Why didn't anyone defend Ted Ginn this passionately? Since we've established that Mike Wallace basically has the exact same skill set.
I don't understand why this argument continues. Are people seriously arguing that Wallace is giving 100% effort on these deep throws? Really? That pass against the Steelers was a perfect example. That was a well thrown pass, not perfect, but well thrown, and Wallace gave very little effort to play the ball. The INT against the Jets is just another example of him not giving his all fighting for these divided balls. I find it very annoying that people are demanding perfection from Tannehill on these passes, but in turn are perfectly OK with settling for mediocre effort from Wallace on the same.
Everybody seems satisfied with all of his deficiencies just because he can run really fast. It didn't get Ted Ginn a free pass. Maybe if Ginn was paid 60M it would have. I'd love to know if Philbin is doing or attempting to do anything in addressing all of Wallace's shortcomings as a 'football player'.
It is truly mind boggling. We could have re-signed Ted Ginn for much less and had the same skill set on the field. Actually Ted Ginn might be better at this point in his career at going up for balls. [I'm not advocating bringing in Ginn just making a point]
There is nothing wrong with a play fake on a deep throw. It has worked in the NFL for decades. Sure, after the fake the QB can wait too long to release it and I think that has happened several times this year. But the problem isn't the play fake. The problem (when there is a problem and it isn't always there) is that Tannehill seems to wait until Wallace is a few yards past the DB to throw it. He needs to throw it as soon as Wallace starts to get any separation and have confidence that Wallace will beat the defender to the ball. Here are a few examples of how it works with Wallace (at :27, :38, 1:24, 1:31, 1:43, and 2:24): [video=youtube;ASG7luhziyc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASG7luhziyc[/video] This video also shows numerous times when Roethlisberger underthrew Wallace and he made the catch. Every QB underthrows some deep passes. And Wallace is fully capable of adjusting and making the catch. I don't think he is the best at it, but he can and does do it.
Amen. Tannehill has zero effort concerns, Wallace on the other hand...... When there is a problem between two parties/entities/people (no matter the setting aside form children and criminal behavior) and one of the parties is putting forth less effort then the other, then that is the #1 problem that needs to be addressed.
Same skill set? Just speed? Let's cut to the heart of the matter as per that: Career stats Ted Ginn (7th year) 192 Rec 2522 yards 10 TD Mike Wallace (5th year) 293 Rec 4804 yards 35 TD Case closed.
Are you reading the posts? No one is demanding perfection from Tannehill on deep passes to Wallace, we're asking for good. And no one is giving Wallace a free pass as to his consistently not fighting hard enough for deep passes that he could and should be going after more aggressively.
Play fakes on deep balls are great, the problem is when they're used on passes in which Tannehill is so late delivering the ball. Most of the issue boils down to such a simple factor, RT has to throw the ball earlier when going deep to Wallace.
I don't think we disagree, but the way you just stated it makes it sound like the problem is the play fake, when really the play fake is fine it is the late throw that is the problem. Keep the play fake but throw it sooner.
I completely agree with that, just trying to address that they add to the problem when RT is already late releasing the ball. I'm a big fan of play fakes, I hope that we use more of them going forward.
The idea he could be going for the ball more aggressively is an understatement, to say the least. Wallace doesn't appear to even be trying.
In a lot of those plays, Ben's fakes are half-hearted, likely allowing him to set up earlier. Also, most of the deeper plays have Mike streaking toward the post rather than down the sideline. Allows a little more room for error, imo. Those two tweaks can be done here
I'd rather see a better play-fake design (ie. from the shotgun) than rely on baiting the defense with a quick, half-hearted fake. Yup we've been saying for over a month that Wallace needs to be running to the post or lining up more out of the slot. Not many (if any) QBs can drop it in the bucket along the sideline 55 yards downfield with a 4.2 receiver running full speed. There needs to be at least some margin for error.
Your arbitrary stats don't mean much in the context of this argument. The only thing that either of these receivers does better than an average NFL WR is run fast. Instead of some general stats tell me one actual way that I'm wrong. Tell me one other thing that Mike Wallace does above average. Look at what's happened to his stats when he no longer plays with a QB who is a physical freak and can run around behind the line of scrimmage ten seconds a play waiting to make a throw. Those are good stats, no doubt. So why did Pittsburgh let him walk?
Really? What Wallace not only does better than average but excels at is getting behind coverage and scoring TDs. The fact that you'd call the stats provided as "arbitrary" is questionable at the very best. And that's being kind about it. Ginn's career productivity is a joke compared to Wallace's. There are plenty of fast receivers, why not just compare Wallace to Clyde Gates if production isn't relevant, only speed? Ridiculous.
He has exceled at that. Pittsburgh knew it wasn't sustainable so they let him walk. In 2006 your productivity stats indicated beyond a shadow of a doubt that Daunte Culpepper was a better QB than Drew Brees. Once again you've went back to speed which no one will dispute. Maybe Mike Wallace can simply get down the field a little faster than Ted Ginn or Clyde Gates. That's probably true. Maybe we should just stick with the hypothetical 'average' WR instead of using specific guys. What is one thing outside of running fast that Mike Wallace does better than they do? Why do you pay so much money for a WR who can only excel if your QB can constantly throw superb balls that are perfectly timed way down the field? Most QBs can't do that and that's a fact.
Wallace is one of the NFL's best, of not the best, deep threats over the last five years, and I have no idea why you assume that Pitt felt that around 8 TDs and 1,000 yards receiving per year was unsustainable, looks like you're just parroting some half-witted argument from another poster. As to the rest of your truly dubious post, refer to the productivity of Wallace versus other fast receivers again. Equating Wallace to a Clyde Gates is such a stupid argument that I don't have much more to say about it, a straight up waste of time.
Not to mention they're moving the goal posts on "throws caught in stride", as they're trying to make it seem like the QB is responsible for the entire process as if it requires a perfect throw fit through a gnat's ***. These guys are clueless to the fact that if the QB gives an elite vertical receiver a chance, the receiver can do the rest on HIS END to catch it IN STRIDE by either punching the gas to go get it, throttling down a smidge to let it hit him in stride after he's already separated, or tracking the ball laterally if it's off target to the left or right. But the common denominator here is either getting rid of the ball soon enough or getting enough distance on it to give his receiver a goddam chance. Here's an IN STRIDE touchdown to Wallace, the kind that KB and FinD treat like it's the friggin' unicorn of throws. Notice how far to the left the pass is from Wallace's initial path, yet Mike makes the adjustment to catch it IN STRIDE. Notice how Ben gives Wallace A CHANCE to run it down by getting rid of it in a timely manner?! [video=youtube;twz6SH0ylpk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twz6SH0ylpk[/video] Wallace is about even with the corner and on the right third of the field when the pass is released ON TIME. He's 10 yards to his left when he makes the catch IN STRIDE, meanwhile the corner is trailing in the dust as he has no shot to keep up.
Who is demanding perfection? Just hitting Wallace in stride sometimes when he is wide open would be nice. That is not perfection. Doing it every time would be perfection. Look at jim1's clips of Weeden hitting a wide open Gordon in stride. It can be done. Just sometimes please. 20-25% of the time does not seem too unreasonable.
Both of these statements are so ridiculous you should be embarrassed for saying them. If speed alone is all that Wallace possesses then he would've been another Ted Ginn, not one of three receivers to average 1k yards and 8 TDs since '09. He has quite good ball skills if the pass isn't so poorly underthrown that you force a 4.28 receiver to suddenly stop mid route to come back for a jump ball that the trailing corner is in better position for. He's not nor ever has been a jump ball receiver. What don't you understand about that? If we wanted to toss up jump balls or severe underthrows to a receiver who isn't good at catching them 'em we could've stuck with throwing them to Hartline. You bring in Wallace so that you DONT have to throw up risky jump balls. You bring in Wallace to use his elite speed to SEPARATE from defenders and stay separated, b/c severely underthrowing Wallace is no different than throwing a deep ball to an average sized 4.6 receiver running stride for stride with a corner on his hip. What's the f***ing point? You've just effectively nullified every bit of advantage his speed provides. If he didn't have good ball skills he wouldn't be the most productive deep receiver in the game. What, do you think the QB runs 50+ yards down the field and hands a velcro covered ball into Wallace's velcro gloves? Look at those TERRIBLE ball skills at 1:13... 1:51... 2:04... sick one at 2:14..... 3:08.. [video=youtube;rzmTWenMQCU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzmTWenMQCU[/video] ...or :056... 2:30... 3:23... 3:59 [video=youtube;jDz1e_QzswE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDz1e_QzswE[/video]
They offered him a contract, $10m or so. He rejected it. They then turned and offered it to Antonio Brown. If Wallace accepted it, do you think Pitt offers Brown a similar contract? $20m for two receivers? No. Pitt chose Wallace over Brown. Plain and simple.
Not really fair because the competition is so low on this one. Everyone knows Joe Haden sucks. Put the pitchforks down, I know Haden was a rookie
Does it make you feel good about yourself to make smartass patronizing comments on an internet message board? Are you implying that I'm stupid? I don't appreciate that and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say it if we were debating this in person. I won't argue about this with someone who can't show a little common courtesy to someone who disagrees with him.
I agree that Tannehill has to find Wallace when he is open and get him the ball, but I think we're making too much out of this as it's Wallace's first year in THIS offense. In Wallace's first season in Pittsburgh with Rothliesburger, he had 6 TDs and 756 yards on the season. Right now Wallace is projected to have around a thousand yards and 4-5 TDs by seasons end. These may vary either way, but next season is when I fully expect to see them connecting on these opportunities we're missing right now.
Yes it's an agenda. It personally benefits me and others for Mike Wallace to underperform... These are opinions not agendas.
If Wallace has no ball skills and only asset is speed as you ridiculously suggest, then why was he 4th in the NFL in TDs from '09-12 ahead of everyone not named Calvin Johnson, Marques Colston, and Roddy White? ... and why was he 10th in yards? Why was Ted Ginn 165th in TDs and 116th in yards over those four years if speed alone is good enough? Trindon Holliday is faster than Mike Wallace, so why does he have just 2 catches for 13 yards in 4 years if speed is all that's needed to be productive?
Wow....ok, so you're just going to create my argument and then argue against the argument you just made up for me. Convenient.
I'm assuming you've watched an ounce of football to see that when a corner is within a step of Wallace midway through his go route it means Wallace is OPEN, not covered. Tannehill allows him to be "covered" by severely underthrowing it. I guess the only reason Wallace is the most productive vertical receiver in the game is b/c everyone else in the league is EVEN WORSE at catching deep balls, huh? You'd get laughed off stage if the NFL heard you suggest Wallace is a poor vertical receiver. This is reaching comical proportions.
I never said those passes were rare. You pretend like I did, so you can post a video disproving something I never said. Its a weak *** move.
gimme a break man, you are suggesting those passes are rare when you keep trying to rationalize they're acceptable and when you thank half of KB's ridiculous posts that try to either make it seem like every bad Tannehill throw is Wallace's fault or suggest anyone is crazy irrational who says Tannehill is poorly executing his deep throws and needs to improve them. Here's an example below. You actually thanked this straw crap. KB is off his rocker thinking Tannehill's current deep ball is beyond reproach, as if it's acceptable exactly how it is. NOT ONCE has anyone f***ing suggested Tannehill needs to do what no other QB in the league is capable of. All we've repeatedly said is Tannehill is leaving plays on the field b/c he's not throwing his deep ball with as much consistency as other QBs in the NFL do. KB hates Wallace so much that he'd rather create all these pansy-assed straw posts that intentionally misrepresent what others say than to display a modicum on integrity. If there was a way to put him on ignore for anything Mike Wallace related I would. What's equally annoying is we're discussing Tannehill's deep ball issues, yet a few of you keep mentioning Mike Wallace. Whatever Wallace does on deep routes on his end after the ball is in the air has nothing to do with the execution on Tannehill's side yet you keep saying Mike Wallace. If I say "you should've used a rubber with that skank", are you gonna respond, "but it's her fault I got a drippy *****"? Her STD is unrelated to you not performing safe sex.
IMO CK is right on this one in suggesting that the play design makes those passes to Wallace difficult to complete. It's basically a timing issue. The play design is too slow for a guy with Wallace's speed. They work fine to Hartline or Clay, but Wallace has to wait on the same passes.
