It may be passable (no pun intended). But we can do better than Gaffney, long term. I'd be happy with Gaff-Bess-Hart left to right. Draft a second round WR this draft and bring Matthews and the new kid along behind these three. Unless Gaffney lays an egg for us. Then I go right after Woods in the first round.
That's good data, but remember that the kinds of receptions you're talking about don't necessarily involve that passing yardage in the air. Therefore they aren't as accurate a measure of threatening deep IMO.
While he is doing that, Jordy has fell back down to earth himself so far this year. I wanted him on my fantasy team, got him, and he's been disappointing in that regard. GB's offense has been less spectacular overall so far this year compared to last, and they have so many weapons to spread the ball around to.
Where did you read that? I think he was much faster than that. Not Duper class, but plenty fast compared to any other WRs.
I'll call Hartline a deep threat when he gets open deep on a play that isn't busted coverage or an extended play by Tannehill where the CB loses him. He runs a nice double move but due to how long that takes to develop it is unreliable on a regular basis.
Sparano claimed Hartline had the speed and talent to be the deep threat to replace Tedd Ginn.It didnt turn out that way .Defenses generally did not respect his speed and started to bunch up on the line of scrimmage .Of course he had Henne and Moore throwing to him. Instead Hartline became a very effective sideline WR. Now we have a strong armed QB who can buy time and extend plays for a WR to get deep and deliver it to him.So we have a substitute for a speedy deep receiver .Hartline fills that role well until we finally acquire genuine speedy deep WR to complement him. Gates was supposed to be that guy.It didnt happen .Now we are trying out Armstrong.That demonstrates that we are still looking for that speedy deep WR .
But going by the data in the original post, who in the league is doing that, and why isn't it showing in the numbers? Why are Hartline's deep pass reception numbers so much better than so many, if it's true that those types of receptions for him are limited to the kinds of situations you mentioned?
That's happened already. He beat Joe Haden last season by running by him. Chad Henne just threw a terrible pass and it was intercepted.
His 80 yd play aside, Brian is generally a guy who isn't a great YAC player, so most of his long receptions do involve the most of the yards being made through the air, not his RAC afterwards.
But that is the very definition of a deep threat, assuming it's done at a rate among the league leaders. If he weren't among the league leaders in this, he'd be a guy who isn't a great YAC player nor a deep threat.
I thought that was in 2010. It was one of those plays that got excessively dissected here on the forum, because there was a disagreement as to whether he could have broke up and prevented the INT.
Wow, it was in 2010. Yea, that was a bad debate. Hartline could have broken it up but at the end of the day, he blew past Haden and Henne didn't deliver.
Hartline runs faster than 4.58. He ran 4.52 at the combine and 4.49 at his pro day. I'm not sure, but reading your entire post, it sounds like you aren't being serious.
Yeah I would say he is. He has good hands and makes great plays on the ball. I don't think he is a deep threat in the sense that he will burn the D with his speed and gather serious YAC, but he is still capable of making the big play.
If I remember correctly, the debate was about how Henne underthrew Hartline because he was being pressured and couldn't step into the throw.
We made all the excuses for Henne we could And yes Hartline is a deep threat. Guy runs incredible routes, even the ones the DBs know are coming. I think the D will adjust to him and Tanny and things will change a bit though
If they adjust more toward Hartline, it should help Bess more too. He is also on pace to having a career year. In every season since he's been in the league prior to 2012, Bess have averaged between 10 and 10.5 yards per catch. This year so far, he is at 14.9 yards per catch. I cannot ever recall him averaging that high at this point of a season.
It is a wonder what a quarterback with pretty good ball placement can do. Bess is able to use his good YAC ability due to the fact that Tannehill is able to give him the ball in good spots.
One of the things you notice about him. It jumped out in his Pro Day stuff too... he almost always puts the ball where the receiver can move away from the defender(s). ON swing passes he leads you just enough so you don't lose a momentum. Good ball placement increases YAC, despite what a lot of people here say and have said (arguing it's all about WR elusiveness, tackle breaking, speed after the catch etc). Those people are flat out wrong because good ball placement DOES affect YAC.
Hartline has always been able to get behind the defense. Not just this year always. Anybody who says otherwise clearly hasn't been paying attention.
a lot of my star players from camp are playing as I expected...SS24.. Bess..RJones..RT..Wake..Lane..Misi..Dansby. Some that I missed..Thomas..Hartline( didn't participate in camp but I didn't see the jump in play coming).Fuller.
I think people are mixing up explosive with deep. By NFL standards Hartline is a deep receiving target. However, he is not explosive. He's not a threat to take one 60-80 yards multiple times a year. What will be awesome is just how much this offense will be if they get Armstrong or a speed WR that pushes the safety's back. It'll make sure Hartline is rarely ever doubled/focused.
Hartline and Bess are becoming an underrated tandem... I mean a lot of us piss and moan about not having a super elite receiver for Tannehill to throw to but so far I believe both of them are on pace for 1,000 yards. It would be nice to have an AJ Green to throw to but i'll settle for just a good third option (which we don't have right now).
Well in order for that to be meaningful, it has to be done by someone (and according to the original post, it isn't), and it has to correlate with winning. Short of that, it's an artificial and meaningless standard by which to downgrade Hartline.
Not just correlate with winning. It needs to be predictive of future winning. Turnovers are very correllary to winning, but they are very random, and cannot be predicted. The big problem with the analysis of some is that they are attributing Hartline's impressive numbers to randomness, chance, luck, or something outside of the ability of the player. The reality is that net yards per pass attempt is the metric that is most predictive of future scoring. It is even more predictive of future scoring than touchdowns are. Hartline's numbers are predictive of future scoring, because those numbers cannot be inflated or deceptive.
Turnovers are to a certain degree. There is a high level of variance for interceptions. From the studies I've seen, INTs can be up to 81% randomness, and 19% ability. Its one of the reasons why you'll see INT rate vary from season to season.
http://www.footballperspective.com/interceptions-per-incompletion-or-popip/ http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=6068 http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/11/how-random-are-interceptions.html http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2009/09stuart_qbintrates.php A lot of those overlap somewhat, but a good direction to look toward. Here is a good chart from Brian Burke's article on it: In order for INTs to be completely based on ability, the actual INT distribution (blue bars) would have to be flat. If INTs were purely a function of randomness, the actual INT distribution would look exactly like the random distribution (red line). In reality its neither, which suggests its a mix of both, but it is very much closer to the red line than just being flat.
Why is it then a team like Bears seems to consistently generate a lot of turnovers? The Ravens as well.
Well thats a bit of a loaded question. There are a lot of explanations. Primarily, while recovering fumbles is completely random, causing fumbles isn't. There is a certain level of skill to forcing fumbles. There is a higher correlation to causing fumbles in the future than there is to causing INTs in the future. Here is some good info on the subject: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/03/singal-vs-noise-in-football-stats.html He has some good data on correlations there, and defensive interception rate has a pretty low correlation with itself in the future. Certainly its not a 0 correlation, which means there are potentially some exceptions, though extremely rare.
