Wallace was obviously more productive and well rounded, but Kenny is young and has a rapport with our QB....if we take him away I fear we get the 2015 regressed version of Tanny. And thats not good.
Not at all if you ask me. Grant has some solid potential but he will never line up and put fear into a defense deep. Cheap defense stretching options are what we need to explore.
Who are some of the UDFA wideouts from last year? Any potential there? Not to "replace" Stills, just to sort of throw in the mix. I think Stills walks, and I wouldn't blame him. Philly has good young talent with a pretty good looking young QB (if what Mando says is true, and I tend to believe him).
It's called production, more catches, more yds, more TDs, you know, production, this may come as a surprise to you but this is how the rest of the world gauges how effective a player is.
This is an excellent point. Mike Wallace got 5 years/$60M in 2013. Stills is a must sign or big drop off. Luckily we finally have a staff that should be able to adapt. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...ike-wallace-signs-60m-miami-dolphins-contract
Actually, Finster is completely and utterly right, and there is no objective proof that shows otherwise. Mike Wallace and Kenny Stills both played in same amount of games through their first four seasons (63), and this stat line should tell you everything you need to know: Mike Wallace (2009-2012) 235 receptions 4,042 receiving yards 17.5 yards per catch 32 receiving touchdowns 163 first down receptions Kenny Stills (2013-2016) 164 receptions 2,738 receiving yards 16.7 yards per catch 20 receiving touchdowns 119 first down receptions Let us not be blinded by illusory correlation nor a hometown bias. That is the same argument as saying '1' is bigger than '2' because '1' is your favorite number. Wallace, through his first four seasons, was superior to Stills no matter which way you slice it. The argument you may be searching for is that Stills has more potential or upside than Wallace, and is better than the Wallace Miami saw--and this I could get on board with--but he certainly is not better than the early Wallace, and I believe that is the point Finster was alluding to. The ignorance that's being regurgitated on this thread is grossly unsettling. Stop spewing ad hominem and baseless judgments, and instead show empirical data to prove your point. Your assertions hold absolutely no weight otherwise.
If we're all going to be honest here, Stills success here last year was based more on 2016 RT and Moore throwing a better deep ball than 20014 RT, and having a scary run game. Wallace basically did it on his own steam, vs the best CB on the opposing team with a bracket on every play, while Stills was vs slot CBs. MW avgs 60 catches a year, the only 2 years he didn't catch at least 60 passes were his rookie year and his year in purple purgatory, Stills caught 60 once. plyr--rec--yds---TDs with Miami, 2 years for both players. MW- 140, 1793, 15 KS--- 69, 1166, 12 How in the wide world is KS better than MW as a Dolphin? MW played the role of #1 WR while KS has been a 3rd option. Without the deep ball KS is an after thought, and without the D focusing on the scary run game he wouldn't have had as many chances. Honestly, paying a guy 8-9 mil who caught 42 passes on 81 targets last year is a bit crazy imo.
For what it's worth, RT was ranked around 5th in the league in 2014 in regards to deep passing stats. RT has always been a really good deep ball QB. For whatever reason, Wallace was not a good fit here.
Or...... You could look at the fact that when Mike Wallace was here, he was the offense. Everything had to flow through him because we had nothing else really. Stills is an important part of a better offense than the one Mike Wallace was the center point of. Our offense was one dimensional with him. Not only because of our dearth of talent elsewhere on the offense but because he wasn't capable of playing well in the offense we were trying to run. We were trying to be a timing based offense at the time and that doesn't match up with his poor route running and small catch radius, so we went to a Wallace first all the time offense. Granted that is a huge indictment of our staff at the time, but it is what it is. Also, Stills has put up great efficiency numbers with two different QBs and in two different offenses.
There's a bit of bias in your post though because efficiency matters and you didn't bother to point out the two are about the same efficiency-wise. Wallace was targeted 403 times his first 4 years while Stills was targeted 277 times. Divide those numbers you have (except Y/C) by 403 and 277 respectively and you'll see the two are around the same efficiency-wise. And saying the two "played in" the same number of games is interesting. Why not point out Wallace started 48 games while Stills started 41, and that Wallace was targeted 126 more times than Stills over the first 4 years? That would immediately at least suggest looking at efficiency stats just to see if the stats favor Wallace. So the question should really be what you think the cause was for the fewer number of targets to Stills over the first 4 years. If you think that's due more to the WR than the coach etc.. then fine I'll agree that for you the stats do suggest MW>Stills, but if you think that's more due to the coach than the WR, then the stats do not suggest Wallace is better. I will say though that one volume stat for WR's trumps all other volume and efficiency stats: total # of TD's. That's by far the best predictor of a WR getting into the HoF, so from that point of view Wallace is ahead even if he's unlikely to make it. Also.. tiny point but 4042/235 = 17.2 Y/C for Wallace, not 17.5
But... We're comparing Mike Wallace of the Steelers to modern-day Kenny Stills. I'm not sure why it matters what Wallace did in Miami or how he was utilized by the coaching staff, as that wasn't Finster's point to begin with. Wallace's 2009-2012 statistics are from Pittsburgh. The efficiency argument is a good twist, and not something I had considered. I'd like to see PFF grades on these players, too, but I still think Wallace was overwhelmingly superior in his first four years compared to Kenny Stills.
Fair points. I actually preferred the games started statistics over the games played for that very reason, but neither NFL.com or ESPN had those numbers--at least not that I found. I will mention that Stills likely wasn't targeted as much as Wallace due to two reasons: a.) he failed to get open as much as Wallace b.) he was not on the field as much as Wallace Point 'b', I'd say, isn't a matter of fairness in the comparison but even more of an indictment on his value to the coaching staff. He just wasn't as good as Wallace through those first four years, hence the difference in games started.
I'm not buying that Stills gets open less. He's quicker, more agile, and not a one trick pony. Wallace has inline speed and not much else.
Okay, I think there's some confusion going on here. "At this point in Wallace's career" was the basis for my argument, as it implies that Wallace was the superior player through his first four years when compared to Stills "at this point in his , thus, Stills is not worth 12 million per year. To clarify to everyone: this is what I agree with. I do not, however, agree with the sentiment that Miami's Wallace was superior to Stills. See: FinD's post. Pittsburgh's Wallace > Stills Stills > Miami's Wallace
pro-football-reference has them: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/StilKe00.htm .. though notice something embarrassing. Check the career targeted number there for Stills. They have 276, but add up the targeted numbers for the 4 years and you get 277. All those sites occasionally have such inconsistencies.
I love when people waltz in with numbers and basically say everyone else's opinion doesn't matter because of stats. Kenny Stills means far more to this offense than his numbers suggest. If that's lost on you, take another look. Mike Wallace was brought here as the offense. Of course his stats are better. Kenny Stills is a perfect compliment to our other two WR's with incredibly efficient numbers to show for his limited opportunities not being a focal point of the passing game where he's targeted regularly. Now if you think his own personal numbers are the only important indication here, then that's off base IMO. However, apparently that doesn't mean anything because I didn't mention a bunch of numbers and other empirical data or something like that. Does that mean we should pay him like a number 1? Absolutely not. However to suggest he doesn't have an impact because his numbers aren't as good, that's just a bit ridiculous IMO. You can't compare him to Mike Wallace, especially on stats. They may be a similar type of player, but they fill different roles, and one fills that role in a way the other never could. You could probably say that under different circumstances for both players. Mike Wallace was brought here to do one thing, and ended up doing another even though it wasn't exactly his strength. Kenny Stills has the ability to do what Mike Wallace was brought here to do, he likely doesn't have the ability to be the WR running short routes and getting physical like Wallace ended up doing a lot of here, but if you think Kenny Stills is just a line up and run deep guy, you're fooling yourself. He's more than that regardless of what numbers will suggest either way.
Ugh, I know, it's almost as if "empirical data or something like that" is the benchmark for purity in science, methodology, and hypothesis testing. The worst. On the matter of opinions, well, philosopher Patrick Stokes said it best: "The problem with 'I'm entitled to my opinion' is that, all too often, it's used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for 'I can say or think whatever I like' and, by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. 'I'm entitled to my opinion,' is considered a logical fallacy. An opinion is a view or judgement about something. So, by definition, an opinion has attached to it a certain degree of uncertainty or subjectivity, and using it as a defense only works in certain situations." "If 'everyone's entitled to their opinion' just means no one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true but fairly trivial. But if 'entitled to an opinion' means 'entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth' then it’s pretty clearly false." This is why empiricism is so important. That being said, I still think Mike Wallace was a bum in Miami, and Stills far superior, just not when compared to the early Wallace (per the overwhelming difference in statistics).
Yawn. Spare us the opinion BS. It's not relevant. The fact of the matter is, you disputing anyone else's opinion because it doesn't include stats, is pretty useless in and of itself. It's quite possible that Kenny Stills is a more valuable piece to this offense than Mike Wallace would be regardless of statistics. However, if you want to keep believing you are correct, and everyone else is stupid because we didn't base our opinion on numbers, then have it man. I guess that's just... your opinion, and in that case, I guess you can go back and read your own drivel you provided above on opinions. Opinions are like *******s, everyone has one. Including you. But just because it's yours, and you believe it's right because of your interpretation of some statistics, doesn't mean your right, or above anyone else for having that... OPINION. If you don't see the impact that Kenny Stills has on this offense for Ajayi, for Landry, for Parker, for Tannehill, for Gase and his playcalling, then I don't know what to tell you other than stop looking at numbers, because you won't find the answer there.
Ad hominem and the straw-man argument: the mark of an uneducated mind, folks. You would benefit tremendously from a thorough reading on the matter of opinions and empiricism; I don't think you quite get it yet. Also, refrain from misrepresenting the other individuals argument--it won't win you any intellectual battles. I never said Kenny Stills doesn't have an impact on this offense, nor did I call anybody 'stupid'. In fact, I said that Stills is superior to Miami's Mike Wallace, but I think you missed that. You're not even choosing the right argument here. My first statement to you wasn't in reference to this Wallace/Stills debate, it was an attempt to correct your misunderstanding of opinions and the weight of empiricism, and you proceeded to go on this tangent of irrelevant emotional drivel. P.S., "opinion BS" and "opinions are like *******s" is not a formidable argument and doesn't lend any credence to the point you are trying to make. It means nothing. Try again.
With all due respect (and you guys know way more than I do) the argument of Stills vs Wallace, while interesting, is irrelevant. The argument should be Stills vs Parker. I think we can only keep one. Are we better lining up with Landry and Stills, at their salaries...or Landry and Parker, lower salary but san's the draft picks Parker could net? I don't know the answer, but I am convinced that's the proper question.
I think you should look deeper into the story.. http://www.risetowin.org/about Stills wants to help this country become more unified, to narrow the racial divide, it's not about disrespecting the military..it's about doing something that causes conversations about the problem..
You would benefit from not trying to initially imply that every other opinion in here is trash other than yours, because that's how you were coming across. Of course if you're going to present an opinion there should be something of logical substance behind it. The greater point here was addressing your initial comment that comes across essentially saying everyone elses opinion is wrong, and yours is right. Maybe I misinterpreted what you're trying to say, so lets just move on from this nonsense. As for the other issue, Kenny Stills' statistics, do not accurately reflect his value for the Miami Dolphins. Call that whatever you want, but if you watch his play in this offense even if he wasn't targeted, you should understand that the numbers aren't telling the whole story. I'm not about to show you the "data" you want to see behind that, because, quite frankly I don't have that kind of time to cut up the plays and find a way to post them here for you to see. Just, go look back at it. I also don't think you can use statistics to compare Kenny Stills here, to Mike Wallace. Different roles in the offense, so of course the numbers will be skewed. I'm just saying there's a much bigger picture behind the numbers though, and if that's all you want to rely on for whatever point you're trying to make, then again, I don't agree with that, and I never will regardless of who says it. I'm not saying that was your intent either btw, I'm just not a fan of anyone trying to disparage anyone elses opinion for whatever reason. It's a message board, it's here for people to do exactly that. Anyways... moving along. It's all good man.
And a QB who learned to throw a deep ball. (None of my business tho) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are actually 100% correct. Because with Wallace vs Stills you aren't comparing apples to apples. You had the same yet two totally different QBs in regard to being able to get the ball there. Hell, Mike Wallace had 1k yds and 10Tds as a possession Wr! I don't ever see Kenny doing that, but who cares? We don't need him too. Kenny's lil tranny arse just needs to accept 9-10M and stay in Miami. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No. No he hasn't. I don't expect to change your mind, but this is just not the case. Could've very well been his OL making him fear stepping up in the pocket. But if u watch the film you will see a different set of mechanics from Ryan regarding the deep ball. It was a national topic, and he took that personal. And improved on it. Props to him. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do u want to elaborate or just sound like a jack ***? It's your go. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tannehill appeared worse on the deep ball than he was, due to some incredibly inept plays by Wallace, and other receivers. The national media talked about it??? Must make it true!!
Ryan sucked at leading WRs and was simply throwing to spots. His mechanics changed and u saw a different QB in that regard. You guys think I'm "hating" on him but it's just the facts. Mike Wallace was blowing by defenders at an even higher rate than Stills. Maybe his protection wasn't good enough. But Ryan wasn't hitting Wallace wide open and now he is hitting Stills. The dude improved a weakness in his game, it should be applauded. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He has obviously improved throughout his career. However, his deep passes have not really changed. It's fair to say Tannehill doesn't always make these plays. It's not fair to call this game an aberration though. Tannehill has always been a talented deep passer. His perception has been hurt by having ineffective receivers. Whether it's Mike Wallace's inability to track the ball and his penchant for trying unnecessary one-handed catches, or Kenny Stills' inconsistent hands, or Jarvis Landry's inability to get open deep, Tannehill has never had a receiver who he can trust to make a play on the ball if he puts it in the right spot. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/film-room/2016/film-room-ryan-tannehill
That's one bloggers opinion? I can find articles saying the exact opposite. It's actually one of the worst set of excuses Ive seen written. The two other guy's who played elsewhere have proven themselves as marquee deep threats. Now they both are called guys who Ryan can't trust to make a play if he puts it in the right spot? Thats beyond funny actually.
Never forget...Mike Wallace ran fast, that means Mike Wallace was never the problem. If you think Mike Wallace was the problem, just stop thinking that and remind yourself.....he ran fast, then you'll realize you were mistaken about Mike Wallace being the problem. I hope that helped.....