Luxy312 Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 you should probably do some research before posting\ http://www.nfl.com/player/brianhartline/81831/profile pretty decent producer, hasn't missed many games at all His last productive year was 3 years ago. Yeh, I'm missing something.
Kirby Jackson Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 I still think that the #2 WR is what we are missing. I do however think that Hartline is in that tier with Woods or Hogan at this point. He would replace what they lost in Hogan. The Bills would have their #1 and basically 2 #3's which isn't that bad.
YoloinOhio Posted May 23, 2016 Author Posted May 23, 2016 I still think that the #2 WR is what we are missing. I do however think that Hartline is in that tier with Woods or Hogan at this point. He would replace what they lost in Hogan. The Bills would have their #1 and basically 2 #3's which isn't that bad.i am thinking he's a 3 too but I like his experience and leadership.
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 His last productive year was 3 years ago. Yeh, I'm missing something. And boykin/hankerson/salas/goodwin/little have a combined 0 productive years
Maury Ballstein Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 Don't we already have like five middling, scrap heap, journeymen veteran wide receivers? I'm sure one of them will be fine. I think Hartline would be a solid 3. He's better than all but woods/watkins
Kirby Jackson Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 His last productive year was 3 years ago. Yeh, I'm missing something. He was as good last year as Woods and better than Hogan. He did that WITH the Browns dynamic offense. He is an upgrade to the Bills.
John from Riverside Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 I think Hartline would be a solid 3. He's better than all but woods/watkins Kick the tires Doug
Luxy312 Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 He was as good last year as Woods and better than Hogan. He did that WITH the Browns dynamic offense. He is an upgrade to the Bills. That's just your opinion and I'll go ahead and reject it is being simply that. They have 3 rookies that we have ZERO idea if they'll be decent or not. They have 9 other guys not named Sammy Watkins, several of which hasn't taken a single pass from Taylor yet. In terms of Woods, he's almost 6 years younger and physically bigger. They may both be #3's, but that doesn't make him an upgrade over anything. Most plays, it's going to be Watkins, Woods, and Clay on the field anyway. A lateral move doesn't make him an upgrade over anything.
Kirby Jackson Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 That's just your opinion and I'll go ahead and reject it is being simply that. They have 3 rookies that we have ZERO idea if they'll be decent or not. They have 9 other guys not named Sammy Watkins, several of which hasn't taken a single pass from Taylor yet. In terms of Woods, he's almost 6 years younger and physically bigger. They may both be #3's, but that doesn't make him an upgrade over anything. Most plays, it's going to be Watkins, Woods, and Clay on the field anyway. A lateral move doesn't make him an upgrade over anything. They subtracted Hogan. If they replace him with a guy that has played at a higher level for his entire career how is that not an upgrade? It really isn't an opinion at all. His career numbers stack up better than anyone but Watkins on the roster.
John from Riverside Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 We don't have a 3rd receiver. We have 5 4/5 receivers and are i guess hoping 1 of them can either stop getting hurt, or stop dropping the ball. We should be kicking the tires on everyone. I think Salas can be a 3rd wr.....but if we have the opportunity to add competition we should def do that
Luxy312 Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 They subtracted Hogan. If they replace him with a guy that has played at a higher level for his entire career how is that not an upgrade? It really isn't an opinion at all. His career numbers stack up better than anyone but Watkins on the roster. You're suggesting his career numbers are indicative of his ability NOW. That's my point. He's heading to the wrong side of 30 and he's slow. His last two seasons weren't as good as Woods last two season and Woods didn't even play as much. If you said "anyone but Watkins, Woods, and Clay", then maybe we would agree, but that still doesn't do anything for me. IMO, it's no different than saying let's sign a fourth QB. Basically irrelevant.
Nanker Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 Why not kick the tires on him to see what he has left. He would be a pretty good #3 WR if he can still play. This is why you shouldn't always kick the tires:
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 You're suggesting his career numbers are indicative of his ability NOW. That's my point. He's heading to the wrong side of 30 and he's slow. His last two seasons weren't as good as Woods last two season and Woods didn't even play as much. If you said "anyone but Watkins, Woods, and Clay", then maybe we would agree, but that still doesn't do anything for me. IMO, it's no different than saying let's sign a fourth QB. Basically irrelevant. He's not an upgrade over our top 2 receivers. He may not be an upgrade over the other guys, but he has slot experience and has hands. Speed isn't always the most important attribute as someone who can catch the ball.
26CornerBlitz Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 This is why you shouldn't always kick the tires: In this particular case, it's not advisable.
Freddie's Dead Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 Every year, we see these same posts. Let's sign someone else's aging, non-performing piece of trash because by some special feat of magic, his career will be revived with the Bills. Enter Brian Hartline. A slow 6-2 slender dude that's been hurt almost every season of his career and going on 30 years old. We'll just work on where he fits on the depth chart that already includes 13 players, including 3 rookies. I know they brought in Andre Roberts, but am guessing they have him pegged as a PR/KR specialist based on his experience. He's also a year younger and despite being 3 inches shorter, is 12 pounds heavier. At the end of the day, Hartline may have been relevant 3 years ago. At this point, I would take a pass. Hartline's GP: 2015 - 12 2014 - 16 2013 - 16 2012 - 16 2011 - 16 2010 - 12 2009 - 16 Dude would be a solid #3-4 receiver, certainly better than the dumpster dives we did before the draft. Git 'r dun.
Kirby Jackson Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 (edited) You're suggesting his career numbers are indicative of his ability NOW. That's my point. He's heading to the wrong side of 30 and he's slow. His last two seasons weren't as good as Woods last two season and Woods didn't even play as much. If you said "anyone but Watkins, Woods, and Clay", then maybe we would agree, but that still doesn't do anything for me. IMO, it's no different than saying let's sign a fourth QB. Basically irrelevant. He had 1 less catch and 29 less yards than Woods last year. He did that with Johnny Manziel, Josh McCown and Austin Davis throwing him the football. If you don't want to call that equivalent that's up to you. He runs a 4.52 and Woods a 4.51. The irony is that I think of all of the players in the NFL Hartline MAY be the best comparison for Woods. They are very, very similar. If you can get Hartline for 2 years at $5M it is a much better deal than paying Woods $6M a year starting in 2017. Clay to me is a bit of a wild card and a guy that they need to use more. His talent is there. I don't think that Hartline could ever be more valuable to the passing game than Clay or Watkins. I absolutely think that he can be as valuable as Woods. They are virtually the same guy. Edited May 23, 2016 by Kirby Jackson
NickelCity Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 You're suggesting his career numbers are indicative of his ability NOW. That's my point. He's heading to the wrong side of 30 and he's slow. His last two seasons weren't as good as Woods last two season and Woods didn't even play as much. If you said "anyone but Watkins, Woods, and Clay", then maybe we would agree, but that still doesn't do anything for me. IMO, it's no different than saying let's sign a fourth QB. Basically irrelevant. I'll say it. So can we agree to look into it now? I'd pencil him in as the #3, and it's a position I think we need.
YoloinOhio Posted May 23, 2016 Author Posted May 23, 2016 That's just your opinion and I'll go ahead and reject it is being simply that. They have 3 rookies that we have ZERO idea if they'll be decent or not. They have 9 other guys not named Sammy Watkins, several of which hasn't taken a single pass from Taylor yet. In terms of Woods, he's almost 6 years younger and physically bigger. They may both be #3's, but that doesn't make him an upgrade over anything. Most plays, it's going to be Watkins, Woods, and Clay on the field anyway. A lateral move doesn't make him an upgrade over anything. if we don't have any idea about the rookies, it would be advantageous to have some options. Especially a veteran who played the majority of his career in the division. By signing him he's not being guaranteed a spot on the 53. He's getting a chance to beat other WR's in camp for a spot on the 53. If he beats them out, then he's better then them right now and it was a good idea to bring him in. This is true of anyone signed in May-July.
eball Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 I think it's a red flag when a team more in need of WRs than pretty much anyone else in the league cuts a WR. But that's just me.
YoloinOhio Posted May 23, 2016 Author Posted May 23, 2016 I think it's a red flag when a team more in need of WRs than pretty much anyone else in the league cuts a WR. But that's just me. they drafted about 7 WRs and are cutting almost all their vets.
Recommended Posts