Oh, I don't think Wallace is using the Dolphins at all. IMO, Wallace sees the Dolphins as the desperate team willing to throw the bank at him to get his deep speed while other teams have likely placed the proper value on him. While there may be other interest in him around the league, I highly doubt anyone else is interested in making him the third highest paid receiver in football. Miami is bidding against themselves here, and it is an overreaction to what happened last year when they apparently under estimated the market for free agent receivers.
That could be true, however, its more likely its just the fans that are desperate and with good reason.
Wow. That's pretty over the top. Even for me. And I'm scared as hell to give Wallace this kind of money. But basically what you are saying is this single signing is going to cost Ireland (and Philbin) their jobs? I have a Ireland joke locked and loaded here.....but I'll resist.
yup, very true, space is a possession guys best friend, and Hart and Bess will eat it up, Eifert makes a lot of sense to me.
Scoring TDs is a big part of it. That's something the Dolphins sorely lack. The Steelers went to Brown to pick up 1st downs because that's the type of WR he is. Wallace isn't necessarily a move the chains WR. He's a guy that can score at any moment. When the Dolphins needed a 1st down they went to Bess. That doesn't mean he's a better WR than Hartline.
Those videos of that #17 in a Steelers jersey must be a different Mike Wallace. The one in the videos was running all sorts of routes effectively that we've been told in this thread that he is incapable of running.
Wallace obviously had a down year after holding out till the dawn of the regular season. Why not post the WPA and EPA for the three of them over the last 3 seasons combined?
KB you're being a bit dishonest here. There's a lot of chatter about Indy being heavy players in the Wallace sweepstakes, as are the Vikings. LBSFinest - as usual it's nice to get my daily dosage of "Ireland Hate" in the form of your very strange and somewhat creepy propaganda level posting
no problem, that's what I'm here for, to remind everyone the real reason why we're about to overpay for a guy who's far from the greatest route runner (a move I'm completely fine with by the way), which is because the guy in charge has failed miserably at finding his own weapons so now he has to shop in the expensive world of Free Agency to steal them away from other teams.
And when he keeps players that are great contributors to this team - you *****. And when he attempts to extend playmakers on defense that he finds - you *****. When he locks up a dline player that many feel is one of the best combinations of skill and versatility in a 3-4 or a 4-3 - you *****. I'm seeing one constant here, and it ain't Ireland. I'm not saying he's an amazing GM but when you consistently undersell his positives and exaggerate his negatives, it pretty much destroys your credibility, even in situations where it's accurate!
I'd like to see an example of this because, welp, it's never happened on here. I'm not actually sure I've even entered into a discussion with you before so thanks for stopping by, Alen1! LBs- I wasn't talking about Moore. I was talking about Hartline. And the fact that you blamed Ireland for not locking up these guys before they hit free agency. You just seem to be overly negative about every move this front office makes, specifically Jeff Ireland. I get it, you hate the guy, but almost every post you make is bashing Ireland. The ones you aren't, I find are incredibly level headed and with solid arguments (The Tannehill vs Rodgers thing, Patterson, etc)
Starks. Although I suppose "locked up" might be a poor use of phrasing because it's for 1 year, but I'm fairly convinced they are going to extend that. They seem adamant about the guy. Again I'm gonna need to see this post because I flat out do not remember even discussing anything with you edit: like that, not ever. Durp.
They've made multiple attempts to re-sign him long term, and they tagged him to free him from going somewhere else. I'm not sure what else you'd want from them here? It takes two to tango, and it's hardly "Ireland is cheap!" because we just gave him 8 million dollars for a single year.
How about not fail in negotiations and truly lock him up so you don't have to use the franchise tag on him.
Kiss of death, yahoo reports: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-s...ins-lead-dog-mike-wallace-012124688--nfl.html
Let's be fair though. Many teams year after year use the franchise tag to prevent losing a player they could not reach an agreement with on a long term contract. It's not a big deal IMO. Had Ireland not used the tag at all and lost Starks, that would be a valid reason to *****. JMO.
IMO those numbers are not statistically meaningful. Actually that's not even an opinion, that's actually a statistical designation.
What find meaningful in terms of discussion about Mike Wallace is that in his most efficient year, 2010 (statistically his best year too I think)...he had the ball thrown at him 6 or less times in a game in 12 of the 16 games. That's great if you can pull it off but I think when you pay a guy $12.5 million a year it becomes a little more difficult. Vincent Jackson for example had only 2 games this year where he was thrown the football 6 times or less. In the 32 games since Larry Fitzgerald signed his deal he's only had that happen to him in 7 games. It hasn't happened to Calvin Johnson yet since he signed his deal. Brandon Marshall's making a considerably less amount than what we're talking about with Wallace and it's only happened to him 8 times in the last 46 games since he signed that contract in Miami. Andre Johnson is also signed for considerably less than the estimate for Wallace and getting the ball that few times has only happened to him 10 out of 40 games, many of which happened because he got hurt partway through the game (not been healthy). So in 150 games played by these guys that get their mega deal, only about 1 in 6 games ends up being the kind of game that Mike Wallace had 12 out of 16 times in his best year. You look at that, and you also look at the fact that his 8.3 yards per attempt average in games where he was targeted 10+ times is a lot different from his 9.8 yards per attempt average in the other games...and you wonder how he's going to reproduce in Miami what he did in Pittsburgh. What happens the first time Miami loses a game 23-27 and they only threw the ball at Mike Wallace (who is going to be 10% of his entire team from a salary cap standpoint) 5 times in the game? That's what I'm worried about.
I think we've established that MW isn't a complete player in the way that Megatron or Fitz are and that signing him entails some level of risk. I'm wondering when the discussion will move to the other end of the spectrum, how can Wallace's presence help the offense and how best to utilize his skills to generate production. We spent most of last year facing defensive alignments that would be shredded if we had MW on the outside. How will teams approach us if we have him? And how can we attack those looks? Are we set at WR if MW is signed, and if not, who could we add to further bolster the unit?
I think they are very meaningful. Pittsburgh quarterbacks only threw 10 interceptions on passes targeted to WRs last year. 5 of those were thrown to Mike Wallace. For comparison, only 1 interception was thrown on a targeted pass towards Antonio Brown. Wallace had 116 targets, and Brown had 98 targets. In 2011, 4 INTs out of 11 INTS were thrown on targeted passes towards Mike Wallace. Basically, the trend that we see is that the more Wallace is targeted and the more he is relied upon to do more than just go deep, the more mistakes are made. If he was a strong route runner, this is the aspect of his game that would make him more attractive in a system like this. He can make an impact without having to be fed the ball. In this system, the passing game is based on spreading the ball around and throwing it to the open man. The bigger concern to me is the premise that they may actually try to feed him the ball as a means to justify his salary and not stick with the philosophy of the system.
The reason more interceptions are thrown Wallace's way is that he is drawing more double teams than everybody else, and QB's on occasion make bad reads. Okay. next.
Seems like I wasn't being bull****ted. They really really really like him. Good for Ireland. Bold move. The Bold get it done. The rest is just bull****.
So, they only made bad reads throwing to him then. I see. It has nothing to do with him not running precise routes.
You find them meaningful because you want to find them meaningful. But I assure you, statistically they are not. There are very real and finite definitions for that at play here. The sample isn't enough. Anyone fast can make an impact without having to feed him the football. That aspect of his game isn't special. Most people consider Stephen Hill a disappointment and I can show you pictures of coaches tape where he's doing to the defense the same thing you're talking about Mike Wallace doing to the defense. When you pay a guy that much money trust me when I say that ideals go right out the window the first time you lose a game and didn't produce quite enough offense and your 10%-of-your-team-paid-like-a-megastar-player guy only got thrown the football maybe 5 times. At that point the entire media are on your *** about it, as are other coaches and players, both on your team and not on your team, as is the player himself. And your quarterback will be on your *** about it too, if he's not flat out doing things you don't intend by forcing the football to the player. And if he's not then you invite "feud" into your diet by creating conflict between the WR and QB. Why do you think the Patriots ditched Randy Moss? The moment they realized his production on balls thrown to him was starting to slip relative to how much he and everyone around him including their own quarterback Tom Brady demanded he get the football, they got rid of him.
They don't "only" make bad reads throwing to him. You said yourself the comparisons are 37% to 50%. Not statistically significant relative to the sample pool.
The 37% to 50% is not a comparison. It just shows that more interceptions are thrown at Mike Wallace despite the fact that he is targeted slightly more than a third of the time.
You're making a bad argument. There are better arguments to be made against Mike Wallace. You seem to have low standards as for what arguments to include when it comes to making a case against a guy that you don't like. Just because you don't like a guy doesn't mean you should lower your standards on how to present your case. Yes, 5 interceptions were thrown in Mike Wallace's direction this year. That was 4 last year, 4 the year before and 3 in his rookie year. Total of 16 on 427 targets. On the other hand the other WRs in the Pittsburgh offense from 2009 to 2012 had 26 interceptions thrown their direction on 966 attempts. That means the full sample pool was 3.015% and Mike Wallace's percentage was 3.747%. Not statistically significant, I can guarantee it.
So, Mister 126, do you think Wallace signing is basically a done deal? Just waiting till Tuesday so it can become official? Inquiring minds want to know.
It is definitely statistically significant because it shows that this is a trend and not something that has happened by chance. When compared to Antonio Brown, who an interception has been thrown at 1.8% of the time over the past two years, it is clearly significant. It shows you why Antonio Brown and not Mike Wallace is Pittsburgh's go to guy, and their route running has a lot to do with that. That's been my argument the entire time. Mike Wallace's route running makes him a bad fit in the west coast offense.
Take it for what it's worth but on according to twitter an interview with #SportsXtra, Drew Rosenhaus has basically said Wallace and Hartline will be the Dolphins starting WRs and also it doesn't look good for Eric Winston being a Dolphin.
