Mike Wallace's Effect on Ryan Tannehill's Downfield Passing

Have you guys ever participated in any sort of sport that requires you to hit a moving target...baseball, shooting, etc.?

The faster a target moves, the harder it is to hit.

This isn't "theory" that I've concocted.

Go watch Mike Wallace catching passes from Tannehill while moving (i.e. crossing routes, deep routes, etc.). I would venture to say that Tannehill has still not managed to throw a perfect pass to Mike Wallace. Tannehill's passes are usually behind Wallace and if not they are way out front -- the result of Tannehill trying to "fudge" a normal throw by simply adding a few extra yards to it.


And if the question is "try and develop with Mike Wallace" or stick with the "average production" that Hartline gives you...I think it's a pretty easy decision for most folks wanting to see the team progress.

We don't want to "accept" what Hartline is...we want to see if Tannehill can learn to throw precisely enough to hit Wallace. You're not going to win a lot of games and make a big run in the Play-offs if you're defaulting to Hartline because he's a crutch for your developing QB.

Hartline might look slightly above-average during the regular season, but once your team gets to the Play-offs, it will become very apparent that players like Brian Hartline are liabilities whose lack of upside restrict the success of the team.

And NO, having a 1,000-yd season doesn't impress anyone. A starting RB or WR that stays healthy all year during a 16-game schedule should be able to get to 1,000 yards with a decent QB.

We're investing in the potential of Mike Wallace having a 1,200- or 1,400-yd season. Granted we're not there yet, but that's what Play-off caliber teams #1 WRs look like. And Hartline, no matter how "consistent" or "easy to hit" he may be, is never going to be a valuable threat to a great team.

Tannephins, keep in mind you're getting really excited about Hartline, who was the best WR on a very mediocre football team.

 

At this point no one is making any headway. All the points have been raised and people are either on one side or the other.

No one is discrediting your points Tannephins, however, your argument points towards us "giving up" on a once-elite WR for a guy who will never be elite, simply on the basis that our QB isn't sufficiently developed with this accuracy and timing to the point that Wallace is as big an asset as he should and would be to a team with a more quality QB and O-line.

In fact, because of the issues we've had with the O-line we can't even say for sure that the QB isn't good enough at this particular point in time. Tannehill is far and away the best QB he's ever been. He put on display several VERY GOOD throws during the New England game.

At this point, I would say it's a play-calling and O-line issue, but nevertheless, the bottom line is that we're not taking the number of shots down-field that a more legitimate and fully-functional offense should be. Putting Hartline in Wallace's place doesn't change that at all, and no offense, but considering the upside of Wallace it would seem rather foolish.

We all want the Tannehill-to-Wallace connection to be better than it is, but that probably means letting it slowly develop. We all thought that a big part of that development would be put on display in this, Mike Wallace's 2nd year with Tannehill as his QB. Instead, we were treated to an offense that continually retreated from pushing the ball down-field to the point where it is now, a state in which any deep pass even being attempted is cause for alarm within this forum. As it currently stands, the goal of the offense is the rely on the QBs decision-making and avoid throws which put a premium on accuracy and timing.

What's weird is that you seem to be taking issue with the structure of the offense yet you haven't said anything about the architects themselves: Lazor & Philbin. This was a point that I believe I raised as early as page 1.

Instead of panicking and throwing Wallace (a player we all know is good) under the bus, it would seem more rationale to say, this was a typical year 1 type of install in which we're seeing only a portion of the true Lazor/Philbin playbook as well as a period in which the play-calling has been a bit towards the conservative side of the spectrum.

Okay, fine. Why would that be surprising to anyone?

If things don't open up next year, then yes, we should probably try and get rid of Mike Wallace. Hell, I already pointed out that if by some miracle we're offered a top-50 pick for him, we should jump on it.

But as of right now, you know what Hartline gives you and it simply doesn't match up with the kind of money he's set to make. We're talking about $20M over the next 3 seasons going to Hartline. If that results in Hartline still being on this team next year, most of us will be shocked. He's not the kind of talent that warrants that kind of money.

 

When in doubt for whatever reason?? Simply reference this.

 

I've already pointed out that the faster something moves, the harder it is to hit--particularly in an environment in which most things move about the same speed and the thing you're isolating is clearly an outlier.

Since Brandon Albert has gone down, we aren't pushing the ball down-field. When we do the answer lies with my first point.

You want to act like cutting Wallace is a smart move. It's simply not. It's a ridiculously expensive move that will leave a gaping hole in our offense. So again, unless you have something to say as to who we should draft or sign as well as justification for the money we'll be wasting, I would say you've pretty much fired every gun you have.

 

It is not nonsense from a mathematical standpoint and is proven many times over that very few QB's have the ability to hit 2 different receivers in stride with such a speed disparity...If Tanny would have played with Wallace first he would have the timing down so well he would have no problem hitting slowpoke. Fraid you are wrong on this one Pate.

 

WHAT DID HE do this year?

 

Well,Tanne and Pate, I guess that all we can do now is wait until next year's roster and see who the Dolphins have kept and that will let us know who was more important.

 

Well,Tanne and Pate, I guess that all we can do now is wait until next year's roster and see w/o the Dolphins have kept and that will let us know who was more important.

 

Actually, if Wallace is here next year, and no Hartline, it should tell you everything about how important this staff sees the deep ball. Like I said earlier, I think Wallace is more important, because of what he can do with the ball in his hands on passes 11-20 yards downfield...but there's no denying that Tannehill definitely had more success throwing deeper than 20 yards to Hartline.

 

Yeah, it seems like a pretty easy thing to grasp, Tannephins. I get what you're saying, and tend to agree. Wallace seems pretty deadly as a number 2, which is why I think we need to get a big physical freak in the draft to be or #1.

 

Mike Wallace beyond 20+ yards:
2014: 4 receptions/ 157 total yards, 1 TD, (2 receptions 40+) (so far)
2013: 6/261, 1 TD, (3)
2012: 4/241, 4 TD, (3)
2011: 8/456, 5 TD, (5)
2010: 14/561, 7 TD, (6)
2009: 12/453, 6 TD, (5)

Brian Hartline:
2014: 1/35, 0 TD, (0)
2013: 3/102, 2 TDs, (0)
2012: 10/400, 1 TD, (0)
2011: 7/138, 0 TD, (0)
2010: 2/88, 0 TD, (1)
2009: 2/96, 0 TD, (1)

No denying huh??

 

We ARE talking about Tannehill, correct? I mean, you DID read what I wrote, correct? In 2012, BEFORE Mike Wallace, Tannehill, as a ROOKIE, hit Hartline on 10 balls of 20+ yards for 400 yards. He has not hit or eclipsed that mark throwing over 20+ yards to Wallace. Why are you arguing this? What the reason is we can disagree on all day, but the fact is, it's taken two seasons worth of 20+ yards completions to Wallace from Tannehill to surpass what Tannehill threw to Hartline in 2012.

 

10/400 > 6/261, correct?
10/400 > 4/157, correct?

 

So you would choose Hartlines 2012-2014 over Wallace's? The busted play was great....wasn't a Cardinal within 15 yards, anybody who saw that realized that while we deserve some credit for completing it (you and I make that play) that it was more of a mistake by the Cardinals than some great play by Miami.

It's a classic case of figures lie, and liars figure.

 

Again, how many times in this thread have I stated that I would take Wallace over Hartline? Stop trying to stuff me in the Wallace hater hole. All I'm saying is, that Tannehill had better stats to Hartline his rookie year, and we could debate the REASONS all day, but the stats are still the stats. The stats would even be more weighted to Hartline if he hadn't been prone to tripping over blades of grass or painted yard lines.

 

I can't believe after the last couple of games some people are still complaining about Wallace.

 

It's an agenda some can't escape. We had some blame Wallace for the 50 yard underthrow last week...it's borderline pathetic but funny.

 

It all stems from the scapegoats who are so sensitive to RT criticism that they ignore his flaws and divert blame. Rather poor attempt to claim Wallace is the problem for the lack of down the field plays.

Sucks but what ya gonna do? It's a public forum

 

It's not quite as funny as the lengths you go to, in an effort to misconstrue some people's positions.

For instance, you're probably referencing me on the underthrow comment. If you are, I said in reference to that, that it wasn't the best throw. I also said that it wasn't a great adjustment to the ball by Wallace. You, if you recall, stated that Wallace adjusted "as soon as the ball was in the air." That was really where our disagreement started. And you still continue.

 

Or perhaps it stems from people who get sick and tired of people, like you, placing all the blame for the deep ball on Tannehill, when, in reality, there is blame aplenty for Tannehill AND Wallace AND other receivers AND the oline.

 

Go find a post where I say it's all on Ryan....happy hunting.

 

Dude, it's more what you don't say. Just like I've never said it's all on Wallace, but you continue to beat that drum about me. However, when it comes to discussions about the deep ball, you routinely demean those who assign any blame to Wallace, and try to spin those people into backing Tannehill and acting as if he's perfect. I can't think of anyone on this site who's saying that Tannehill is perfect and has nothing to work on. I can't even think of anyone who's saying that Tannehill has no blame whatsoever in the issues on the deep ball to Wallace. There are a bunch of people who think Wallace bears more of the blame, though.

 

For instance. This post here. Seems you are absolving Wallace of blame, but saying there is blame to go somewhere. Where would it go? This post of yours points to Tannehill as the problem. If that is not what you are intending to get across, then you should rethink the way you post.

 

A bunch....lol.

 

Yes, the guy burning DBs by 5 yards isn't the problem at all...have their been plays he could've or should've made a better effort on?? Yes, but those weren't good throws. Now if you want to claim it's hard to stand in the pocket and make an accurate throw when you have a DL up your behind...then I'll certainly listen, if you want to claim the play calling in regards to down the field throws has been lacking....I'll listen.

But no way in hell will I be naive enough to say that Mike Wallace is the reason the deep ball is non existent in this offense. That wouldn't make much sense unless I tried real hard for it too.

 

Uh, I have said those things. And then I get accused of being a Tannehill lover, or some other such juvenile thing. There have been several deep balls that were incomplete due to Wallace mistakes. There have been some due to Tannehill mistakes. Some due to other receivers mistakes. A while hell of a lot due to oline not giving enough time. A bunch due to poor play design.

Yet anytime I, or others, suggests deep ball problems are not all Tannehill's fault, I get roundly criticized.

I noticed you didn't address the post of yours that I quoted, and how it certainly seems that you lay the blame on Tannehill.

 

Yup, just rarely caught the ball.

 

Welcome back.

 

I DID address it?? And you just proved my point, I said Wallace isn't the problem...and you translate that into Ryan is the problem. Yet another misinterpretation

 

lol. Surely you see how these contradict each other......

 

Now that you're here I know I have to draw everything in crayon.

Deep Ball For Dummies:

Object- to complete a pass on a deep throw ( surely not 20 yards in the air that's dumb) in which a WR beats coverage and the QB delivers a catchable pass resulting in game changing plays.

Result- basically little to none

Reasoning- Wr beats DB, ball is often very inaccurate, could be the result of poor blocking or poor execution from the QB.

This is too a tee how I feel about our shortcomings of big play's, please copy paste this so when drowning in a bad argument you don't make things worse by making things up.

Class dismissed

 

Its nice your stance is so fluid. Its evolution on these boards has been fun to watch.

Its gone from:

- Wallace's only job is to get past the DBs. To....
- Tannehill isn't throwing a catchable long ball. To...
- Wallace never will be the type of Wr to fight for the ball. To...
- I told you Wallace will fight for the ball. To....
- The problem is definitely not Wallace so its either Tannehill or the oline.

I wonder where the next mutation will take your stance?

 

You struggle with interpretation, you made most of that up or somehow your brain failed to understand my point. Not sure if there is a cure for that or if you're stuck with it.

 

Hartline has no business being any team's primary downfield target, Lingerie League included. It doesn't behoove anyone's argument to simplistically use stats that arrive at a superficial conclusion, such as you're attempting.

Firstly, Lazor will not redo his offense or playbook to accommodate whatever downfield ability you think Hartline possesses, especially when he doesn't possess it....... and Lazor SURE AS HECK won't swap Hartline and Wallace's roles so that Hartline becomes the X and Wallace the Z, because that would be beyond ridiculous. Who in their right mind would want Hartline occupying that alpha X role?!! His role should be increasingly limited [which it is], not expanded for cryin' out loud.

Secondly, if Wallace were as invisible to safeties as Hartline, there wouldn't be anything on your part to debate right now b/c each game would feature big plays with there being little worry about safety help over the top. But no, because Hartline is so invisible, Wallace almost never sees the type of coverage that Hartline is routinely afforded, making it all the tougher for Tannehill to complete those throws. The answer to this issue isn't to knee-jerkingly swap Hartline & Wallace's roles; the answers lie in replacing Hartline with a receiver who actually benefits the rest of the offense by pulling some coverage on his own and by getting Tannehill more accurate on his downfield throws since he's the quarterback and all. You act like Hartline gets open downfield more often, which is just silly. Even with safety help, Wallace still gets open deep more often than Hartline ever has. Unfortunately, Tannehill still has issues with his touch beyond 30 yards, and that's a Tannehill issue, not a Wallace one, which is why Tannehill worked with Lazor on his deep ball mechanics during the offseason.

Thirdly, you're not looking at the big picture. This offense works better than 2012 because Wallace's presence creates the necessary space for others to operate in underneath, which Lazor schemes to take advantage of. You can't just swap their roles in a vacuum and ignore the entire dynamic of the offense. It boggles my mind that anyone would argue this offense is better served having Mr Invisible running all the clear-out routes required to maintain the short to intermediate passing game's highest level of efficiency, something that Wallace does so well b/c of the attention he commands. If you swap Wallace's and Hartline's roles, what prevents opposing defenses from playing us compressed as if we're constantly in the redzone? Not much. You just successfully managed to increase Tannehill's INT rate, lower his completion percentage, lower the ground game's YPC, and decrease our scoring output, all because you want to make Hartline our primary deep threat based on one aberrant 2012 season even though he presents no speed advantage, no physical advantage, no athletic advantage, no ball skill advantage, no tracking ability, and hasn't contributed a single reception beyond 30 yards all season. Further working against your argument is the fact that Hartline's aberrant season saw half of his downfield completions come during either garbage time, against busted coverage, or during a busted play, yet for some crazy reason you wanna treat that aberrant season as the norm. Meanwhile, Wallace has a significantly greater-established history as a vertical threat, yet you wanna make him the designated short to intermediate guy. Whut? C'mon man, give it up.

Case in point, in 2012 with Hartline as the primary "downfield target", he commanded no attention, and because of it, defenses could play us and key on our personnel however they wanted. So it's no surprise that the passing game struggled mightily in the short and intermediate range with defenses being able to play us as if we were constantly in the redzone, forcing Tannehill to attempt throws into tight windows, jumping routes, smothering passes, preventing YAC, and limiting Miami's ground game with all the bodies closer to the LOS. See for yourself:

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 700"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Pass Attempts of 10 yards & less[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Rating[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]attempts[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Completions[/TD]
[TD="align: center"] %[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]yards[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]TD[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]INT[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]2012 Tannehill w/ Hartline
as primary downfield WR[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]77.1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]328[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]211[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]64.3%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1808[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]2013 Tannehill w/ Wallace
as primary downfield WR[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]95.1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]370[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]264[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]71.3%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2098[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]16[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]2014 Tannehill w/ Wallace
as primary downfield WR[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]95.6[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]377[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]291[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]77.2%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2282[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]12[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
**these 10 yards and less attempts represented 68% of the passing game in 2012, 63% in 2013, and 68% in 2014.

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 700"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Pass Attempts of 11-20 yards[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Rating[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]attempts[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Completions[/TD]
[TD="align: center"] %[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]yards[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]TD[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]INT[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]2012 Tannehill w/ Hartline
as primary downfield WR[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]69.1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]108[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]54[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]50.0%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]916[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]2014 Tannehill w/ Wallace
as primary downfield WR[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100.4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]131[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]68[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]51.9%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1172[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]12[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
**these 11-20 yard attempts represented 22% of the passing game in 2012, 26% in 2013, and 24% in 2014.

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 280"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]First Half Rushing[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]YPC[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]2012[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3.85[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]2013[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4.22[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]2014[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4.51[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
**I limited it to first half rushing because this is in its purest form where every rushing attempt matters. It's when the tone of the game is being set, when teams can either get out on top quickly or fall behind based on their running efficiency or lack thereof.

So you wanna scrap all of that that just to allegedly improve Tannehill's 21-30 yard range even though it currently accounts for 4% of the passing game?

BTW, it's amusing that you try to make it seem like Hartline is a plus as a downfield receiver just because of his 2012 STATS in the 21-30 yard range while completely omitting the fact that the 31-40 yard range and 41+ yard range also comprise the downfield game. Beyond 30 yards [where the REAL deep ball stuff is generated], Tannehill was no better in 2012 when he completed 4/17 for 213 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, with 80 yards and a TD coming on heavily busted coverage where all of Zona's DBs stayed with Devone Bess and left Hartline all alone. In 2013, Tannehill was 7/23 for 325 yards, 2 TD, and 3 INT, with 2 of those INTs coming on useless 4th quarter hail mary's and 1 coming on a throw to Hartline. It was also easier for Tannehill to complete a couple extra deep balls in 2012 with Hartline as the primary "downfield target" because defensive coordinators were willing to make that sacrifice in exchange for the ability to smother our short passing game and run game.

2012 Hartline's downfield receptions by game
Houston: meaningless 30+ yarder in late 4th quarter garbage time.
Oakland: 21 yarder against Patrick Lee in single coverage. Lee was cut by Oakland in the middle of the season.
Jets: 30+ yarder against Cromartie with no safety nearby.
Zona: the aforementioned 80 yard TD on busted coverage; 30+ on William Gay with no safety in sight; 20+ on Pat Peterson on a busted play; Hartline also fell down on a route that allowed a costly INT at Zona's 39 late in the 3rd qtr.
Cincy: 25 yards on busted play with no safety help.
Indy: 35 yards on a beautiful throw by Tannehill. Once again, no safety within range.
New England: 28 yarder in garbage time with no one covering Hartline.
San Fran: 24 yards in busted coverage. Hartline was such an afterthought that San Fran literally let him run uncovered down the sideline.
Jaguars: 30 yarder on a rare designed rollout off of play-action. Hartline was left wide open coming out of the slot b/c of the play design, not because of anything special he did, and of course he fell down immediately after the catch.

.....and just for fun:
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Passes of 30+ yards[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Completions[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]yards[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]TD[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]INT[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Rating[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Roethilsberger
3 yrs pre Wallace[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]19/71[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]26.8%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]820[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]11[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]10[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]75.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Roethlisberger
first 3 yrs w/ Wallace[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]26/70[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]37.1%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1217[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]94.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

^^^^^^^owned

Great informative post, that will still be ignored by the same 2-3 folks.