Comparing the Dolphins Starting WRs to the League's Best

I think he's a good WR, too, and I've said such many times, and recently as well. Great receiving corps need a guy like Hartline, just not as the team's "best" receiver. He's an asset. He can play all 3 positions so that other guys can move around to create matchup advantages. IMO his calling is in the slot where he has top 10 potential at the position..... but we all know he's not a top 10 guy as a primary receiver. Hartline occasionally matched up on linebackers & safeties? He'd kill them. He's not a true vertical threat on the outside, but on the inside he could definitely help stretch the field, beat cover 2, and create space underneath for Bush & Co.

 

I told you. It's to see how the bulk of their seasons compare without 1 game skewing the stats.
Let me ask you, is 253 yards by Hartline an anomaly or not?
Is it an accurate representation of his production? I don't think it is, not when the other 11 games total 638.

1 game - 253
11 games- 638

That 1 game total is 40% of the other 11 games. If that doesn't skew a season then I don't know what does.

 

So your answer is no?

I figured that b/c you seem to be implying that Tannehill, or QBs with a lower QB rating, are a hindrance on their receivers' production. QB rating doesn't measure any one player's performance, it measures the overall success rate of a passing game, thus the term "passer rating". So if a QB rating is low its a product of the entire offense.

If Tannehill throws a 2 yd pass to Hartline, who runs fr 80 yds into the end zone (I'm dreaming here) then RT's passer rating gets a bump based on what his WR did. If Tanne throws a dime to Hartline 50 yds down field and Hartline drops it then oh well, it's a 37.6 rating for that play.

QB rating in short, only measures the result of a play, it's too stupid to judge context. An INT on an end of half Hail Mary is judged the same as an INT deep in the opponents red zone in overtime. A 12 yd completion on 3rd and 11 is no different from the same completion on 3rd and 30. An incompletion thrown to avoid a certain sack is equal to an inc when there was plenty of time and a wide open WR down the field for a score.

Judging a QB accurately means looking at footwork, pre/post snap reads, decision making, pocket presence, arm strength, accuracy, etc. Is he calling the play properly, making the correct adjustments, reading the field, delivering on time and on target, protecting the ball, etc. Too much to name... IMO its crazy to look at a single stat, especially one as blind as QB rating and try to judge performance.

When I watch RT he seems to be doing things the right way. He's doing most of the things on my list fairly well, better than any of us expected at this point, Most of all he rarely makes WTF throws, and he almost never has that deer in the headlights look that a lot of rookies seem to have. And if he's doing these things well but his stats aren't any good then there are some things that should be looked at. Number one is play calling, two is protection, three is receiving targets. For me, and for just about anyone who watches the team, the receivers are the bulk of the problem. There are no easy throws out there, no easy yards, definitely no easy scores. Tanne cant throw bombs down field and let his WRs run under them, or take short throws and let his guys break them into long plays like RG3, he doesn't have big tall guys who can go up and get the 50/50 balls like Russel Wilson, he certainly doesn't have a HOF target like Reggie Wayne, with a couple seam threats at TE and some speed and explosiveness at WR like Andrew Luck has.

That considered I find it troubling that you'd go after Tannehill for his poor QB rating and imply that Bess and Hartline would be better off if their QB's rating was better. IMO opinion its hard not to see that one of the main reason's he has a poor QB rating is b/c his targets can't do jack **** for him. Sure they can run some underneath stuff but they can't do **** after the catch. Hartline can sneak behind the D on a double move or if there's a coverage break down but the throw has to pretty much be right on him and he's not coming down with many, if any, 50/50 balls. Neither guy gives us much in the red zone, fades, slants, back shoulder throws, they aren't skilled at winning vs tight coverage on those routes. Neither guy commands safety help, bracket coverage or double teams consistently. Hartline is average at best as a blocker, Bess is terrible, but I'm piling on at this point so never mind.

If you don't believe me, believe Irish. He's the one on record saying we have a lot of 3-4-5 type WRs but no ones or twos. And I can pretty much guarantee you that our top 2 WRs right now will be fired during the offseason. Bess will be back in the slot as a 3, or gone. Hartline will be #2, ideally #4, or gone. If not, point me to the nearest "fire Ireland" thread so I can join the team.

 

Again, you need to actually prove how much these are skewed, and the significance of the skewing. You are working off very large assumptions.

 

I think passer rating is a pretty flawed metric. Net YPA is much better IMO.

But I think the example you use is pretty simplistic. A 2 yd pass that goes for an 80 yd TD could be dependent on many things the QB could do. It could be because he made a great read, avoided a blitz, moved a defender, etc. I have a hard time believing that a QB could have his rating significantly lowered by the offense. The QB has the ball in his hands so much, has the ability to move defenders, read coverages, etc., that if he is good enough he should at least get his rating to a decent level on his own.

 

QB rating is very strongly correlated with the consensus perceptions of the ability or talent of various QBs. Therefore it can generally be said to be a measure of QB performance.

 

So you're rebuttal is that only QBs are afforded natural talent and ability that effectively separate them from the rest, but WRs are all created equal? Did you think before typing this post or did it just sound good at the time? I could spend the next 2 hours creating a case so air tight that Johnny Cochran would accept it, but you're in such denial you'd still find ways in your head to dismiss it.

But just for fun let's start with why you think, generally speaking, 1st round receivers are taken in the 1st round and FA receivers don't get drafted at all. Did they have "great college QBs" making them "appear" special so that those silly SB teams like Pitt, Dallas, San Fran, Indy, Green Bay, St Louis, and Washington to name a few would draft them in the 1st round? If they only knew how much of a wasted pick guys like Rice, Irvin, Swann, Harrison & Wayne, Sharpe, Holt, Monk, etc were at the time, they could've used those picks to really make them a contender.

For good measure, would you mind addressing why some of the QBs on that list appeared to be 2 different players with and without a great surrounding cast? Please enlighten us how great receivers don't see as big of a dip in production when absent a great QB compared to a QB's dip in production absent a great surrounding cast. Marino, Brady, Manning, Favre, Moon, Elway, Warner?.... How many examples would you like?


Oh, hey, if WR talent is insignificant then why the heck did you create a thread called, "Comparing the Dolphins Starting WRs to the League's Best"? LOL

 

So you don't consider 40% of a player's 11 game totals as skewing the 12 game picture? Then there's no further discussion needed b/c our interpretation is significantly divided.

 

What's your definition of significantly lowered (for a full season)? 20 points? 10? 30?

 

This isnt up to interpretation. Its up to arithmetic.

What constitutes an outlier? Why only one game? Why not choose two? Why not exclude the lowest gane? Why not just use the median? Of all the available statistical tools, why did you choose the one you did? If you are going to use such a measure, the validity needs to be determined.

 

Greater than one standard deviation.

 

It's hard to believe that when, there's that word again, actively trivialize his good plays.

 

So would you use a similar standard of deviation to declare a season of stats being skewed by an inflated game that you used a standard of deviation on to declare as skewed?

 

I'm sorry, Stringer, but I won't break out a calculator every time someone asks me what 3x4 is.

There's nothing that needs to be mathematically explained about 1 game's production = 40% of the other 11. That's all the arithmetic you need.

You want my cursory standard of deviation: 253 yards is 195 more than his 58 yard average over his other 11 games.... and it's 179 more than his 74 yard average for the full season (which includes the inflated 253 game)..... so I'm being more than generous by excluding any games that deviates by more than 150 yards, which means there's no reason to remove his lowest single game considering it only deviated by 58.

 

I don't actively trivialize them. I simply won't exalt his good plays until they become consistent enough to where he's not a liability as our top target. I told you, I'd love his good plays if good plays are what we consistently see from him, which is what I believe would happen as a complimentary player without the same pressure to be the top producer.

Hartline as top target = liability
Hartline as compliment to top target = asset

If he makes a great play, I'm obviously going to be happy about it, but an occasional great play doesn't mean I have to treat him like a great receiver.

 

WADR, Can you ever simply answer questions based on shooting from your gut, like a normal conversation? What if I'm sitting next to you in a bar shootin' the sh** and I ask what you feel is a significantly lower QBR deviation for one season? Are you really gonna slide the nachos over, pull out the laptop & calculator, google a few QBs, crunch the stats, analyze this, assess that, carry the 1, and twenty minutes later give a reply?

It's like you're treating a game we watch with our eyes as if it's nothing more than a quarterly business report.

 

The thing about "going with your gut" on this stuff is that our "guts" are filled with biases that derive from the heavy emotional investment we have in the team, and from our own "pet beliefs" if you will. If you want to rant and rave about the team, your gut is fine, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if you want to really know something about the team (or the sport), you have to rule out your possible biases with statistical tools.

 

Who's perceptions are we talking about here? The fans, the media? I can assure you that the players and coaches don't give a rats *** about QB rating. They watch film and judge players based on whether or not they did their job.

 

I agree it was simplistic. My point is that QB rating measures the success of the passing game as a whole but doesn't even come close to accurately judging a QB's performance.
I think that that a QBR can absolutely be lowered/raised by the players around him. An OL that keeps the pocket clean allows the QB to go through his reads more comfortably. WRs who make plays after the catch and/or catch balls in tight coverage. A running game that limits the amount of obvious passing situations, its all related.

I agree the QB has more to do with it than any other player, but collectively, his supporting cast is vitally important.

 

No, you wouldn't use that measure to determine if something is skewed necessarily.

 

Can you do me a favor, seeing as I dont have nearly enough time on my hands as you do ?? Can you find a post in this entire forum that states someone,anyone, believes that Hartline is a true #1, top notch, receiver. And can you find where anyone said that we DONT need a true # 1 WR. I really see no need to bash Hartline endlessly for the job he`s doing when we all agree he`s not an elite # 1 WR. We need help at the position, obviously, but Hartline is fine. The Miami Dolphins are better off with him than without him.

 

What I'm saying is that the QBs who are widely considered -- by players, fans, coaches, etc. -- as the ones with the best talent or ability are also the ones with the highest QB ratings. In other words, there is a strong correlation between the ability or talent a QB is widely perceived to have, and his QB rating. QB rating can therefore be generally said to be a good measure of QB performance.

 

If you aren't interested in an objective analysis, I'm not sure why you are posting in this thread? If you would prefer to have a debate based on subjective assessments, thats great, there are plenty of threads that go in depth on such topics.

Watch with your eyes, and record a boatload of data for. In almost any arena, gut instincts need to be supported by conclusive data analysis in order to be accepted with some validity.

 

Thats fine. But you can't come up with the hypothesis that we need to do X, Y, or Z when quantifying one's performance, then say you won't break out the calculator. If you're going to take on the burden of proving why one game should be excluded, then you are burdened with actually proving why its prudent to do so.

 

There's not gut involved. Stringer made a generalized statement about him "having a hard time believing that a QB could have his rating significantly lowered by the offense", so it's only fair to assume he would've had at least a vague number in mind to support his opinion and qualify his statement; otherwise why even make the statement to begin with?

 

Or at the very least, do it for all the tandems in the comparison and not just Hartline/Bess and White/Jones.

Tell me where Hartline and Bess rank in the league when the best games are removed for all the guys in the original post. Don't just remove the best game for Hartline and Bess and for White and Jones and then tell me "look how much better White and Jones are."

 

How you came up with all that from the below post, I have no idea. You're right, you obviously you don't have enough time on your hands..... to fully read and comprehend my post.

 

Do you consider the following statement as objective analysis, or is it a quick subjective assessment (or gut instinct as you will)?

• "I have a hard time believing that a QB could have his rating significantly lowered by the offense"

See what I'm getting at?
​

I understand what you're saying, and you should know by now how often I try to offer up in-depth analysis when at all possible and the time permits, but not every back & forth should have to entail a boatload or data research. We've watched enough games and seen enough stats & analysis that we should both have a general gut instinct of certain aspects of the game. Isn't that what caused you to make the above quoted statement, or did you do all the standard deviation research first to qualify it?

 

The same can be true on my end. No one is remotely attempting at take on the burden of proving why the game shouldn't be excluded. I think that's quite fair to ask of a receiver who went 41 games before breaking 100 yards.

You haven't answered my question though. Based on years of watching the NFL, watching Hartline, and hours upon hours of breaking down stats, do you believe Hartline's 253 yard game was an anomaly?

 

Well, the obvious answer here is that you can't just come up with a theory and expect people to disprove it.

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

I have no theory on it.

 

Its neither, which is why it was qualified with "I have a hard time believing". Inherently that means I lacked any type of certainty.

Not every back and forth, just the ones where someone claims that one game is statistically insignificant.

 

You do it. I've spent enough hours on statistical stuff in this thread.

BTW, the thread is about "Comparing the Dolphins Starting WRs to the League's Best". LEAGUE'S BEST. So that's what I did just as the OP did when he thought it fit his argument.... and just as you supported it when you thought it suited yours. But no, now that the stats shed a different light, you can't compare them to White & Jones anymore b/c dat's not fair to wittle Hartwine & Bessy. So I ask, who the hell wants to compare their receivers to anything but the best? Are you striving for mediocrity?

Where they "rank" on a piece of paper doesn't mean a thing. There's no stat in the world that will turn them into something they're not. Period.

You want to know what matters? Tweet every starting QB and ask them where Hartline & Bess would rank on their wish list of starting WRs. If Tannehill can sign his name anonymously then they're at or near the bottom of his list, too. If that's not good enough, wait until next year like GM said when they're both demoted b/c no team would willfully tolerate Hartline as their top target and Bess as a starting perimeter receiver. NO TEAM. We're done here. I'm not wasting my valuable time pulling more evidential stats for the ignorant. Feel free to flip the light switch on whenever you want.

 

[HR][/HR]People have become shamelessly content with mediocrity.

 

No, but what if they're fifth best? Is that mediocrity?

 

I have no shame.

What do you suppose is the better explanation, that people who spend hours of every day on a message board devoted to a team they follow have no problem with that team's being mediocre, or that those people would just like their knowledge about the team to be based on an objective a reality as possible?

 

Exactly. It was a simple gut-based opinion that you gave.... so I was quite in line to follow up with asking you to expand on that gut-based opinion. I just wanted a simple roundabout number so I could understand what you were thinking.... but your "standard deviation" answer was far from that. From all your years of research you obviously have to have some type of QBR number differential in your head to where you, yourself, would deem it "significantly lowered".

Heck, I'm guessing -20.0 should be sufficient to qualify as significantly lowered. Without looking at data, do you think it should be higher or lower?.. or 20 sounds about good?

 

When you have 2 combined TDs, there's no 5th best punching its way into the picture anywhere.

 

Yet you've stated before he only got throws because of bad defense. Again that is making his good plays try to seem less like good plays.

 

If you go by the stats on the following page, the SD for QB rating is 10.99:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/quarterbackRating

 

No, much less than 20. One std deviation is closer to 10 pts.