Dolphins and Hartline are talking contract

Of course its a skill. For what your arguing to be true, then ANYONE can score 20 TDs.

 

At least I am consistant.

 

Who suggested he scores TDs? The argument is that TDs aren't a very relevant statistic when assessing a WRs ability.

 

At least you don't get on people for using hyperbole

 

No clue what you're talking about at this point.

So. AdamC13 compares Hartline's stats over 3 years (on an average) to Elite WRs stats this year (just this year). (which funny enough makes them look comparable) and thats a reasonable indictment on Tannehill?

1.66 TDs per season for 3 seasons before Tannehill
1 TD per season with Tannehill

Automatically means RTH is the x-factor for his "dramatic regression"? Because that is the point he was trying to make. Puh-leaze dude. Number-wise, all that shows is BH doesn't score. LOL

Thats a terrible defense? Theres no need for a defense against logic that horrendously flawed

 

No, the skill isn't scoring TDs. TDs are the result of skills.

 

One used catches per touchdowns, you used touchdowns per season.

That is a terrible defense.

 

He can elude them for a short moment but he almost always gets caught from behind. He's shifty and runs pretty good routes. But when has he ever eluded a guy into the end zone? He had plenty of chances.

 

No. That is what you turned the argument into.

The argument is can Hartline score TDs. I'm saying he's not shown that ability regardless of QB, offense or position.

 

Wow, that is against the TOS my friend.

 

Then Hartline doesn't currently and hasn't possessed those skills.

 

No, the argument is that scoring TDs isn't a skill independent of the same skills that result in catches over 20 yards, or total yards, or yards per target, or a myriad of other more predictive statistics.

 

You jump in and start attacking me for nothing. That's baiting and also against TOS.

 

That is a huge stretch.

 

On a team like Nawlins or Green Bay where he was the 3rd or 4th guy I could see him grabbing 5-7 scores, out of the 35-40 TDs that Brees or Rodgers typically put up. But just about any decent WR could score a handful of times in a prolific offense where they are viewed as an afterthought by opposing defenses.

But A 5-6 million dollar WR better be able to create his own TDs, big plays, ST splash plays, tremendous blocks in the run/screen game, space for other wrs on the team, matchup problems, something. To date I haven't seen BH do any of that.

 

He certainly possesses the skills necessary to be among the league leaders in catches of 20+ yds.

 

Well I think it is. A guy scores 15 TDs I go and see how/why he scored it. Did they throw it 100 times to him in the end zone? Highly unlikely. In the NFL, if you score that many TD's it is likely a result of your skill somehow. It takes two to tango with the QB, but the skill has to be on both sides. And sometimes not even that (Fitzgerald with the scum that has been throwing to him since Warner left and before Warner arrived).

A guy scores 1 every year and I have to see, why? Usually traced back to lack of skill in the end zone. Doesn't make him a bad WR. He's a good one actually. Just one that doesn't have the propensity to score a bunch of TDs.

 

What is the skills that are needed?

 

A catch of 20 yards deep in the other side's territory is inherently much more difficult than a catch of 20 yards deep in your own territory. As the field compresses, yards become much harder to come by. As evidenced by all the running back splits. Their YPC is higher deep in their own territory and gets squeezed as they progress down the field.

 

They obviously are independent. Your predictive stats do not prove or disprove the the skills are the same, anyway. So the point of the predictive stat tangent is what?

 

Maybe the post in question needs to be re-quoted for a 4th time, Because the entire post talks about TDs per season, number of catches, and YPC. but the primary focus of the post was TDs per season being it was mentioned more than anything else, So I used it as well. I didn't change anything, it was apples for apples.

AND to make it even more comedic it was comparing 3 seasons worth of stats for BH to 1 season worth of stats to decent WRs

What are you even carrying on about dude? you're wrong on this one

 

I don't disagree, but Fitzgerald really proves my point here. He had 4 TDs this season.

 

Already mentioned above.

Fast. Strong. Elusive. Jump. Big. etc. etc.

 

Obviously independent? No. If they were, they would have predictive value that other stats do not have.

 

He has two of those.

He needs to improve his catch in traffic.

 

On no planet is this:

Not baiting.

 

The planet Earth for one. Maybe Mercury.

 

Mind blown

 

I think this illustrates the problem here. There is a natural preference for bigger, faster, stronger, etc. There is no mention of intelligence, technique, etc.

 

Yes obviously independent because he had an ok amount of 20 yrd catches but had only 1 TD. If the skills were the same he'd have had more TDs, this year, last year or the year before or the year before that.

You're standing in the middle of forest saying trees don't prove its a forest.

 

Sure, man. Sure.

 

And Calvin Johnson scored 5. That's what I'm saying. These are guys that score TDs and occasionally don't. Fitzies rookie season he scores 8 with John Mccown throwing, and McCown only threw 11 that year. Ok maybe Shaun King got in on some that action

It doesn't prove your point regarding targets being a predictor though. The 4 TDs defies your statistical predictor

 

I'm not sure the data supports it:

 

Duh, that's a given.

If a guy can't run a route he's not catching anything. That is baseline.

 

You're kidding me right?

 

Great, so now we've established that Brian Hartline is not as good as Fitzgerald or Calvin Johnson.

I never said there was a perfect correlation.

 

There are plenty of bad route runners in this league that catch a lot of TDs.

 

Which is what I've said all along. He isn't built for TDs, and his 3/1/1/1 illustrates that.

I know you didn't. Just pointing it out. Neither is looking at past performance but it's pretty indicative.

 

If there isn't a perfect correlation, you've no ground to stand on.

 

The slope is pretty consistent.