Comparing the Dolphins Starting WRs to the League's Best

Dead on...

 

Fixed

 

Where's this discontent you speak of?

I don't know that anyone dislikes Bess or Hartline.
Most just reallize they are being leaned on heavily to make up for a lack of even one upper tier playmaker on the unit.

 

Fineas??

Is there any way of finding out how many tds our offense has scored outside the redzone?, say the last three years, relative to the better teams..say New Orleans?

 

i like Bess and Hartline. I hope they both stay. But I'd like to see a "stretch the field" reciever or a true deep threat. I don't expect Tannehill to throw multiple 50 yard TD's a game, but a few a season would help open other areas up. Brady benefits from having guys like Welker, Edelman and Woodhead who run great routes and then burn after they catcht the ball. NE's TE situation is an anomally in my opinion. Those 2 are a unique situation. Fasano has potential, but his drops become a problem. Again, I have no issues with Bess or Hartline. The problem becomes when one of them gets taken out of the game and the other has to make 10-15 catches a game that aren't getting Miami close to the end zone. They are a WR short, there's no doubt about it.

 

Wow, Miami is leading at red zone percentage at home?

 

None of this factors in the type & amount of coverage they face compared to their WR competition.
Case in point, regarding WPA, Hartline, Bess, Jacoby Jones, Emmanuel Sanders, and Brandon Gibson are ahead of Brandon Marshall, Victor Cruz, Larry Fitz, and Mike Wallace. That's silly.

..... and the EPA list has Cruz #54, Wallace #66, Fitzgerald #73. (equally silly)
..... and for EPA Per Play: B Marshall #36 (only 3 spots ahead of #39 Hartline), Wayne #49, Cruz #62, Wallace #66, Fitz #71. (also silly)

I don't put a lot of merit into this stat list, but I do find it interesting that Bess & Hartline's "Catch Rate%" ranks 36th & 40th.

....and if you take away Hartline's 80 yard TD against severely busted coverage [in order to give a more accurate representation], Hartline's yards per target drops to 42nd. Considering this occurred against non bracketed coverage/double coverage, it makes it even less impressive IMO. It just speaks to what many of us believe, that Hartline is a good complimentary piece but not a starter you'd rely on consistently winning with.

 

What are these numbers over the previous 3/4 years. I suspect these numbers may well be correlated more to the arrival of Tannehill.

 

Do what you will with the following list. I decided to break down total offensive yardage even further into total yards inside opponent's territory just to see what the stats look like.

It's interesting (disturbing really) that not only is Miami the 6th worst in total yards inside the 50 but we're also 6th worst in percentage of total offensive yards coming from inside opponent's territory. I think both stats combined speaks of what's been mentioned about this offense being easier to defend and less productive as the field shortens b/c our receiving corps at the moment offers little playmaking ability. It sheds a little more perspective on Hartline & Bess potentially having a 1000 yard seasons b/c they're obviously not contributing to a productive offense inside the 50 despite their impressive & misleading individual stats.

​

[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]total yards
inside
50 yard line
[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Percentage
of
total yards
[/TD]
[TD]

total
yards​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Jacksonville​

[/TD]
[TD]

943​

[/TD]
[TD]

30.0​

[/TD]
[TD]

3151​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

St Louis
​

[/TD]
[TD]

1045​

[/TD]
[TD]

28.7​

[/TD]
[TD]

3638​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Oakland
​

[/TD]
[TD]

1047​

[/TD]
[TD]

26.8​

[/TD]
[TD]

3912​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Arizona​

[/TD]
[TD]

1097​

[/TD]
[TD]

34.2​

[/TD]
[TD]

3212​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Tennessee
​

[/TD]
[TD]

1101​

[/TD]
[TD]

30.5​

[/TD]
[TD]

3605​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Miami​

[/TD]
[TD]

1114​

[/TD]
[TD]

31.5​

[/TD]
[TD]

3534​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

KC​

[/TD]
[TD]

1152​

[/TD]
[TD]

31.1​

[/TD]
[TD]

3698​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Carolina​

[/TD]
[TD]

1152​

[/TD]
[TD]

30.8​

[/TD]
[TD]

3738​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

NY Jets​

[/TD]
[TD]

1157​

[/TD]
[TD]

33.9​

[/TD]
[TD]

3418​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Cleveland​

[/TD]
[TD]

1200​

[/TD]
[TD]

35.7​

[/TD]
[TD]

3357​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Chicago​

[/TD]
[TD]

1269​

[/TD]
[TD]

38.6​

[/TD]
[TD]

3290​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Philly​

[/TD]
[TD]

1282​

[/TD]
[TD]

32.6​

[/TD]
[TD]

3928​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Tampa​

[/TD]
[TD]

1306​

[/TD]
[TD]

32.5​

[/TD]
[TD]

4019​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Minnesota​

[/TD]
[TD]

1311​

[/TD]
[TD]

35.8​

[/TD]
[TD]

3667​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Dallas​

[/TD]
[TD]

1350​

[/TD]
[TD]

32.7​

[/TD]
[TD]

4132​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Buffalo​

[/TD]
[TD]

1352​

[/TD]
[TD]

32.7​

[/TD]
[TD]

3813​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Pitt​

[/TD]
[TD]

1358​

[/TD]
[TD]

36.3​

[/TD]
[TD]

3738​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

San Diego​

[/TD]
[TD]

1366​

[/TD]
[TD]

38.3​

[/TD]
[TD]

3568​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Wash​

[/TD]
[TD]

1392​

[/TD]
[TD]

32.9​

[/TD]
[TD]

4234​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Seattle​

[/TD]
[TD]

1398​

[/TD]
[TD]

40.0​

[/TD]
[TD]

3484​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Indy​

[/TD]
[TD]

1398​

[/TD]
[TD]

33.0​

[/TD]
[TD]

4246​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Cincy​

[/TD]
[TD]

1398​

[/TD]
[TD]

35.5​

[/TD]
[TD]

3943​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Balt​

[/TD]
[TD]

1407​

[/TD]
[TD]

36.7​

[/TD]
[TD]

3830​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

GB​

[/TD]
[TD]

1457​

[/TD]
[TD]

38.6​

[/TD]
[TD]

3772​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

New Orleans​

[/TD]
[TD]

1494​

[/TD]
[TD]

35.6​

[/TD]
[TD]

4201​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Denver​

[/TD]
[TD]

1497​

[/TD]
[TD]

34.7​

[/TD]
[TD]

4310​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Atlanta​

[/TD]
[TD]

1544​

[/TD]
[TD]

36.4​

[/TD]
[TD]

4245​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

San Fran​

[/TD]
[TD]

1646 ​

[/TD]
[TD]

40.9​

[/TD]
[TD]

4021​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

NY Giants​

[/TD]
[TD]

1653​

[/TD]
[TD]

40.7​

[/TD]
[TD]

4064​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Houston​

[/TD]
[TD]

1687​

[/TD]
[TD]

38.8​

[/TD]
[TD]

4343​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Detroit ​

[/TD]
[TD]

1732​

[/TD]
[TD]

38.1​

[/TD]
[TD]

4542​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

New England​

[/TD]
[TD]

1873​

[/TD]
[TD]

39.1​

[/TD]
[TD]

4794​

[/TD]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Note: San Fran's impressive 1646 yards and league-leading 40.9% is a huge testament to the significance of a great oline.

 

To me, it isn't as much an issue of quality as it is of quantity. It's like an 8 cylinder engine that's firing on only 6 cylinders. Bess and Hartline are doing their jobs well, but sometimes that just isn't enough. Better 3rd or 4th receiver options or a better pass catching TE might have made a difference between having to punt the ball away and sustaining drives. Personally, I'm not convinced they need a high end #1 receiver like Wallace. But I do think they need another good one and an upgraded threat at TE. In fact, if the coaching staff has any doubt about Egnew's future they should seriously consider drafting another one in the first 2-3 rounds or perhaps make a play for Finley. Get him straightened out and you could get some solid bang for your buck there.

 

Here's an additional angle on Fineas's original post.

Note the names of the starting QBs I've placed in parentheses next to the numbers below:

In essence you could argue that Bess and Hartline are CARRYING the pass offense to a much greater degree than the receivers on the teams in their company in the lists above.

It's actually precisely the opposite of what many people here believe. It's not that the receivers are holding back a QB who would otherwise be performing much better.

It's that those receivers are helping the pass offense produce as it would if it HAD a QB who was much better!

 

Let me know when you come across an "objective" rebuttal.

 

If this were true it would be meaningfully reflected in their performance- Their production would be inefficient, as they are being over-utilized relative to their ability, and being asked to do more than they should. I don't think there is any evidence this is the case.

 

leaned on ? You mean asked to do their job? Their job in which has been shown they are doing well? This eventuality argument really is inane and should be reassessed. Hey peyton manning only throws so many yards because he's the best qb the broncos have at the moment lol

 

Wow someone spent a lot of time on those stats.. One thing it doesnt figure into though is how many of those "thrown too" were pruposely overthrown or underthrown? (IE guy wasnt open and the QB throws it out of the end zone etc.) It also doesnt take into account the 2ndary the team faces.. if they faced say revis and Crowmartie twice be a lower number than a team facing say Oakland twice.

 

IMO the play calling in and near the redzone is a big factor. We don't seem to target the WRs much down there. Of course that might be b/c they don't believe they're likely to be effective.? It seems to me that Bess's quickness would make him a good target down there. I would also think that Fasano's big body and knack for catching in traffic would make him effective in the redzone. I also think that we don't seem to take the endzone shots when we reach the opponent's 40 yard enough. That seems to be a sweet spot where the defense isn't yet compressed and yet you're close enough to score. IMO that may be either on RT who tends to get rid of the ball so quickly or on the OL whose protection makes RT have to get rid of the ball quickly (rather than letting the deeper pattern develop).

I'm with the group that likes our WRs but feels we need a couple more pieces. I think it's mostly about spacing. I think that if we had a guy who threatened deep on the outside (like a Wallace) and a guy who threatened deep in the seam (can Clay be that guy?), then it would really open up our offense. BTW it doesn't have to be Wallace or even a true number 1. I think it has to be a guy who can keep the S back and draw at least some double teams. IMO both Hartline and Bess are effective against single coverage. I don't see the separation issues that many claim. When I watch other teams I see there WRs get separation at times and not at others. And the ratio seems similar to my eyes.

I also think it helps when we use Bush out of the backfield. I don't understand why we don't do that more often.

 

Does anybody ever factor in the rookie QB in these issues?

 

As I said above, it's not about a true #1. We need a receiver that threatens certain areas of the field for spacing purposes. I don't think that a guy who stretches the D vertically is necessarily a #1. A #2 with that skill set may be just as effective. I'm not sure I would classify Wallace as a true #1 anyway. In my definition, a #1 draws a ton of coverage and I'm not sure Wallace has reached that level of respect (or ever will). I think he's another piece. I also think that the piece is important enough that I would spend the resource to acquire it. I know that we could get a a WR in the 3rd or 5th that may eventually develop enough to round out our corp, but I don't think it's wise to wait and hope for that to happen. I actually think that Matthews has that kind of potential and I want to see it developed, but I'm not willing to put all my eggs in that basket or even a basket with him and another 5th round guy added in. I would spend the money on Wallace and continue to develop Matthews. I also believe that you can sign a Wallace for less than that true #1 money. I think that in a long-term deal he would end up being paid more like a low #1/high #2.

 

I don't think that it's a huge factor by this point in the season. RT has a pretty good understanding of the offense. If there are fewer throws in the redzone, I expect they're more related to other play calling factors than an effort to protect RT.

 

I think it has more to do with the fact that the field is condensed and 11 defenders are now in a very tight space, combined with the speed of the game to which he still may be adjusting. It has to look something like a swarm of bees to him out there inside the 20 IMO.

I'd be interested in looking at how rookie QBs in general perform inside the 20 in comparison to the rest of their game, and in comparison to veteran QBs in that way. I suspect rookie QBs show a much bigger drop-off in performance than veteran QBs inside the 20.

 

I don't say this often, however I agree with Shouright. With more confidence and the game slowing down with him, plus him being more comfortable with using his athletism, I think the touchdown passes will increase.

For all people complain about Miami's redzone, I think it is impressive that, with a rookie quarterback and no great red zone runningbacks, Miami is in the middle of the pack in red zone percentage, even being #1 in the league in red zone percentage at home.

 

Obviously there should be a greater drop off for the average rookie QB relative to the average vet in the redzone, but I don't agree that would say anything about whether or not RT is being impacted b/c he's a rookie. I don't think the play calling is different for RT b/c he's a rookie. I don't think you throw less to your WRs in the redzone once your QB has as many starts as RT has. I just don't see that as a relevant excuse at this point.

 

I do not agree. WIth a quarterback who has an many starts as RT, I would rather run the ball in if I can.

 

Once you get to the second half of the season you either trust your QB in the redzone or you don't. There have been too many quotes by by Sherman remarking on how few mental mistakes RT makes to believe that he doesn't trust RT in the redzone. Now Sherman may believe philosophically that you should run more in the redzone (I believe that to be the case) so that may limit how often your QB passes in there. But that has nothing to do with RT being a rookie.

 

I guess it is just agree to disagree, because I find a lot of what you said before the bolded part to be, "because he is a rookie" and could have "for a rookie."

 

I'm a huge statistical person myself having read moneyball (years before the movie). That being said, your eyes don't lie. We need a WR.

 

Agree to disagree. That sounds like just saying the words "because he is a rookie" as a generality, but not applying it to the specific situation.

 

I do think that Tannehill is making good decisions, for a rookie. I don't think he is making consistant good decisions as a 6 year veteran.

 

While I expect that RT will continue to improve, I don't see any evidence that they are having him throw less in the redzone b/c he's a rookie.

 

I don't know about throwing less, however I do think he is less effective.

 

In what way? I don't see many poor redzone pass decisions that have actually hurt us. I just see few pass attempts. And if we're not throwing less "b/c he's a rookie" then the whole "he's a rookie" thing is irrelevant.

 

I like Bess and Hartline but when do we see either of these guys break a tackle? I'd like to see that stat because down in the red zone that is a huge skill which both lack. The other is how many times do we see them clearly just beat their corner? Bess does this much more regularly than Hartline. Not to often do we see either of them open like Clay was last weekend with a clear win. In their defense and the offenses I think not having a productive third receiver really hurts us in the red zone. If we had a third receiver as good as those two I think it would open things up for both of them to score more. When we get near the red zone teams just bracket those two and then we have to beat them with Fasano or a RB. If we had a third guy who could cause a mismatch, why Bush is not put in this roll I will never know, we would really open our offense up. Maybe a guy like Matthews could start to help this over the next 4-5 games. We can only hope. I believe a third guy who can win on the outside, who can break some tackles would complete our receiving core. We could leave Bess in the slot in 3 receiver sets in the red zone and put pressure on the defense to who they are going to cover instead of knowing we throw to our receivers alot. This week Belichek will have these down and we better be able to run the ball down there or use Bush or Thomas in some patterns.

 

I haven't seen many good redzone decisions that a savy veteran would make.

The touchdown to Bess against the Bills seems to be the rare play, rather than the normal play.

 

I see opportunities as a huge factor in that. With few attempts, you'll see few decisions good or bad. IMO that's the far bigger factor than "he's a rookie".

 

IMO, "for a rookie" is a much better factor than the lack of opportunities.

 

Again, in what way? I watch the all 22 and I don't see evidence that he made many poor decisions in the redzone that have actually hurt us, for a rookie or otherwise. I have never heard anybody claim that he's making many, or an inordinate number of poor decisions in the redzone for a rookie or otherwise. Do you have some information that he's making poor decisions for a rookie or otherwise? If not, than "b/c he's a rookie" is a generalization without any specific basis in this situation.

 

I haven't seen him make many good decisions that have helped us.

I don't know where you think I am saying he is making poor decisions.

Because he is a rookie he isn't as good at throwing in tight spaces, because he is a rookie he isn't as comfortable moving in the pocket to buy time to allow his receivers to get open, because he is a rookie his reads have been kind of late and not quick enough for the smaller window of the red zone.

He hasn't hurt Miami in the redzone, however he hasn't helped enough to not try to run the ball more because, so far that is effective.