabtree did not have a private workout for any team. He had pre-draft interviews with several teams, but no workouts. He cancelled his private workout in order to have surgery. It's almost certainly the same case as Ted Ginn's 4.28 40.

 

So what exactly separates Miles Austin as a rookie receiver from Patrick Turner? Was it a certain panache that made you confident in Austin as he was not recording a catch?

Let me make sure I'm not misunderstanding or misconstruing what you are saying here. You're claiming its unlikely we find a #1 wide receiver lower than the 1st round?

 

I dunno, take that up with CBS draft analysis, then?

I'll gladly go onto comparison #2, if that's really what it takes to torpedo the ridiculous idea that Brian Hartline's draft measurements are in some way sub par.

 

Austin ran a 4.29. I just need to see proof of your claims. Apparently they say he did go to the combine, but his 40 time from his pro day is suspiciously absent.

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=55526&draftyear=2006&genpos=WR

 

You might be confusing me with someone else. When did I rail on Miles Austin's rookie year? By the way, he made the Cowboys' active roster that year as a returner and his ST contributions allowed the Cowboys the roster flexibility to let him grow as a true receiver. Turner doesn't even play STs.

I'm saying it's irresponsible and somewhat overconfident to presume you will find an elite player in the lower rounds. There are certainly a number of quality receivers who were either picked in the mid to low rounds or were otherwise undrafted. They are exceptions, not rules. You appear to be counting on finding a high-quality player in the lower rounds, and I consider that bad strategy.

I don't see the logic in passing on a Dez Bryant who will contribute immediately and significantly for, say, a Jacoby Ford who might contribute something after 2-3 years of development.

Lastly, I note that those pushing for the drafting of, say, an OLB in the first round aren't ever confronted with the notion that we can find a 10+ sack a year guy in the sixth round. I sense a double standard.

SI.com has him running a 4.52 and NFL Draft Scout has him at 4.47.

 

What are the odds of him having a shirt that says that. Is that for real?

 

I don't quite understand the last part. Are you suggesting the FO is more likely to continue searching for a WR in the draft than to acquire a WR in free agency? That I could see.

But if you are suggesting it is easier to "stumble upon" a stud WR than it is to acquire a known talent through free agency, then that's just not true. Cheaper? Yes. More likely? I don't think so. These late round talents who turn into stud WRs aren't easy to find, even with a good FO.

 

So you have proof that he hasn't worked on anything any of the offseasons here - and that Hartline has done something above and beyond what he has? An article? A quote from a coach?

Because otherwise you are just making stuff up.

 

No, you suggested Patrick Turner couldn't be the next Miles Austin because he didn't see the field as a rookie. Its a ridiculous comparision because Austin produced the same stat line as a receiver. Special teams is irrelevant- it doesn't suggest any aptitude as a receiver.

Fact of the matter is an empty statline as a rookie isn't particularly rare, even for productive players. Doesn't mean Turner will be one, but it certainly don't support he is a blown pick on a guy destined to be a possession WR and self evident proof that the team doesn't embrace the God-given goodness of the position and have doomed us all.

I'm not presuming they will, but doing what they are doing is not an excercise in futility, either towards your goals or the goal of fielding a successful offense.

 

You are more likely to find one by taking a later round prospect(in the context of this discussion "late round" being "not a first". 'Cause you aren't Serious Buisiness otherwise.

 

Miles Austin came from Monmouth college.

Patrick Turner came from USC.

The adaptation to the NFL is much smaller coming from USC which is a pro-style offense in one of the top division 1A schools in the country.

You're comparing Apples to Oranges here.

 

Rookie receiver to rookie receiver isn't in any sense apples to oranges. Especially when you see players as raw as Taylor Mays coming out of USC.

 

There's no debate on this one.

Hartline simply does not have the physical tools to be a legit #1 WR in the NFL.

If any of you look at him and think that you're kidding yourselves.
He showed great promise as a rookie and could develop into a good WR, just not a good #1WR.

You want your #1 WR to be great though. a potential game changer that delivers with consistency. Someone that is a threat to change a game around singlehandedly. Again, Hartline does not have the tools for that.

 

I honestly don't understand what this means. How is it easier to find a stud WR in the later rounds than it is to acquire a known talent through free agency? Are you only talking about the draft? Even if you are, generally speaking first round players turn out to be more successful than later round players. Of course there are many exceptions.

What does "you aren't serious business" mean?

 

It's too bad that becoming a tough player isn't as easy as putting on a tshirt that insinuates that your tough.

 

So an NFL front office is going to expect the same production out of a rookie from Monmouth as a rookie from USC?

Dallas knew it was going to take Miles Austin time to develop being from Monmouth college.

Rookie receiver from USC to rookie receiver from LSU isn't Apples to oranges. Rookie receiver from USC to rookie receiver from Monmouth IS apples to oranges

Whoever drafts Taylor Mays will have huge expectations for him right away in his rookie year. And if he doesn't see the field, you can bet that will be a failure and won't bode well for his future.

Don't forget Jason Allen. Loads of potential and raw ability. Didn't see the field his rookie year. People screamed to give him time. Now look at where he is; a career special teams player

 

Yes, I think it's unlikely that the NFL game will suddenly click for Turner. He apparently can't get off a jam and runs terrible routes. This comes on the heels of a lackluster college career. The evidence is stacked against Turner, and it would certainly be a stretch to place faith in him that he'll suddenly get it and produce 80 catches and 1200 yards a year. Sure, color me skeptical. I'd love to be proven wrong, and I'd love for Turner to become the elite receiver we need. Doesn't look likely right now, and I certainly wouldn't structure my 2010 draft strategy around the emergence of Patrick Turner.

As for the other point, special teams as related to receiver production is definitely irrelevant. Good thing I didn't make any such claim about a potential correlation between ST production and WR production, but instead pointed out that Austin had skills to contribute that warranted his being retained on the roster while he learned how to play WR. Turner does not, which makes him even less likely to land on the active roster. You can only pay a guy to be inactive for so long.

If the goal is to find a true #1 receiver, then yes, sifting through the mud of the middle and lower rounds is generally an exercise in futility. Players like Miles Austin and Marques Colston are exceptions. Just as I wouldn't count on Lex Hilliard breaking Emmitt Smith's rushing record, so too would I be wary of another mid- or late-round receiver becoming the passing threat we're looking for.

Just because players sometimes fall through the cracks doesn't mean it's wise to stand underneath and wait patiently.