Dolphins and Hartline are talking contract

Opposing coaches like Brian Hartline because he makes Kyle Wilson look like Darelle Revis.

 

Ha!

 

If you think he's a No1 WR (low being irrelevant) then you are easily pleased. He is not.

 

Sure.

 

well let's hope they don't hit any stumbling points during negotiations.
would hate to see them get tripped up on a new contract.
don't want to fall short of a deal

 

He just flat out isn't. 3Tds in 3 seasons gaining around 2200yds says Hartline must have a phobia when it comes to Endzones. How many WRs in the NFL have 3TDS in 3 seasons with his yds and seek a No1 WR contract? Seems to me that when a WR cracks the 1000yd mark his stock suddenly explodes. Remember that Hartlines numbers were beefed up by that one big game he had. If he hadn't had that one big game these ridiculous claims to him being a #1WR wouldn't be entertained. If the Phins or certain fans think he's worth it then it just shows how much we have disregarded that position and accepted mediocrity. I rate Hartline but I want a genuine No1 WR. Fact is we can go elsewhere and get better options if he wants a contract that exceeds his worth imo.

 

man I miss the Chappelle Show.

 

Actually three games accounted for 471 of his yards.

Oakland - He went against a corner who doesn't even belong in the NFL. 111 Yards.

Arizona - A career day. Two busted coverages accounted for over 120 of his yards, but still had a nice day regardless. 253 yards.

Colts - Were a poor defensive team all season. Good game regardless. 107 yards.


In the other 13 games combined he had 557 receiving yards. That's 42 yards a game.

 

I have a feeling Hartline is ready for the rough and tumble antics Ireland will use.

 

How is he wrong?
He said Hartline is average to below average. I'm not even sure how that is even debatable.
I guess you could say Hartline is slightly above average, if you want split hairs and argue just for the sake of it.

 

There is no way in hell Brian Hartline is any kind of #1 WR. That is homerism at it's very best. Or worst.

 

It's not in the slightest bit. He was used as one and produced reasonably well as one. There's really no way you can slant the production around that.

 

You sir are winner of the linear thinking award.

Hitler was a leader and found success when used as one. Dude must have been f'ing awesome. Its called context. Learn it and use it.

 

Being used as a #1 means nothing.
Ryan Leaf was was used as franchise QB too.

 

He did not produce reasonably. 1 TD is not reasonable. Scoring is absolutely a large part of a WR's job.

Receptions he's 22.
Yards he's 16.
YPG he's 22
20+ he's tied for 20.
40+ he's tied for 22.
1st Dn he's tied for 23.
TD he's tied for 2nd to last.

Those are not reasonable numbers for a #1.

 

Did you not notice the thing I said right after it? Produced?

I'm not sure you're really understanding a lot of what you are saying here. Linear thinking is fundamental problem solving, and Hitler was a quite good leader. Him being a good human being is not the same issue. Much like Hartline, you wouldn't draft him in fantasy football and he doesn't give you a boner, but that really has very little to do as his objective ability in the context of his job.

 

You should be able to figure out what the problem is with those two numbers being considered problematic.

You need to go back and look at those. He's tied with how many people? And the people directly ahead of, and behind him have how many more or less? If Hartline has 14 20+ yard receptions, the guys with 12 or 16 are not out of his league in terms of ability to produce them. That range makes up basically 80%+ of the starting receivers in the league. He's producing pretty average starting numbers.

This is basically the thing you can come back to.

Don't draft him for your fantasy team.

 

The problem is you're looking at each stat and saying, "being 23 for 1st dns is not in and of itself bad." What you should be doing is looking at the whole package. If your #1 WR has all of those rankings, then you don't have a number 1 WR.

Also, can the Hartline apologists stop with the intellectually dishonest practice of negating the importance of TDs?

Hartline caught exactly 1 more TD in the NFL this season than I did.

 

Produced?
All he did was produce average to below average #'s. Because that iswhat he is. An average WR.
Look, I think most people want him resigned, but not for 6 million and not to our #1 WR again. That's just simply not what he is.

 

Thank you.
Anyone who thinks its OK for your #1 WR to have 1 TD is simply being obtuse.
BTW, FinD, I don't know about you, but I feel kinda dirty agreeing with you. It's.....strange.

 

I guess Hartline has been a #1 his whole career because the only statistic that went up....was his targets. His numbers were basically EXACTLY in line with his career averages. If you don't get what I'm saying I'll baby you.

Brian Hartline produced the SAME statistics per target as the rest of his career. Well except TD's.....he doesn't score those regardless of the number of times he is targeted.

Maybe I'm being a douchebag....good. I don't really like people anymore and if I need to act like a jerk to make a point people are incapable of understanding on their own I will.

 

Keep it between us. No one has to know.

 

If your #1 wide receiver is producing average numbers for someone in that role, it doesn't mean it isn't one- It means he is average in that role.

What is intellectually dishonest about it? I've made this following argument several times and given the quality of the response and the predilictions of those who frequently give it, it might as well have been this:




It's important your offense scores touchdowns. It's important you have a receiving threat who is effective in the red zone. It is not important any particular player do it.

You can find a litany of examples where players you would easily consider #1 wide receivers scoring few touchdowns in a year, or of guys you know for a fact are good red zone players doing the same. You're judging players by other standards than their respective merits if you think you can reconcile those two things.

 

So you're saying it's a good thing we distributed all 3 of our wide receiver TDs to three different guys rather than have Hartline hoard 'em all?

 

It's not a good thing, it's just not an important negative. The offense was good at scoring touchdowns in the red zone relative to its merits this year, and it was above average at doing so. Brian Hartline's inability to score touchdowns individually really isn't that important a factor. You're probably adding a starting receiver and a tight end, that is more than adequate.

 

Fangirl reaction to Ireland's lowball offer to Hartline:

 

Average to below average is not acceptable production....in any role in any thing, let alone #1 WR.

He was mostly below average. His best stats were average.

Its intellectually dishonest, because any coach wants a #1 WR to be able to score a minimum respectable amount of TDs. Just because scoring doesn't have to come from WRs doesn't mean its irrelevant if WRs score. Its actually beyond intellectually dishonest and into theater of the absurd territory.

We are also not talking about a season of low TDs. We are talking about a career of low TDs. You cannot find another example of a WR averaging less than 2 TDs/year in his career and be considered good.

PRO TIP: If you are going to post a picture to be funny or witty, make sure the picture is in fact, funny or witty. I mean really, funny isn't your thing on these boards.

 

Agree as a whole but not with the bolded. If you're giving a guy the most time on the field of any WR and he doesn't produce TDs, you're underutilizing the position to a degree. Not really giving Tannehill a shot at his maximum potential stat-wise either.

 

Because he's not slight average to below average?? It's simple, really.

 

At its very finest is the correct term, I think.

 

Based on what? Nothing tangible or significant, that's for sure. I guess just your feelings.

 

It's like Disgustipate said, he doesn't give you a boner when you watch him play so you don't like him.

The fact that he still produced with his targets going up shows that he played good last season. The role wasn't too big for him. He was thrown at a reasonable amount and he was good. Be happy.

 

And again, you can't say that because he was ranked 22nd in a stat when he's tied with a bunch of other people and there's a huge glut of guys producing in the same general range. You can cite it from a strict ranking standpoint, but it really isn't logical or a good argument.

Please explain how it's intellectually dishonest and not an argument you don't like.

I'm not saying it's not a positive trait. I'm saying it's not that important, especially not to the point where it disqualifies Brian Hartline in the role he's asked or as a human being or any number of things.

This is also Brian Hartline's first year as a wide receiver with a heavy workload.

****, that's what we were doing? Oh hell, I'm embarrassed now. You should make sure everyone else who has been posting loads of imagines knows, because I genuinely thought we were having a ****ty internet meme contest of the most warmed-over and worst quality macros we could find.

I was completely ready to drop this and win my LOLCAT trophy:

http://www.burningpixel.com/Baby/BabyMus1.htm

 

This is hilarious coming from you. Absolutely hilarious.

 

I don't really agree because there are so many other options on the field. The Dolphins did a quite good job scoring touchdowns in the red zone pretty much because of coaching this year. One guy isn't a road-block when you need a guy or who who really is particularly good in the red zone at any number of positions, and they don't even have to be starters.

 

Sigh.

Just because there's no strong correlation with WR's scoring TDs and winning does not mean its not important for WRs to score TDs. You have to have players at skill positions that score. You guys are basically saying TDs for WRs are as irrelevant as TDs for right guards. They are not. They are just as important as yards. You play to win, you win by scoring points and limiting the other team scoring. Name one winning team, that has had a #1 WR with one TD all year (while playing in double digit games) in the modern era.

Are you really going to sit there and tell me you wouldn't take Bizarro Hartline with all the same stats but 6 more TDs over Brian Hartline? If you say yes, then you have to admit WR Tds are important. Otherwise there's be no reason to take one over the other.

And you're still failing at the picture thing. Maybe try animated gifs?

 

I challenge Phinsational or any one else who's a stats guy to get me the average salary of each teams #2 WR, that way we all have a good understanding of Hartlines value.

 

This is a great idea. Good job.

 

And far below average on trips to the red zone, which largely falls upon our lack of playmakers among the receivers. Heck, between the 20s is where he is relatively the most productive. Yet, this offense was far down the rankings on total trips into the red zone.

 

I don't think it's an important factor per se either, but when no one at WR is scoring TDs and the offense ranks 27th in points/game, Hartline's inability to score TDs does matter IMO, and it will continue to matter until our scoring output becomes high enough to allow it to not matter. Regardless of Hartline's impressive individual yardage numbers, the offense still ranked 27th in points/game with him as the receiver seeing the most targets; that's how I look at it which is why I take his 2012 stats with a grain of salt.

I personally don't feel he's a legitimate asset as a starting flanker b/c he's an average starter for the position IMO, and to me you don't win Super Bowls being average. Since the #3 receiver is the slot guy, in my eyes, for Hartline to be a true asset he should be the #4 who can rotate in at all 3 positions and stay in the 500-600 yard range and leave the scoring to the starters. In Green Bay he would be a #4 or #5 just as James Jones was a #4 when Jennings was healthy and Jordy Nelson was a #4 before that. He's an average starting flanker but as a #4 and backup to all 3 positions he's an asset IMO.