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

Comparing the Dolphins Starting WRs to the League's Best

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Fineas, Nov 29, 2012.

  1. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,363
    31,258
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    So you're saying he isn't as accurate, mobile or as good at reading defenses in the redzone as a vet would be based on no comparison or actual fact. You're not pointing to any instance as an example of where a vet would have done it better. You're just making the general assumption that since he's a rookie, that must be the biggest factor. Correct?
     
  2. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    39,997
    32,486
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    No, you are making a lot of stuff up.
     
  3. patsfanNH

    patsfanNH New Member

    93
    35
    0
    Dec 28, 2010
    99.9% of ALL Rookie QB's fall into the catagory you just stated. Why? they are rookies the game is a LOT faster than college and the D's a heck of a lot more complex and with some coaches disguised very well. A rookie QB is more likely to panic and throw the ball away where a vet would step up in the pocket bye himself a couple seconds and score a TD. does that mean the vet is better? No just EXPERIENCED and that means a lot in the NFL.
     
  4. infiltrateib

    infiltrateib Oh Hi Luxury Box

    1,089
    2,106
    113
    Mar 24, 2008
    Bay Area, CA
    Thanks for a thoughtful post, OP. I'll offer up two possible confounding variables:

    (1) our system has been geared to the strengths (really, more weaknesses) of our players, perhaps moreso than other offenses. We essentially have two players who fit the physical/ability mold of #2 WRs, but their skillsets are strong and weak in similar areas. We rarely take the top off of a defense, but we are very successful at a handful of routes (e.g., Hartline on the out or back-shoulder stop, Bess on the slant or in-route). All four of those routes are Tannehill specialties. But, I would guess our plays of longer than 20 yards is well outside of the top 10. Hartline rarely runs anything in-breaking, and Bess rarely runs double moves or anything pressing deep. We don't have the luxury of a swiss-army knife offense. We're largely one-dimensional, and while we've had some success with it, I don't think it is sustainable. We've all seen our offense struggle as teams have stopped blitzing and played shallow zones. Teams with more diverse and able talent can adjust on the fly, but (for example) if you take away Hartline's out route, the guy is barely a #3. So, in sum, while our statistics may add up to middle-of-the-pack right now, I think we've seen a downward trend and we lack the physical talent to move safeties off the line.

    (2) we mainly throw to our top 2 WRs, yes, but part of the reason for this is that we're junk after that. Our #3 WR has four catches. Our #4 WR has one catch for 19 yards. Compare this to a team with what is largely viewed as the second worst receiving corps in the league (Rams): WR1 @ 51, WR2 @ 34, WR3 @22, WR4 @14, WR5 @ 13. We're going out there with only two pure WR options on the field, no matter how many WRs are in the set. That we've managed to finagle some success out of this doesn't mean we're in good shape. Our completion rates are relatively high because we have sure-handed WRs and we run sure-thing routes with a pretty accurate QB who has shown an ability to push launch and fire into small windows. I think it speaks more to system and QB than to the quality of our receivers.

    I'm not disagreeing with the statistics -- they don't lie -- but I think there are things playing into those statistics that make the overall numbers misleading. I think they're better than people make them out to be, but I don't see either of those guys starting at #1 on any other team in the NFL. (Though I admit much of what I'm saying is personal opinion, and not hard numbers.)
     
    Paul 13 and HardKoreXXX like this.
  5. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    41,592
    23,957
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    LOL. That's a complete nonsensical, irrational, desperate misuse of the word carrying! As starters they're not "CARRYING" anything!!.... unless you're referring to carrying the offense to mediocrity.
    No, it's not. STOP stating your slanted & false opinion as if it were fact.

    HA!!! That's delusional !!!!!!!!!! 2 receiving TDs!!! That's probably worst in the NFL of any starting duo!
    .....and it's not due to the QB because there are a handful of bad QBs whose receivers have significantly more touchdowns. Just stop all your excuse making already. Tannehill is playing beyond a rookie; he's making plays.... and then HE and the OFFENSE have to try to figure out ways to score without the help of your precious 2 receivers who are so bad inside scoring range they deserve to be handicapped by the NFL somehow.


    Hart & Bess's production (or lack thereof) inside the 40 yard line (important stat b/c if you can't produce inside the 40, you can't score points)
    • ​231 combined yards, 15% of their total yardage (TERRIBLE)
    • 19 catches on 41 attempts (TERRIBLE)
    • 1 TD (WORSE THAN TERRIBLE)
    • Represents only 52% of our 444 receiving yards despite essentially being our only 2 WRs (TERRIBLE)
    Please divulge exactly how you extract the word "Carrying" from the above stats!!!
    .... and before you scapegoat the QB, note the following:
    • Clay & Fasano combine for 5 TDs & 165 yards on ONLY 23 attempts
    • with Clay having 4 catches in 5 attempts for 73 yards & 2 TDs (That's 43% of his yardage & and 80% catch rate)
    • Heck, Marlon Moore has more TDs in just 2 attempts than Hartline.
    Now tell me who the heck is carrying whom here b/c it sure as crap looks like the offense is carrying Hartline & Bess. But you don't need stats to show that. You only have to watch the games.

    Tannehill has 8 passing TDs, 6 of which had to come ELSEWHERE than Hartline & Bess, so if there's any argument to be made, it's that Tannehill should have a handful MORE touchdowns if he had a starting pair of receivers who offered scoring potential.
     
    Rhody Phins Fan and Paul 13 like this.
  6. Paul 13

    Paul 13 Chaotic Neutral & Unstable Genius Staff Member

    79,080
    40,245
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    100% agree!

    and to add, we don't have a straw that stirs the drink type of player on offense. That is why the TD production isn't there by Tannehill and why Hartline/Bess only have two TD's total.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2012
  7. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Feel better? :)
     
  8. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    That's easy enough to research. And I'd suggest it be done within the context of rookie QBs only.
     
  9. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    41,592
    23,957
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    exactly. When you have Hartline & Bess as your receivers in the redzone the opportunities will be few and far between. It's much more rational that if Philbin has any lack of trust in the passing game inside the redzone, it's due to the non scoring-threat receivers, the same ones who have a history of not finding the redzone, namely our primary receiver who has just 3 TDs in the past 3 years, and there's no excuse making that posters can surmise to rationalize it.

    There's no rationalizing 3 TDs in 3 years.
     
  10. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    And you know this how?
     
  11. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    41,592
    23,957
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    depends on where your tail is hanging :p
     
  12. Paul 13

    Paul 13 Chaotic Neutral & Unstable Genius Staff Member

    79,080
    40,245
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    I've seen every game this year?
     
  13. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    So have I. Does that mean I should agree with you?
     
  14. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    14,445
    16,460
    113
    Jan 5, 2008


    If it's mainly for spacing purposes, then I don't think you need to use premium resources to get that guy. Clyde Gates, or any one of a bunch of fast guys, could have been that guy. Those guys have to be respected deep even if they don't warrant much respect on short to intermediate routes. The Dolphin braintrust apparently felt Gates and such spacing did not warrant a roster spot. I disagreed at the time, but I'm not so sure how much that spacing would really help. As indicated, both Bess and Hartline are catching a percentage of the passes thrown to them at a pretty high ypa and ypc level, so they apparently don't need anymore deep spacing in order to be as efficient as the Pats, Giants, Saints, and Packers receivers. And the teams that have such "deep spacers" don't get any more efficiency out of their underneath receivers.

    I like Wallace and think he'd be a nice addition, but only if we are going to use him to do what he does best (go deep). I have my doubts about whether we would.
     
  15. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,363
    31,258
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    What am I making up?

    You said "he isn't as good at throwing in tight spaces". I took that to mean less accurate.

    You said "he isn't as comfortable moving in the pocket to buy time to allow his receivers to get open", I took that as less mobile in the pocket.

    You said "his reads have been kind of late and not quick enough". I translated that to his reads aren't as good.

    You provided no examples and I said "you provided no examples".

    What am I making up?
     
  16. PhinsPhan23

    PhinsPhan23 New Member

    206
    104
    0
    Nov 4, 2010
    Stats don't tell the whole story. Hartline and Bess are not red zone targets. In fact, you could say they are almost worthless in the red zone. Hartline and Bess are also not speed threats. They both are solid WR's that run really good routes and have pretty good hands. We need a guy we can throw a jump ball to in the end zone and/or a guy we can get down the field on fly and deep post routes. Right now we don't have that guy and until we do, this will not be an electric offense. You will continue to see stalls in the red zone if we are unable to run the ball or get it to one of the TEs and you will continue to see teams stacking the box daring us to throw the ball down the field.
     
  17. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,363
    31,258
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    It's more than just speed. You can find that anywhere. It's about being a good receiver as well. That's not as easy to find. But it is important enough that I wouldn't be willing to just draft another 5th rounder and hope that three years from now he becomes that.
     
  18. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    And how do you know everything you said with regard to the deficits on offense isn't attributable to the rookie QB we're using and his 73 QB rating?
     
  19. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,201
    21,955
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    You realize that the team is pretty damn good in the red zone?????
     
    Anonymous likes this.
  20. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,363
    31,258
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    That's a generality. I'm talking about having somebody provide more than some trite or hackneyed statement and have that count as analysis. My point is that when I watch the all 22, RT isn't making rookie mistakes that are costing us in the redzone. We're not passing for TDs in the redzone primarily b/c we're not passing much. So the question is why? I see no evidence that they don't trust RT's decisions. I have seen considerable evidence that Sherman's general philosophy is to run more in the redzone from his play calling at TAMU. I don't think we have the big bodied WRs or receiving TEs that tend to be used in the redzone so that may be a factor. I see those two reasons as far more compelling than some generalized statement about RT being a rookie.
     
  21. PhinsPhan23

    PhinsPhan23 New Member

    206
    104
    0
    Nov 4, 2010

    Don't get me wrong, THill has shown he can be in-accurate, but I've seen Bess and Hartline now for 3+ years and I know what they give me and I know what their deficiencies are. Look at their stats (as stated in another post) inside the 40. They are not producing in that area of the field.
     
    rafael likes this.
  22. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    14,445
    16,460
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    And you which teams really suck in the red zone?

    KC, with 6-2, 220 lb. 1st rounder Dwayne Bowe, 6-4, 230 lb. first rounder Jonathan Baldwin, 6-7, 255 lb. Kevin Boss and Tony Moeaki.

    Oakland, with 6-2 1st round speedster DHB, 6-4, 250 lb. Brandon Myers and 6-4, 243 lb, David Ausberry

    Cleveland, with 6-2, 225 Josh Gordon, 6-3, 225 lb. Greg Little, 6-3, 255 lb Ben Watson and 6-5, 254 lb. Jordan Cameron

    To name a few.

    Red zone success has a lot less to do with fades, jump balls and WR/TE size than some seem to believe. Neither size nor speed is critical to red zone success.
     
  23. PhinsPhan23

    PhinsPhan23 New Member

    206
    104
    0
    Nov 4, 2010
    We are 13th in the league (56%). Bess and Hartline have combined for 1 TD this year once we have crossed into the opposing teams territory. THill has 6 beyond the 50. They are not helping us in the red zone, if anything they are a liability. I wouldn't be opposed to putting Clay, Bush, Lane, Fasano, and Mastrud on the field once we get into the RZ. Have them all running routes. There has to be a mis-match somewhere on the field with all of those big men breaking into routes and if not, throw a dump off to Reggie and see if he can make a play and get into the end zone.
     
  24. PhinsPhan23

    PhinsPhan23 New Member

    206
    104
    0
    Nov 4, 2010
    Cmon man. You really believe that? I mean speed isn't overly critical, I get that, but to say size isn't a factor when you get in the redzone is crazy. There's a reason big TE's and WR's have consistently been considered the best RZ threats, b/c they ARE.
     
  25. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    The arguments against Bess and Hartline on the one hand are that they don't have speed. On the other hand, they don't produce in the red zone, where speed conceivably isn't an issue because there isn't enough space to run speed routes anyway.

    So which is it? Or is it both?

    If it's both, they sure must be awfully good at everything else wide receivers do, to justify the stats in the original post, while being thrown passes by a rookie quarterback with a 73 QB rating. :lol:
     
    P h i N s A N i T y likes this.
  26. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,201
    21,955
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    If they are a liability it would be reflected in the team's RZ performance.
     
  27. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    14,445
    16,460
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    Well, there are a lot of teams with giant athletic guys who aren't good in the red zone. And there are other teams that don't really have that but do very well in the red zone, such as Green Bay. Neither Jones nor Cobb have great size, but they are catching a lot of TDs on a team that si very good in the red zone despite a poor running game. The teams that do best in the red zone are generally the teams with the best QBs. That's why NO, GB, NE, Denver, etc. are all toward the top of the red zone efficiency rankings. Teams with bad QBs are generally bad in the red zone, which is why you see Cleveland, KC, Arizona, NYJ at the bottom of the red zone efficiency rankings. Rookie QBs usually aren't great in the red zone (unless they are doing a lot of it with their feet). You very rarely see a rookie QB throw 20+ TDs in a season.
     
    Paul 13 likes this.
  28. Paul 13

    Paul 13 Chaotic Neutral & Unstable Genius Staff Member

    79,080
    40,245
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    :yes:
     
  29. Paul 13

    Paul 13 Chaotic Neutral & Unstable Genius Staff Member

    79,080
    40,245
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    good quarterbacking certainly is the primary factor... we can also add in balance on offense which goes hand and hand with having a good running game.

    As an aside, I would like to see how many td's we have scored from over 20 yards (non redzone plays obviously), based on passes then runs and see how that compares to the rest of the NFL. I would be willing to bet that we are in the lower third of the NFL (certainly TD passes).
     
  30. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    41,592
    23,957
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    .... but it doesn't have little to do with it either. Sometimes players are presented with opportunities where they can use natural talent to turn an average redzone play into something special. Reggie Bush has shown us a few examples of that this year. Unfortunately Bess provides little and Hartline virtually none.
     
  31. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    41,592
    23,957
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    It's both. They're neither fast nor contributors in the redzone.
    So let me get this straight. We rank 12th in redzone efficiency in spite of Hartline & Bess's disappearance there, but they're suddenly "awfully good" at everything else wide receivers do? How do you come up with this stuff? You should simply drop the "ly" and say they're awful at what they do as a primary starting duo b/c that's a closer description than the heavy superlative you're bestowing.

    yeah, they're awfully good at allowing defenses to play a lot of cover 2 and bring a safety in the box to focus on the run.
    yeah, Hartline is awfully good despite 3 TDs in 3 years and despite having a high yards per target due to being a one dimensional receiver who offers little in the quick hitter/WR screen game b/c he gets tackled by an atypically tall blade of grass missed by the mower.


    Here's something that seems to evade your lofty analysis. If Hartline were truly a talented and worthy primary receiver he would actually have a LOWER yards per target b/c he'd possess the talent to make a greater contribution in the high-percentage short passing game that essentially serves as an extension as the run. But no, he doesn't offer that, hence making his yards per target look severely inflated despite producing nothing like the true vertical threats of the NFL.
     
  32. evz

    evz Feral Druid Club Member

    if our redzone efficiency is that good then what we really are lacking is trips to the redzone in the first place...
     
  33. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,201
    21,955
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Turnover differential.
     
  34. FinFan_Est.1984

    FinFan_Est.1984 Get Aggressive!!!

    2,473
    567
    0
    Jan 6, 2008
    So. Calif.
    Nice write up Phineas! But without factoring in the TE's it is a bit skewed.

    Falcons - 65.5 Gonzales
    Patriots - 65.5 Gronkowski
    Bengals - 65.1 Gresham
    Cowboys - 64.0 Witten
    Saints - 63.7 Grahm
    Steelers - 61.8 Miller

    Dolphins need a couple of top tier TE's and a #1 receiver and this offense will be great!
     
    Fin D, ToddPhin and Disgustipate like this.
  35. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    103,445
    57,045
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    The best Qb in the league plays with a receiver unit that is unmatched, I don't want our guy to settle..

    We need to add two top level talents to the unit to improve its overall explosiveness, and diversity..

    Space...defenses at this point have to guard less of it because of the skillsets that we currently deploy..
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  36. Disgustipate

    Disgustipate Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    30,404
    49,681
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    What are you(and for that matter, other people) modeling what the Dolphins wide receivers *should* look like on, that we should add "two top level talents"?

    I don't see how it's out there. The Packers didn't suddenly justify fans receiver-lust with the idea you need 4+ resource-intensive, quality wide receivers. What they did was draft to replace Donald Driver and Greg Jennings responsibly and proactively. They hit, and look two have two quite good players in Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb for the future, but they are not rolling out a fleet of ubermensch receivers.

    I think it's also kind of time for Dolphins fans to come to grips that James Jones is not very good, and the idea that he was better than anything we had was donkus balonkus. Brian Hartline and Davone Bess have successfully scaled up to starting roles and performed in the spotlight. James Jones has not.
     
  37. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    ...with a rookie QB with a 73 QB rating.

    ...with the probable league MVP, with a 106 QB rating.
     
    Disgustipate likes this.
  38. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    41,592
    23,957
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    I think that's kind of unfair considering Hartline & Bess haven't had to worry about competition from Nelson, Jennings, Cobb, and Driver.
    Jones is definitely improved IMO and has had a nice year considering how many quality receivers are seated at the Packer dinner table. I wouldn't call 6 TDs over a 3 game span, including wins over N.O and Houston, as not very good. 42 catches on 67 targets with 8 TDs isn't shabby. IMO, when factoring TDs & clutch plays, Jones has arguably been equally or more consistent this year than Hartline despite his total yardage being less. If Jones were in Miami, I'd have a hard time believing Tannehill would still have only 8 TDs, and a harder time believing Hartline would've posted the same loftier yardage stats. IMO the passing game would've seen an increase in yardage & TDs and Bess's production wouldn't have been eaten into as much b/c he would've still produced as our primary slot receiver, but Jones would've eaten into Hartline's stats to where Hartline is currently the 3rd leading receiver on the team, especially with Jones already having familiarity with Philbin.
     
  39. RickyNeverInhaled

    RickyNeverInhaled Well-Known Member

    6,771
    1,680
    113
    Mar 15, 2009
    Alabama
    I would have quoted the OP, but when I quote a long post it takes my phone about 10 years to load what I type.
    It was Ireland that said that on Hard Knocks, not Philbin.
    The problem IMO is we have no red zone threat at WR. Bess and Hartline run good routes and are deceptively quick enough to get open in space. When the field is short and the defense is tight, we don't have the talent at WR to get open in the end zone. We need someone with the size and skill to box out a CB and use their body to make a play in the end zone.
    Nice thread. Facts can't be argued with. We definitely don't have the worse WR's like some people thought in the off season, and some people still think. But we don't have what we need to put up the points that we need to make a difference IMO.
     
  40. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    41,592
    23,957
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    It's a LOT easier to post a 106 QBR when you have a significantly greater amount of talent around you than backup-caliber, limited-in-ability, non-playmaking receivers like Bess & Hartline as starters.

    Please understand, a QB is only as good as the talent around him allows him to be, whether it be from skilled position guys like GB, Denver, Atlanta, NY, NE, TB, Detroit, NO (or most HOF QBs for that matter) have to offer or from outstanding pass protection buying you enough time to pick a defense apart like Brady is seeing lately.

    With Bess & Hartline as starters, most QBs would see a drastic dip in their QBR as well as inconsistency throughout the season. They're complimentary pieces who do nothing to help an offense dictate the game, instead allowing defenses to sit in cover 2 much of the time and making life a lot harder for Bush and the ground game and the passing game underneath. They rarely to never create plays on their own, but rather allow a defense to essentially play us as if we're constantly in a 20 yard box. In an offense that should be creating space to make plays, they're doing the opposite by reducing it.

    Bess is on one perimeter-- with a limited catch radius and zero speed/vertical ability impairing the pass game (considering catch radius is more of a factor on the outside than in the slot)..... meanwhile, Hartline is on the other side-- with little scoring ability, unable to make plays with the ball in his hand, falls down more times than he breaks tackles/jukes defenders, and offers little in the quick pass/screen game...... and with both of them disappearing to backup-status type production inside scoring range to boot. How you think these 2 are an asset as a starting duo is beyond me. All I can guess is that you use superficial yardage stats & one atypical game verse Zona as justification b/c everything else says "NO".
     

Share This Page