I'm entering the "Draft Forum" territory, so this is as far as I'll go, but this is a great game to see what Star is capable of. You see what he can do with singles, doubles, inside, and he even kicks out to end on a few occasions. [video=youtube;MQMb4NTEaIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQMb4NTEaIA[/video] Look for #92. If you can't find him, look for the interior linemen backpedaling. Take note that he's usually the first one on either line to get off on the snap.
If we add a receiver, it's not going to be Bess on the chopping block. It'll be Marlon Moore, Rishard Matthews, or Armon Binns. If you can't get a second for Bess, you go into the season with him knowing you won't be keeping him past his contract expiration.
Do you understand that to run a 2x2 set you need two slot receivers? Even if we drafted Austin or Swope, that just means a hole was filled. It's the boundary guys that have to be worried. I'm sorry, but the Phins aren't going to keep two reserves who can't play the Y or Z over a guy who's a proven commodity and is going to be making 6 million a year after this season.
Apparently YOU are not understanding that Gibson could easily consume one of those slots in that formation. You already are not understanding Bess' s value. I'm ok if we keep him but lets not pretend he is some valued commodity. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Seriously, I want to slap you people. What, just because we have a decently complete WR corps for once Bess becomes expendable? But there's a problem with that, nobody but Bess plays the slot well on this team and good slot receivers are a lot rarer than good boundary receivers. It's why an oft-injured guy like Amendola signed on the dotted line for 6 million per year. Go look at my mock draft thread in the draft forum. There's a reason I have us drafting Chris Harper on the last day. It's because he's every bit as athletic as Bess, he's a lot bigger, he's faster, and he's actually a really good route runner. But we need a guy like him now so that we don't have to draft Bess' replacement next year. It'd be nice for once to be able to say next man up and mean it.
Huh? I never said Bess should be traded. But the reality is that teams don't spend resources on slot receivers.
Gibson is an W or X receiver in a four receiver set. That means he's a boundary receiver. He can play flanker on the far side of a 3x1, but that's not at all the same thing as saying he'd be a one-for-one replacement for Bess. The skillsets aren't even remotely similar and I haven't seen anything to suggest that Gibson understand the complex option routes a slot receiver is expected to know.
Slot receivers are payed like #2 receivers now. Their value is a lot higher than it was a decade ago.
How many are? Wes Welker is making $5M and Amendola is making $6M? Thats pretty much the cream of the crop maxing out at around 1/3 of what Calvin Johnson makes. Slot receivers certainly are more valuable now than 10 yrs ago, but the market still isn't very strong.
You don't think Bess is going to be making 6 million/year after this season? I do, just not with the Dolphins.
If they are looking for what's considered traditional slot receiver type guys, why'd they sign Gibson? They grabbed Wallace and re-upped Hartline before getting Gibson. Doesn't that seem to poke a hole in 2 slot receiver theory? Or Do you think Gibson was just depth? Or Are you thinking they'll make Wallace a slot guy with Hartline and Gibson on the edges and Bess in the "other" slot? If so, then they don't have a hole at slot..right? Also, if you can see the difference between Gibson's and Bess's skillsets, why are you still comparing Austin to Swope?
I think they brought Gibson in to play flanker on the far side in 3x1 sets, to give Hartline breathers in 2x2 sets during no huddle situations, and as a third down specialist. I'm not? They're both fast and they both fit best in the slot, but how you'd actually use them in WCO passing concepts is entirely different.
I'm not sure he's being honest in his assessment of Hartline at least. He pretty much didn't line up in the slot last year, to the point where I'd assume the coaching staff flat out doesn't like him there. About 3x less often than everyone but Mastrud and Gaffney, less often than guys who were signed mid-season, and guys who you would expect to be less slot oriented(Fasano, Armstrong).
That could have just as likely been due to the makeup of the WR corps last year. Had there been a Gibson and/or Wallace on the roster, that may have allowed Hartline to play slot sometimes.
Did I just read that Bess is not only going to get $6 mil per year after this season but also that he's fast? Hahaha
Right, but moving Hartline into the slot would entail putting someone else on the outside. I'm not sure the benefit of moving Hartline around would be worth having whomever else on the outside. He certainly has the requisite agility to play inside IMO. Its also worth noting that he also pigeonholed Bess as purely a slot WR, so I'm not sure if he was just making empty statements.
No? I think if Amendola, he who is often injured, got 6 million per year then Bess certainly will. I think if Welker, who is on his last contract, got 5 million per year then there's no reason Bess won't at least match that. EDIT: I said Swope and Austin are fast, not Bess.
I'm not sure that explains it, guys like Rishard Matthews, Marlon Moore, Anthony Armstrong, and Legedu Naanee all were in the slot way more frequently than Hartline was proportionally.
I guess. I'd think that kind of role was already on the team though in a Matthews or Binn? I don't understand. I'm still confused by your comparison. First of all, saying they are both fast and best used in the slot is like saying Ray Lewis and Jake Long are the same because they are both carbon based and like pizza. They are really nothing alike in how they use their speed or play their position. Secondly, if they are going to be used differently in our offense, like you admit, then why would you pick one or the other for the same role?
The value they apparently place on Gibson, would IMO open things up to use Hartline more in the slot, with Gibson and Wallace outside.
I'm not. In a three verticals passing concept from a 2x2 shotgun set, three of your receivers run dedicated nine routes. Swope is the slot receiver you send vertical. Austin is the slot receiver who runs a short comeback if the backers in his near side drop into robber zones or runs a crossing route and sits down in a coverage hole if the near side backers drop into flat/hook zones. Austin is also interesting because with a simple motion you can go from a 41 personnel 2x2 to a 32 personnel 2x1 and really mind**** a defense. I'm personally of the mindset that you go vanilla before you add the toppings, which means Swope.
.....unless you're using Gibson on the outside to allow Hartline to move around into favorable matchups inside considering his skill set translates well there.
Not sure what you're trying to say here or how this statement applies to our offense, especially considering we have plenty of "vanilla" in Hartline, Gibson, and Bess. Austin is a legitimate receiver through and through so I have no idea why you consider him a topping, unless, by topping you mean cherry on top, b/c then you'd be correct.
That's all well and good. But you've been framing your argument as Austin OR Swope, implying if you got one you don't need the other because they fill the same role..when they don't. Are you saying its Swope or Austin because you think Ireland wouldn't draft more than one WR in a single draft?
How to explain this... Understand that we're not going to run a Walsh-style WCO with three receivers, a TE, and a back. When you run the WCO out of a four receiver set, you must have a receiver who can be a no-frills seam threat, which means the receiver has to be fast in receiver terms or you might as well not bother. Austin is the sort of player you add when you already have that guy and want to add the extra dimension of slot motions into the backfield, a la Percy Harvin. The reasons you would want to do this are many; to stress the defense horizontally and vertically before the snap, to force multiple coverage adjustments pre-snap and thereby force the defense to tip their hand, and to add the dimension of an option offense and the play action off of it. If you don't have the vertical threat from the slot, there's no point in doing any of that. Also, I have to point out that his measurables with regards to size are poor and he was shut down by a Kansas State defense that doesn't have anything better than a third round pick among them. That doesn't inspire confidence that he'll do well against NFL defenses. Maybe he will, I don't know, but were I the GM I'd give my coach the guy I know fits into the (as yet incomplete) offense and not the experiment.
See my response to Phinsational. I don't know how to explain my preferences except in schematic terms. I feel I'm hitting a brick wall doing it though, even trying to explain something as simple as a three verticals concept.
