Comparing the Dolphins Starting WRs to the League's Best

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

I haven't seen many good redzone decisions that a savy veteran would make.

The touchdown to Bess against the Bills seems to be the rare play, rather than the normal play.

I see opportunities as a huge factor in that. With few attempts, you'll see few decisions good or bad. IMO that's the far bigger factor than "he's a rookie".

"rafael wrote:

I see opportunities as a huge factor in that. With few attempts, you'll see few decisions good or bad. IMO that's the far bigger factor than "he's a rookie".

IMO, "for a rookie" is a much better factor than the lack of opportunities.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

IMO, "for a rookie" is a much better factor than the lack of opportunities.

Again, in what way? I watch the all 22 and I don't see evidence that he made many poor decisions in the redzone that have actually hurt us, for a rookie or otherwise. I have never heard anybody claim that he's making many, or an inordinate number of poor decisions in the redzone for a rookie or otherwise. Do you have some information that he's making poor decisions for a rookie or otherwise? If not, than "b/c he's a rookie" is a generalization without any specific basis in this situation.

"rafael wrote:

Again, in what way? I watch the all 22 and I don't see evidence that he made many poor decisions in the redzone that have actually hurt us, for a rookie or otherwise. I have never heard anybody claim that he's making many, or an inordinate number of poor decisions in the redzone for a rookie or otherwise. Do you have some information that he's making poor decisions for a rookie or otherwise? If not, than "b/c he's a rookie" is a generalization without any specific basis in this situation.

I haven't seen him make many good decisions that have helped us.

I don't know where you think I am saying he is making poor decisions.

Because he is a rookie he isn't as good at throwing in tight spaces, because he is a rookie he isn't as comfortable moving in the pocket to buy time to allow his receivers to get open, because he is a rookie his reads have been kind of late and not quick enough for the smaller window of the red zone.

He hasn't hurt Miami in the redzone, however he hasn't helped enough to not try to run the ball more because, so far that is effective.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

I haven't seen him make many good decisions that have helped us.

I don't know where you think I am saying he is making poor decisions.

Because he is a rookie he isn't as good at throwing in tight spaces, because he is a rookie he isn't as comfortable moving in the pocket to buy time to allow his receivers to get open, because he is a rookie his reads have been kind of late and not quick enough for the smaller window of the red zone.

He hasn't hurt Miami in the redzone, however he hasn't helped enough to not try to run the ball more because, so far that is effective.

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?

"rafael wrote:

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?

No, you are making a lot of stuff up.

"rafael wrote:

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?

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.

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.)

"shouright wrote:

Here's an additional angle on Fineas's original post.

Note the names of the starting QBs I've placed in parentheses next to the numbers below:

In essence you could argue that Bess and Hartline are CARRYING the pass offense to a much greater degree than the receivers on the teams in their company in the lists above.

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.

It's actually precisely the opposite of what many people here believe. It's not that the receivers are holding back a QB who would otherwise be performing much better.

No, it's not. STOP stating your slanted & false opinion as if it were fact.

It's that those receivers are helping the pass offense produce as it would if it HAD a QB who was much better!

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.

"infiltrateib wrote:

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.)

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.

"phinsational wrote:

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 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)
Heck, Marlon Moore has more TDs inside the 40. 2 attempts, 1 29 yard TD.

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.

Feel better? :)

"infiltrateib wrote:

I would guess our plays of longer than 20 yards is well outside of the top 10.

That's easy enough to research. And I'd suggest it be done within the context of rookie QBs only.

"rafael wrote:

I see opportunities as a huge factor in that. With few attempts, you'll see few decisions good or bad. IMO that's the far bigger factor than "he's a rookie".

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.

"Paul 13 wrote:

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.

And you know this how?

"shouright wrote:

Feel better? :)

depends on where your tail is hanging :p

"shouright wrote:

And you know this how?

I've seen every game this year?

"Paul 13 wrote:

I've seen every game this year?

So have I. Does that mean I should agree with you?

"rafael wrote:

As I said above, it's not about a true #1. We need a receiver that threatens certain areas of the field for spacing purposes. I don't think that a guy who stretches the D vertically is necessarily a #1. A #2 with that skill set may be just as effective. I'm not sure I would classify Wallace as a true #1 anyway. In my definition, a #1 draws a ton of coverage and I'm not sure Wallace has reached that level of respect (or ever will). I think he's another piece. I also think that the piece is important enough that I would spend the resource to acquire it. I know that we could get a a WR in the 3rd or 5th that may eventually develop enough to round out our corp, but I don't think it's wise to wait and hope for that to happen. I actually think that Matthews has that kind of potential and I want to see it developed, but I'm not willing to put all my eggs in that basket or even a basket with him and another 5th round guy added in. I would spend the money on Wallace and continue to develop Matthews. I also believe that you can sign a Wallace for less than that true #1 money. I think that in a long-term deal he would end up being paid more like a low #1/high #2.

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.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

No, you are making a lot of stuff up.

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?

"Fineas wrote:

Then why are Bess and Hartline more efficient than the Pats and Packer WRs in terms of yards per target and yards per catch? If we throw to them so much because we have no other options, defenses whould know that and be able to stop it. But they haven't. And why is it a bad thing that we throw to them so much when they catch the same percentage of passes thrown to them but for more yards per attempt?

The point of this thread is to say that Bess and Hartline are good. As a tandem, they are about as efficient as the very best WR corps in the league. I thought I had made that point pretty clear in the OP, but I can repeat is several times and supply more stats to support it if I failed to do so. Every unit can use an upgrade if an upgrade is available and WR is no different. But if we can a stud WR or two, are we likely to complete more than 65-66% of the passes thrown to them? No. Are we likely to get more than 9-9.5 yards per target? No. So if it won't help us complete more passes or get more yards when we do, maybe it is not the urgent problem that many people (including you it seems) believe it is.

There's no zeal to show we don't need improvement. Improvement is always good. And we are not a great team. I don't understand the zeal with which some here want to claim the sky is falling and every position is a position of urgent need even when the guys we currently have at those positions are performing at a level of effectiveness and efficiency that is equivalent to the very in the NFL. But hey, I guess we're different that way.

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.

"Fineas wrote:

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.

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.

"PhinsPhan23 wrote:

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.

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?

"PhinsPhan23 wrote:

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.

You realize that the team is pretty damn good in the red zone?????

"patsfanNH wrote:

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.

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.

"shouright wrote:

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?

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.