I don't think its rational to put all the blame on Tannehill or Wallace. There are a lot of things both can do better.
Even you yourself are involved in the straw man crap, so why should it surprise me that you picked the side arguing against the straw stuff to criticize. Not a damn person here remotely close to suggested Wallace is giving 100% on the deep balls..... and NO ONE has demanded perfection from Tannehill on those passes, but apparently, according to you, we're not allowed to demand for a better job than the problematic one Tannehill has been having with it. And NO ONE said they're fine with mediocrity from Wallace, so I'm not sure how you pulled that from your arse too. Just b/c some people refuse to scapegoat Wallace for Tannehill's deep problems it does NOT mean we're settling for mediocrity. It's ironic that you speak of isolating each issue as problem 1 and problem 2 but this post of yours suggests you're incapable of such.
It's perfectly rational to put all the blame on Tannehill for problems that are specific to him.... just as it's perfectly rational to blame Wallace for issues that are his. If Tannehill doesn't get rid of the ball in time, it's not Tannehill AND Wallace's fault, it's Tannehill's fault. Ditto for Wallace not fighting hard enough for jump balls. However, Wallace not fighting hard enough for jump balls doesn't change the fact the QB's execution comes first, and that with a more acceptable level of execution on deep balls from Tannehill there'd be less need to put Wallace in severe underthrow jump-ball situations. Like I've said, we didn't bring Wallace here to be a jump ball receiver.
I don't think its a problem specific to Tannehill. I think its Sherman with poor play designs that take too long to develop, Wallace not doing what most great receivers do and changing gears (up or down) during a route, and Tannehill aiming it too much. When all those problems combine you see what we are seeing. The fact that Ryan hits everyone else in stride deep tells me it can't be just him.
So what? His speed got him behind Newman, and the one time Tannehill may have hit him in stride, to prevent it, Newman tripped him.
For that I wanted Vincent Jackson and called for paying him but instead we traded for Brandon Marshall instead. Yeah Jackson had drinking problems but I was rooting for him to kick the habit like Jared Allen. And he did.
I wish you could see how you sound from a third person point of view. I wasn't arguing with you yet you came in guns blazing with all your condescending, aggressive and disrespectful bull**** without any provocation whatsoever. I understand you've been arguing in this thread for a while now, and the issue has aggravated you, but I have not been part of that, so I would expect a little bit more respect from your part. Specially since I pretty much understand your point, even if I don't agree with the details. Like I told you in a past post, you need to cool the **** down ok.
Why is any worse for KB to blame it all on Wallace when it isnt wrong of you to blame it all on Tannehill?
I understand your point but I don't necessarily agree with it. You'd have to show that it's the play design itself that's slow and not Tannehill making it slow. For instance, in this example below, the play design's timing is perfect, but Tannehill shows no urgency with his footwork and it leaves Wallace waiting on the ball rather than catching it in stride for a TD. This isn't the first time I recall this being the case. It's still a great play b/c it's a 57 yard completion, but the execution prevented it from being a TD, and unfortunately the drive resulted in a FG instead. That's a game-changer considering we lost by 4 points. If Tannehill's footwork is what it should've been, we'd be tied and with a last second chance to first win it with a FG rather than a hail mary. http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-fantasy/0ap2000000287574/QB-Tannehill-to-WR-Wallace-57-yd-pass
show me where I've blamed it all on Tannehill, moved goal posts, or created straw arguments. If not then STHU and stop trolling.
yeah he would've been ideal for an offense that frequently underthrows the deep ball. Not to put salt on your wound but Jackson signed with Tampa the day we traded Marshall.
I remember. Really liked the guy. Saw every game since I live in San Diego. A lot, and I mean a lot of Philip River bombs were just throws to a spot, with a defender draped over Jackson. Doesn't matter. Jackson is so big and strong and relatively fast. He's like a slightly undersized TE that plays WR
reread your post that I quoted at #848 above. That gem revolves around not one but THREE ridiculous straw comments despite NOTHING existing to rationalize it. First, you rhetorically asked if people were suggesting Wallace was giving 100% on those underthrows as if people actually indeed said that. {which is BS} Second, you made a straw statement predicated on the false notion that people are demanding perfection from Tannehill on every deep throw. {more Bulls***} Then you concluded with another straw statement predicated on the false notion that people are tolerant of Wallace's play on the jumpballs. {even more BS} so stop your high and mighty facade already. Just stop while you're behind.
Right, we would have to go thtough every pass to assign blame for teach individual play. I would love to, unfortunately I don't have the time and need to generalize based on what I'm seeing develop through the course of the season. Ig soneone else does have the time...mi strongly envourage it. Maybe then we can see what the underlying issue is. Tannehill certainly has been responsible for a few. Howeven on others...like I said, I'm not sure we put hinm in the best position to succeed. Edit. Sorry for the typos, posting from my phone.
Every argument in this thread that supports Mike Wallace is a straw man argument. No one can present one shred of data that proves the problem is Ryan Tannehill and not Mike Wallace, despite the fact that data has been given that shows that Wallace was inefficient at catching the downfield pass in 2012. Of course, that is going to get ignored by the "Mike Wallace is the greatest receiver ever" crowd.
There is context behind stats. Percentages don't tell you how many were poor decisions to throw, how many times Wallace bailed out the QB, how many times he was oopen and the QB missed the mark. The numbers you provided are useless without context IMO.
The thing is the issue is being highlighted precisely because he has been so poor at catching these underthown passes. If he were at least bringing down some of these passes, the deep ball problem would still exist, but it would not be such a huge issue for the team and fans. You have constantly gone after Tannehill because his deep ball miscues with Wallace are leaving points on the field, however Wallace's own inability or unwillingness to fight for and rein in some of these underthrown passes are also costing points and plays. You seem to be more willing to excuse Wallace's shortcoming simply because "that is not what he was brought to do", yet his issue, while IMO is a separate one, is still an important one. Finally though, at least when it pertains to me, your points would come across a little better if you weren't constantly coming at people with your aggressive and condescending tone. I didn't even quote you directly or refer to you, yet you still came at me in this manner. After this, any point you make is tainted by this attitude. It isn't a high and mighty facade when I'm just simply asking you to discuss your points and our differences in a more civil manner.
You are the one who brought up that he never draws PI penalties. That was incorrect. How does it have nothing to do with the conversation? You were wrong so we should just drop it?
This is such bull****. First of all, Phinsational shredded your "Wallace sucks 2012" argument earlier, showing the passing attempt breakdown and how Charlie Batch and others actually took a lot of the snaps that year. As with the Tannehill/Wallace deep passes this year, it would help to watch all of the Big Ben/Wallace throws from 2012 to see what was actually going on as opposed to blindly spitting out stats- we have no idea who was more responsible from the deep ball successes and failures in 2012 (Ben/Wallace, other passers) until we actually watch the plays. Who was inefficient in 2012- Wallace, Roethlisberger, Charlie Batch? As to the Tannehill/Wallace deep ball issue, your argument is all about stats and it's thin, time to take a closer look to actually see what's going on- watch the damn plays. Your quote from above- "Every argument in this thread that supports Mike Wallace is a straw man argument" What? The argument is simple and consistent- Wallace has done a good job of getting open deep this year, but Tannehill has been consistently late at getting the ball to him and the majority of the passes have been underthrown. And although the coaches and Tannehill have said this, the coaches are wrong and Tannehill is lying- and that's your argument, isn't it? Pathetic. A year or two ago I would have never figured you for the b.s. type and now you're shouright II, and that's surprising. Please show me evidence of my positions regarding Wallace and deep passes this year being straw man arguments, you pulled that one out of your ***. And given that you're the straw man king on this thread, that quote of yours makes you a hypocrite as well. Example: "The weak argument here is this idea that Ryan Tannehill struggles so much on deep throws and is the only reason Mike Wallace isn't productive. The burden of proof is on you to prove that Ryan misses wide open receivers more than any other quarterback in the NFL. It's not on me. I've already proven that Mike Wallace is an inefficient deep ball receiver across two consecutive seasons with two different quarterbacks." Classic KB21. This kind of shouright goal post moving and other assorted bull**** is why this thread is so damn long. What a waste of time it is debating an issue with a bull**** artist. At least I'll know better next time.
Vincent Jackson would be way better than Wallace. He can run way more routes, and his deep skills are predicated on being able to go up and get the ball and show some sort of bare minimum effort to come down with it.
That is not what I said I said that going up for the ball when it is underthrown can draw pass interference penalties even if cannot make the catch. You are creating an argument that no one is having
When we traded for Brandon I kept telling people I wish we signed Vincent instead. Save us two 2nd rounders. People argued with me telling me Brandon was top 3 (I disagreed with top 3, more like top 7-8). The only thing was the DUIs. He had too many in too short of a time. It was Brandon's low YPC that made me downgrade him
Like I said- extra gear and ability to run it down, making it easier to hit him in stride if he's not severely underthrown.
I personally think the relationship/timing can only get better....thats goes for Tanne and Wallace. I am glad we have a threat at WR. ...however, just once I would love to see Wallace HIGH POINT the football. I think he could add atleast another 10 catches to his #'s, and yards, and TDs with that approach. I do want Tanne to also work to throw it farther than he is...but that comes with timing and OL giving that time, etc. We know Tanne has the arm strength, and Wallace has the speed and both should be in sync in coming games. Including with offseason, etc. But wish Wallace would attack the high point, use his reach advantage and aide in some completions until Tannehill starts throwing it deeper an deeper.
If Wallace weren't such a bad route runner he probably could've done much better than his disappointing 6 catches for 105 yards and a TD on short to intermediate routes.
