excuses or stupidity?

[dolphintodd]

Don't we all want players that can make plays on their own?

I hate when people say that If we had a true number 1 wide receiver our number 2 reciever would be good(same goes for CBs), or we had so many negative running plays because of the offensive line instead of at least partially blaming the guy carrying the ball.

Every player must stand on their own merit. If your #2 wide reciever needs a stud WR opposite him then he isn't that good.
If the running back needs perfect blocking then he isn't that good.

That sounds like a house of cards, everything has to be perfect to be good. What happens if the number 1 wr goes down or the left tackle, season over? Becuase not only do we have to put backups in those positions but now we no wide receivers and we can't run the ball.

[dcnr226]

Not sure i understand what you're getting at..

[Gonzo]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[oasis]

I pick expidity. Or stucuses.

[Wildbill3]

thanks for the spammeriffic thread. would read again. in the spam forum.

[Atila]

He's basically saying that everyone making an excuse for Hartline (or I guess Sean Smith) for not being big time playmaker(s) should expect those same players to make plays, regardless if there are other great players around them. "Just because Hartline is our only above average receiver doesn't make it okay for him to not be a playmaker." is what OP is trying to say.


As a response to that, I will say that Hartline put up over 1,000 yards including a couple big games. That is called making plays. I will say that Sean Smith led a secondary that was expected to be COMPLETE **** to actually be AVERAGE. Both players did a decent job making plays... but because Hartline didn't score touchdowns and Sean Smith did give up some plays, some people throw a **** fit.

Our offense wasn't good in spite of Hartline, our offense sucked and Hartline only kept us mediocre.
Our pass defense wasn't good in spite of Sean Smith, our pass defense sucked and Sean Smith only kept us mediocre.

If they were BAD, then I would see OP point, but they were both the brightest spots on relatively dull units.

[Wildbill3]

if you have to figure out what he is saying by guessing what he is saying, then the thread premise PROBABLY needed a bit more work.

He's basically saying that everyone making an excuse for Hartline (or I guess Sean Smith) for not being big time playmaker(s) should expect those same players to make plays, regardless if there are other great players around them. "Just because Hartline is our only above average receiver doesn't make it okay for him to not be a playmaker." is what OP is trying to say.


As a response to that, I will say that Hartline put up over 1,000 yards including a couple big games. That is called making plays. I will say that Sean Smith led a secondary that was expected to be COMPLETE **** to actually be AVERAGE. Both players did a decent job making plays... but because Hartline didn't score touchdowns and Sean Smith did give up some plays, some people throw a **** fit.

Our offense wasn't good in spite of Hartline, our offense sucked and Hartline only kept us mediocre.
Our pass defense wasn't good in spite of Sean Smith, our pass defense sucked and Sean Smith only kept us mediocre.

If they were BAD, then I would see OP point, but they were both the brightest spots on relatively dull units.

[Atila]

Definitely not getting an argument from me.

[MexDolfan]

Don't we all want players that can make plays on their own?

I hate when people say that If we had a true number 1 wide receiver our number 2 reciever would be good(same goes for CBs), or we had so many negative running plays because of the offensive line instead of at least partially blaming the guy carrying the ball.

Every player must stand on their own merit. If your #2 wide receiver needs a stud WR opposite him then he isn't that good.
If the running back needs perfect blocking then he isn't that good.

That sounds like a house of cards, everything has to be perfect to be good. What happens if the number 1 wr goes down or the left tackle, season over? Becuase not only do we have to put backups in those positions but now we no wide receivers and we can't run the ball.

My theory about the WR1, WR2, WR3, etc value is based on X, Y & Z positions of any offensive scheme.

"Y" must follow his routes in a proper way to help "X" going man-to-man and get some advantage. A weak "Y" could lead to use zone coverage with multiple coverage over the primary target "X".

The same goes to "Z", who must be effective running his route or he won't be there when the defense focus on "X" & "Y".

A weak "X" allows man-to-man coverage on depth routes, giving freedom on safeties & linebackers to focus on slot and running attack.

Weak set of "X", "Y" & "Z" leads to chaos because the entire defense will focus on pass pressure and stopping run plays.

That said, a player is strong in certain position when the scheme empathizes his abilities. A system that forces a player to explode non-existing attributes is designed to fail.

Like it or not, Brian Hartline was effective and successful as WR1 during 2012, mostly because the offensive scheme allowed him to explode his speed and his teammates got reasonable efficiency.

A wide receiver with double or triple coverage surely will suffer more pressure (read injuries) because he will have to give his best on every single play. That's what demolish post-season efficiency from most teams with alpha receivers.