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. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Davone Bess had ZERO problems last year catching 3 TD passes, all from Matt Moore, while Hartline had ... one. From Chad Henne in the first game. Nada the rest of the year.

    Weeks 9-17 Matt Moore was having a TD party (relatively speaking as we're the Dolphins). He was handing out TD's like they were E pills at a rave. 15 Tds in 9 games. Almost everyone got in ... except Hartline. Weeks 9-17 was a 26 TD per year pace. Hartline. Nada.

    Bess caught 5 via Chad Henne the year before, by the way. Hartline. 1.


    I'm just saying.
     
    MrClean, Fin D and ToddPhin like this.
  2. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    That's lazy. If you watched any Giants game you'd know Eli went almost a month without throwing a TD. I know. He killed my fantasy team. You could have Jerry Rice, Marvin Harrison, Calvin Johnson, Gronkowski and Tony Gonzales on the team during that period, and he would still have played like crap. His end of the year numbers look decent, but they belie the fact that he had a super fast start and a miserable, Division III worthy middle of the season.

    From week 7 to week 11 he threw 1 TD and 6 INTs. Spanning a month.

    And what is all this HOF crap for Eli? Seriously? He's won two superbowls yes, that don't make him HOF worthy. If it did, then Dilfer and Brad Johnson were half way there. Stop it.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  3. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    QB rating is "controlled for" in what way? Is this another one of your pulled from a Cracker Jack box correlations?
    So how does Eli's 85.3 QBR, 24 Giants wide receiver TDs, and a 10-6 record fit into it.....
    .....meanwhile Miami's 2011 passer rating was 84.9 with 10 wide receiver TDs and a 6-10 record (despite Miami's scoring D ranking 6th verse NY's 17th)?

    Do you realize when a receiver scores a TD (even on his own merit) his quarterback's passer rating goes up?
     
    MrClean likes this.
  4. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    BTW, why did you not respond to Hartline having 10 less TDs than Nicks despite their QBs posting the same passer rating? Heck, you omitted it entirely from the quote. Man, all that hard work of blaming QBR for Hartline's lack of scoring just went right out the window didn't it. :)



    Considering receiver-created touchdowns increase a QB's passer rating, if Hartline could put up the production of a healthy Nicks, Miami would've had a 90+ passer rating last year, and considering we lost 5 games by a total of 11 points, those extra TDs could've easily been the difference between 6 wins and us making the playoffs with 10, but then your correlation would've been supported b/c with those extra wins would've come a higher passer rating. lol
     
    MrClean likes this.
  5. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    Wait, I wanna go at this bukkake fest, too.

    In 2010, a 2nd year Brian Hartline had 615 yards & 1 TD in 16 games w/ Henne & Thigpen.
    This year, a 2nd year Cecil Shorts had 681 yards & 5 TDs in 7 games w/ Henne.
    Now it's time for Shou to deflect this into an entirely different argument that he's already spent hours tweaking to fit his predetermined premise. :lol:
     
    MrClean likes this.
  6. In 2009 hartline played with chad pennington for 2 games and he was targeted 6 times. Of those 6, 4 were completions, 1 he was called for offensive pass interference, and I saved the best for last....... He lost on a jump ball, which was intercepted, in the ENDZONE. If he would of caught it we would of won the game. Brian Hartline was separating himself from the pack and emerging with his special talent of not being able to score right from the very beginning of his career. :knucks:
     
  7. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Tell that to yourself the next time the Dolphins win and you use the score to determine they did.
     
  8. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    My God! How on earth did we go 6-3 during that period? :confused1:
     
  9. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Statistically.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_correlation

    Quite nicely.

    That would be an exception to the rule. Some people often pick those out and tout them as the rule itself, rather than exceptions to it. ;)

    Sure. I'm not making up the data.
     
  10. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Only in your world in which one example often means everything.
     
  11. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    I'll just stick with the fact that touchdowns by wide receivers isn't at all related to winning, which has been determined by large-scale objective data.
     
  12. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Why a "crickets chirping" response" to this? Probably because this straw man argument of yours, substituting the percentage of WR TDs for the actually important number of how many TDs a WR crew contributes to an offense, has been dissected, eviscerated and disposed of. A "crickets chirping" response would also be an appropriate way to describe your behavior as you've repeatedly failed to address why you ignore the other factors that go into winning and losing football games such as defense, running game and special teams. When you encounter questions by others that bring up issues which are contrary to your ideas you most often simply fail to answer, preferring to just hide from the issues raised.

    Teams with good passing offenses aren't necessarily well rounded, winning teams. Losing teams tend to pass more and score meaningless pass TDs in "garbage time" for obvious reasons, they're often behind later in game s and opposing defenses are often in prevent mode, softening coverages and killing time. For these and any number of other reasons WR TD % shouldn't necessarily correlate with winning. You fail to account for this in your research and you fail to address this when you're directly asked about it, continuing a rather cowardly trend that you've established for yourself. And you, quite simply, fail to make a valid point here.

    This is why a "crickets chirping response" to you slinging out the same garbage stats and attempted discovery of meaningful links in data which have already been discredited shouldn't surprise you. There's not all that much to discuss, your conclusions have already be show to be without merit, and quite frankly to be self serving garbage as you attempt to justify your other even more idiotic conclusions.
     
    ToddPhin and Fin D like this.
  13. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Just because you found a way to say that it doesn't specifically matter where TDs come from in terms of winning the game doesn't mean WR TDs don't matter in terms of who is a better WR.

    Also, you are actually arguing that WR TDs have zero effect on the game but also the lack of them are exclusively the responsibility of the QB and will show up in the QB's WPA (which does effect the game) and will predict his future QB rating.

    If people were to follow what you're saying, its that its pointless to have WRs involved in scoring. So, we should take them off the field. If they score it doesn't matter, and hell if we're paying for WR's that score lots of TDs, then we should dump them and spend our resources somewhere else.
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  14. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Actually it's based on the number of wide receiver TDs, not the percentage of them.

    Perhaps the "crickets chirping" response is due to poor reading comprehension.
     
  15. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Might they contribute in other ways that are related to winning?
     
  16. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Zero meaningful affect. You said there was no significant correlation.

    Why ignore the rest of the post? Its because it shows the insanity and contradictions in your stance.
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  17. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    I misread your post and deleted my response when I realized my mistake. I did respond to another part of the post, however.
     
  18. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Nope, obviously not.

    WRs are tools for the QB Shou. Their catches and yards and pointless TDs are all the QB...remember? A hammer is a hammer is a hammer.
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  19. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    I'll give you another chance, since you're so persistent: have you factored in other elements of winning and losing to this study such as defense and special teams? Does it not make sense that losing teams could very well have a higher percentage of WR TDs because their offenses might lack solid running games or that they're throwing the ball much more than running late in games in which they're behind, ie garbage time?

    Do you account for any of this? Because you've been asked about this several times, and you can't seem to muster a response. Why is that? Maybe well rounded teams and teams with well rounded offenses tend to win more than passing offenses that score a higher percentage of their TDs by WRs? Could that be it? Because that would kind of throw your conclusions right in the toilet. What do you think?

    What's sad is that these garbage stats and conclusions that you alimentary produce are straw men created by you to divert attention from the real issue in these discussions, which is how a WR crew that is truly horrendous at scoring TDs can adversely effect an offense. The sad thing is that the percentage data just doesn't matter. No one cares about the number of WR pass TDs vs the number of RB or TE TDs- we all know that there's more than one way to score a pass TD. But when your starting WRs score TWO TDs on the year and the whole WR crew scores THREE TDs on the year, there's a problem there. That's a major weakness, and a far cry from your rather silly and misguided research that tries to link the %of WR TDs to winning and losing, as if those were the only two factors involved.

    Sorry Shouright, that's a fail.
     
    ToddPhin, MrClean and resnor like this.
  20. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008


    You listed both numbers, and you've still chosen to not address why you haven't factored in other elements of winning and losing, as you've been repeatedly asked to. Why is that?
     
  21. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    Thats funny. How about we discuss the match ups and coverages they receive, or do u think that Pro Bowl votes are a more accurate indicator?
     
  22. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Its 1 minute 20 seconds left. Down by 4.

    You have the ball on your own 40. QB throws a screen to the slot receiver, who through considerable effort, takes it to the house. Defense stops the other team, you win the game.

    Following your logic, that TD pass positively effects the QB's WPA, but conversely meant nothing in terms of winning the game and on top of that, was all the QB.

    That is the end result of your comprehensive "logic" Shou.
     
    ToddPhin and MrClean like this.
  23. PhinsRock

    PhinsRock Premium Member Luxury Box

    Don't see exactly who replaces Bess in the slot there, Bess comes cheap and has the potential to be close to a Welker level player once Tannehill develops and we add playmakers to open up the middle.
     
  24. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Actually that was where you should've provided the data that show the ways in which wide receiver play are strongly correlated with winning, and analyzed those in terms of Brian Hartline's performance and the pay he's asking for, but here we are nearly 900 posts in and that hasn't been done. We're still hung up on his performance in terms of something that isn't correlated with winning at all.
     
  25. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Numbers of TDs by wide receivers correlates with winning at 0.43. There is a direct and moderately strong relationship between winning and TD catches by wide receivers. That rules out your "garbage time" hypothesis.

    The issue is that when you control for teams' ability to throw for TD passes in general (i.e., not to wide receivers specifically), the correlation between winning and TD catches by wide receivers becomes meaningless. In other words, when you introduce the team's ability to throw for touchdowns in general, throwing them to the wide receivers, specifically, means nothing.

    If you stopped the analysis with the first correlation (the 0.43 number), it would suggest some special ability by the wide receivers in terms of winning games. However, when you introduce the second correlation (the one that controls for passing TDs in general), it suggests that the QB's ability to throw touchdown passes, not the wide receivers' ability to catch them, per se, is driving the bus instead.

    Now, that's about the best I can do to make that understandable. You're going to have to meet me halfway at this point.
     
  26. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Because what we're focusing on specifically is whether the relationship between winning and passing TDs is driven more by the quarterback (i.e., passing TDs in general) or the receivers (i.e., TD catches by them, specifically). That doesn't necessitate an analysis of the involvement of other elements of the game.

    Once again, this is the best I can do.
     
  27. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,515
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    I think you are missing the point that Stringer is making. He isn't saying that Pro Bowl votes are an accurate or conclusive indication of how good a player is; he is saying it is a pretty good indicator of how good players and coaches think he is when you are talking about a player (like Hartline) who is not held in high regard by fans. And if players and coaches consider Hartline Pro bowl worthy it is an indication that his market value (to the teams for whom those players and coaches work) is higher than many believe.
     
    shouright and unluckyluciano like this.
  28. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    I'm happy to learn from any large-scale objective data showing that the relationship between winning and touchdowns by wide receivers is meaningful when controlling for quarterbacks' WPA.

    I suspect the result will be the same as the data that show that correlation is nil when controlling for quarterbacks' QB ratings and numbers of TD passes in general, however.
     
  29. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    I appreciate the effort, but you still haven't addressed the other issues, ie how other aspects of football should be considered as they pertain to winning, as in how are the defenses and running games of the teams, etc. Teams with balanced offenses and good defenses (like SF and Baltimore) historically do well- if they try to balance out their offenses and losing teams are passing mostly in 4th quarter garbage time of losses, that should certainly effect the data. What I'm trying to say is that you take a very narrow view and reach for general conclusions like Pass TDs to WRs aren't important to winning. It's just a narrow view and imo an erroneous conclusion.

    A different approach woudl be maybe researching something like this: when is the last time in the past 25 years that a team has had 3 TD receptions or less from WRs and made the playoffs? If they're not important there should be a decent number there, right?
     
  30. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    LOL.

    So now the guy that has based his entire theory on small sample sizes with virtually no control samples, is now telling us he'll only accept large-scale objective data.

    I have never met someone so adverse to admitting they were wrong as you.

    I'll ask you again, how can WR TDs be meaningless to the game, have no bearing on WR skill and yet be predictive of QB talent and matter towards his WPA? That is the dead end you've run yourself into. Large-scale, small-scale, objective, subjective, doesn't matter, you now have to explain the contradictions you've backed yourself into.
     
  31. PhiNomina

    PhiNomina White-Collar Redneck

    7,433
    3,637
    113
    Dec 21, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Seriously - through all of this has anyone explained what Hartline provides that is worth $5 million/year? Arguing that it's not his fault or it doesn't matter that he doesn't score TDs seems like a terrible reason to hand him a bunch of money.
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  32. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Until mods step in, this will keep happening in any thread about Hartline or Tannehill, I fear.
     
    PhinsRock, shula_guy and PhiNomina like this.
  33. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Sorry, I missed this post. But anyway, this just doesnt add up to me. If a QB throws some short screen passes to RBs for TDs and some roll out TDs to RBs or TEs, more power to him. I just don't see how breaking down the data in this way proves your point. And as to the correlation to winning- it's still a team game. Imo you can't take one part, compare it to winning, ignore the other team factors and arrive at a meaningful conclusion.

    QBs contribute to passing TDs, receivers do, too. Where you lose people is with statements that Wrs are basically interchangeable and there's no deviation in ability, no "special talents". That's just nonsensical. If WRs can't contribute TDs, that's a problem. If the QB was God awful, you might have a case. Tannehill is not God awful, far from it. He's not great, but he's not God awful. Hartline is historically bad at scoring TDs, having 3 TD receptions in 30 or so receptions his rookie year is not something to cling on to prove otherwise- the dude scores 1.5 rec TDs per year over a 4 year career. Bess is lousy at scoring TDs as well. The rest of the WRs are journey men, or close to it. WRs scoring TDs doesn;t have to be the end all and be all as per winning football games, that's just basic logic. But what it also doesn't have to be is a weakness, and it clearly is. YOu can go round and round blaming Tannehill and myself and others can place much more blame on the WRs, but that's subjective opinion. YOu have no stats that can prove anything in that regard, and vice versa. Tannehill can certainly improve, and our Wrs, both in 2012 and historically, are God awful at scoring TDs. Stats are helpful, but they're no substitute for common sense.
     
  34. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Moderators will absolutely step in when we determine someone is attacking another poster or derailing a thread.
     
    shouright likes this.
  35. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Great route-runner, great awareness, great mental capacity.
     
    shouright likes this.
  36. GridIronKing34

    GridIronKing34 Silently Judging You

    23,388
    16,296
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    Denver, CO
    LOL doesn't score TDs.
     
  37. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Because, as seen with the correlation between WR TDs and winning when QB rating is controlled for, and the correlation between WR TDs and winning when passing TDs in general are controlled for, it's quite possible (if not highly probable) that the correlation between winning and WR TDs would be meaningless when quarterbacks' WPA is controlled for, as well.

    What that would show is that quarterbacks' TD passes in general, rather than to wide receivers specifically, drives the bus on quarterbacks' WPA, not some special ability of the WRs to score touchdowns.

    Now, later on I'll actually run the data and look at this objectively.
     
  38. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    What the data show is that a finding such as that would likely be far more attributable to the quarterback's ability to throw TD passes in general on those teams than the wide receivers' ability to catch them.

    Once again, TD passes in general are much more strongly predictive of winning (i.e., playoffs) than TD passes to the wide receivers.
     
  39. PhiNomina

    PhiNomina White-Collar Redneck

    7,433
    3,637
    113
    Dec 21, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Is this supported with any statistics - or is it proven that he does this at a rate better than someone who would earn less? Is it proven that these characteristics correlate to winning football games?

    If we're arguing the statistical relevance of scoring touchdowns, 'great route runner' seems like a strange argument for shelling out $5 million.
     
  40. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    I haven't said that at all. What I've said is that if there is a special talent with regard to wide receivers' TD receptions, it isn't related to winning. That says nothing about the possibility for other special talents of theirs that could indeed be strongly related with winning, and could indeed distinguish receivers from each other in ways that are related to winning.

    What I can prove with stats is that when you have a quarterback who throws more touchdown passes, regardless of to whom they're thrown, you're much more likely to win than if you have wide receivers who have this theoretical ability to catch touchdown passes, and their quarterback isn't able to throw as many in general for whatever reason.

    Often they provide the "uncommon" sense that sheds the necessary light on the situation IMO, and in doing so they overrule the sense that's thought to be apparent to the common man.
     
    unluckyluciano likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page