Breaking Down Hartline's Game Against Cleveland

I'd say most QBs lock on to a receiver sometimes, and that is what produces a lot of the ints for all those QBs. This isn't unique to RT17 IMO.

 

I'd say that was a very astute observation on Hartline's stance while catching the ball. I've seen him do exactly almost every time, but never really considered how it affects his balance, or lack thereof... Be nice if the coaches picked up on it and worked with him to keep his feet wider apart while catching.

 

True, but I saw enough of Tannehill doing last year to form an opinion, too many LBs and DBs following his head (shoulders, feet) as he locked on. The pic on the right sideline against the Jets was a classic example, I can't find it on youtube anymore.

There's no doubt that most QBs lock on, it's a question of frequency and how obvious they are at telegraphing their intentions.-looking off Safeties once in a while doesn't hurt either. The good news, from what I saw, is that Tannehill certainly looked better at NOT locking on last week against the Browns, I hope that it's a sign of things to come.

 

It's a matter of perspective. RT doesn't lock on to his receivers more than most QBs. IMO he actually locks on less than most. It's like all those claims that RT is inaccurate. Objectively speaking, he is one of the more accurate QBs in the league. Any objective measure that looks at QB accuracy and accounts for WR drops has him in the top 5 - 10 in the league. Obviously, even the most accurate QB in the league and the QB who locks on the least can say he should be more accurate and he should lock on less. But as a fan discussing what RT needs to work on, I think it's silly to focus on the areas he's already among the best at. RT has some weaknesses he needs to work on. IMO they are his mobility in the pocket and his decision making on when to extend the play and when to give up on the play. Those are areas where he is not among the best and arguably not even good. Those are true weaknesses that hurt offensive efficiency. If he improves those areas then you will see our offense improve by leaps and bounds. If he becomes more accurate or locks on less, the improvement will be negligible b/c there isn't as much room for improvement there.

 

It can be if you have good acceleration, but I don't see that as one of Hartline's strengths. He has decent acceleration, but most of his separation on that route comes from his route running, pushing off and setting up the DB.

 

To me it seems like some people don't really "want" to run after the catch. I'm not saying he's a coward or anything, but he's not the biggest guy in the world, you see guys with size like Fitz and Megatron plant after the catch and drive. If your a guy like Hartline without great size and speed, you kinda have to protect yourself because you arent running through anyone, and you arent going to beat anyone out in a foot race unless they make a mistake(Cards last year).

Don't get me wrong, I love me some Hartline. I'm just making an observation, I felt the same way about Bess. I just think they both have way too much body control during the catch to "really" be falling down so easily after the catch.

There was one play against Cleveland last week where Hartline caught a short hitch or something, and with the CB draped on his back he was able to back pedal and push the pile for an extra 3 or 4 yards. I was impressed with that. He's definately not soft, but I think he leaves a few YAC on the field every game.

 

That's a fantastic observation! I can't believe I missed that. It seems so obvious now. And it's something I used to key on in sparring all the time. I'd look for occassions when my opponent narrow his base since his balance could be compromised. And I experimented with narrowing my own base since it was easier to move quickly from a narrower base. I probably spent a year tweaking my base width just to find my optimal balance between stability and quickness. I guess I just didn't apply it to WRs. You look at stance width all the time for linemen, but not WRs.

 

That really has been one of my disappointments if I can be honest. Maybe I didn't watch enough A&M tape. He is a great athlete, but if he isn't putting it to use, then in some ways he is just Brandon Weeden. I expected more I suppose. Maybe it is still a comfort thing and he can improve it.

The other is the downfield accuracy. He is great within about 30 yards or so. He gets much more scatter shot after that. I think trying to hit Wallace 40 yards down the sideline is a mistake. Too little room for error. Even with Big Ben, if you watch Wallace highlights on his deep receptions, he is usually streaking somewhat diagonally towards the post.

 

My optimism there is that being decisive on when to extend the play and when to bail is largely the result of experience. Luck, RG3 and Wilson have all been running offenses that practice those decisions for years. IIRC they all did it in HS, and all through college. RT was a S in HS, I don't think he started at QB until his senior year. In college, he was a WR for his first two years. Those other three QBs (and CKap and Newton) all have 4 - 6 years of experience on RT when it comes to making those decisions. And those decisions are what I believe has allowed them to excel and be so impressive so quickly. Now when it comes to attacking from the pocket, I see RT as as good or better than all of the other young QBs in terms of accuracy, arm strength and decision making. Arm strength and accuracy are traits that generally don't develop much once you get to this level. On the other hand, decisiveness in the pocket does develop with experience. All QBs have weaknesses, if I had my choice though, his weaknesses would be in areas that tend to improve with experience. I don't see any reason that by year 4 or 5 RT couldn't be every bit as good as Aaron Rodgers.

All downfield passes are lower percentage plays. Statistically, RT was among the more successful percentage-wise last season, but it's still going to be a low success percentage relative to the other plays. In an offense where third and long is a death knell to the drive, you have to keep the deep attempts infrequent. But I'm not sure that's our offense anymore. They were pretty successful on 3rd and 7+ against Cleveland. I found myself expecting us to pick those up. If we were to say, try a deep pass on first (and miss) and then run for 3 yards on second, I think our chances of converting are decent. It would depend on the opponent and how the game is progressing of course, but in general, I'd be in favor of taking 3 or so deep shots a game, maybe more.