Dolphins and Hartline are talking contract

Would you be satisfied with going into 2013 with:

Hartline
Bess
Matthews
Binns
Steve Smith (from STL as our 'big splash'. Ireland saying he likes his experience.)
and Ruvell Martin or Ramses Barden (as our under-performing Pat Turner, Roberto Wallace, tall-guy 3.0)

Could happen.

 

Thank you isn't enough, but it will have to do.

 

Bad wording on my part, I meant the info in the OP was horrifying, i.e. the subtle hint than anyone in the world thinks BH should be paid like #1 let alone Be the number 1 (taking away from people who could be acquired at the same time). I meant opening post. not poster Had nothing to do with you personally or a thread made by you.


and fwiw I'm for re-signing the guy for consistency, but to the tune of 7-8 mill+?........... no way man.

edit:edits​

 

It's the new Ted Ginn family or Ricky Williams smokes weed joke.

 

The band "fun" is TP and BK's favorite band..they told me they love them.

 

Right. I'm not sure how that factors in, because that would be independent of Brian Hartline or not.

 

What about financial limitations? If they grade Hartline's value as worthy of a certain amount $X, and want other players at $Y and $Z, but the budget only allows for one of X, Y or Z then choosing one will necessarily be an active choice to NOT take the others.

Now I haven't crunched the numbers, and maybe it's possible that Ireland splashes into FA for Hartline AND a Boew or Jennings. It seems improbable, though, in that the money would have to be $11-14 million for Hartline plus one of those. It's possible, but with all our other holes and free agents who could leave, is it likely? I don't feel like it is.

More likely that if e sign Hartline for anything $6M and north, we are going to either go cheap in the FA WR market, and/or draft guys.

 

If they re-sign hartline for $6M or more I think it raises the chances of Cordarrelle Peterson becoming a Dolphins at #12. because we will need a big talent infusion, but if resources are limited to where Jennings/Wallace/Bowe are out of range, then I doubt we wait until round two to take a WR.

 

Which history has proven is the better option. But fans would rather ignore history, throw a ton of money at a flawed free agent, and then criticize the team in 2 years when said flawed free agent doesn't live up to his salary.

Spending big in free agency is rarely the right thing to do unless you are spending the money to keep your own free agents.

The absolute worst decision this franchise could make this offseason is to spend $10+ million a year on Mike Wallace.

 

You're essentially arguing that there are going to be more players available at what the team deems to be acceptable value, but not enough money for them. That really is almost never the case in FA.

Its plenty obvious what the cap situation for Miami is. They certainly could afford another FA WR. I think the more likely conclusion is that they won't go after another WR because they don't think those WRs are worth the money they'll be paid.

It just as much comes down to how much you are paying guys like Sean Smith or Jake Long, as it is how much you are paying Brian Hartline. There should be a consideration for diminishing returns, but really that is only from the standpoint of how many snaps a player will see.

 

Here is why I think it's germane to the conversation that we talk about how much money, in total, the Dolphins are willing to invest at the WR position (meaning, signing Hartline affects our other moves at the postion).

An economics study titled "Team Success and Personnel Allocation under the
National Football League Salary Cap" concluded the following:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CD0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.iwu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1137%26context%3Dparkplace&ei=lXwaUcu9CNCzigKOuoDoCA&usg=AFQjCNH9y8Y3HdYVY_tQUPoQrGUT0lqIZQ&bvm=bv.42261806,d.cGE&cad=rja

Winning in the NFL is about resource management. It is about the proper allocation mix.

 

So what you are saying is, there will be a small enough pool of players who want the money they are actually worth that we will be able to afford the Free Agents we need from that pool. I disagree because we are losing free agents at so many positions... and the truth is, in a resource-scarce environment the market value of some of those players is going to be appropriately high, yet our GM tends to under-value players imo.

But I hope to be proven very wrong.

 

I recall this study from a few years back. But the funny thing is that it pretty much indicated that spending on WRs has a negative correlation to wins?

 

considering all the variables in place, would you consider Jenings to be in that category of flawed?

 

Yes and no. It goes beyond snaps as contribution. Different players will mean a different role and impact on your team, depending on how your particular team is constructed. A players value cannot be separated from his value to the specific system he will be playing in, which is why they will have different values to different teams. My argument is that WR has an unusually high value to us as it will impact our entire offense the most to even have one WR who scares safeties, consistently gets YAC, and is a consistent route runner and catcher of the ball.

The utility we will get out of adding that player is far greater than the utility some other teams would get (as they are not bottle-necked or limited by underproduction at receiver).

A lot of this comes down to how much you believe the WR position limited us last season, and how much you believe it's improvement would improve our offensive production and impact winning.

The next layer is if we agree on WHAT would actually improve the WR corps. I may want to see more TD production as a top criteria, while you may prioritize RAC guys.

 

I'm not sure how thats really a disagreement, since you're suggesting that the team would mis-evaluate players. Either way, which players have really been undervalued lately? Matt Flynn? There isn't much of a history of the team letting players go that turn out to be major losses.

It should also be noted that the team having so many FAs, means that they are also in the position of having more information than the rest of the league on a lot of players. Ultimately, thats very important when it comes to assessing the value of these guys.

 

I don't see how this could be the case, unless its an issue of getting snaps. A player's utility is going to be determined by his ability and his opportunity.

Putting Greg Jennings on a team with Calvin Johnson would provide the same utility as putting him on a team with Davone Bess, all things being equal. The difference in results would be the difference in utility between Johnson and Bess.

 

It ended up finding that the positions we perceive as most important often cannot be gauged by dollars alone, as teams will find bargains in the draft etc, or make mistakes overpaying bad free agents, or guys will get injured and the team will lose despite the money still being on the books. So, in terms of just evaluating the most important positions as the ones you should spend the most on, it's not a 1-1 correlation.

But, what is more useful from the study is the idea that how you choose to allocate resources will impact the team you field. In a way, you're right, the study disproves it's own assumptions.

I think the confounding factor is the difference between GMs in assessing talent. Drafting well lowers your dollar amount at a position. Mis-assessing a free agent balloons your dollar allocation to that position while still losing and not getting production.

So really, the other 'variable' is the ability of the GM to accurately gauge talent.

I don't think that's Ireland's strong suit, personally, though he isn't horrible at it. But let's say, for arguments sake that the GM is capable and competent at assessing talent. In that case, the main determinant of success would become how you choose to allocate your limited resources (dollars) on your asset mix (players and positions).

If a team sucks they are either bad at assessing talent in the draft and free agency, or bad at allocating their salary cap money properly... or both.

 

What you fail to account for is the players own ability to *alter the system* he enters. And the addition of that player affects different teams differently. Look at the impact Randy Moss had when added to Oakland, versus when added to the Patriots. And in terms of the WR changing the team and offense itself, the Patriots became a different offense once Moss was there to throw to.

 

What you fail to account for is the players own ability to *alter the system* he enters. And the addition of that player affects different teams differently. Look at the impact Randy Moss had when added to Oakland, versus when added to the Patriots. And in terms of the WR changing the team and offense itself, the Patriots became a different offense once Moss was there to throw to.

 

So, in both of your either/or examples, you have us going WR in the 1st.

 

It's only an advantage if you are accurately assessing them.

Also, it's not apples to apples. Every GM has to asses that players value to *their* team. which will differe from that players value to *another* team. so it's entirely possible to lose players whom we don't value here, but could be bigger contributors elsewhere.

 

Well, I just worded it poorly. Really it was one example with my line of logic explained... very unclearly explained. lol.

 

Right, but Randy Moss' ability didn't change. What changed was Oakland's assessment of his ability.

 

Hartline is the Vinko Bogataj of the NFL

 

He's one of the FAs in question so it can't be independent.

 

Bill Duke!

Long tall Sally, she built sweet...

Gonna have me some fun.

 

You're ghostin' us, mother****er. I don't care who you are back in the world, you give away our position one more time, I'll bleed ya, real quiet. Leave ya here. Got that?

 

Ireland: "We need playmakers on offense."

First order of business: paying Hartline 6 mil a year.

Ireland is a joke, you can sign Domenik Hixon to half that amount and he's at worst just as good as Hartline.

 

When you are with your children do you tell them they are going to get an F on the next test and then ground them for it?

 

Stop thinking that way...remember last offseason, it was a lock that we'd have Matt Flynn under center for us because of his association with Philbin....(and I'm not saying that's what I wanted, but it was almost a foregone conclusion by nearly everyone)...at any rate, signing Jennings, re-signing Hartline and drafting a WR in the first or second round is my preferred course of action...somehow, I'm not convinced that the 'obvious' route is the one this group will take...

 

I was reading rotowod and it said that the Miami Herald thinks the Dolphins make a run after Mike Wallace and Greg Jennings

 

Yes, Ireland will not rest until he has offended every possible free agent with a lowball offer. He is doing everything possible this offseason.

 

Know what, this doesn't relate to anything at all... but I'd love to take up a collection and hire Dez Bryant's Mom to give Ireland a Strip-O-Gram at the office for his birthday.

Bonus question: Assuming every receivers mother is a part-time hooker, which receiver's Mom would you guess is the best-looking? (lol. you have to extrapolate from the way the receiver looks)

ANd to make a feint to be on topic... even if Hartline agrees to stay at $5m, I want to draft his replacement... Stud-man Bailey.

 

Hartline measuring the distance between 2 parking spaces

 

Lolol

 

Found a Hartline baby picture.