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

Mike Wallace..showing signs of life?

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by padre31, Dec 4, 2013.

  1. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Of course- is that really so hard for you to conceptualize? If the OL played better. If the defense played better at times. If RT and Wallace connected more efficiently on deep passes. Take any one of those individually and we could be 9-4 I would say. YOu're reading into it what you want to, try seeing the bigger picture.
     
  2. JMHPhin

    JMHPhin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,684
    3,323
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ohio
    Because I don't see definitively that an individual play changes the outcome definitively. Does it help? Absolutely. But a missed or completed td in the second qtr that had it been made doesn't = win, it means better chance, but that action causes reaction and who knows how the opposition would respond? I am not the one choosing to see what they wish
     
  3. JMHPhin

    JMHPhin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,684
    3,323
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ohio
    Of course ignore the point but then again if you can't refute it what else can you do?
     
    Fin D likes this.
  4. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Who said anything about definitive? You're reading into my comments what you want to see and confusing yourself.
     
  5. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    The comments Joe made about the amount of research given to Wallace before the signing, which he was a part of, indicates IMO that he was on board with it.
     
  6. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    Thank you for bringing some sensibility to the discussion. It is a shame the haters will just keep their heads buried in the sand rather than pay heed to it.
     
  7. JMHPhin

    JMHPhin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,684
    3,323
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ohio
    No I see comments that all the misses (under/over throws) are RT's fault and we could be 9-4 had he made them, I am saying its a too simplistic argument.

    But your right about it being beaten to death
     
  8. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    You have no proof that Joe didn't really want Wallace, but just said the right things anyway to make it sound that way.
    Greg Jennings would have a big signing too, had we went that direction. Yet you try to convince everyone that JI ignored the player Philbin really wanted to sign someone else who would do nothing but increase fan excitement.
     
  9. Sumlit

    Sumlit Well-Known Member

    4,796
    2,760
    113
    Feb 27, 2012
    Miami
    At some point, Wallace has to start making better efforts and catching some of these tough coverage passes. Not all deep balls will be thrown perfectly and land in perfect stride, if he's only going to be able to catch those, then all the speed in the world won't make him a great receiver.
     
    KB21 likes this.
  10. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    It's pretty clear that you're not grasping the difference between "could be" and "would be".
     
  11. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    19,840
    25,951
    113
    Jan 5, 2008


    This is ridiculous. On the Hartline TD last week the S was playing zone and moved to the center of his zone at the snap, just like we has supposed to. He didn't move toward Wallace. He started 20 yards back and went back and to his left (to the exact center of the field) at the snap. Wallace never got more than 5 yards beyond the LOS. If you think Ed Reed is backpedaling at the snap when he is playing 20 yards off the LOS out of fear of Mike Walace going deep, as opposed to assuming his position in his zone, you are delusional. Here's a diagram of a zone coverage scheme with some similarities to how the Jets were playing that play (not identical but has some similarities):

    [​IMG]

    The FSs job is to move back and toward the center fo the field at the snap. This is not specific to Mike Wallace, or any other receiver. In this zone, like any other, the defenders responsibilities are based on areas of the field not specific receivers.

    And there were 3 receivers bunched together on Wallace's side, so even if you do believe that the 2 -3 yards that Reed shifted toward the middle of the field was not part of hiz zone coverage responsibilities (which it clearly was because he clearly wasn't playing man coverage), it still doesn't mean that he did so because of Wallace as opposed ot the fact that there were 3 receivers on that side.

    In the Pitt game, the instances I recall of them pointing out the coverage on Wallace was to point out that they wrre giving him a sizable cushion. I recall that twice. Both times, the cushion they were giving Hartline was 1-2 yards bigger than the one they were giving Wallace. The size of the cushion at the snap does not necessarily reflect the level of fear or concern about the receiver's speed or deep ball ability. Some plays call for off coverage, either in zone or man.
     
  12. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    19,840
    25,951
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    Of course Philbin was on board with it. The notion that Ireland/Ross forced the biggest FA signing in Dolphin history on their new HC (who comes from the offensive side of the ball) against his will is silly. The suggestion that it happened and there was no report or indication of any disagreement about that signing just isn't credible. At all. Especially since Philbin was singing his praises and repeatedly talking about how it was a such a consensus decision.
     
  13. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    19,840
    25,951
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    Gimme a break. I'm not a Wallace hater. He's a good receiver with some special talents/skills. But his effect is felt by the balls he catches and the TDs he scores. Not by some fiction of his opening up the offense for the other receivers. I see no evidence of that. Defenders in zone coverage moving back at the snap does not mean they are doing so out of fear of Mike Wallace. Our passing offense is a little better than last year, but not by massive amounts. Personally, I think it is because of Tannehill's improvement or maturation and not any Wallace effect. If you disagree and think it is because of Mike Wallace, that's fine, but that's hardly the only sensible conclusion. And if that is your conclusion, you pretty much have to believe that Tannehill has barely improved, if at all. Because there simply isn't enough improvement for there to be significant improvement by Tannehill and a significant Wallace effect on the other receivers.
     
  14. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    He went past the middle zone. The S clearly was eyeing Wallace. When Hartline caught the pass, the S booked it back to Hartline's side, but didn't get back in time to make the tackle.

    As for the Pitt game, they did more than just highlight the cushion. They specifically showed what happened after the snap and how players moved to bracket Wallace. On that Clay TD, they showed the S and CB bracketing Wallace and the LB dropping to zone in front of Wallace. Then the announcer specifically said that with Wallace garnering so much attention there was none left to cover Clay. Now Clay did a great job of selling the block, but it is also obvious that Wallace drew a ton of attention from the D. I would guess that if this were last season and we had Bess in Wallace's place that the S would have ignored him and shadowed Clay instead.
     
    ToddPhin, Ozzy, MrClean and 1 other person like this.
  15. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I was one of the ones arguing against the Wallace signing when it happened. He obviously brought a specific skill set, one that we were lacking, but I didn't feel we needed to pay that much to add that skill set. Even now, I'm still disappointed with how little Wallace fights for the ball. I think that if he adjusted better, had better positioning or sometimes just jumped that at a minimum he'd draw a few PI calls. But that being said, it's also clear that defenses account for him. He attracts attention. And that attention increased after we connected on this long passes in the Carolina game. I may still have issues with the contract, but I'm not going to pretend that Wallace does not impact how defenses defend us just to buffer my original position.
     
    DPlus47, MrClean and Fin D like this.
  16. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Exactly, my issue with Wallace is he basically is Ted Ginn w/better hands and larger reputation but does not return kicks and punts.

    I liked Ginn and find it humorous that Wallace is getting the same treatment Ginn received
     
    DPlus47 likes this.
  17. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    19,840
    25,951
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    That's just not at all what happened. He never came close to going past the middle zone. Here is

    At the snap, Reed is 17 yard deep and half way between the numbers and the hash at the snap. He then immediately flows backwards and towards the middle of the field.

    [​IMG]


    Reed never even gets to the middle of the field. By the time the ball is thrown Reed is 22-23 yards deep and just a yard or so on the other side of the hash.

    [​IMG]

    So no, he never went past the middle zone.

    On the first Clay TD against Pitt, they had man coverage on all the receivers with a second level of zone coverage. Wallace ran right at the zone defender -- would you expect him to run away? Clay got wide open because of his late release after engaging the pass rusher and the LB bit on the play fake and them moved in to pick up Daniel Thomas when he should have picked up Clay. The S that Wallace ran toward would have doen exactly the same thing he did no matter who the receiver was. A DB in zone coverage doesn't run away from a receiver runnign right to him. Nice play design, and as they said on the telecast it was a busted coverage, but it had nothing to do with Mike Wallace or fear of his speed.
     
    Rhody Phins Fan likes this.
  18. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    Apparently not everyone believes that.
     
  19. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    Not everyone believes it is fiction. Even long time Dolphins hater Dan Fouts thinks Wallace draws extra attention.
     
  20. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    19,840
    25,951
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    There are a lot of old wives' tales out there in the NFL. This is one of them. Tannehill's rating has gone up 8 pts this year. That's about what one would expect from rookie season to second year. Luck's has also gone up 8 pts. Wilson's has gone up 6.5. Yeah, RG3's has gone down, but I think there are a bunch of reasons for that. Some of that improvement is likely due to simply having more dynamic receiving options, and not necessarily Wallace. Charles Clay is more dynamic than Fasano was and now he's getting a chance to show it. The second TD yesterday, the TD against SD and the deep ball yesterday are plays that Fasano likely doesn't make. And Tannehill's numbers benefit from those 2 TDs even though he played little role in those plays becoming TDs -- they were all due to Clay's tackle breaking ability. Gibson was a little more dynamic than Bess too.

    If Wallace had such an impact, one would have expected the Steeler's passing offense to have dropped off. It hasn't. It is almost exactly the same as it was for the 3 previous years when Wallace was there, except that they are throwing a little more this year. We saw the same thing when Brandon Marshall came here. Henne had a 75.2 rating before Marshall came here and a 75.4 Marshall's first year here. Orton had an 86.8 rating with Marshall and a 87.5 rating without him. Cutler had an 95.7 rating the year before Marshall went there and an 81.3 in Marshall's first year in Chicago. Rivers had an 88.7 rating in Vincent Jackson's last year there and an 88.6 the next year. The Patriots passing game had a notable bump when Moss arrived, but they completely revamped their passing offense that year and brought in Welker as well. But when Moss left, they didn't miss a beat.

    Wallace hasn't made Hartline more efficient or effective and Hartline didn't get less effective when Marshall left. Tannehill had an 84.8 rating on passes to Hartline in 2012 and it is 85.2 this year. And although it is a less-apt comparison because he came from a different team, Wallace didn't make Gibson a more effective/efficient WR either. In 2012, the STL passer rating on passes to Gibson was 108.3 -- this year with Wallace is in 95.7.
     
    Rhody Phins Fan likes this.
  21. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    Not everyone believes it is an old wive's tale. Rafael does not believe it. Are you calling him an old wife? I respect his background and opinion as much as anyone's on this board.
    You don't think having Paul Warfield effected how opposing defenses played Miami even when he only caught 29 passes for the season?
     
  22. KB21

    KB21 Almost Never Wrong Club Member

    24,029
    40,478
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    It doesn't have nearly the effect that you think it does.

    It's typical traditional NFL thought, and advanced analysis has proven many things that were considered common knowledge in traditional NFL thinking complete and utter bunk.
     
  23. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    19,840
    25,951
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    I am unfamiliar with Rafael's age, sexual orientation or marital status, so I am not calling him an old wife. :lol: I respect him as a poster and often agree with him, but think he is wrong on this point. I am allowed to have a different opinion, right?

    I was 4 yrs old when Warfield played his last season with the dolphins so I really have no memory or opinion on that. From what I do know and understand, the Dolphins had a great running game. I suspect that teams spent much more time worrying about that running game than they did the 2 catches for 40 yards per game that Warfield might have. But you obviously believe opposing defenses played the dolphins differently because of him. How so? Did they have 2-3 DBs following him wherever he went? Did they play their safeties back 30-40 yards off the LOS? More zone coverage? What exactly do you think they did differently and how did it affect the rest of the Dolphins' passing game? I do know that the Dolphins on average passed for more yards in the games Warfield missed while with the Dolphins than when he played and were still something like 10-2 in those games.
     
  24. Den54

    Den54 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    21,432
    34,415
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    AMERICA!
    Of coarse he was on board with it. There's no way they are going to shove an 80 million dollar wr down his throat if he wasn't.
     
  25. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Táin Bó Cúailnge Club Member

    24,756
    41,750
    113
    Sep 7, 2012
    Hattiesburg, MS

    80 now? lol... we've gone from an actual $27M over 2 seasons, to $60M to now $80M?

    I like it. :lol:
     
  26. Den54

    Den54 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    21,432
    34,415
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    AMERICA!
    Numbers are not my forte.:lol:
     
    cuchulainn likes this.
  27. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    After watching our receivers last year I was all for signing Mike Wallace even if we had to over pay.

    Going up and fighting for the ball/being physical isn't his game, anyone who's watched him play knows that. It's like asking why Gibson doesn't blow by defenders when he's pressed or why Hartline doesn't juke guys out of their shoes after the catch.

    Wallace does things on the field to help us move the ball and score points that very few players can do and he can do a lot more than he's shown so far. As the offense continues to involve and the chemistry between he and Tannehill improves, as the run game/play action game gets on track and the vertical routes that Wallace excels at become more of a fixture in the offense we will see Wallace's production improve.
     
  28. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,566
    25,123
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    and what would Tannehill's passer rating be if he didn't have problems with his deep ball this year even though Wallace has provided an abundance of opportunity?

    Tannehill is just 6/25 for 1 TD on throws over 30 yards even though by his own admittance Wallace has been "so wide open" at times. If he completed just 4 more of those and with 3 more for TDs [which is consistent with Wallace's career average], his stats increase across the board to 88.5 QBR, 7.3 avg, 23 TDs, and his TD/INT ratio gets closer to 2:1. That's a significant improvement over last year's stats of 76.1 QBR, 6.8 avg, 12 TD, and a 1:1 TD/INT ratio.

    The opportunity for an even greater increase in production has been there, so the only argument you can make is that Tannehill hasn't been good enough in one important aspect of his passing game to take advantage of it.

    Furthermore, your "wives' tale" argument is complete garbage so just stop already. The more talent a QB has at receiver the more production he'll be capable of. Only an idiot would argue his surrounding talent means little to his success.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  29. rtl1334

    rtl1334 New Member

    1,997
    1,014
    0
    Jan 1, 2009
  30. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,566
    25,123
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    Backup Josh McCown boasts an impressive 103.6 QBR, 7.9 avg, 65%, and 9 TDs to 1 INT this year. Wowser.
    I guess he suddenly just sprouted into one of the game's best statistical QBs the past 6 weeks, right? Obviously has nothing to do with his stud receivers Marshall & Jeffery. :unsure:
     
  31. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
  32. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I don't understand why some are defending Wallace not fighting for the ball.
     
    miamiron likes this.
  33. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    ...or Martellus and Forte. Nope. Josh is just going out and making "perfect throws"
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  34. KB21

    KB21 Almost Never Wrong Club Member

    24,029
    40,478
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    Because Mike Wallace is apparently the perfect receiver, and nothing he does on the field is wrong. It is always someone else's fault.

    He also has the mystical ability to effect the game without even touching the football. He's so good that we don't even have to snap the football to get his effect. Him just being on the field is the sole reason this team has 7 wins this year.
     
  35. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,566
    25,123
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    It's b/c some posters are foolishly using Wallace not fighting harder for the ball as an excuse to absolve Tannehill for holding the ball so damn long that he let the play overdevelop to the point there was no way he was catching up to it no matter how hard he threw it. That's not acceptable when your receiver is the fastest in the league, and he's consistently handcuffing Wallace b/c of it. It allows Wallace zero chance to run it down in stride while his speed maintains separation from his defender.

    What's the point of having the fastest and best deep threat in the game if you're gonna repeatedly underthrow him and give defenders a chance to make a play? We can do that just as poorly with Hartline if that's the case.
     
    Fin-Omenal likes this.
  36. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Let's say for argument's sake you're a 100% right, and Tannehill is just taking too much time.......a long time $60 million veteran not fighting for the ball is a 1000 times more egregious than a 2nd year QB being fractions of seconds too late.
     
  37. KB21

    KB21 Almost Never Wrong Club Member

    24,029
    40,478
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    Plus the idea that Ryan holds the ball too long has already been debunked.

    Mike Wallace is apparently the only deep threat in the league that doesn't get hit in stride with a pass though.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  38. dWreck

    dWreck formerly dcaf

    5,200
    2,975
    113
    Oct 23, 2011
    Sebring, FL
    I've kind of been on the fence back and forth with this blame game, but now my personal gripe isn't so much one or the other as much as it is both of them. The underthrows bother me a lot, but so does his obvious lack of effort and fight to pull in some catches that were 100% catch-able at times.

    Plenty of throws tanny has kind of blown my mind how he manages to under throw the target......times when he rolls out and seemingly has all day to throw it, and still finds a way to make MW slow down to a halt. Then there are times where the passes are dropped when they are in the hands of MW... ... or passes that any other 'elite' receiver would make double the effort to go up and fight for it.

    Def a work in progress, but it's nice when they do click.
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  39. rtl1334

    rtl1334 New Member

    1,997
    1,014
    0
    Jan 1, 2009
    But you can't honestly read the article under post 675 and still say that Philbin wasn't on board with the Wallace acquisition...can you?
     
  40. jim1

    jim1 New Member

    5,902
    3,054
    0
    Jul 1, 2008
    Debunked? You've got to be kidding. If that was true he wouldn't be consistently underthrowing Wallace, that's obvious from the film. And the coaches' comments. And Tannehill's comments.
     
    MrClean likes this.

Share This Page