Mike Wallace On The Trade Block!!!

If you consider yourself a good poster, then I will take that as a compliment.

 

Bill Belicheck once asked, "Whose been wrong more than Charlie Casserly?" Turns out the answer is Jason La Confora

 

You're acting like you can hold up your end of an argument on the magical effects a guy like Mike Wallace has on coverage shells. It's not a great argument even in the hands of people way more capable than you are.

 

that's a pretty cynical point of view. So rather than find the proper way to utilize Wallace and his speed, you just give up and move on. I'm not disagreeing that his impact was far below expectations and watching him not fight for the ball drove me crazy. But he does have the skill set to be a weapon. Mathews has the skillset to be a quality #2 WR.

 

If you have to "find the proper way to utilize" a player, he certainly isn't worth $12MM/yr.

 

I wouldn't be too shocked if this were to happen. Keep in mind...Hickey didn't make that deal. Ireland did. And, Hickey's obviously looking for his guys.

That said, I agree that the contract will make it very difficult to do. But, if Hickey and Philbin are in agreement, I'd be willing to bet Ross goes along with it.

Just hope they don't buy high sell low.

 

How he still has a job amazes me. He's the worse type of "journalist", just throws **** at the wall to see what will stick.

 

I wish we had a crayon option so maybe this would be easier to understand.

Mike was open for big plays a number of different times, football is not basketball or baseball. You must rely on other factors and other teammates to make a play. Mike did exactly what he has always done, GET OPEN. Unless you want him to play OL, QB and WR, please save your googled stat opinion.

 

It's called throwing him a catchable ball.

 

Tell me how you'd do it.

 

Your argument inherently agrees with the premise that Wallace should be traded. If Ryan Tannehill's skillset doesn't utilize Wallace, what exactly is his value to the team?

 

So YOUR argument becomes replace the guy doing his part instead of the guy who isn't?

For the record RT will be in his 3rd year, and I 100% believe his deep ball will improve and the scoreboard will light up. But that post was LOL.

 

My argument is to replace the guy who is overpaid. I sure as hell wouldn't be on-board with paying Ryan Tannehill elite-QB money. As it stands, Ryan Tannehill is outperforming his compensation, despite his shortocomings. He is adding value to the team.

I don't think you're going to see a significant increase in Wallace's production with the deep-ball. Its a notoriously inefficient play to begin with, and any improvements would be marginal.

 

I'd be thrilled if they managed to do a swap with Philly for Jackson, but I doubt they're even shopping Wallace. Jason La Canfora is the devil. I think it makes more sense to trade him after this season if they're so inclined anyway.

 

With any luck, he'll end up being traded for two 3rd round picks, paired with a player about the same size as he is, then have a career year.

If we could get him traded, I'd definitely expect us to go after DeSean Jackson. Is there a way to trade a player but absorb some of the salary, no way anyone wants to take that hit for free.

 

In the NFL the difference between a win and a loss is very marginal, these two gaining more chemistry and connecting on big plays changes the entire offense.

 

I understand Stringer's logic here. If you were the Chiefs and had a speedster on your roster, would you keep him knowing full well Alex Smith won't be able to fully utilize him? Nah, you swap him out for another player Smith can utilize effectively. Wallace is a good player, but if he and your QB can't mesh, doesn't make sense paying him a bunch of cash to not fit in. He isn't a Fitzgerald or Johnson to where you can't let him go. Philbin and Hickey are pretty much on a one year double deal and if they can't maximize returns, they're out.

I believe Tannehill will get better at the deep ball. 5-7 more completions on those plays and we are probably a playoff team. At the same time, if you absolutely feel that the connection isn't going to happen, you bring in a guy Tannehill will be able to maximize. Hartline's two best years have come with Tannehill. Clay had his best year with Tannehill. Bess was on track for his best year ever in his first season with Tannehill. Gibson was on track for his best year ever as well. Matthews produced fairly well for a 7th rounder. Tannehill clearly can maximize returns on receivers. We've already seen that. The question is whether or not he can do that with Mike Wallace. If the staff doesn't believe he can, then you need to replace him with someone you believe he can.

 

The bold cannot be overstated. Amazing point.

 

Alex Smith is a notorious weak armed passer, if I were the Miami Dolphins I would bank on RT developing a part of his game that he has the tools to develop. Not jump ship on a valuable asset.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

Fair. But if Wallace and Tannehill can't get on the same page this season and Tannehill keeps improving, then the problem is Wallace and he has to go.

 

This I agree with.....if legit compensation comes back however count me in....

 

La Crapola

 

If I had not seen Wallace behind defense's so often then I would agree.

Ive said this before, from about 12-15 yards in Tannehill is lethal. He's accurate his ball placement was good especially for a second year QB. This is why the Hartlines etc are great fits, it's where they do their best work. Wallaces primary skill set is getting open deep and I feel like he did that in year one.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

so because our coaches are clueless at utilizing the best deep threat in the league and our qb cant throw a deep ball, we should reward their incompetence by giving up one of the best weapons in the league in order to continue their mediocre results on offense? dont give up our best offensive weapon...get better coaching and get a qb who can throw deep or tanny better get it together. then maybe we will have an offense that doesnt make me want to gag when i have to watch it.

 

100 % agree

 

Finding the way to properly utilize Mike Wallace involves throwing out the basic fundamental tenets of your offense. Timing and a varied route tree with concept flexibility is one of the fundamental elements of the offense. You're going to toss that so what, Tannehill can sit in the pocket(When he doesn't have great pocket presence) and bomb it deep?

And hope Mike Wallace is willing to put in the effort he hasn't shown for a couple of years now?

 

Getting behind the defense is great, getting behind the defense by disrupting the timing of an offense is not. Our offense is not built to Chuck It & **** It. If it were he'd be our greatest asset. You cannot have everyone else on an offense running timing routes and one guy just freestyling....especially with a young QB. You are asking this QB to do everything a QB has to do avoid the rush, read the defense, etc. AND keep track of his other receivers on their timing routes and some how focus on Wallace sprinting down the sidelines.

I too, like you, have hope they'll get on the same page (AND Lazor will be smarter about his play calls then Sherman) thereby turning this into a match made in heaven. But if it still doesn't work, Tannehill is the more important asset and he's done wonders with every other WR we've had.

 

I would hope to hell this isn't true. Wallace wasn't as electrifying as us fans wanted him to be, but you can't ignore the overall affect he had on the offense.

If this were to actually happen it would signify such a sickening affect of repeating terrible historical mistakes.

 

Not necessarily. "Keeps improving" does not preclude him from not improving his deep ball throwing. Alex Smith has improved a lot since day 1 but he can't throw deep for his life. If he starts hitting Hartline, Gibson, Matthews, and Allen Robinson on 50 yard completions and not Wallace, then I'd say Wallace is a problem. But if he never gets his deep game, but becomes money on intermediate routes, then no one is the problem. It's just a mismatch of inputs. Throwing coal in an oil turbine doesn't mean the turbine or the coal are inherently flawed. They're just not meant to work together.

 

Wow, how technical. Players running deep routes are going to look open more frequently than they actually are when a ball isn't thrown to them for a wide variety of reasons. Plays where Wallace was open and then under thrown are going to be lost opportunities in that regard, but that isn't a valid explanation on why Mike Wallace is suddenly going to turn it around and give you the kind of production he hasn't since 2010.

It's also assuming he's suddenly going to start giving a **** about putting in the work ethic to get in the same page as Tannehill on deep passes, and that he's going to put forth the effort to actually catch them unless it hits him over the shoulder on a dead run.

Meanwhile, that's not even getting into the fact you're throwing the ball even more to Wallace when he was never targeted in his career as much as last year and was a horrorshow in regards to actually doing something with those targets.

 

One sunny Floridian day when these 2 guy's are on the same page and connecting for big plays, the Tannehill doubters and the Mike Wallace haters will unite and have cases upon cases of Landshark lagers together. It will be a beautiful thing.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

I feels like you are writing an Economics paper the last few posts....

 

He slept with your wife, just admidt it and then we will all understand the obvious hate you have for him.

And doesnt give a fk huh? Hanibal Lecter has nothing on your psychiatric evaluations.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

If you can get a 1:1, or even a 1.5:1 swap on skillset with Wallace, then you make the swap immediately due to contract concerns. By that I mean, if you get a guy half as good as Wallace on deep routes, but who can work well in the intermediate and short game, then you make that move as long as he's significantly cheaper. $11 million for 930 yards isn't going to cut it and a receiver is, IMO, easier to replace than a quarterback, especially for Hickey and Philbin who are on the chopping block for all intents and purposes. Basically what I'm saying is that if a guy with Antonio Brown, DeSean Jackson, or Larry Fitzgerald's skill-set (not necessarily as good as those guys) shows up and is significantly cheaper, you need to swap him out IMO.

 

I am. Check my post in the Evan Mathis thread.

Football players are inputs. You want to be as efficient as possible with input usage. Of course you do what's necessary to keep them happy (paychecks, healthcare, motivation), but ultimately you need to make sure these guys are bringing in the best return for your money. The NFL is one huge market failure, which is why parity in the NFL is ultimately a joke. "Any Given Sunday" isn't important because the playoffs start on Saturday.

 

It's not really all that hard to figure out. He's not putting effort to actually fight defenders or lay out for passes(and it's really a quite marked difference from early in his career), and he was pretty blunt in saying he wasn't going to put extra work in with Tannehill to try to get on the same page as far as the deep ball.