Then I'll raise you. 3 of the first 4 picks from that class aren't here any longer - Davis, White, Turner. It's pretty relative. Someone hit on Hartline, but missed on Vontae Davis, Pat White, and Patrick Turner. And it's not given that Sean Smith will return. That could mean 4 of the first 5 picks in that class are no longer in Miami. Brian Hartline doesn't cancel that out.
Yes, I think at this point, everyone is aware that empirical evidence is not going to change your mind. This is really an easy point for anyone to prove. A simple distribution would show what exactly TDs are a function of (hint: they are less predictive of future performance than a lot of other things). PPG is also a terrible measure, especially in this context. Hard to take this premise seriously, when you haven't established exactly how "routine" the two instances are? "100% efficiency for the drive" means what exactly? What exactly are you measuring? 2nd and 7 from the 32 yard line results in 2.92 points on average. Which means Jones' play added 3.08 points. For the sake of comparison, thats the equivalent of catching a pass on 2nd and 7 from your 20 yard line that ends up on the opponents 30 yd line. Again, for the sake of clarity: A 50 YD PASS THAT ISN'T A TD SCORED IS OF EQUAL VALUE TO A 32 YD PASS THAT ENDS UP IN THE ENDZONE. James Jones, despite his number of TDs scored has the 3rd highest expected points scored of all the Packers' WRs. James Jones is actually a great example of a player scoring TDs off the backs of other players.
Mike Wallace in the 3rd round is a major steal. Hartline in the 4th round is a good draft pick on a complimentary WR who rarely scores touchdowns or makes game changing plays.
Why does being "no longer in Miami" mean so much? We have a #2 and a #6 for Davis, and Smith is still here and still producing, I suspect better than expected for the average second-rounder. White was a total bust, as was Turner. I suspect the top four rounds of that draft weren't significantly worse than average. You hit some and you miss some.
IMO Hartline is a solid #2 WR. I think he is a consistent route runner who is good at creating separation right before the catch by use of his hands. I think he is good at floating and finding the openings in zones. He is very good at making sideline catches due to his body control. He also has enough speed to get deep occasionally. I think he lacks the ability to beat double coverage and the size to be a good redzone threat. He also lacks the speed to consistently take the top off the defense. If he had those things, he would be a #1 WR. As it is, he is a well-rounded #2 that would complement a #1 or a #2 with deep speed perfectly. A well-rounded #2 who has proven capable of being that possession type will generally warrant a contract in the $5.5 - $6.5 mil/per year range and that's where I think he'll end up on a 3 or 4 year deal.
Precisely my opinion as well. This is why I said, IMO, he deserves a contract comparable to the significantly above-average #2 receivers in the league. You certainly don't let him go.
What shouright is talking about is TDs for WRs isn't a very consistent stat across seasons. I don't have a study done for the entire league bookmarked. But let's take one receiver we all agree is great and look at his TDs across seasons as an example. Here are Calvin Johnson's TDs by season: 4, 12, 5, 12, 16, 5. Some years great. Some years not. What that's telling us is that TDs receptions aren't something a WR has complete or even much direct control over. Actually, in a sense, you could say that it's the WR's fault that he doesn't make every reception a TD. But I think we would all acknowledge that's unreasonable. And while I would criticize Hartline's inability to break tackles consistently, I don't think this is the issue with his lack of TDs. After all, if someone like Johnson isn't doing it consistently either, why should we expect it from Hartline? TD receptions are the result of many different things. Perhaps the most important is opportunity. IIRC, according the stats the tv commentators had this past Sunday, we are at the bottom of the league in red zone plays. Obviously, the closer you get to the endzone the more likely it is you will score a TD. So if we are in fact not getting close to the endzone as often as most of the league this would explain the lack of opportunity to get TD receptions. Having said all of that, I think part of the lack of TDs is lack of a specific skill set. Hartline isn't particularly quick, such as Bess or a Wes Welker. So it's probably harder for him to get open in a confined area that the red zone and goal line area is. He also hasn't showed much of an ability to jump over DBs and fight for balls. And because of those things I think the coaches call plays that don't make him the primary target. So along with lack of a lot of opportunities and lack of what the coaches generally want in routes near the goal line, I think that explains a lot of Hartline's lack of TDs. Back to Shouright's point, given the variance across the league in TD receptions, we shouldn't judge Hartline too harshly based on his lack of TDs. It's not something he has a ton of control over. He's still a good player. And given some creativity plus more opportunities, I think he can score a decent number of TDs given his fantastic ability to control his body. If we can draw up some plays that utilize his ability to catch balls away from his body and keep his feet in bounds I think we would see more TDs. But more importantly, the rest of the offense has to improve so he can have the chance.
While Hartline doesn't have the best balance, he is particularly quick. That is why he is open so easily on comeback routes and double moves.
In comparison to other 4th round picks Hartline is a solid contributor and he has the upside of being a solid complimentary receiver, that's about it. I would consider Geno Atkins a steal. Jimmy Graham was a late 3rd round pick, that's a steal. To me, Mike Williams of Tampa Bay was a 4th round steal and I would guess that he has less yards and far more TDs than Hartline. I'd take Williams over Hartline without thinking twice about it. He has to compete with Vincent Jackson for completions and has the speed/athletic ability to command the respect and attention of a defense. I just looked it up- he has 21 TDs in not quite 3 years- that's a playmaker and contributor, a valuable weapon. When Hartline starts making more game changing plays and commands more respect from defenses, then I would think that "steal" might be appropriate, not "major steal", which just doesn't add up as an accurate description of him. It's part of the fallacy of this blind following of statistics- they don't tell the whole story. Look at Paul Warfield- he had about 600 yards receiving in 1972 with 3 Tds, about 500 yards in 1973 with 11 TDs. Do those receiving yard numbers tell the story? I think not. Yet to those who look strictly at the stats and say that TD reception are random or don't matter all that much- does anyone in their right mind think that Hartline is anywhere near Warfield as a WR? Warfield was an integral part of that offense even when only a decoy, he kept defenses honest and accountable as the Dolphins pounded away with the run game, and that counts for a lot. And he provided big game changing plays, which is huge. I'd like to see a whole lot more from Hartline before I'd consider him a steal. Cranking out a rather pedestrian 1,000 yards in a 16 game season, with his usual lack of TDs and game changing plays, just doesn't cut it. He's not an impact player.
The simple solution is to look at a receiver over his career if your're trying to factor in a one year abberation, as opposed to making excuses for a WR who doesn't score a lot of TDs. Brian Hartline has all of 6 TDs in his NFL career, including 1 in 2010, one on 2011 and one so far this year. That pretty much sums him up in terms of his TD production.
You're comparing him to the other steals from the fourth round, who are few and far between. Now compare him to the players from the fourth round who were utter failures (and there are many), and perhaps your threshold for "steal" will lower and include Hartline.
I think you also have to factor in the fact that during Hartline's fourth year and breakout year (this year), he's receiving passes from a rookie quarterback. Compare that to what Jordy Nelson did during his fourth year, for example, when his TD production went from 2 in each of his three previous seasons, to 15, while receiving passes from Aaron Rodgers. It's quite possible Hartline's TD production would've escalated to some degree as well this year, with the benefit of a better QB, and it's quite possible we may see that from him in the future, if and when Ryan Tannehill improves.
Hartline is a solid contributor. Whether or not he's a "steal" is a matter of semantics, and to me "major steal" is a reach. No big deal, it's just a matter of how you look at it. To me, Mark Clayton was a steal as a late round pick. Hartline is solid but very unspectacular. The good news is that Hartline is contributing and has turned out to be a solid 4th round pick, so regardless of the semantics he was a good draft pick.
Well, again, I think if you look at what fourth-round picks commonly do, I think you'll come away from this thinking it's not only "semantics." In terms of production on the field, I suspect Hartline is in the 95th percentile or higher among fourth-round picks. Now, if you want to define "major steal" as someone who's in a significantly higher percentile than that (and there isn't much room left! ), then I guess we disagree.
The mean AV for a 4th rounder is ~12. Here are some players that are around a 12 career AV: Le'Ron McClain Samie Parker Todd Johnson Jeremi Johnson Ovie Mughelli Sage Rosenfels Marcus Bell Max Jean-Gilles Domenik Hixon Dylan Gandy Adrian Jones Ryan McBean Gabe Watson Alex Stepanovich Glenn Earl Monty Beisel The median AV for a 4th rounder is ~8. Here are some notable players that have had between a 7-9 career AV: Leon Williams Demetrius Williams Dan Buenning Duke Preston Sam Brandon Chris Weinke Fred Bennett Mansfield Wrotto Josh Beekman Calvin Lowry Vincent Fuller Niko Koutouvides Artose Pinner Lee Suggs Dan Klecko Allen Barbre Scott Chandler Antwan Barnes Guy Whimper Luke McCown Anthony Maddox Sam Aiken Kenyatta Jones Carlos Polk John Howell Markus Steele Trevor Gaylor Marcus U. Bell Also, its worth nothing that I ran these numbers from data between 2000-2007. Two reasons: 1) PFR doesn't let me return results with more than 300 entries for some silly reason, and 2) Career AV is somewhat of a cumulative statistic, so the more recent drafts probably aren't very reliable in determining how a career will turn out. FWIW, Brian Hartline has a career AV of 13. In the 2009 draft, there are 3 players drafted after him with a higher career AV. Johnny Knox (20), Austin Collie (17), and Glover Quin (16).
I included that because if Smith is no longer here after this season, all you have to show for those first four picks is a 2nd and a 6th round pick. As I said before it's all relative. Curious though as to why in every thread that Brian Hartline's name is mentioned, you seem to imply, in my opinion, that Hartline's some crown jewel draft pick and/or player. In reality, and I think just about everyone agrees, that Hartline is a solid #2 WR who is a viable part of the offense; there just needs to be something else added. I'd concede that he's Jeff Ireland's or whomever's best draft pick as far as offensive skill players are concerned; but I think that's a bit alarming in terms of what's currently on the roster, especially considering the needs Miami has going into the offseason.
If I'm not overlooking anyone, IMO Brian Hartline is significantly more valuable than every player listed in that post other than Johnny Knox (when he's healthy). There are 44 players from the fourth round listed there, so that puts Hartline in the 99.98th percentile among them. You can't do a whole lot better than that folks.
I think Hartline is very solid. You put a good number 1 with him I think he would be a great number 2.
what empirical evidence? There zero empirical evidence showing Hartline & Bess as starters leads to a productive offense. Do you believe our coaching staff feels the offense is currently adequate in the scoring efficiency department at 18.9 PPG? They're not sitting in the office saying, "Ehh, let's keep it where it's at.". What you're ignoring is there are plenty of receivers who can move the ball between efficiently between the 20's but provide a threat to score with the ball in their hands and don't disappear inside the redzone. It's like you treat Hartline and Bess as though they're unsurpassed gods of the possession game. PPG isn't a terrible measure in this context. We're a West Coast style offense. There's nothing about 18.9 PPG that can that seem adequate in this instance. If this were still a ball-controlled, run-oriented, Dan Henning offense, 18.9 PPG could be held under different context, but even then it's still garbage. Doesn't matter how you present it, 18.9 isn't good enough, and there is NO argument that can be made that states an extra TD here and there due to your starting receivers making plays is no better for the offense than making no plays at all. What's it matter how "routine" the 2 instances are? Having it happen just one time is still better zero. A touchdown. There's no greater efficiency than a drive ending in a TD. As soon as Jones hauls in the score, the drive has reached 100% maximum efficiency. ....and the extra point that ensues? 4.08 points. Regardless, like I said, we lost 3 games this year by a field goal, so that 3.08 point differential can easily mean the difference between a win and a loss. But the thing about playmakers is, they don't just do it in one game, where as if Hartline ever did it, it's a happy birthday play. No it most certainly is not. Jones's 32 yard pass resulted in a direct touchdown, period. That's it, drive over. No potential for reduced points from a FG or points taken off the board from a turnover, sack, TFL, or penalty. A reception from our 20 to the opponents' 30 isn't guaranteed to end in a TD, let alone a FG. That's such bologna. A 32 yard pass that ends up in the endzone is 7 points with the PAT. A 50 yard pass that does NOT result in a TD leaves NO guarantee of the drive ending in a touchdown. In fact, a 50 yard completion from our own 5 yard line could still end in a punt. Not to mention, you're intentionally obfuscating the point. If we're on the 32 yard line, there's nothing else equal to a 32 yard TD because the moment that pass isn't converted for a TD the probability of scoring a touchdown immediately drops. Just like you said, 2nd & 7 from the 32 results in 2.92 pts on average, which is significantly less than the 6 from a 32 yard TD. Who cares? He puts it in the endzone and can make plays in the endzone. Hartline & Bess can't even carry it on their own damn backs, but rather instead require the rest of the offense to stressfully pick up the slack for them. Plus the notion of "scoring off the backs of others" is BS. Those other receivers didn't pick Jones up and carry him through his route until completion of all his 20+ yard TDs (with scores of 79, 74, 66, 70, 65, 33, 47, 21, 35, 24, 30, 28, 32, 29, 30, 20). I find it fascinating that you trivialize all these scores from outside the redzone as if those drives would've resulted in TDs regardless, despite knowing great offenses fail to convert 32-40% of RZ trips into TDs. And what about those 6 TDs of 47+ yards? What's the percentage of those drives subsequently ending in a non-touchdown had a TD not been scored on the play? Number of Hartline TDs from outside the RZ: 1 in 4 years. (and that was from terribly busted coverage) Number of Bess TDs from outside the RZ: 3 in 5 years. That's 4 lousy times combined that Bess & Hart ended a drive BEFORE the redzone in a guaranteed 6 points for the offense. There's nothing about that which is scoring efficient. It's pathetic. Every drive in which they can't score a TD from outside the redzone puts that much more stress on us once we reach it considering 40+% of the time we do NOT score a TD once inside the redzone.
Do the math. 11 guys on defense. 2 are on Calvin. How many does that leave to cover the rest of the offense? Not to mention, Detroit's WR corps is decimated with injury as they're resorting to mid season FAs and calling up PS guys, but Calvin still has 5 TDs despite defenses focusing all their attention on stopping him. However, Hartline is a non scoring threat despite getting the complete opposite of this kind of attention. If Calvin received the coverage Hartline gets, he'd have a 30 TD season. It's not just about how many TDs they do or don't score, but it's also about their presence on the field creating opportunities for others like in the picture above, which Hartline & Bess do not do.
Why would you continue to post it when you know what the context for that image is? That's not a realistic example of what coverage even Calvin Johnson draws with any regularity.
It was in direct response to a post about Calvin Johnson's touchdowns, so how is the picture not relevant? The picture in this extreme form provides a better mental picture of how defenses pay attention to playmaking receivers, thus creating opportunities and space for others. Just b/c most of the league's playmakers don't receive quite this constricting of coverage, it doesn't mean they don't receive enough extra attention to create opportunities and space for others, or in the very least freeze an extra defender who has to be cognizant of his whereabouts, especially in the endzone. On one end of the coverage-received spectrum is Calvin Johnson (like in the picture); on the other end is Brian Hartline. To say there's nothing in between would be extremely inaccurate. Hartline routinely sees single coverage or minimal safety help over the top. On the rarer occasions when playmaking receivers see single coverage with no help, their QBs are immediately lickin' their chops in anticipation of a big play. If defenses felt Hartline's yards posed a true threat they'd be paying him extra attention, and if they DID bracket him a chunk of the time he would NOT be a 1000 yard receiver. But no, defenses realize Reggie Bush, not Hartline, is the skill player who needs the attention in this offense b/c he's the only playmaker, the only player who's a threat to change the game on any given play. Hartline's extra yards are at Reggie's expense rather than being an addition to the offense. With great receivers, not only will they receive extra attention to help keep a defense more honest and less able to focus on the run, but they'll STILL produce 1000 yard seasons while adding more than just 1 TD.
Why don't you save these ridiculous posts for the "I've never played football in my life but I like to use cursory stats and wikipedia references to explain it" forum.
The funny thing about this is that you really have no idea whether Hartline is receiving this kind of coverage in reality. You have a theory about how Hartline should be covered based on the kind of player you think he is, and your objective "data" for confirming your theory is simply more theory. It's nothing but your own personal belief about how he's being covered in reality. In other words, you're living in a fantasy world.
It's a curiosity more than anything. Most NFL wide receivers, week in and week out will have single coverage. This goes for most very good wide receivers, and if you sat there and broke it down, even the elite guys more often than not are seeing "typical" coverage on a majority of snaps. It's single-coverage except for sometimes when they enter into certain areas of the field. Acting as if Brian Hartline is sitting there with a cornerback who is hung-over, disinterested, and playing with a cover-0 behind him is about as wrong as acting like what Calvin Johnson had in that play is really all that typical in the grand scheme of things. . If you bracket-covered Brian Hartline all day everyday he would not be very productive. Again, nor would most of the league, including a lot of guys who would be considered "stars". Defenses don't assign attention to threats based on some sort of slider bar that results in an either/or proposition. Playing a safety in the box does not inherently mean compromised pass defense. I don't really think teams have to pay "extra" attention to Reggie Bush, either. Teams have pretty well figured out how to defend him.
