Comparing the Dolphins Starting WRs to the League's Best

That was actually under thrown.

 

Stats, stats, stats. Only one I'm interested in is the win/loss column. This stat crud is getting boring. Seriously. I let my eyes see what I know, not some lame stat sheet. I swear some ppl need to get out of the house more. Get a life. Look at our record over the yrs. Nuff said. Stats! You can stick **** on a bull, it don't make it a cow. We have had a losing record for too long for ppl to throw stats up to show how good they think we are. We aint.

 

So Calvin Johnson sucks.

 

Shou & Fineas, let me ask you both a quick, straight up question: How many points per game would you like Miami to be scoring? What would be enough to be considered successful in your eyes?

 

Exactly..... it wasn't out of reach. Heaven forbid Hartline has to actually work to complete an off-target but catchable ball.

 

Is their offense more efficient than last season?

 

The problem you and Stringer are having in getting this across is that you're fighting the theoretical belief in the impact of single, stud players, versus the broader measurement of team functioning. The latter is a concept people just aren't used to and can't come to grips with very readily. It's easier to see what the stud player is doing and fantasize about how much better he would make your team.

 

I want the QB rating above 90. Until that happens, we'll be mediocre at best.

 

Gheesh, was it really that difficult a question to answer? What's your deal with skirting an easy question? Just answer it. 26? 27? 30? What?

 

Bull****. You're the one placing a greater emphasis on Hartline & Bess's stats (thanks to one inflated game) than the function of the offense as a whole, which they are DETRACTING FROM. 2 TDs COMBINED! I'm shocked you believe that's adequate from your team's starting duo.

It's a passing league. The rules are in favor of the WR, yet Hartline has 3 TDs in 3 years!! Where the heck is the scoring supposed to come from when we can't put 13 guys on the field inside scoring range to make up for Hartline & Bess's ineffectiveness there.

It's easy math. You have 11 guys. 5 are Oline. That leaves 6 on the field who can score. How the hell are you supposed to operate an efficient offense if, inside scoring range, 2 of those 6 aren't worth a cement block on a sinking ship, especially when those two are your starting receivers in a passing league where receiving TDs represent the highest percentage of the scoring pie? You gonna put the entire scoring onus on the running game, TEs, backup WRs, and QB sneaks/draws/bootlegs? Yeah, that's the way to win a Championship!

 

Should not be a static answer.

P = V + 1

P = desired points
V = opponent points

I don't think total points should be the goal of an offense. EFFICIENCY should be goal. Total points can be influenced by many things that aren't necessarily positive or indicative of ability. I.E. the less efficient Team A's defense is, the more points Team A is expected to score, simply because they will have more possessions.

 

Exactly. You phrased it very nicely. Frankly the TE play has been a complete non-factor in the passing game. We have no height at the WR position and it means something to not have that. We cant throw fades or any kind of jump ball. We have no athleticism at all from any competent receivers, no one that can make a play for a QB on a throw that may not be perfect. Makes the QB's job a lot harder. The idea that these guys can be a starting duo on a playoff team who will win a game or two in the playoffs is hilarious. Theres no stat convincing my eyes that this group is anything other then subpar. Hartline can play, Bess can be a 4, Matthews may be a nice 4/really strong 5. The rest dont even belong on an NFL roster for anything other then special teams.

 

I must be a complete ****ing moron.

 

As soon as you ask a certain question, you've begun to frame the argument in your terms.

My terms have to do with a QB rating, not a number of points.

 

Are you referring to drive efficiency? Play efficiency? Set of downs efficiency? Scoring efficiency?

I'm not arguing against efficiency, as scoring should be a product of it.... but that doesn't tell the whole truth as efficiency can be misleading. For instance, you could have team A that converts 5 of 12 drives and team B converts 3 of 13. Team A was obviously more efficient, but they happened to lose 21-15. On the flip side, Team B sputtered much of the game but had 2 drives where its playmakers contributed a few tough, key, 3rd & long conversions despite failing on most of the 1st & 2nd downs, and then in the 4th quarter they break off a nice 60 yard catch & run TD on a 3rd & 9 slip screen to win it. So not only was Team B inefficient drive-wise but they were also inefficient play-wise and down & distance wise, however they still won the game and did so even though their defense was less efficient to boot.

The bottom line is the more points you score the less points you have to worry about your defense allowing and the less strain placed on either the defense to perform at such a high level for 4 quarters or the kicker having an excessive amount of games placed on his shoulders. Unless we have a crappy offense, I see no reason to say, "Let's build an offense focused on ball-controlled efficiency in the hopes of keeping every game close and have the ball bounce our way in the 4th quarter to squeak out a win". We tried that under Henning. There's no downside to scoring points nor having guys on your offense who possess a natural talent for scoring more than you'd otherwise be capable of. No argument supports less points = better (unless there's a significant turnover margin to factor in and you have trouble scoring TDs while your defense has trouble preventing them). Plus, efficiency isn't only limited to non-playmakers. There are enough receivers who are efficient on a per play basis but who also offer the added bonus of redzone contribution and creating on their own. You can be efficient AND score points, so there's no reason to sell ourselves short if we don't have to. Teams competing in SBs don't.


As far as efficiency pertains to Miami specifically, if we're an uptempo offense aiming for a significant amount of offensive snaps and we're not scoring enough TDs, then we're putting pressure on our defense to stall a greater amount of opponent drives than normal considering an uptempo offense should slow the game down; so basically we need to score more points. When I look at efficiency for us, I look at scoring, namely TDs. I look at each play as an opportunity to score, not just move the chains. Equally, if we can run 71 offensive plays per game rather than 61, then I look at those extra 10 plays as 10 more opportunities to score and 10 more opportunities to create a larger scoring gap. Not to mention, the larger the scoring gap the greater the chance of your opponent making a mistake and the greater the chance of taking them out of their game plan.


I just don't agree with a mentality of "desired points" should equal your "opponent's points + 1". IMO that's selling short.
The equation should be:
P = V + "as many points greater than 1 you can score provided the margin of error doesn't increase at the same rate"



For me, I look at it as:

The better the defense + the greater the offense's scoring potential + the greater the number of offensive snaps = the greater the scoring margin + the greater the potential of opponent mistakes + the greater the tolerance for margin of error (like a missed FG, fumble inside your own 20, opponent kick return TD).
​

Personally, that's the team I'd want.

 

No need for name calling, Shou. Heed the TOS please.

 

Ok. Pretend your QB has a 90+ passer rating. How many points/game would you aspire for?

 

One more than the opponent, on a weekly basis.

 

Yea, it should have been caught. It would have been a tough catch, but it should have been caught. It was still a horrible pass. It should have been a long completion as Hartline had his man beat. Second of the day Tannehill missed him.

 

actually, he didn't "miss him" if it hit him in the belly. Sure it was underthrown in some windy conditions and following a just-missed long pass where Tannehill likely followed it up with an over-adjustment to make sure this one was catchable.

See, that's the problem with a receiver who doesn't possess good long speed. The throws requires too much precision which can lead to the overthrows & underthrows we've seen with Hartline the past few years. I'm guessing most QBs will tell you the same. If Tannehill actually had good long speed rather than hitting top end at the 20 yard mark and redlining the rest of the way, a QB can lay that pass out there every single time just like Tannehill did in the 1st quarter with no need for future over-correcting. There's only so many times a QB can drop those deeper throws in the bucket like we've seen from him thus far. Sometimes the receiver's gotta have the natural ability to make a play on a ball that's in the vicinity. It almost seems like Miami fans are so accustomed to watching OUR receivers that they either forget what many other NFL receivers are capable, or they're simply living in denial.

Honestly, I've never seen a fan yell at his QB after a 40 yard completion, regardless of being underthrown. With a receiver actually capable of converting both of those throws, we're in the game and cheering the play, not cursing Tannehill for an underthrow/overthrow.

Of course people will say, "well if Tannehill hit the throw it wouldn't matter", to which I again reply, it does matter b/c not every downfield throw will be accurate, and as such, if the fan desires a productive offense the WRs must make plays during times when passes are off target. It's a fact of the game--- no QB will complete 100% of his passes.

Manning & Brady average roughly 200 incompletions per 16 game season.
Our great Dan Marino averaged even more.

Posters making excuses for Hartline's inability to convert these off-target throws [but catchable by other receivers] is like saying they don't care about having WRs talented enough to cut into those 200+ incompletions as much as possible.

 

Is that the answer you imagine Philbin giving? "We just need an offense that can score 1 more than our opponent each week."? What does that even mean? How do you determine what 1 more than your opponent will be so that you can scheme & build your offense accordingly? You still need a concrete goal rather than this superficial avoidance answer.

Ok, so what's your answer for the defense? I'm guessing, "One less point than the offense, on a weekly basis"?
Yeah, but what's your answer for the offense? "One more point than the defense".
So what's the defense's? "One less than the offense."

It's like an Abbot & Costello routine with you.

 

I'm confused. So the team with the higher passer rating is determined the victor each week?

I guess the NFL needs to fix Indy's record b/c Luck has: ​

• 
  [*=1]won 5 games with the opposing QB posting a higher QBR.
  [*=1]won 5 games with a QBR below 82..... with 3 of those below 75.

How dare Luck beat Miami on an underthrow in the endzone to Hilton (at the 3:02 mark).... and the nerve of Hilton to come back on the ball and actually make a play! Doesn't he know fans frown upon those sort of shenanigans?!

[video=youtube;EDKpm22up74]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDKpm22up74[/video]

.... oh, wait... at the 0:55 second mark, isn't that a true vertical threat, Donnie Avery, with the long speed ability and extra gear to run under Luck's overthrow for a diving grab that would've been at least a yard in front of the significantly slower Hartline? Why yes, I do believe it is.

Well ain't that just ironic. An over & underthrow resulting in 10 points for Luck and a 3 point win, meanwhile we lose by 7 with Hartline unable to convert 2 near identical plays for his QB. In fact, Avery wouldn't have needed to dive for the first Tannehill pass; his 4.3 speed catches that in stride with time to pause for a picture..... and wait for it to develop..... and then post it on facebook.

 

I'll tell you what: you put together a solid, objective analysis of the average number of points needed to win the Super Bowl, and I'll tell you how many points I want us to score on average.

 

Quarterbacks will miss throws. When they do, you blame it on them. Brady missed Eddleman in the end zone early in the game. That was Brady's fault. Not Eddleman's. Same issue here. Yes, Tannehill did miss him. That was a ****ty throw. He didn't intentionally under throw it, have it go between the defenders hands and have it hit Hartline in the belly. He was trying to lead the ball over the defender, to Hartline. Hartline dropped it but that was after Tannehill missed him.

 

Well, looking at your numbers on the previous page the answer is no.

But do you really think the Chicago offense is worse with Brandon Marshall? Honestly?

 

Don't they have a new OC there in Chicago as well?

 

how do you argue that? They lost Knox for the whole year, and Alshon Jeffery for a huge part of the year. Imagine their WR corps without Marshall, without Alshon, and without Knox and then say, he does not make them more efficient.

 

I have never seen so many fans create a weird scenerio where a receiver is wide open by 5 yards and it is his fault that he was over thrown.

 

So that's the answer? Don't worry about improving the WRs to where some of those passes are caught b/c if the ball isn't dead accurate it has not right being completed?

 

Well, obviously a QB is prone to compensating for Hartline's inability to haul in a slightly underthrown pass which, in turn, can in turn lead to a few throws off his fingertips, throws that would be caught by any receiver with some top end speed & tracking ability.

It's like moving back the archery target an extra 20 feet and blaming the archer for not hitting a bullseye he would've otherwise come close to w/o the added constrictions placed on him. Sure, he can still do it, but no need to intentionally make life more difficult on him.


Here, let me spell it out. On a pass that travels 50 yards in the air:

• Hartline's distance: ---------------------------------------------------------------
• WR w/ long speed: ------------------------------------------------------------------
• Where the ball ends up:----------------------------------------------------------XX

Tannehill needs to try and hit every rare downfield opportunity he gets, but to scapegoat Tannehill for Hartline's shortcomings at WR is quite foolish, is accepting of mediocrity at the starting WR position, and is flat out unfair of expectations for the QB.

Before this game, Tanny was 50% completions on throws 31+ yards (according to SI.Com), which is a better than Rodgers (36%), Brady (19%), Brees (36%), Manning (40%), Ryan (39%), and Stafford & Eli too. Tannehill had earned the right to have his goddam receivers make a play for HIM for once..... but it ain't gonna happen if his main receiver lacks the deep speed to run under a 50 yard throw nor can't keep himself from falling down backwards on an underthrow.

 

So your logic is Tannehill could easily throw the ball further and hit the wr. But since hartline is so slow he doesn't. But even though he can throw further, he under throws. But, that's not tannehill's fault. Right.

 

There is always room for upgrades. But yes, that is the answer. I would love a receiver who can make the acrobatic catches. But that's not something you can rely on. A QB's accuracy is. He was missing receivers that day, not just Hartline. A Calvin Johnson wouldn't change that.

 

The receiver did make a play, he was 5 yards ahead of the cornerback.

I do find the theory interesting that a faster moving target is easier to hit than a slower moving target. I know I always found it easier to throw to a person jogging than a person who is sprinting.

Also an archer would find a slower moving target, easier to hit than a faster moving target.

So all the other times he hit Hartline pasted 31 yards and the Charles Clay touchdowns were minor miracles?

 

Do you realize that by taking this stance you're implicitly calling a rookie with a 72 QB rating a very good player?

The whole problem with your line of reasoning on this issue is that you don't first rule out whether what you're seeing is common among rookie QBs, who customarily play much worse than veterans, before you start attributing it to the receivers. You'd rather "confirm" your belief in the inadequacy of the receivers without doing any investigation of whether your belief is inaccurate in ANY instance. By doing so you lose credibility in your belief IMO.

 

..... and on the underthrow. Watch the All 22 film.

There was pressure coming. Tannehill couldn't step into the throw (was almost off his back foot) and had to take less off his arm with Garner's helmet being pushed into his follow through. That's asking a lot to get enough on the throw to reach Hartline in stride 45 yards down field. Pennington couldn't have done it even with his delivery & follow not being impeded/shortened.

These are times where the receiver HAS TO MAKE A PLAY FOR HIS QB. Hartline is looking back at Tannehill the ENTIRE way, yet he continues running a full 14+ yards with the ball in the air, proceeds to fall down backward letting the ball hit him in the gut, and allows the DB an opportunity to intervene. TYPICAL HARTLINE. That should've been an easy completion, as any receiver who can track a ball would've instantly come back to it.

Notice Garner being pushed back into Tannehill




Illustration: Ball is already in the air. Hartline at the 46 looking back at it.

7 yards later, still running at the same pace and direction



10 yards to figure out the ball is underthrown. Finally plants his back foot in a miserable attempt to track it.



Falling backward at the 39.
How he manages to end up beyond the ball while staring it down for 15 yards is beyond me, especially when the above pic shows him planting on the 43/44.




You people making excuses for this ineptitude are acting foolish.
Some of you probably also believe it's acceptable for an outfielder to not catch popups if they're not hit right at him, too.
The QB's job is to give his receiver a chance to make a play, which Tannehill did. Hartline couldn't convert. Period.

 

Good Lord, is this debate still going on? Tannehills pass to Hartline was over thrown, no two ways about it. I`m sure they practiced the same deep pass numerous times in practice and I`m sure it was completed several times once they got the timing down. Tannehills timing was off on that play ,period. Hartlines fault?? Are you kidding me?? If Tannehill misjudges Hartlines route speed at this point in the season he has himself to blame. I`m not down on R.T. at all but THAT play was his fault.... I`m referring to the deep pass to hartline.

 

This theory doesn't even apply to this situation. It's not a horizontal route where the fast receiver is required to run at a constant rate of speed.

WADR, I take it you haven't played quarterback? The faster the vertical target the easier it is to lead him b/c he can obviously adjust his rate of speed, where as the slower moving target can't run any faster than he's capable of to make up ground if needed. Plus, a vertical threat with top end speed isn't always running at full speed when he's gaining separation, leaving himself an extra gear to track down down passes and maintain separation. On a slower target you have to worry about underthrows b/c the faster DB has a greater chance of recovering, which can cause you to overcompensate. If all Hartline had to do was jog down the field unabated like he does in warmups, then yes, it's quite easy to drop it in the bucket verse trying to hit him at a dead sprint, but unfortunately games aren't like that. It's not easy to overthrow a receiver with good top end speed. Even when you think you've overthrown them, they can frequently still track it down.

You also seem to miss that QB's are often throwing to a spot rather than the receiver, making it partly responsible for the receiver to get to that spot. If receiver A can cover more ground than receiver B, then he obviously has a greater chance of making it to the spot to convert the throw.

What an ignorant question.... unless you feel it's a minor miracle for Hartline to catch a ball downfield. Tannehill obviously has the touch to make those throws hence the 50% completion rate prior to NE, so I don't know what you're saying TBH. Are you insinuating that b/c Tannehill completed those other 31+ yarders that he should be able to do so perfectly on all occasions? That's just ridiculous. This isn't about Hartline's ability to catch a pass that Tannehill drops perfectly into his waiting arms; it's about the times when he doesn't and Hartline's inability offers us little potential to convert those throws.

 

LOL, it is like you are just making jokes.

Tannehill obviously can do it. So I am insinuating, that he didn't do it. Which means, he messed up on this occasion.

The last part is something you created out of your hatred of Hartline.

 

WTF does Hartline's vertical ineptitude on non-pristine passes have to do with a QB, rookie or not?!!! So what, Tannehill becoming a veteran will suddenly transcend Hartline into a receiver with both top end speed and the ability to track down & haul in deep passes that aren't right to him?!! Give me a break. Only one losing credibility is you with this nonsense. What's next, tennis players not having to return volley if it's not hit right to them? The guy is paid millions with the expectation of catching every pass within his vicinity. There's no QB met with the expectation of completing every throw, let alone putting every one smack on target.

I just showed you that Tannehill had previously completed 50% of his 31+ yard attempts, with those throws mostly being of the beautiful variety rather than the receiver making a play for his QB. 50% is good, no matter how you slice it, especially when it's better than the NFL's top QBs. For someone who says he's objective, you're full of garbage, especially when you'll skirt question after question when you truthfully know your answer would be damaging to your precious Hartline.