Comparing the Dolphins Starting WRs to the League's Best

So then the task for you is to show -- objectively -- why TDs by WRs are more important than the stats in the original post.

Keep in mind that Fineas already addressed that in this way:

 

Anyway you slice it, our WRs are not very good. I thought this was obvious to people who watch football.

 

Well the OP shows that when sliced one way, the WRs compare favorably to the rest of the league. I think thats kind of the point behind the thread.

I think a more accurate point would be "even though this evidence suggests that the WRs are very good, I still think they aren't".

 

Everybody who doesn't think that must be a ****ing moron.

Way back in the 1400s, everybody who thought the earth wasn't flat was a ****ing moron.

 

In all fairness, they're still good under proper context (in a complimentary role). Just not as a starting duo.

 

Figures lie and liars figure.

If I were to tell people the Buckeyes were better than Alabama and Florida in football this year...I would have statistical "evidence" to back me up. But since I watch just about every NFL game and a decent % of cfb, I have the common sense to NOT make that assessment.

 

So people's eyes. Generally speaking though, those that reject science end up on the wrong side of history.

Not if you're using the right statistical evidence. You'd then able to say that one way you can slice it indicates they are the better team. That doesn't necessarily mean they are, as I'm sure you've figured out.

 

Exactly. I have figured it out.

As I have figured out Bess nor Hartline are impact WRs.

See how easy that is.

 

Why do you think the BCS only puts a percentage of its rankings on computers? Because "science" can and is frequently flawed.

 

So long as 'impact' doesn't include endzone visits.

 

Hartline is on track for 80 catches but only 1 TD...maybe two if you round up (by cheating).

Last year here, Marshall had 80 catches but 6 TDs.

So unless we're saying Moore and Henne were 6X better at throwing TDs than Tannehill is, we must account for some difference in the receivers themselves.

 

Yes, who needs those. Overrated.

 

the 'magically' stuff is just sarcasm and does nothing to promote real conversation, bro.

Yes, TDs can vary... but have Marshall's ever gone as low as one in a season? Varying within a pattern or range, sure... but if you think HArtline and Marshall are equal threats to produce a TD I disagree.

Marshall TDs by season: 2, 7, 6, 10, 3, 6, 8.
Hartlines: 3, 1, 1, 1.

Nothing to do with magic. Everything to do with them not being the same person on the football field.

 

Because they want to pick who plays in the games where they can charge the most for ads.

Why are retail investors always under performing the market? Why are casinos so profitable? Why do people buy lottery tickets? People make emotional decisions in the face of science daily.

 

Are the Knicks better than the Heat in your opinion?

I'll save you the trouble, you think absolutely not...well science and statistics say otherwise. Can't have it both ways chief.

 

Better team from Nov-Dec 2012? Sure. Good thing the season doesn't matter until May.

 

Your a special poster. I took your whole garbage science theory and hit you where it hurts, now you have begun "reaching"

And the winner by KO in the 1st round......Fiiiiiiiinnnnnnn Ooooooooo

 

???????

 

Man what an uppercut. I remember watching that one live. It was over in less than a minute.

 

No need to brown nose. Stringer isn't important.

 

I agree it's been the oddest thing, the not throwing to him, or even lining him up a slot once in a while. He can be a a very useful slot receiver every once in a while.

 

Exactly those are my two 1st picks next year. Whichever is the higher rated guy left on the board get him in the 1st round. I'd concentrate my free agency on those DBs

 

I think historically for short term success it is better to draft DBs and use free agency for wide receivers and tight ends.

 

"Why" you ask? because it's the team who scores the most points who wins, not the team who gains the most yards between the 20's.
A few random but nice-looking stats mean nothing if you can't score, and it's foolish of the OP to trivialize 2 TDs by a pair of starting receivers.

• The top 10 scoring teams of 2011 averaged 49 offensive TDs.

If you desire our WCO to join those ranks then where will the remaining 45+ TDs come from if 40% of our QB's starting skill players contribute less than 4? It doesn't matter what Hartline & Bess's yards look like if their presence as starters inhibits our ultimate goal of capping off drives with TDs. Furthermore, if they have to leave the field in order to get backups on there who pose as better scoring threats, then they don't deserve to be starters.


BTW, the OP & your argument needs an asterisk attached to it.
I say that b/c it doesn't factor in Hartline & Bess's terrible stats inside the 40. Hear me out.
Basically, because they're not very good inside the 40 they receive fewer opportunities, and we all know that a reduction of poor stats will inherently make the rest of the stats "appear" better just as you're complaining the removal of a 253 yard game will make the stats "appear" worse. Only difference is the stats, or lack there of, inside the 40 aren't an anomaly. Due to their hindering ability the closer we reach the endzone, they receive significantly less opportunities to add incompletions or INTs in tighter coverage, botched fades, little YAC, etc......... And just b/c these lack of attempts don't show up in the stat column, it doesn't mean you can ignore them, b/c the impact is VERY REAL.

Plus, you have to factor in their lack of efficiency inside the 40 stalling drives, thus preventing from further padding their bad inside 40 stats. Therefore, it's a misrepresentation to judge their overall stats as good. Plus, as a whole, Clay, Fasano, and Moore don't have the same problems inside the 40, and Sanchez didn't prevent Burress & Holmes from hauling in 16 TDs last year, so there's little argument to say it's about the QB. There's a very raw, sandlot-esque aspect to the game the closer you get to the endzone as the field shortens; as such, teams with playmakers have an advantage as it becomes more than just smarts & route running. This is where a deeper competition within a competition ignites for receivers & defensive backs, and if the receiver doesn't have more talent than the guy covering him you've got problems, as there's only so much scheming you can do in a shortened field to make up for talent. We've done a good job of it with the surrounding guys, but that's not enough; we need it from our starting receivers as well.

 

....plus Brandon's half a dozen dropped TDs.

 

I'm not looking for short term success, but long term, and the more pressing need is to build that offense around Tannehill. The defense is not why we have lost most of the games we have this year, but because when needed the offense couldn't step up and deliver a knock out drive.

 

Only way to sucker the Coaches Poll into joining that garbage.

BCS is utter pablum.

 

How do you know that what you're saying our wide receivers are experiencing on that part of the field isn't common to wide receivers who are being thrown passes by rookie QBs?

In other words, how have you gone about ruling out -- again, objectively -- the explanation that our rookie QB is responsible for what you're saying here?

 

Can you name a single player or coach who judges QB performance based on QB rating? Because I'm starting to think there is a strong correlation between your opinion and complete bull ****.

 

If you go by those stats Blaine Gabbert is better than Andrew Luck. Kevin Kolb has an impressive 86.1 rating, damn we shoulda traded for him. Tanne sucks and Harbaugh is a moron for benching an elite QB like Alex Smith.

 

I seriously don't know why you bother trying to explain. Anyone who cant see that the Hitman and Bess are a hindrance are straight up are deaf, blind or stoopid.

 

How do you know water is wet?
I've already shown bad QBs whose receivers still scored plenty of TDs, yet you keep dismissing it.

What you're not understanding WADR is that playmaking receivers & quality starting receivers make plays, and they will make plays regardless of the QB just as Plaxico & Holmes caught 16 TDs with Mark Sanchez, and calling Sanchez better than Tannehill is like saying McDonalds is better than In-N-Out Burger. That's why they're called playmakers, because they don't need perfect passes to make plays. There's no need for excuse making for them b/c they catch those throws regardless who throws it. Great QBs still throw some difficult passes, and it's not like their footballs are made of superglue, yet you routinely see their playmaking receivers pulling in difficult catches like Nelson, Jones, Jennings, Cobb, and Driver for Rodgers, yet Miami fans seem to treat these off-target but catchable balls as if the completion on the receiver's end entails parting the Red Sea. And if you happen to not notice, a big chunk of playmaking plays are on difficult throws. That's the difference--- playmakers & quality larger catch-radius receivers make average catches out of passes that Hartline & Bess would need a greater degree of accuracy from. Here's a little rundown:

• Catchable under throws to a receiver with tracking ability / ball skills? Routinely caught. (not a 3 ring circus like Hartline).
• Throws just within reach of average+ sized receivers w/ good catch radius? caught. (out of reach to Bess)
• Playmaking receiver running downfield w/ no separation vs single coverage? let her rip w/ confidence and watch him either run under it, go over the DB, or at the very least break it up. (With H&B you're hoping for a PI call and praying for a non INT)
• Playmaking receiver in the back of the EZ with a defender in front of him? Toss him a 50-50 ball over the DB and let him make a play. (with H&B you're looking for another target)
• Inside the 10 yard line? Throw your playmaker a quick hitter and let him stiff-arm the DB to the ground. (with H&B that's a wasted play)
• Inside the 20? Throw your playmaker a screen, slant, or quick pass and let him juke a defender or two. (not with Hartline, whom you're praying doesn't trip or cough it up like vs Pitt)
• Playmaker in the EZ with a DB blocking an arm? He'll still make the occasional 1 handed catch (not H&B)
• Playmaker needing extra separation in the EZ? He'll use his size and/or ability to box out his man & create it, which QBs learn to trust. (not with H&B)
• Throws headed just outside the sideline in the EZ? Playmaker or receiver w/ catch radius has a better chance of toe-tapping it.
• Need a hail mary? A playmaker gives you a shot like Tate did for Seattle. (not happening with H&B)
• Designed fade in the EZ? Throw it to a spot and let your playmaker go after it. (with H&B the defender has as good or better a chance to pick it, leaving little margin of error on the throw, leading to a higher percentage of overthrows due to overcompensation)
• ​Inside the redzone? Playmakers make it harder for defenders to use the back of the EZ as an extra defender. (not the case with H&B, as they allow defenses more ability to focus on taking away the underneath stuff to Bush)

What you're also missing is the QB confidence that can be either created or taken away around the redzone depending on his targets. Playmakers and quality, physical receivers with good size & catch radius create confidence as QBs know they can trust them, whereas Hartline & Bess thwart confidence in the RZ, and we all know what happens to players when their confidence is affected.


Here's a clip of Victor Cruz from last year. Tell me how many TDs, extra yards, and big plays he makes FOR Manning just for Eli getting the ball in his vicinity. There are under throws, over throws, low thrown balls, passes downfield that need route adjustments, defenders in his face, jump balls, running over defenders, running around defenders, not clumsily falling down immediately after the catch, no misjudging of throws to where he's falling down trying for the catch; there's a fingertip vertical snare b/c he has the speed to get to it; no getting caught from behind by defenders; and NOT letting the DB outplay him when the ball is in the air...... all the things Hartline rarely if ever can do. Half of these throws would be dropped, INT'd, or flat out missed by Hartline, and then Miami fans would make excuses for him and chastising the QB's lack of perfection. You think NY fans yelled at Eli for some of these off-target throws? Hell now. They're too busy cheering over the catches being made.

[video=youtube;z-VDRApmGoY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-VDRApmGoY[/video]

There's a reason Hartline is so up and down with his production while Cruz was a machine last year. It's b/c Hartline's ability is so dependent on the QB that if passes aren't accurate enough for his ability or coverage is too tight, then he's in for a bad to average game, whereas Cruz will make all those same catches but add one or two that Hartline wouldn't, effectively turning a constricted 2 catch, 65 yard game that we might see from Hartline into into a 3 catch, 164 yard, 1 TD game vs the Jets thanks to this 99 yard TD at the beginning of the video. That was game-changer as the Giants took a 10-7 lead off Cruz's 89 yards of YAC with 2 minutes before half time. We will NEVER see that from Hartline on his own.

That's a 10 yard pass that goes down in Eli's stat column as a 99 yard TD.
You know what Eli's full box score was w/o Cruz housing it? 35.1 QBR, 9 of 27, 134 yards, 1 INT, 0 TD. But no, Giants beat the Jets 29-14.
This year Cruz routinely sees bracketed coverage to minimize his impact yet he's still more productive than Hartline who sees none, but neither you nor Fineas considers that when looking at your stats, which is a slap in the face of guys like Cruz.

 

Actually....in the first Cruz TD (99 yarder), Brian Hartline would've been tackled at the 30 yard line with the safety having the easy angle on it..... and it would've been a 29 yard gain and no TD. Heck, who am I kidding, that's a 10 yard completion with Hartline falling down at the 11. Depressing but true.

 

Honestly, you really think the question of whether the performance you're talking about by Hartline and Bess as the field shortens is common to rookie QBs is the equivalent of whether water is wet?

Once again, you've spent a whole lot of time purporting a theory instead of doing the research necessary to rule out a very plausible alternative explanation for what you're seeing and believing.

If the proposition that what Hartline and Bess are doing on that part of the field is endemic to rookie QBs is just so much nonsense and the equivalent to "is water wet" then quickly do the research to rule it out! What's stopping you?

 

The answer to that question says nothing about whether QB rating can be used as a valid measure of QB performance when doing the kind of research we're doing here.

Once again, if you find that QB rating correlates strongly with the consensus perceptions of the talent or ability of various QBs, whether or not those perceptions involve the mentioning of QB rating itself, then it can be used as a valid measure of performance in the kind of research we're doing here.

In other words, if you asked coaches, players, knowledgeable fans, etc., to rank QBs according to their perceptions of how talented they are, and those rankings just so happened to correlate strongly with QB rating, as they do, then QB rating can become the numerical representation you can use to quantify QBs' performance in the kind of research we're doing here.

See here, for example:

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

 

If that's what you got from it then that's your choice bubs. There's no "theory" involved. Your problem is your psych mentality leaves you wanting to label everything. You keep looking at this as, "it's a rookie QB thing blah blah blah". He's a starting QB! STARTING. He WON the ****ing job outright, not had it handed to him!!.... and he beat out last year's 12th best rated passer to boot!! So, "rookie" is no longer factored in the way you're pursuing in order to scapegoat Tannehill for the Hitman's deficiency. It went right out the tenth story window the day he supplanted Moore as the starter. If you'd like to jump out after it, feel free. Say hello to the sidewalk for me.

Hartline has had more than enough opportunity to prove whether or not he's a playmaker and redzone threat.
You know what your Hartline posts remind me of? A 4 year old who still poops his pants but mommy makes excuses for it. May the football gods have mercy on your soul.

 

I think you're neglecting the fact that Hartline is a developmental player who is in his fourth year and is hitting his stride while receiving passes from rookie with a 72 QB rating.

Check and see what Jordy Nelson, a second-round pick, did for his first three years, while receiving passes from Aaron Rodgers, compared to his fourth year, and then imagine what he might've done with Ryan Tannehill in that fourth year, when Nelson was finally hitting his stride.

You need to rule out the "rookie QB" explanation for the part of Hartline's performance that you're focusing on. Your choice, however.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go have my mommy change my diaper.