Hartline wants 5-6 million per season

Yes, I do. Hence me saying I hope we pay him 5 million per season.

Of course a GM will agree with me. If Hartline hits the market, no doubt he will get 5 million a season. He's productive, young and respected around the league. I'm just hoping one of those GMs who agrees with me is Ireland.

 

Well at least you're wondering about something instead of professing to know it.

 

Yes, the collected data, itself, is objective. The manner in which you use it- not so much.

 

Right, the "kid" is the one who stops the discussion after he's the recipient of the phrase "this is beyond stupid" and a flimsy attempt at mind-reading.

The "kid" isn't the other guy in the conversation.

 

I am not saying Hartline is better than Smith, but I would say that given the context I think Miami was better off having Hartline on the team than Smith this year. Tannehill heavily relied on Hartline this year and Hartline came through. Take away Hartline, add Smith and I think Miami would have had a few more big plays, but a whole lot more 3 and outs, not too mention sacks as Tannehill would have had to sit in the pocket waiting for Smith to get down the field of play.

Flacco completed 63.66% of his passes to everyone not named Smith, 44.5% to Smith. You seriously think Smith and Bess would have served Tannehill, hence Miami, signifantly better than Hartline and Bess this year?

 

I suspect that's because it's inconsistent with what you believe you already know for certain.

 

IMO, if we had WRs who were more effective in the red zone, we'd have seen better balance in how the TD scoring was distributed. 4 other teams started a rookie QB all season. Why were they able to more effectively pass to their WRs inside the red zone? Philbin may prefer to run, if possible, but to run the most effectively, one needs a totally dominant OL or the threat of the pass, which can only be taken as an even threat if there are WRs who can work in a compressed field.

 

then prove me wrong and argue my previous post.

 

Who says they did?

And if they did, why does it have to be pinned on the receivers? Why can't it be that Philbin just didn't trust Tannehill?

 

Were they? And if so, why?

I think a good study would be one that looks at how rookie QBs tend to fare when the field is compressed. And not just the rookie QBs who play unusually well in general.

 

Yes. Just because the Ravens used him more as a deep target you are assuming, it appears, that he is limited to that role. In 2011, Smith had a catch pct of 55.6. compared to Bolden at 55.9. Essentially the same.

 

Why? So when I provide objective data that in my opinion does just that, I can be told I'm twisting it to suit my own purposes?

What's the use? We might as well agree to disagree, right?

 

Tannehill did throw in the red zone. So apparently he trusted him. It was the backs and tight ends who were more able to get open though, so that is where he went with the ball.

 

So you're suggesting Adam should utilize circular and biased arguments ala Shouright fashion b/c respect, or lack thereof, doesn't matter when you're behind a computer screen?

 

.... more like an accurate attempt at reading a flimsy mind.

 

And I suspect that's true for every team.

When the field is compressed, it's much harder to throw toward the sideline, where the receivers are, because the cover men are able to squat on those short routes due to the boundary behind them, and a pass that takes longer to get there, its being thrown more horizontally than vertically, is easier to defend. Throwing to wide receivers in the red zone is more difficult than throwing to backs and tight ends no matter who your QB is or who your wide receivers are.

This is why there is the old adage that it's so important to be able to run in the red zone.

Now, the real question is, is the above (difficulty throwing to the wide receivers in the red zone) even more of an issue for the typical rookie quarterback? I suspect it is, though I don't have the data to support it. However, it is supported by the finding that Hartline and Bess's number of TDs per reception decreased with Tannehill from what they'd been previously.

 

Sure. I think he should be a complete moron, just like me.

 

Ah, more omniscience. Congratulations on your special abilities.

 

you would've needed both Hartline AND Smith this year complimenting each other. For every drive Smith "may have" stalled early on due to a lesser ability to move the chains there are drives that Hartline stalled by not being able to either convert them into TDs or sustain enough chain-moving to convert the drive into points, which often was the case when you look at his yardage totals and where their prevalence was. Personally I'd give Smith the edge b/c he's a playmaker who can change a game with one play [on his own] in ways that Hartline simply can not, regardless of who's at QB. Besides, I think the coverage Smith faced needs to be looked into before truly comparing his reception rate to Hartline's. It's possible b/c of his rookie success and dangerous ability to beat teams deep that he received stiffer coverage this year than he did as a rookie when he caught 53% of his passes.

 

Mario Manningham signed a 2 year deal worth $7.4M. I don't see how you can be so certain that Hartline will get what he is asking for.

 

Because he's better than him.

 

Mario Manningham was injured during his contract year and caught less than 40 passes for less than 600 yards. Hartline just caught 70+ for 1000+ and is a Pro Bowl alternate.

 

Child please. So, WRs cannot go over the middle in the red zone? Well, they can if they have that ability. If that were true of every team, then every team would have an equally low pct of their TD passes to their WRs, like Miami's. We see Welker get open in the red zone inside the hashes a lot. In the AFC Championship, Bolden caught 2 TD passes in the middle of the end zone. We do not have a WR who can work well in that compressed area.

 

Manningham would have caught 70+ for 1000+ AND scored more than one touchdown if he was this team's primary option.

Hartline has those numbers because of sheer volume of passes thrown. He's a 40 catch, 600 yard, 1-2 TD kinda guy. He's not a bad guy to have but he isn't someone you offer $5-6M per year.

 

I remember the countless times we threw fades to Hartline in the end zone instead of Marshall... yet here we are with 2 total touchdowns in 2010 and 2011.

 

A wide receiver's going over the middle is a longer-developing play, which necessarily makes it harder to pull off than a shorter-developing one. Also, if going over the middle is inherently more beneficial to wide receivers for the reasons I've stated (and with which you've implicitly agreed), then cover men can cheat toward defending those plays. In all, the wide receiver's ability to function within a compressed field is significantly compromised.

 

When you watch games, if you actually do indeed watch them, do you need stats to tell you when a pass is completed, a TD scored, etc?

I underlined the operative words of your post, emphasis on "tend".
There goes Shou, still looking for ways to scapegoat Tannehill.

 

What's your opinion have to do with it? Cmon, shut me up; factually show me teams that feature backs & tight ends with a combined YPA equal to that of the starting flanker [so that it would support your insinuation that the problem is Tannehill b/c his YPA is lower than Hartline's].

 

Yet his yards per target is among the league's best.

Come on. The blind refusal to look at objective data is getting a little ridiculous.

 

As if that's possible.

 

Nope, nor can they run the fade [which Hartline would lead us to believe is the case], nor go over a DB, nor catch a quick pass and do the rest on his own... nope, none of that; it's all on the QB making a deadly accurate throw toward the sideline while the receiver is absolved of all responsibility.

 

Great point when you have Bess as the receiver. Thanks.

 

They can sure do all that, but there's also a lot they can't do, like run a go route, a post, a long comeback, etc., and so defenders can forget all about covering those routes, and focus instead on covering only the ones you mentioned.

In addition to that, when the QB throws in a direction in which his pass takes longer to arrive (more horizontally than vertically), the DB, who's covering only the select few routes you mentioned, is given more time to get a jump on the ball than if the pass is thrown in a direction in which there is a shorter distance between point A and point B (vertically, to the tight end, mostly).

This is why tight ends are teams' favorite targets in the red zone, and this is why it's so important to be able to run in the red zone. Your wide receivers are largely taken out of the equation by the compression of the field.

 

An over-the-middle route in the red zone is a longer-developing play than something toward the sideline regardless of who's running the route.

 

That tends to happen when a receiver catches an 80 yard pass vs busted coverage, doesn't face bracketed coverage like many teams primary receivers do, and isn't a dynamic receiver; IE: isn't a component in the quick passing game b/c of his lack of playmaking ability; therefore he doesn't receive many short passes to effectively bring his YPA down even though those short passes would benefit the offense despite hurting the receiver's average.

 

Find me a supporting argument of what I asked for and I'll shut up through the entire draft, not one post. But if you can't, I get to pick your avatar for a month.

 

I'd sure be convinced if any of that was based on any kind of systematic, objective study.

 

Tempting, but the place just wouldn't be the same without you.

 

Moving the ball foward gets more difficult as you get closer to the goal line. The less area a defense needs to protect, the more effecient that defense becomes. I have often argued that with all the rule changes they been making to favor passing that they should also consider making the field more narrow to compensate the defense. Same principle as the red zone.