It's hard to compare since they were in different systems with different quarterbacks. But the evidence is overwhelming both statistically and on tape that Brandon Marshall is a much better player than Brian Hartline so I'm not sure I even see the point in mincing the stats.
I was talking about production. Granted, i wasn't clear enough in saying I was comparing Marshall's production in Miami to Hartline last year, but I was very clearly not talking about overall talent. So clear, there was no need for your post.
Many people were praising Naanee in camp. Kelly countlessly said that Naanee wasn't playing in games like he did in practice. I understand the dislike towards Kelly but it annoys me that people constantly bring up Naanee given the circumstances.
He told people they were idiots who didnt agree Nanee was a good receiver. And he never admitted he was wrong, even after the Dolphins cut him. I swear if I hadnt met you in person, I would think you were Omar himself
This. Naanee played well in practice. Omar Kelly reported that he played well in practice. He sucked in games. It is what it is.
If only there were some kind of recorded video evidence of these "games" to where you could watch these "videos" of him playing "games" with previous teams and see that he was the slappiest slapdick that ever slapped a dick. Agh! Technology!
If Jake were still playing at the level of his first 3 seasons, the leadership council participation wouldn't have mattered one bit.
I see what you're saying, but there is a huge problem. You're comparing Marshall's number under an old offensive system (Daboll) with Hartline's number in a new system (Sherman). Not to mention vastly different QBs. Both of them have new systems this past year, and one of them killed it and raped it, in that order. Even going back to 2011 when they played together, Marshall's utilization rate had him catching a higher percentage of passes targeted towards him. 4.5% or so, which isn't insignificant. And in 2012 Marshall still had a higher utilization rate and higher everything else too. And 5 TDs is not a minor difference, unless we're talking 15 and 20. When you're taking 1 and 6, it's huge.
You're right. They weren't spread among the right games when Marshall was here, otherwise it would matter.
Anything under 8 TDs for a #1 WR is a disappointment. 6 is better than 1, but not some astronomical degree that says we never should have gotten rid of Marshall.
But even that doesn't overcome stupid penalties, dropped TD passes, and being a general head case (getting stabbed, was it?) Good Riddance!
With math skills like that it is luckily he's in Arizona, so when he's a HS senior next year he can apply for Arizona State.
Right. Actually, I am a Mechanical Engineer North of Dallas. IF I was going to pick the "Stupid School" it wouldn't be Arizona State, but Arizona. I lived in Tucson, and I saw first hand..... I of course meant 600%.
Yeah of course it is. I find it interesting that a draft guy like yourself would tell someone they can't compare players performances from different teams with different coaches. I'll keep that in mind the next time you tell us a FA or college kid should be picked up based on performances with different teams and different head coaches.
You're missing the point. You said that those 5 more touchdowns being disbursed throughout the 2011 season didn't lead to any more wins than the 2012 season. At that point you're not comparing player production from different teams to new teams or in new systems. You're talking about two completely different football teams with different quality defenses, different quality offenses, etc...and pretending that 5 more touchdowns for one of those teams would've been the same as 5 more touchdowns for another of those teams. That's a HUGE (and bad) assumption.
Considering I was answering a post that understood that the TDs would have to be distributed correctly, I didn't think we were talking about super realistic scenarios. The 5 more TDs he did get could have come in games we already won...no? The 5 TDs he actually did drop could have changed our record that season. He could have dropped 5 TDs that cost us games we did win this year.
Agree with the bold. So Marshall came pretty close to not being a disappointment while Hartline didn't even show up.
My line is 8. Under that and you're a disappointment. Trying to decide who is more of a disappointment is splitting hairs. I mean sure Hartline had less Tds, but he also cost less in terms of money and picks too. Again, splitting hairs under 8.
Ah. All or nothing. Yes that's a good way to view it. "If you're not first, you're last." -Ricky Bobby
All very good points. Which I'd have agreed with had you brought them up. Instead you brought up a not so good point, which I didn't agree with.
Its not all or nothing. 8 is my bottom line. There's levels above that. Its just I'm disappointed if my #1 Wr scores less than 8. I think 8 is the minimum.
Guy who scores 7 is the same as guy who scores 0. Then. Keeping in mind 100 TDs will get you into the top 20 of all time (WR and RB) and someone who averages 7 through 15 years will get 105.
That's still disappointing to me. Sorry, if that's weird to want my #1 Wr to score more than 7 tds in a entire season. Besides, didn't you agree with 8 being a benchmark of disappointment or not? Now it seems you're arguing that 8 is too high.
No I agree with 8 being a good benchmark of disappointment. I disagree that getting 7, is the same as getting 0. Just like if I say if 100 QBR is a good benchmark of where I think a franchise QB is, I'm not saying someone at 99 QBR is the same as Mark Sanchez. I think 8 is a bit high for the baseline, but I agree with you, its in the range. I disagree in the application saying Brandon Marshall's 6, is the same as Brian Hartline's 1. I agreed with the bold saying 8 is a benchmark. That's cool, but I'm allowing for degrees of disappointment. Oh crap we lost the superbowl is, not the same as aw crap we went 0-16. Both are disappointments, one is not like the other.
Its not a benchmark that applies to other things though. Like just because I think 7tds is as disappointing as 1 td (for a #1 WR) doesn't mean I think losing the superbowl is the same as going 0-16. I think 5 wins and under is all the same and splitting hairs after that. I mean when you indiscriminately apply what you assume I think to other things then sure, you'll get crazy results.
If Omar is tapped out on sources, and Armando is begging forum posters for info.... Perhaps we could use them to our advantage. i.e. bogus, staged threads where the plot is to strategically plant false information which said reporter(s) would interpret as fact. Make our own smoke screens ! @Omarkelly-" my sources close to the team indicate Miami plans on going 0-line round 1, not at all interested in Wrs."
I hear you. Just disagreeing with there being no degrees of disappointment re: WR and less than 8 TDs. I use the other scenarios as analogies to illustrate my point, not to pin you back on having to agree with those because of this position. All good. Just voicing disagreement, which we both can do
So...... 7.=1??????? And you gave me crap for omitting the %? Dude, just give up. It's getting deeper and deeper with every post. You past ladder help and headed to very long rope depth.
