1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

FinDepth T17 Deep Ball & Wallace

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Galant, Apr 1, 2015.

  1. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,058
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    Always reticent to re-post anything on April 1st but I'll take the risk with this one as I don't see anything immediately 'hoaxed' about it. Ian Wharton re-tweeted from Dustin Godin of FinDepth. The conversation, as it stands, is below:


     
    resnor likes this.
  2. dolphin25

    dolphin25 Well-Known Member

    6,338
    2,400
    113
    Nov 22, 2014
    20 yards is considered a deep pass, so that is kinda a meaningless stat posted.
     
    Fin-Omenal likes this.
  3. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,058
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    Not quite sure of your exact point. What do you mean?
     
  4. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    What he means is that in spite of every stat checker out there saying 20+ yards = deep passes, there is a contingent of Dolphin fans, who believe Wallace did no wrong, so they'll disregard that standard and create their own. Its been everything from 30 to 40 to 50 yards on this site by this contingent.

    I think, some fans are so used to poor QB play from the Dolphins, their brains just won't let them accept that we actually have a good QB now.
     
  5. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    He doesn't like Tannehill, so he tries to knock him every chance he gets. In order to do this, he has to change the accepted meaning of "deep ball" from a ball traveling more than 20 yards, to something else, until he finds a range where Tannehill struggles. For most, this means that they move the goalposts to something like a "deep ball" being 40-50 yards in the air. Nevermind the fact that the odds of completing those passes are incredibly low, even for the best deep ball throwers.
     
    GARDENHEAD, danmarino and Fin D like this.
  6. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,058
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
  7. Tone_E

    Tone_E Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    13,777
    7,574
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    Here is the thing, Wallace ran more (and was targeted on) 9 routes than any receiver we've had during that sample size, so accuracy is expected to be lower IMO. I also bet the YPA were higher going to Wallace as well. This chart is a convenient tool to blame Wallace against the many that are convenient to blame Tannehill. The truth is in the middle. This has been such a polarizing topic that people feel the need to be on one extreme or another. I wonder what Big Ben's stats were with Wallace, and what Big Ben's stats were with Wallace vs. all his other deep throws. I think this chart is great but doesn't take into account the full context of the situation, but then again not many stat points do.
     
  8. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    We might as well try to milk ourselves one more 20 page Tanne/Wallace thread while we can. :up:
     
    cbrad, resnor and Tone_E like this.
  9. Tone_E

    Tone_E Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    13,777
    7,574
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    Should hold us until the draft. :p
     
    Sceeto and resnor like this.
  10. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Its not in the middle though, unless the ends are Wallace on one side and the oline (not Tannehill) on the other.

    The problem was always that Wallace runs poor timing routes and has a small catch radius, while the oline rarely gave Tannehill time.

    Think about it, as fast as Wallace is it still takes him 4.28 seconds to run 40 yards....(that's at his max speed in shorts without being jammed and running in a straight line.) Tannehill has under 3 seconds to throw the ball on average. Its simple math.
     
    danmarino, Tone_E and resnor like this.
  11. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    It's really crazy, you look at the season that Tannehill had last year, and you consider that he came out a raw, raw prospect with high potential, and there are people who act like Tannehill is hot garbage. That is why this topic has been so polarizing. Simply because certain posters had an agenda, and tried to advance it with ridiculous arguments.
     
    danmarino and Fin D like this.
  12. Tone_E

    Tone_E Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    13,777
    7,574
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    I'll accept that Wallace has a smaller catch radius than other receivers, but what others don't have compared to him is the ability to get a clean step or two of separation from the DB at the middle or top of a go route, after the DB flips his hips and is blazing down the sideline to cover Wallace. That should nullify the need for a larger catch radius. It's asking a lot of a QB given the length of the throw necessary. In that regard, I think Tannehill is below the league average.

    You mention Wallace's speed and timing, but I don't think you can fault Wallace for the fact that Tannehill has under three seconds to throw. And if the counter to that is 3 seconds isn't much below NFL average (because I am not sure, but probably close) than why such a premium on 4.3 speed threats in the league?
     
  13. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You also can't fault Tannehill for his oline having him get smashed on throws that he gets off in under 2.5, much less trying to wait 3-3.5 seconds for Wallace to be open deep. I don't think anyone faulted Wallace for the oline not being able to hold blocks, but I do think that Wallace did an absolutely terrible job at tracking the ball, and a terrible job at adjusting to the ball.

    Actually, I believe statistically, Tannehill really wasn't far off from the league average on deep balls.
     
  14. muskrat21

    muskrat21 Well-Known Member

    1,407
    874
    113
    May 11, 2014
    who cares? wallace isn't a part of this team anymore. move on.
     
  15. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,058
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    Tannehill still is.
     
  16. Tone_E

    Tone_E Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    13,777
    7,574
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    But Tannehill is. Is he relevant still?
     
  17. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Then why post in this thread?

    There are still going to be discussions about Tannehill's accuracy, whether Wallace is here or not. And, you can bet on it, certain posters will continue to bring up the Wallace years in an effort to tear down Tannehill.
     
  18. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Good between 2009 and 2011, and then even worse than Tannehill's with Wallace in 2012, when Pittsburgh implemented a timing-based pass offense like Miami's. Meanwhile, Tannehill's downfield numbers with Hartline in a similar offense in 2012 were similar to Roethlisberger's with Wallace from 2009 to 2011.
     
    resnor and Tone_E like this.
  19. Brasfin

    Brasfin Well-Known Member

    2,435
    1,672
    113
    Apr 27, 2013
    Brazil
    Next season we'll see how both Tannehill and Wallace produce without each other, and then we can draw better conclusions. But, IMO, Tannehill's deep ball production is going to increase, while Wallace will likely never have another season, in regards to the deep catches, as good as 2010 and 2011.
     
    Ducken and resnor like this.
  20. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Clean step or two:
    Yes, no one is arguing that. It still is negated by the timing route aspect of our offense and our poor oline.

    Clean step or two, nullifying the small catch radius:
    WADR, that makes no sense, they have nothing to do with one another.

    Tannehill being below average:
    Based solely on the rest of your first paragraph, I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

    Blaming Wallace for Tannehill having under 3 seconds to throw:
    I didn't blame Wallace. I clearly blamed the oline for that.

    Coveting 4.3 speed:
    The faster a guy can run, the faster he can to his target spot BECAUSE the QB has so little time to throw.
     
  21. Tone_E

    Tone_E Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    13,777
    7,574
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    Clean step or two - no need to go "up" for a ball, less contested due to more separation from DB.

    Which means said 4.3 guy will create more separation from DB nullifying a smaller catch radius that MAJORITY of 4.3 speed guys typically have compared to the prototypical 6'3" alpha receiver stereotype.

    When people say Wallace has a smaller catch radius, people think of Dez and Megatron climbing the ladder over a CB, etc. With 1 or 2 steps of separation, it shouldn't matter with an accurate toss. If the CB is stride for stride, even an accurate toss requires a play by the WR on the ball to beat the DB. Under these circumstances Wallace is inferior. Although, he has made great plays on the ball in contested situations himself. He just won't go "up" and get the ball because he simply isn't build to do so. His will to try and desire is lacking at times as well but every player has their niche.

    That was my line of thought anyway.
     
  22. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Not having to fight for contested balls has nothing to do with small catch radius really.

    Even if no one was on Wallace having a small catch radius decreases the amount of balls he'll catch because the throws have to be right on the numbers for him to catch it.

    Also, timing based routes generally means the receiver has to be at X spot on the field at Y time. Which in turn means the QB is throwing to a spot and not the receiver. So if the receiver is running sloppy routes he may be further from the X spot, thereby hoping that spot still falls within his catch radius. Having a small CR while running sloppy routes, means the CR and the X Spot are not interesting enough.

    With Big Ben before the offense there changed to a timing based offense, all Ben had to do was throw it to the open man, which was Wallace. I guarantee you, Tannehill would hit Wallace a helluva lot more if they weren't about a timing based offense and just throwing to the player and not a spot on the field.
     
    resnor, Brasfin and Tone_E like this.
  23. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    "Clean step or two" negates a small catch radius in the sense that it allows the receiver to adjust his route (including slowing down) to catch an inaccurately thrown ball.
     
    Tone_E likes this.
  24. Tone_E

    Tone_E Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    13,777
    7,574
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    All the go routes that Tannehill missed where Wallace had separation is because of the timing or catch radius? Not sure I'll get on board with that. Again, Wallace is not faultless, but Tannehill missed him way too many times when he had separation, and I won't chalk it up to timing and small catch radius exclusively, or predominantly. IMO, Tannehill has issues throwing the 9 route and I don't see how a different speed receiver will change that. As mentioned in other threads, I hope I am wrong. I'll leave it at that.
     
  25. Brasfin

    Brasfin Well-Known Member

    2,435
    1,672
    113
    Apr 27, 2013
    Brazil
    Which is something Wallace couldn't do with much consistency. IMO, Wallace had both a small catch radius and was mediocre at tracking the ball, which is a horrible combination for a timing based offense and average deep ball thrower such as Tannehill.
     
    resnor likes this.
  26. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Well, let's separate two things. Wallace did backtrack for balls that were underthrown, at least I remember a ton of occasions where he did that. That he didn't catch those balls is a separate point and I think speaks more to his unwillingness/inability to go up and catch a contested ball.

    So, while having a clean step or two does help negate small catch radius, I think Wallace probably needed a clean ~3 steps to negate both a small catch radius and his inability to catch contested balls.
     
  27. Brasfin

    Brasfin Well-Known Member

    2,435
    1,672
    113
    Apr 27, 2013
    Brazil
    He did try to track the balls, but oftentimes he would misjudge the velocity and position of the ball in the air and end up in the wrong spot which made his catches a lot harder than they should have been.
     
    resnor likes this.
  28. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah that's true.
     
  29. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Again, WADR, a clean step or two has nothing to do with small catch radius.

    Here, best way I can explain it is with a diagram.
    [​IMG]

    This remains true whether there's a person running stride for stride with the WR or not.
     
    VManis, Tone_E and resnor like this.
  30. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Right...Fin-Omenal and I argued this point ad nauseum during the season. For instance, I remember one throw, forget who it was against, where Tannehill threw a ball when Wallace was at the 35 yard line. Wallace did not adjust to the ball, and I mean, didn't even slow down, until he was at the 50. That's a pretty good distance to go where you haven't realized that the ball was underthrown, and made an effort to slow down. Instead, he ended up basically stopping at the 50, to make the catch. Could it have been a better throw? Yeah, but we really don't know why it wasn't better. Could Wallace have done a better job at adjusting to the ball while it was in the air, so that he could have slowed up a little so that he was still moving forward when he caught it? Definitely.
     
  31. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Fin D, I really appreciate the effort into making that graph haha! That's a lot of effort for a casual post on a message board.

    Anyway, you're still wrong :wink2:

    You're assuming the blue route (the actual route run) is independent of where the receiver sees the ball going. Obviously it's not independent, so the blue route will change based on where the ball is actually thrown. With more space between the WR and DB, the WR has a greater ability to adjust the route to catch the ball.
     
  32. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No, you're not taking into account the timing based offense of this. The receiver's job is to run to a spot, not the ball, just as the QB is throwing to a spot and not the WR.

    Also, the illustration is merely to point out how small catch radius affects the completion regardless if there's a defender to contest the catch.
     
  33. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I'm taking that into account. But the fact that receivers adjust their route based on their observation of the actually thrown ball means that the more space you have to adjust the route, the higher the probability of catching the ball.

    You do remember cases where Wallace backtracked or?
     
  34. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I edited my last post.
     
  35. muskrat21

    muskrat21 Well-Known Member

    1,407
    874
    113
    May 11, 2014
    so let's pull up stats about a person he USED to throw to.... Tannehill is here, wallace is not. Past stats to Wallace don't matter anymore, we have a new set of WR.
    If you want to post Tannehill to laundry stats or tannehill to mathews or tannehill to sims or tannehill to hazel then cool, at least those are relevant.
     
  36. Brasfin

    Brasfin Well-Known Member

    2,435
    1,672
    113
    Apr 27, 2013
    Brazil
    I think you're both right... On short-intermediate routes and throws, a successful completion is predicated more on the receiver running a good route and the QB throwing to the spot accurately because there is little time for a receiver to adjust to the throw... but on a deep 20+ yd throw, a successful completion I think would be more based on the receiver being able to adjust to the ball in the air and making contested catches than running to the right spot on the field.

    But either way, having a larger catch radius is something that would positively affect the probability of a catch being made.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  37. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Not for nothing, but the thread is titled FinDepth T17 Deep Ball & Wallace. You *****ing about it, is technically off topic.
     
    Eop05, cbrad and resnor like this.
  38. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    So, when you throw in a receiver who isn't good at tracking balls in the air, or adjusting to the ball in the air, then you have a problem.
     
  39. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Right, and it's not like someone on here randomly decided to start the debate out of the blue. The thread is predicated on a series of recent tweets.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  40. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,058
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    Here's an article I managed to dig up from November 2013. Had some interesting things to say on the T17-Wallace connection and timing, play design and other aspects.

    Please read the post.

    I'll post a few summary graphics/quotes here.



    [TABLE="width: 549"]
    [TR="class: odd"]
    [TD]RECEIVER[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]CATCHES[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]DROPS[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]ATTEMPTS[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]ACCURACY %[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="class: even"]
    [TD]Mike Wallace[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]17[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]23.5[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="class: odd"]
    [TD]Brian Hartline[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]15[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]33[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]48.5[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="class: even"]
    [TD]Everyone Else[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]11[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]35[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]40.0[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]


    [TABLE="width: 513"]
    10 Gradable Deep Vertical Throws to Mike Wallace[TR="class: odd"]
    [TD]RESULT[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]OPPONENT[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]NOTES[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="class: even"]
    [TD]49-yd rec.[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]Ravens[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]Fake WR Screen, slight underthrow[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="class: odd"]
    [TD]46-yd rec.[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]Bills[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]50-yd throw, hit as threw, caught in stride[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="class: even"]
    [TD]34-yd rec.[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]Colts[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]Slight underthrow, down at 1-yd line[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="class: odd"]
    [TD]Dropped[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]Saints[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]Ball thrown in stride, dropped[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="class: even"]
    [TD]OOB[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]Bucs[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]Wallace fails to adjust to ball, out-of-bounds[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="class: odd"]
    [TD]Incomplete[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]Browns[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]55-yd throw, overthrown by one yd[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="class: even"]
    [TD]Incomplete[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]Ravens[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]45-yd throw, severely underthrown[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="class: odd"]
    [TD]Incomplete[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]Browns[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]Poor decision, Wallace stumbled on route[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="class: even"]
    [TD]Incomplete[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]Chargers[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]50-yd throw, poor play design[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="class: odd"]
    [TD]Intercepted[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]Patriots[/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]Poor decision, didn't look off safety
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]















     
    Tone_E and resnor like this.

Share This Page