I have to agree. And I've recently stuck up for Manningham in another thread talking about how he's a good NFL WR, but...I take Hartline any day over Mario. But CK is right in that their skill-sets are similar IMO.
I don't see my argument anywhere in your statement. The Cardinals absolutely prioritized stopping the run at the expense of allowing more passing yards. We used similar tactics to beat Oakland. Unless you think our running game fell off a cliff and our passing attack morphed into the best in franchise history over the past 7 days.
It looks to me like general inside-out zone protection rules would have dictated Thomas block the blitzing inside backer and let Jake Long smash the blitzing safety (Adrian Wilson) into the interior which results in Calais Campbell going unblocked from his wide pre-snap position. But I know a lot of folks are going to want to say Mike Pouncey should have been left alone on the NT while Richie Incognito picks up the blitzing ILB, leaving Daniel Thomas the safety, and Jake Long having Calais Campbell. But Pouncey clearly slid to his right at the snap which to me signified a sliding zone protection which probably should have had Thomas picking up Lenon instead of Wilson. Jake Long initially blocked inward on Wilson and then when he saw Thomas had picked him up he came back out and engaged Calais Campbell. Unfortunately until the coaches actually comment on it I think it's going to be one of those things where if you're one of the people who consistently finds themselves defending Daniel Thomas, you'll say it's Richie Incognito's deal, where if you're one of the people that consistently criticizes Daniel Thomas, you'll say it's Daniel Thomas' deal. Predictably, I do think it's more on Thomas due to the way Pouncey, Incognito and Long all slid to their right at the snap. Everyone slid except Thomas.
I don't really miss either player. And there was decent value in the trades. Problem was draft strategy for wr, and no real pickups after trading Davis. Marshall is probably playing out of position and Carroll is better this year, but not necessarily that much better. The cb picked up at final roster cut down has not been on the field other than special teams.
How so? They both get open. They both drop the ball. They both lack homerun speed. I give the edge to Manningham because he's stronger.
I don't see what difference they'd have made. Hartline is having a BMarsh like season..lotta yards no TDs. We for sure would have been 2-2 without 2 missed kicks, possibly 3-1 with another.
The fallacy I see here is you don't have to be running Cover 0 in order to be giving the corner playing against Hartline "little or no" safety help. I think your statement was accurate.
Well I agree. Their very comparable. But to say hes a poor mans MM, it means MM is the clear better version. I just don't agree. I am not saying Hartline is better. But I think either one could be interchangeable honestly.
Phinsational brought up the Giants while he was speaking to KB21 so I used them. I wasn't comparing their skill sets, I was pointing out that if we had better WRs then games like the two we just lost would have been convincing wins bordering on blow outs.
Fair. IMO, Vontae is the big loss. Had they replaced BMarsh with a Manningham, or Meachem or draftee...you are probably right. There would have been no difference offensively.
Gotta see the All 22 when they finally release it but from the TV angles it looked like they doing an awful lot of: I can only think of a couple reasons for a defense to be in this look on a 2nd and 13 in the first qtr of a 0-0 game. B/c they respect our WRs is not one of them.
If VD would have had a good game during any of those losses, then yes, but that is certainly not a given. He has been a part of plenty of torched secondaries while in a Dolphin uniform after all. I firmly believe a 2nd round pick with Philbin and his staff guiding Ireland is more valuable at this point. I guaranteed we were an 8-8 team and I still think that to be true so a loss here or there isn't as important to me as it has been in the past. I've honestly haven't felt this good in decades about the team....I know that seems crazy on the surface...but we are this year away from being contenders. I truly believe that and I think the "non-moves" this season were to keep picks and cap for next offseason.
What I like about Hartline is that for a guy with marginal talent, he squeezes every ounce of ability possible from himself. He's smart as hell, savvy, sneaky fast, the kind of guy any coach would want to have. I'm amazed at how he was able to sit on the sideline for all of camp and then hit the ground running. I'd still like to have him as a #3 or 4 though.
That looks to me like a classic three deep with soft corners. The Cardinals figured they could play that better than the Raiders did. They didn't succeed.
If he were truly squeezing every ounce of talent out of himself he wouldn't be dropping the ball, though. That touchdown we argued about with Davone Bess sneaking out the backside was well within Hartline's wheelhouse. The other four that I enumerated that he missed may have been too challenging for a man with his level of speed and explosion but the one where Tannehill scrambled right and hit him low and outside on the scramble drill, he should have been able to catch that. He had 7 drops last year compared with only 35 catches, which is a really high percentage. This year he had 2 drops with 13 catches, heading into this game, still a high percentage. If he were a guy that didn't drop catchable balls then I wouldn't be referring to him as a lesser Mario Manningham.
You are correct sir. Ended up hitting BHart on a shallow cross for 7 and then Fasano for the first on 3rd and 6. Even with Bush on the sideline for the next series of downs it was the same thing: And it was pretty much like that for most of the game from what I saw, if anything they were more aggressive later on when we had the lead.
And that's the reason I'd take him over Manningham. Seems to have all those intagibles and intelligence that Manningham does not have. And he catches the ball better....better hands.
Ah man the last sentence about BHart and MM is LOL funny. I didn't even catch that "drop balls" the first time I read it. Agree 100% though, he drops too many, but he does make some very difficult catches so I guess it balances out somewhat. I wonder if he's in Ireland's office demanding an extension right now
They began talking about an extension very, very early in the process as per reports we got from the local media. I think they evaluated his 2011 the same way I did and decided he's absolutely perfect for this scheme (which he is) and he's a guy they want to have around for a while (as would I). And then he got hurt and that de-railed everything.
I was going to point out the same thing. Call him #1 or #6 I don't care, arguing with a rock is more satisfactory than expecting facts or stats to make a stubborn one track mind change. Edit: He is the best #2 in the league right now if that's all you''ll give him. I'll take that #2 all day everyday. Now back him up and send Naanee packing with a replacement.
The big difference between what the Cardinals are doing in the pictures you're showing and what the Raiders were doing is that the Raiders kept disguising the coverage on 90% of the plays, resulting in a pre-snap rotation. It did fool Tannehill twice, and twice I swear Tannehill was fooled because they did NOT rotate into a different coverage at the snap...but none of those instances led to a costly throw. Meanwhile the constant disguise and rotation had drawbacks, made them worse at actually executing the coverage and/or run defense. I'll need to watch the All-22 rather than just watching the game soundless at a bar but it seems the Cardinals did a lot of what the Raiders did, except thought they could play it better if they didn't keep disguising and rotating at the snap...and they were wrong.
I just don't agree with this. Hartline has worse top end speed, but he is every bit - if not more - agile than both those guys. You don't need amazing athletic ability to make the plays you refer to. The greatest WR of all time was not an athletic marvel by any means. He became the greatest WR of all time because of his agility, body control, efficiency of movement, route-running, and intelligence. Not because he could juke guys and catch jump balls. There is no evidence that supports someone being capable of yards but not scoring. All the research indicates that scoring TDs is variable, and is correlated with efficiency, not scoring TDs.
And what I'm saying is that putting a safety in the box is not inherently prioritizing the run. That's part of the Cardinals game regardless of whom they play. Before they came into this game both Adrian Wilson and Kerry Rhodes spend over 40% of their snaps in the box. There's a whole bunch of reasons for doing it, and it doesn't inherently mean a serious concession in the passing game.
It does inherently guarantee that you're going to find wide receivers in single coverage on most snaps.
I found this pretty interesting (from James Walker of the AFC East blog on ESPN, though it's not unique info): Hartline, who has 455 receiving yards on the season, is just 94 yards shy of last year's total. He could legitimately set his career high in just 6 games (his previous career high came in 12 games).
No it doesn't. You've still got all the same concepts involved. It takes some stuff off the table but you can still have the routine double teams of a man coverage defender underneath entering a zone above, you've still got various bracket coverages available, and you can still straight up have two players on man defense on one play. It takes certain coverage skills off the table without Darrelle Revis or Ed Reed caliber players, but it's really not inherently daring someone to pass either.
.... but Jerry Rice had already caught 39 more TDs than Hartline at the exact same point in his career, and he probably would've had at least 3 TDs in yesterday's game. Considering elite HOFers like Rice are one in a million, I don't think his skill set should be used as a standard for comparison. Finding another Rice might be impossible but we could at least find an athletic receiver who can make more plays with the ball in his hands than Hartline to compliment him. Greg Jennings has all of those skills you spoke of, but he's faster and more athletic on top of it, and he makes defenses pay a lot more for leaving him in single coverage.
And Jerry Rice also played with Joe Montana and Steve Young. Brian Hartline has played with Chad Henne and Matt Moore, which is as bad as it gets. Now he has a competent QB and naturally his production is increasing.
That has to be part of having a number one on the team with him as in Marshall getting over 300 throws. The Defense telling players the play before it happens fell into that predictable play calling.
.... and a 39 & 40 year old Jerry Rice also put up 15 TDs & 2350 yards in 2 years with a Rich Gannon, a career nobody prior to being the benefactor of Tim Brown & Jerry Rice. Brown & Rice made Gannon an NVL MVP and 3 straight AFC OPOY. I'm sorry, but that's not happening with Brian Hartline. Great receivers will make plays no matter who is at QB; therefore, respectfully, the excuse-making only applies when you have a receiver whose success relies massively on scheme and QB play b/c he has trouble creating on his own, ala Brian Hartline. Fitz had nothing at QB last year but that didn't prevent him from catching 1400 yards & 8 TDs. Calvin Johnson caught 1300+ yards and 12 TDs with a terrible mix of Orslovsky, Kitna, and Culpepper at QB in '08. For Randy Moss, it didn't matter if he had Jeff George, Kerry Collins, Randall Cunningham, Culpepper, Cassell, or Tom Brady throwing him the ball b/c he'd still be good for roughly 1200 yards and 10 TDs.... but with elite QB play he and Jerry Rice can set records with 22 & 23 TD seasons while elevating their QB's performance to unheralded levels previously not seen (like 4800 yards, 50 TDs, and a 117 QBR for Brady... or a 112 QBR season with 70% completions, 26 TDs to only 8 INTs, and an insane 9.1 yards/attempt for Montana back in 1989 before the rules changed to favor the receiver).
