1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Hartline wants 5-6 million per season

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Perfectville_USA, Jan 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Patssuck

    Patssuck Well-Known Member

    1,160
    432
    83
    Dec 2, 2012
    M.I.A
    What did he produce? No way in hell is he worth 7 million.
     
  2. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    Yup, definitely lots of correlation here. :unsure:
    Nevermind the fact:
    • RG3 played with a bevy of highly talented receivers (a 1st rounder & 2nd rounder last year and a likely 1st/2nd rounder this year).
    • Luck was in a TE heavy offense that featured 20 TDs to one of the best TE trios of all time (Fleener, Ertz, Toilolo)... and Chris Owusu who at least caught a pass for the Buccaneers this year.
    • Weeden had the 2x Biletnikoff Award winner..... and Josh Cooper who caught 106 yards with the Browns as a rookie this year.
    • Russell Wilson had Nick Toon (4th rounder), Abbrederes (7th ranked junior WR), Pedersen (#1 senior TE for 2014). He also had Montee Ball rushing for 33 TDs & 1900 yards, making life MUCH easier for a QB.
    • Tannehill? His receivers dropped 79 passes.
     
    Aquafin likes this.
  3. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    You and those charred oysters.
     
  4. Disgustipate

    Disgustipate Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    31,608
    55,634
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    It's not a good argument. Teams don't rank their receivers and give them target workloads, they put them on the field and they run routes and if they get open the get the ball thrown to them. Especially the Packers, if you're on the field you're going to get thrown the ball according to your merits. They are the team for spreading the ball around-and James couldn't hack it.

    James Jones was on the field more than virtually every other receiver in the NFL not on the Patriots, Colts, or Broncos. And he couldn't produce.

    If you are unclear as to why you can't compare costs on players under rookie contracts to players under free agency contracts, I'm at a bit of a loss.
     
    Anonymous likes this.
  5. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    You're at a bit of a loss period, because your arrogance doesn't allow you to even attempt to see what other people are saying. But yes, of course, just keep pretending that everything that someone says that you don't agree with is the stupidest thing in the world. It makes you seem smarter. Honestly. We toootally think you're smart because of it.
     
    calfishman, MrClean, Steve-Mo and 4 others like this.
  6. Disgustipate

    Disgustipate Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    31,608
    55,634
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    I'm the one with an actual argument here, so I'm not sure of what I'm at a loss at. Feel free to actually make an argument, though.

    I'd start with explaining how James Jones lack of productivity makes sense when he's on the field more often than any other skill position player on the Packers by a very wide margin.

    Maybe he was in pass protection? Something to look in to.
     
    Anonymous likes this.
  7. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Maybe then you should credit Tannehill a bit for increasing Hartline's production, no? You can't PROVE that Tannehill wasn't responsible for Hartline's increased production, right? (Just a taste of your own debating style). Btw I don't recall Hartline being open deep much and Tannehill misfiring. Hartline just isn't a deep threat, as his poor TD production shows. His one TD was a medium length pass that he busted up the left sideline. Good play, but that's the aberration, his lack of TDs over 4 pro years is the statistical rule so far, no?

    At some point it's probably going to dawn on you that your objective analysis is leading you down a lot of false passages, foolish ones as well. It's one thing to balance out watching the games and common sense with statistical analysis, it's another thing to pull absurdity out of your rear about how all receivers are basically the same in the red zone and there's no "special talent" that allows the better receivers to score more touchdowns than other more average WRs. One of the reasons that they're better is that they score more touchdowns, which is often a reflection of advantages in speed, quickness, height, intelligence, hands, take your pick. Your theory of basic randomness when it comes to WRs scoring TDs is, well, not smart. Then, of course, your gem that WR receiving TDs really don't mean than much at all because of a lack of percentage correlation of WR TDs to winning games- I mean, seriously, let me know when you do it right and factor in the other elements that go into making a winning football team, because your argument is short sighted at best, absurd at worst.

    Funny, I just read your response to Mr. Clean:

    Originally Posted by MrClean
    Watch the games and you should be able to see some WRs are better than others in compressed spaces like the red zone

    Shouright: How will I know that what I'm seeing isn't the exception to the rule, or an anomaly in that particular game?

    That just shows either flat out ignorance and the inability to engage in any analysis beyond simply reading stats, or my guess which is that you're just trying to be difficult.

    Last thing: it's almost comical looking back at how often you've used the term "straw man" in describing other posters' arguments. Definition:

    "A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    And what does that remind you of? Maybe not defending the issue of Hartline's lack if TD receptions, but rather shifting the focus and, what was that definition, "replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."? Sound familiar? A wee bit hypocritical, your shifting the focus to the far less relevant issue of the percentage of WR TDs to overall TDs and how that correlates to winning football games? Without even bothering with oh, say, examining the strength of the teams' defenses, running games or special teams? That, Shouright, is what we call hypocritical. Go back to the blackboard, and if you actually find anything of relevance and actual significance let me know. Your conclusions based on statistical analysis are weak, and usually done with a subjective spin and selective process that makes them not only illogical but hypocritical as well. The data has to be relevant to the subject matter if you're trying to prove a point, and that isn't one of your strong suits.
     
    MrClean and shula_guy like this.
  8. Ozzy

    Ozzy Premium Member Luxury Box

    Right! It's just crazy to think that the veteran Wr might help that rookie Qb out some but you guys go ahead and blame the Qb. I'll choose to see that there is a HUGE void at the play making Wr spot. No matter who the Qb is...
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  9. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    How much time do you spend on these posts? :confused1:

    Here, I'll pick out the part that's relevant:

    Perhaps, though Hartline's number of yards per target was no different than it had been in the past, and it was a good bit higher than Tannehill's YPA. I'd say Hartline as a savvy fourth-year player probably helped Tannehill, the developmental rookie, considerably, rather than the other way around.

    Now, with the rest of that mess, if you're trying to somehow mute my self-assuredness, I'd suggest you give up. I've been posting on these boards for about nine years now, for about thirty-five thousand posts, and I'm 40 years old and quite confident in the rigor of my thought process. I won't be changing anytime soon. :)
     
  10. All of the above is controverted by the objective data.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  11. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    Lmao. Hartline for the packers = Tom Crabtree or Donald Driver this past season. People comparing Hartline to Jones don't account for the fact that if The Hitman played in GB he would hardly ever see the field.

    OTOH if Jones plays for us he's the number 1 so a lot of Hartlines targets don't even happen. His yards and catches go down but his TDs probably wouldn't change all that much ;)
     
    MrClean and ToddPhin like this.
  12. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    :lol: Right.
     
  13. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    I was typing this out while reading the draft forum posts, it doesn't take long. As to your posts, keep the disjointed nonsense coming, always good for a laugh.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  14. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    Sooooo Hartline had this "breakout" season w the rookie QB, all time highs in yds, catches, targets, none of which can be credited to the rook, but his failure to score TDs is bc of the rook. And actually, his production would have been even higher had he not been hindered w Tanne and his low QBR? Kinda hard to square that circle IMO.
     
    MrClean, Phins28 and ToddPhin like this.
  15. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    So the QB alters the genetic makeup of the receiver?
     
  16. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    yeah but at least his TD percentage would increase. :lol:
     
    MrClean likes this.
  17. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Wonderful. Happy to entertain. :)
     
  18. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Why would his increase in targets be credited to the quarterback? And if his number of yards per target wasn't any different than it had been previously, why would that be credited to the quarterback?

    The only difference in the rates of his performance was the decrease in his number of TDs per reception, and I'm happy to attribute that to the developmental rookie that was throwing him the ball as the most parsimonious explanation in the absence of the ability to prove it either way. JMO. Of course your opinion may be different.
     
  19. Eshlemon

    Eshlemon Well-Known Member

    Depends on how much of the money is guaranteed on whether or not I would want Hartline in the 5-6 million range. If another team wants to guarantee 12 million+ as part of recent 5-6 million range WRs such as Meachem, Crabtree, Robinson, Burleson...no thanks. Half that, and will start to be interested. Higher than half, just can't see breaking Reggie Wayne's 7.5 million from the 5-6 annual WR wage group.
     
  20. Anonymous

    Anonymous Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    13,969
    3,367
    113
    Jul 5, 2009
    Yup.
     
  21. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Tannehill still had to get him the rock, and the increase in balls thrown Hartline's way is easily explained- there weren't very many other decent receivers to throw to.

    You realize that in your dissection of Hartline's TDs per reception stats that you're talking about a guy who scored 1 TD and has a 4 year average of 1.5 TDs per season, right? So just one TD more or one TD less changes everything because there's so few TDs in the study- you get that, right? Because the obvious conclusion is that Hartline is not historically good at scoring touchdowns, with a career high of a whopping 3 TDs on 30 or so receptions his rookie year. So if you were arguing against Hartline, you'd mention his downward trend, right? But since you're defending Hartline, just blame the lack of TDs on Tannehill, right? At the end of the day subjectivity still has to be applied to the stats, as it's a team game, not golf or tennis. What you attribute your stats to, in this case Hartlines lack of TDs per reception to Tannehill being a "developmental rookie", always seems to serve your purposes. No surprise there.
     
    MrClean and GMJohnson like this.
  22. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    So how is that attributable to the QB? If anything that's a feather in Hartline's cap, because with the absence of alternative targets, he should've been more easily shut down by opposing defenses.

    You're failing to grasp that the measure of interest (for me, at least) is the number of receptions it takes for him to score a TD (his TD rate), rather than his total number of TDs. Prior to this year, Hartline scored a TD every 21.8 receptions in his NFL career. In 2012 that number was 74.

    Now, that could just reflect random variation more than anything else, but if you're going to attribute it to someone, I'd say the developmental rookie quarterback is by far the more likely candidate.
     
  23. Disgustipate

    Disgustipate Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    31,608
    55,634
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    The problem with all of this is it's all on your assessment of Hartline, which we've pretty well established at this point.

    The Packers don't really have a "#1" receiver, and if we go with Jones and Hartline as starters next year, they will almost certainly have the same number of targets.
     
    Anonymous likes this.
  24. Disgustipate

    Disgustipate Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    31,608
    55,634
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    At some point, I think it would be pretty pertinent for the people who are arguing that Hartline was promoted past his level of competence have some sort of basic evidence that this is the case.

    If he's productive merely because there wasn't something else, there should be something to illustrate it. He would be grossly unproductive relative to his snap count. He would have caught a notably low percentage of his targets. There would be a lot of interceptions thrown at him. Etc. and so on.

    No touchdowns is not that argument. It's a specialized skill-set- Hence the fact that there are guys who specialize in it and do little else, and alternately there are guys who are quite productive, high-profile receivers who don't produce in that area.
     
  25. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Honestly, I think the issue is that everybody's tired of losing, Tannehill is supposed to be the savior, and in a year in which three of the other first-round QBs picked alongside Tannehill performed very well, someone needs to be the scapegoat on the Dolphins to account for why Tannehill didn't play similarly. Of course it sure can't be Tannehill himself if we're going to retain the same level of hope in him. It has to be his surrounding cast, and that's easy enough to do when Jeff Ireland is already being scapegoated for his personnel decisions.

    So when Hartline asks for money that actually accurately reflects his performance, the knee-jerk reaction has to be "no way!" without any deeper analysis of the situation. Whatever deeper analysis of the situation is done is then defensively rebuffed because, the more merit it has, the more it stands only to diminish our hope in Tannehill, since Hartline is one of his scapegoats.

    The perception of Hartline as fundamentally flawed has to be retained so as to maintain the same level of hope in Tannehill. The more the perception of Hartline is rehabilitated, the more the perception of Tannehill has to suffer, and we don't want that.

    JMO.
     
  26. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    That post wasn't about the Brian Hartline argument.

    But you already knew that.
     
  27. Patssuck

    Patssuck Well-Known Member

    1,160
    432
    83
    Dec 2, 2012
    M.I.A
    He is a good receiver. He isn't worth 7 million.
     
  28. Patssuck

    Patssuck Well-Known Member

    1,160
    432
    83
    Dec 2, 2012
    M.I.A
    Or Hartline is a good possession receiver with clear deficiencies. The guy hasn't never been a red zone weapons. Never
     
  29. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    I rest my case.
     
  30. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    And with that statement, there is absolutely no analysis at all done of whether his contract demands accurately reflect his performance, in terms of how they compare to other receivers in the league who have performed similarly. This is what I mean. It's a knee-jerk "no way!" with no analysis, and that IMO serves a defensive function regarding our perceptions of Tannehill.
     
  31. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    Watching tape is a good way to prove it. You're more of a numbers guy though so I don't expect you'll put much stock into what I'm sayin.
     
  32. Patssuck

    Patssuck Well-Known Member

    1,160
    432
    83
    Dec 2, 2012
    M.I.A
    Defintely a wr's production should never been used to decide what they are worth.
     
  33. Patssuck

    Patssuck Well-Known Member

    1,160
    432
    83
    Dec 2, 2012
    M.I.A
    In that post, I have did not defend Tannehill nor will I any future posts. If other teams want to overpay for mediocre results let them.
     
  34. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    I didn't know you began one about Patssuck's grammar. :p
     
  35. Disgustipate

    Disgustipate Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    31,608
    55,634
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Yes, I imagine deep down there's something rather Freudian with you, but I wasn't going to bring that up because I assumed you could keep it together and at least add something on topic. I'm glad you got some sort of catharsis, though?

    It's more than I would prefer to pay, but I don't see how it's out of line with the contracts that have come about recently.
     
  36. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Finding fault with Hartline can have the effect of mitigating any potentially negative perception of Tannehill, whether Tannehill is mentioned or not.
     
  37. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    The Packers don't have a #1 in the sense that no one gets the bulk if the targets. But Jennings, Nelson, Jones are all better than anyone we have and Cobb is more dangerous than anyone we have. BH had no one compete w for snaps, IMO that explains his increased production more so than a rise in ability.

    If Jones were here he'd get more targets than ever, as Hartline did this year. I thin BH would have less targets w Jones or Bowe or Jennings on board. But it's hard to do any worse than 1 TD, 1 TD on a broken coverage no less.

    Do you think the guy deserves a 6 million dollar deal? From Miami or anyone else.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  38. And with that statement, there is absolutely no analysis at all done of whether his contract demands accurately reflect his performance, in terms of how they compare to other receivers in the league who have performed similarly.
     
  39. Patssuck

    Patssuck Well-Known Member

    1,160
    432
    83
    Dec 2, 2012
    M.I.A
    Well, that's you fighting with windmills because I was not defending Tannehill. I know how sensitivity you get when anyone tries to do that.
     
  40. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    There are a lot of good wrs out there, Hartline isn't one if them.

    Dez, B Marsh, Garçon, Wayne, Crabtree, Nicks, Antonio Brown, Jennings, Bowe, V Jax, Steve Smith, Cruz, Roddy, Colston, Julio Jones, Boldin, etc. If you think The Hitman belongs in that group I dunno what you're watching.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page