Hartline wants 5-6 million per season

Which is why guys with good natural ability separate themselves from guys like Hartline who lack it.

I just want to be clear, you're saying the back of the endzone serves as an extra defender taking away the deeper routes and makes life more difficult on the receiver b/c the corner can squat on routes and attempt to take away the underneath?

 

Davone Bess received a 4 year $9.3 million contract with a $3 million signing bonus.

This was in the middle of a year that he was 79 balls for 820 yards and 5 TD's and was his second season in a row with numbers like that (well not quite td's but the rest was close).

Yet cause Hartline makes it to FA were supposed to pay him nearly $6 million? Nah. I'll pass thank you. Combine that money into a real talent at Wr or go double dipping in the draft.

 

Is this where you post the picture of Calvin Johnson in the red zone with two guys on him again?

 

He wont get 6mil in FA and I suspect his agent knows that. This is likely his first asking price and fully expects on settling for less. The question really is how much less. I would be somewhat surprised to find out that they could not get a deal done at 4 million.

 

Why dont you stay on topic instead of constantly baiting people into off topic arguments

 

With all the complaining you do, I sure hope you're contemplating contacting the moderators about me and putting me on your ignore list.

 

Forget the numbers man. Use some basic logic. The sheer number of TD's thrown to a teams WR's is weakly predictive of winning. Ok. Fine.

Without running any numbers, I can tell you, the sheer number of TD's scored helps a team win, does it not? If your WRs scores a bunch, it relieves you a bit if another position is lacking. If your WR scores a bunch, and your other positions do too, well you're that much better off.

You still need a good defense and other factors, but to say it is a non-factor is hogwash. A WR who can smell the endzone is better than one who cannot. I don't give a damn about numbers. Chris Chambers who was good for 800 yards and often times 6-10 TDs is better than a WR who does 800/1.

AJ Green is a beast and nobody is telling me it's Dalton that's allowing him to score so many TD's.

 

Sure, but you don't need those TDs to come from your wide receivers to win.

The percentage of TDs caught by wide receivers correlates nil with winning.

I think the mistaken belief here is that there is some sort of "special ability" that allows wide receivers to score touchdowns. That data don't bear that out.

Number one, touchdowns typically vary for a given receiver from season to season, and even from half-season to half-season, which argues against ability and argues for other factors. Number two, wide receivers' numbers and percentages of touchdowns have the relatively insignificant relationship with winning that I alluded to above.

What this all means in terms of Brian Hartline is that if you're a smart GM in my opinion, you don't base a whole lot of your salary considerations for him on what he's doing in the end zone.

 

How can you sit there with a straight face and a say a wide out's TD number's mean absolutely nothing? How many times did Marshall get in the end zone while he was here? How many games did we win? But hey he put up a lot of receiving yards so...

 

I guess the only explanation is that I must be a goddamned idiot.

 

lol

 

As an example look at Andre Johnson's contribution to the short passing game and see how it brings down his yards per attempt despite actually benefitting the offense.

yards per attempt
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 200"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD="align: center"]ypa[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Andre Johnson[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]8.23[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Hartline[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]8.46[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

passes thrown behind the LOS and up to 10 yards
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 350"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD="align: center"]yards[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]ypa[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]reception%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]YAC[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Andre Johnson[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]651[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]7.31[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]77%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]361[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Hartline[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]362[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5.17[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]61%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]128[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

passes thrown 11+ yards
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 350"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD="align: center"]yards[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]ypa[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]reception%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Andre Johnson[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]947[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]13.0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]59%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Hartline[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]721[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]11.8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]51%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

So how does Brian have a higher YPA despite Andre having more yards in both categories, a greater reception rate in both categories, and a higher yards per attempt in both categories? It's b/c he contributes more in the short passing game which lowers his overall YPA. Unfortunately, Hartline isn't that type of dynamic player, as he's not a reliable target to pick up yards with the ball in his hands, and that does our offense no favors.

Added: That's with Andre Johnson routinely receiving bracketed coverage which Hartline does not...... and it's with Hartline receiving a gratis 80 yard catch boosting his ypa.

 

Nope, it's where I point out how the situation you're referring to in the redzone <how the back of the endzone serves as an extra defender so that cornerbacks can jump routes and play the underneath which makes things tougher for Hartline> is for all intents and purposes like the bracketed coverage most of the league's better receivers face across the entire field, not just in the redzone/endzone, but they still put up impressive stats rather than having fans making excuses for their disappearance when the coverage gets tighter. Hartline's ineffectiveness in the redzone/endzone gives you an idea of what his production would be like if he were routinely bracket covered like great receivers are; it'd be goodbye 1k yards and hello mediocrity.

 

Hartline's numbers are also misleading. If he played to his normal numbers in that game then he wouldn't even have 1000 yards. He is a 700-800 yard and 1-3 td guy. I don't understand why people are argue against this. He has NEVER score a lot of Tds going all the way back to college. To mention he is a pro bowl alternative is hilarious considering what a joke the pro bowl is.

 

Where Hartline gets open a lot seems to be the tippy toes tightrope sideline route. He's good at that. Add Bess, who catches it in slot routes, a tight end who can attack the seam, a good veteran and a downfield threat, and I'd love to keep Hartline, because the whole field would be available. There must be a way to get a contract done.

 

According to Ireland, an offensive playmaker is someone who scores TD's. By that very definition, Hartline is no offensive playmaker. I don't see any team in the NFL paying him the type of money he wants. If there is a team foolish enough to pay him $5-6 million dollars a year, I hope he enjoys playing for that team, because it won't be the Dolphins.

Hartline is a decent #2 receiver for the Dolphins and probably a #3 receiver for the better teams in the NFL. He is worth maybe $2-3 million dollars a year at most.

 

Since he refuses to score TDs he should have to be the the kicker. With the savings from cutting Carpenter we can then pay The Hitman his 5-6 million. Other than that, Child Please. No one in their right mind is paying him 6 million per season. Especially Ireland. It only makes sense to give him that kind of money if we intend to have him back as our #1 WR next year. Anyone think that's a good idea?

 

Yeah, its the QBs job to get the WRs open. I forgot. I hear QBs also have to make the teams travel arrangements to.

 

I didn't say TD passes, I said TDs. It may not matter where they come from, in terms of winning, but they need to be there to win consistently. So let's look around the team's skill positions and see where the TDs numbers are lower than average. WR & QB. We know for a fact. other teams' #1 WRs score TDs on significant effort after the ball has left the QB's hands. We know for a fact Hartline doesn't do this. We know for a fact that Hartline ALWAYS scores few TDs. We know he does this regardless of the QB he's playing with, the offense he plays in and what position he plays. You have never accounted for that. You have never explained that. You have never even actually done a single stats based study to show WR play is all QB.

Once again, your stance has been successfully argued by a number of people using stats, logic and observation and yet you still argue that you have a valid point supported by data, which you don't.

If someone came on top every thread and screamed QB's from parents that have an average foot size of X are bad, eventually the mods would step in. You have to be knocking on that door by now.

 

Well why the hell wouldn't Hartline face the same bracketed coverage when 1) according to so many, the rest of the receiving corps is so weak, and 2) the running game isn't all that great? Why not shut down Hartline completely and make Tannehill, Bess, Fasano, the running game, and all these "fours, fives, and sixes" beat you?

You do realize that if the rest of the receiving corps is truly as weak as many say it is, and the running game is nothing special, then Hartline's performance with a rookie QB throwing the ball to him is that much better, right? I mean if he's the only game in town and he still does well, isn't that a feather in his cap?

You can't have your cake and eat it too in all these arguments.

 

And if you're talking about Aqua's thread, he showed that the addition of such play by the receviers would raise Tannehill's QB rating to a mere 80. If that sort of play is so important, and indeed exhibited by so many receivers with greater skill than Hartline, why would it have increased Hartline's current QB's rating only to a level that's still a decent amount lower than the league average?

Wrong. I have pointed to Adam's stats that show Hartline's number of TDs per reception are significantly fewer than they had been previously in his career. You're ignoring both that statistic as well as the fact that I've pointed to it previously, yet your stance is that I ignore objective data.

And I won't be doing one, because 1) there is no way to tease the game apart in that way, and 2) I've never said "WR play is all QB," so there is no impetus for me to support that objectively.

Once again, that's your belief, and I disagree.

Sure, so the only explanations possible here are that 1) the mods are careless idiots, or 2) the bolded part above isn't anywhere near analogous to what's being said. Which one are you going with?

 

I have no problem at all with the argument that Brian Hartline shouldn't be paid as much as Andre Johnson.

 

We played 13 teams and none of them bracketed The Hitman. My guess is they didn't feel he was worthy of that kind of attention. Most teams put an extra safety in the box to help out vs the run game.

 

I would front load hartlines contract on this roster, cap situation. He's a guy we'd ( have to ) lean on until more talented players develop, eventually receiving less targets over time. Easier to trade or release as well.

That said, I'm completely undecided on bringing him back. I say we let him test the market while we shop around. How much more could Wallace cost, seriously ?

 

And what percentage of the time on average do receivers who make five to six million a year receive such bracketed coverage?

Clearly, that sort of thing can benefit an offense. The question above, though, is what to ask yourself in this regard if you're the one deciding whether to meet Hartline's contract demands.

 

You're trying to correlate certain parts of the passing game with the overall concept of winning and losing, which is just bogus- defense, special teams, the running game- these are obviously critical components that contribute to winning or losing games. A good statistical passing offense can be on a losing team- there is just no particular relevance to comparing % of overall TDs by WRs to games won, it's just a piece of the puzzle. If the TEs and RBs are scoring TDs, then great, more power to them. Matt Stafford threw for about 5,000 yards, Calvin Johnson set a receiving yards record and the Lions still went 4-12. A high percentage of offensive TDs going to WRs could very well indicate that the team has a weak running game- your data seems neither here nor there and of little relevance because it takes none of this into consideration, try viewing the big picture instead. Unless your point is that a large number of WR TDs cannot make a team win all by itself, then your argument fails. We already learned that with the unbalanced teams of the Marino years anyway- you are still most likely going to need a solid defense and running game to be consistently successful, no matter how good your passing game is.

You may not NEED TDs to come from WRs, but they sure help. And Hartline helps very little in that regard. 6 TDs in 4 years. A whopping one and a half touchdowns per year from Mr. Hartline. That is not an anomaly or aberration that you speak of (or should I say provide an excuse for), that is a career path. I'm far less concerned with his TD to reception ratio than I am with the fact that he's scored 3 touchdowns in the last three years. Again, that's three touchdowns in the last three years.

The "special ability" section of your post is pure folly. What "other factors" are you referring to? The obvious, that a good QB helps receivers score TDs and vice versa? Is it pure luck? Sure, WRs can have an off year here and there as per TDs, no surprises there. But this thread, as you have mentioned, is about Brian Hartline, who averages 1.5 touchdowns per year. There's no need for you to manufacture excuses for Hartline, he is what he is- and what he is not is a WR with the "special ability" that the very good ones have to score TDs. He's a decent #2 who lacks deep speed, is not terribly elusive or prone to breaking tackles and rarely finishes of receptions by using "special ability" to get into the end zone.

Maybe you can do an analysis showing how running backs don't have any "special ability" that allows the good ones to score more TDs than the average ones. That should be good for another laugh or three. Speed, strength, elusiveness- I guess that they don't count anymore. As to your GM comment- any GM dumb enough to ignore their WRs ability to score touchdowns, get open deep and stretch the field would in all likelihood never have become a GM in the first place. Your advice would be to not place a whole lot of salary considerations on what skill players are doing in the endzone? To explain that comment, please refer to post #179 in this thread.

 

Sure, and my argument is only that it should be treated as such when deciding what to pay your receivers, rather than basing their pay on TDs predominantly or exclusively.

He averaged a good bit more TDs per reception before Tannehill showed up. That piece of data is now at the point where it's being consistently ignored by the opposing side in this debate. A bias is beginning to be revealed in that regard IMO.

And coincidentally, he's not asking for the kind of money that the receivers you're comparing him to tend to make (assuming for the sake of argument that such "special ability" to score TDs indeed exists, that is).

 

Hartline has completed four years in the NFL. He had 3 TDs his rookie year. Every year since then he's had one TD. That includes both this year with Tannehill and the two years previous with Henne and Moore.

2009 3 TD
2010 1 TD
2011 1 TD
2012 1 TD

Case closed. Trying to present more obscure data to make your point doesn't change basic realities. Hartline historically blows at scoring TDs. And that's with 3 QBs, not just Tannehill. Trying to make excuses for this and trying to pretend that more TDs from our WR crew wouldn't be a valuable addition are a waste of time, as are diverting attention by focusing on this so called issue of the percentage of WR TDs. Nonsense. We need more TDs scored and we need more WR TD receptions. If other offenses have more rushing TDs, more receiving TDs by RBs and TEs, who cares? The real issue as per Dolphin WR TDs is simply how few of them there are, and for us that is three total WR TD receptions in 2012. That's prima facie evidence that we need more explosion, production and play making out of our receivers, to go along with what you can clearly see in the games- that we need better receivers, and we need receivers who can score touchdowns. Just about everyone but you can see this, including Jeff Ireland.

 

I am sure Ireland will take a hardline in the negotiations.

 

I hope that he does. It remains to be seen if Hartline is part of the problem or part of the solution- he was the best option on a truly crappy WR crew and to his credit he made plays, except of course for TDs, just 1 there. But 1,000 yards isn't some magical number, and at best he's a #2 WR. Why throw money at him instead of spending that money on a #1 if you can? We'll see what happens in FA and the draft, but to me Hartline is nothing more than a role player and should be paid as such. Congrats to him on a career year and a career game during a contract year, but I'd rather not see him get overpaid, that money could be spent better elsewhere.

 

LOL at 5 pages of "he doesnt score TDs"

 

Yards cant be the anomaly when his YPT is pretty much the same as its been his entire career. The problem here is the insistence to attribute a TD to only the person who carries the ball into the endzone. There is ample evidence of what exactly contributes to the points and how much.

 

Actually his 200+ yard game was an anomaly.

 

What are the total number of Tds he has scored in the last 7 seasons including college?

 

Sounds like an agree to disagree point to me.

 

Not many.

 

As is any receiver's 200+ yard game.

 

Ah, but that data is too "obscure" to be considered.

(BTW, "obscure" means "isn't consistent with what I believe, so I don't want to consider it.")

 

Simply saying that without this anomaly Hartline most likely isn't a pro bowler or a 1000 yard receiver.