Yes, I know, and I disagreed, then you said you agreed with me, but as other posters have pointed out, it was simply a matter of volume, BH was the same player with Henne, he just got way more targets with QB17, same catch rate, but his avg lowered. BTW, BH is the poster boy for being OVER fed the ball, and QB17 is showing the same tendencies with Landry, Landry is > BH, but the same pattern is taking place.
For the record, I believe that Tannehill did have a part in making Brian Hartline better. I just believe he wasn't the ONLY reason he had 2 1,000 yard seasons. Plus, I mean the end of the discussion should be as Chris, CK, said...our WR unit right now is SO much more complete without him. Can't help but not be excited about Landry, Parker, Carroo, and Stills. All young. All cheap and on rookie contracts. All players that can help Tannehill be better, and Tannehill can help them be better. It should be fun.
phew.. for a second... I thought people were going to suggest bringing that guy back here.. thank god we're all in agreement of Hartline's sucktitude.. You could have plugged in any receiver and they would have grabbed 1000 yards in the position Hartline was in, which was first option on a very weak WR core..
Yep doubt it too.. New England looks for route running ability, great grade A hands, and balance.... Hartline has none of those qualities.. Can't separate worth a ****.
I don't know how you could possibly claim Hartline was overfed. 130 targets for your #1 receiver (2012) and your main possession receiver (2013) is very much in line and even under the average target for such receivers in the NFL. The only problem was Hartline wasn't good enough to be these types of receivers, but that's not on the QB. Btw, Mike Wallace was targeted more in 2013 than Hartline. Only time Tannehill has overfed a receiver was this past season with Landry, and you can add that to the myriad of issues that plagued this team this season, but I don't think it is fair to say that's only on Tannehill or that he shows a particular tendency. If anything, Tannehill has shown he is very capable of spreading the ball to his targets.
I love how Hartline was supposedly overfed, due to the perception he's not a go to WR.... But that's ignored when factoring what the QB has had to work with..... Hartline,Wallace ( both now dropped like garbage ) not a TE or receiving back in sight.....Let's spin it so that Tannehill only throws to ****ty WRs.... They're clearly " buddies " . 2012- Hartline.... 16 games, 128 targets, 8 per game Bess..........13 games, 104 targets, 8 per game 2013- Hartline....16 games, 134 targets, 8.3 pg Wallace.... 16 games, 148 targets, 9.25 pg
First of all; It's pretty telling if this is your recallection of what he said. That never happened. Secondly, how can a player who was clearly the best pass catcher on the team be a "poster boy" for being over fed ? Doesn't even make sense! Then we add Wallace.... Hartline still "overfed" 1000 yards !!!! .... Now supposedly Landry is getting too much and must be his buddy, when Mathews/Parker are somehow emerging ? How about Stills doing more damage downfield than Wallace ever did for us ? Is that due to Tannehill's shortcomings? Gotta be his buddy? You may not be a fan of this outlandish "tendency" to use the best weapons at your disposal... But NFL QBs are. Only dolphin fans like this could turn the severe lack of tools into a negative against the QB.
I addressed this earlier. He wasn't overfed in the sense that he was the #1 option and the targets have to go somewhere. He was overfed in the sense that he shouldn't have been the #1 target. Once Wallace started to click with Tanny and Landry you saw Hartline's targets drop
You tried to address it. This is a step further from logic. What do you mean by....he shouldn't have been the #1 target. ? Was there someone better on the team In 2012? Are you implying that the QB would have been better off spreading around to far less reliable options ? Or are you actually indicting the passer for going with what works, throwing to the best ( only ) option too much ? Hartline's targets actually went up the year we added Wallace, and dramatically decreased only after changing scheme and drafting Landry. The only time he was considered our best, or #1 WR, he averaged the same targets Davone Bess did. A whopping 8 per game. Yes, Landry, like Wallace before him.... IS a better option than Hartline. So kudos to Tannehill for always picking the right "buddy", regardless of how they compare to other teams best receivers.
All too often you appear one of the only guy's in these threads with a solid understanding of the game.
What I mean was, Ireland should have never constructed the roster where Hartline was our #1 receiver.
I was lucky enough to meet Hartline in Tampa during Bullygate, the Sunday before that Monday nighter we dropped to the winless bucs. My first road game. I Was surprised to find i was staying in the same hotel as the team. BHart was the friendliest guy I came across. That was cool, but the billboard message he made thanking dolphin fans was even cooler.
I thought this was about Tannehill throwing to Hartline too much? This offers nothing but to backtrack, change subjects. Hartline was the #1 WR for how long ? And how many more targets did he average than Davone Bess In that span? Zero.
You keep using this cliche as if you're qualified to detect such knowledge when you really just use this as an insult to anyone who disagrees with your Personal opinions. If youre so knowledgable, why insult everyone who's wrong ? Why not just use your knowledge and debunk us with facts some more ? Oh yeah, Mike Wallace wants to know if you still love em, any where near as much as you did a few months ago. Yah really hung your hat there, now you're seemingly overcome with pure bitterness, coming here only to restart the same pissing match over and over again, laced with insults. Dont worry though, you've clearly left us no need to insult yOU or your level of knowledge...We're above that here anyway.
You're not making sense. I said: Your reply: Which didn't make sense. I said Thill MADE Hartline's 2x1000yrd seasons and you reply by implying Thill was responsible for Hartline's 2x1000yrd seasons, and you're acting as if that is different somehow. Phinsanity has already destroyed the completely ridiculous notion he overfed Hartline the ball. You also babbled on about Thill and Hartline being buddies which there's literally no evidence of and actually some evidence to the contrary.
Dude, what are you going on about. you are clearly emotional about this you can't even follow along with the conversation. You should re-read my post. I'll even highlight the pertinent portion. I defended Tannehill saying he didn't overfeed Hartline. It was Ireland's fault that Hartline was our best WR. Last year AJ green and Amari Cooper had the same amount of targets Hartline got here. Hartline is no AJ Green. Is that Hartline's fault? No. is that Tanny's fault? In this case, no. There was no better option. Did Tanny maybe force a few here and there, that's entirely possible but it's not like Tanny had Brandon Marshall on there, while overfeeding Hartline. The people at fault for Hartline getting 130 targets was Ireland and Philbin. That said, Tanny didn't do anything special either.
Hartline was a #4 WR who due to roster shakeups wound up as a starter. On better constructed teams, he would've been a depth WR. He benefited from a lack of talent at the position. Did he produce at times? Yes. But he also dissappeared alot too. Again, shouldn't have been a starter. He would've been the same average WR on any team with any QB with the exception of Brady, Rodgers, Roethlisberger and Manning, to which he probably would've had slightly better numbers. I don't see why this is still being debated. Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Hartline's 2015 was the same/slightly better than his 2014 with Tannehill. What happened to Tannehill making Hartline? Why did it disappear. 2014 was Tanny's best year too. I still laugh at the notion Tanny made Hartline a 1k receiver. Doubled the targets. Doubled the yards. But it's the QB? So we've established Tanny was as good as Henne, and Henne/Matt Moore now. Okay.
I really don't know why you're assuming doubling targets would double production, specially with someone as limited as Hartline. Not only that, but going from 2nd WR (actually 3rd by targets) behind Brandon Marshall to 1st WR with Bess as your 2nd while doubling those targets. At best you would see a drastic dip in efficiency to accompany that doubling of targets and that change in role. But no, Hartline lost only 1 ypt while actually improving his reception rate from 52% to 58%. I wouldn't try to build Tannehill up by arguing he did anything overly significant with Hartline, but arguing he had zero effect and it was just a byproduct of higher usage is just as flawed an argument.
I'm not sure this logic holds true, first off, according to PFR, the % was 53% to 56%, but more importantly, both are poor numbers for a possession WR that isn't in the mold of an Andre Johnson. His ypr went down by over a yard, which is fairly significant, but can be explained by shorter routes, which would also explain the slightly higher catch %. Which can be directly compared to Bess, who was targeted just as much, but his % went down, while his ypr went up by 2 1/2 yds, so running longer routes lowered his %. There is no reason for any drastic dip by increasing targets, he is the WR he is, his role didn't change, as it pertains to what he was doing on the field, just the amount of targets. The following year a very similar thing, his % went up by 1, and his ypr went down again, then when Lazor comes in and shortens everything, BH's % went up to 61%, and ypr went down to 12.2. So his higher usage, combined with slightly shorter routes, explains everything, and that it was simply lots of targets that got him to 1000 yds.
Using espn stats Hartline had 35 recept on 67 targets in 2011, which is 52%. 15.7 ypc, 8.2 ypt. He had 74 recept on 128 targets in 2012, which is 58%. 14.6 ypc, 8.5 ypt. There is no dip in efficiency at all and you could argue there was an increase. Once again though, the assumption an increase in targets would lead to an equal increase in production is flawed, so is the assumption a change in role would have no adverse effect in efficiency. Hartline was a 3rd WR by targets in 2011 behind Marshall and Bess, and was a #1 WR both by targets and position in 2012. The logical assumption here is that the significant increased in targets, coupled with the increased difficulty of situation and role change would lead to considerable dip in efficiency simply because Hartline was not talented enough to cope with those circumstances. There was no such dip, and that reflects favorably on Tannehill, though like I said, I would not use this to claim Tannehill did anything significant, but certainly he had a favorable impact on Hartline's production. Just for the sake of this argument, let's analyze another circumstance. Lets take Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers of 2014 and 2015. The best QB of the game certainly offers a very controlled variable for the QB position in this analysis. In 2014 the Packers had Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb and Davante Adams as their 1st, 2nd and 3rd WR respectively. Nelson produced 98 recpt on 151 targt for 1519 yards; Cobb, 91/126, 1287 yds; Adams 38/66, 446 yds. In 2015, Nelson was injured, so that pushed Cobb from #2 to #1, James Jones as the new #2, and Davante Adams remained the 3rd WR but received roughly a 40% increase in targets. Assuming volume and role have no adverse effects on efficiency like you guys claim, you'd expect Cobb's production to remain the same and Adams production to increase 40%. That wasn't the case. Cobb received virtually the same number of targets, 129, but caught only 79 of them for 829 yards. That's a 13% dip in catches and whopping 55% dip in yards. The change in roles had a really big negative effect on his efficiency. Davante Adams' targets increased from 66 to 93, a 40% increase, but he only caught 50 of those passes lowering his recpt % by 4% and actually only accumulating 483 yards. Now he only played 13 games vs 16 in 2014, but the efficiency numbers were really down across the board. Suffice it to say the increase in targets did not lead to a proportionate increase in production.
I think you're leaving out a very important factor, the dynamic minus, Nelson made that offense dynamic, combined with Rodgers, but we had no such dynamic presence here, Marshall and Henne did not make our offense dynamic. When you take away a special threat like that it changes everything, because he changed how defenses played them, and that did not exist on our team.
Marshall might not have had a great dynamic with Henne and Moore, but he still impacted the dynamic of the team and the dynamic with respect to Hartline.
I wouldn't argue with that, he affected THE dynamic, but he didn't make the offense dynamic, we're using 2 different definitions, I'm using it as in terms of "great force", and you're using it in the "relation" sense. We were a ho-hum O with Marshall, and ho-hum without him, no great change. I think you can say we both have valid theories, even if we disagree.
If that reflects well on Tannehill, you'd have to argue that it doesn't reflect well on Rodgers, and that's just not an argument I'd make. Are you also assuming that Hartline was actually getting a lot more attention? Sure he may draw the best CB, but was he frequently beating double teams? I'll need to see some stats and film. Cobb was constantly subjected to double teams because teams feared him. Was Hartline getting double teamed constantly? Honest question, it was a few years ago. I know that all ended in 2013 when Wallace got here. Cobb also suffered a shoulder injury early in the year. I believe he suffered from it all season. Davante Adams (who I think sucks) also suffered a high ankle sprain I believe. Caused him to miss some time.
Here is a post from someone who watched a lot of, or all of, Hartline's film in 2012: http://finnation.com/brian-hartline-2012-game-tape-part-2-and-3/ Comparing Cobb to him is folly, because Cobb will draw double coverage. I'm not sure any D-coordinators were scared enough of Hartline to do so. Videos of all of his targets in 2012 were there. And nobody was double teaming him in 2013 with Wallace here.
You have failed with this post. It cries of more hyperbole BS that lumps you in with a few others that struggle with the ability to discuss many topics in a reasonable manner. "Oh yea Mike Wallace" do you realize how much of a child you sound like when you say that dumb shnit? Let's pretend I have even discussed MIKE WALLACE at any length since he is no longer a Dolphin, does it still pertain to anything in this thread? Or are you just trying to get some cheap "likes" from a group of guy's who have drove down the stock in these main forums. Thats solid company you are looking for approval from. Maybe they will let you be a derma sherpa. Sad. Pathetic. Funny.
