Not only has he done that the last 2 games, hes done it against really good defenses. (albiet the front 7s are good, DBs are lacking)
What's funny is that all of you have seen the results so far with Mike Wallace in Miami. He's not a #1 receiver, which is very apparent. Still, you try to say that I am wrong about him. He's still a piss poor route runner that is not a good fit in a timing oriented passing game. Just remember that I told you all this would be the case BEFORE he was signed. In fact, I was listening to sports talk radio the other night, and they were talking about being wary of players that the Pittsburgh Steelers don't keep. They discussed Mike Wallace and what a disappointment he has been considering the contract he got. The bottom line is this. If you are a receiver and get paid as much as Mike Wallace does, you better be able to do everything in the offense.....i.e....run a complete route tree to precision, catch everything that comes your way, make plays on passes that are outside of your natural catching frame, block for the running game, play all three positions....etc. Miami could have signed Ted Ginn Jr for a lot less money and gotten the same impact that Mike Wallace is currently having.
thats ridiculous. Ginn is a beneficiary of Steve Smith, Brandon Lafell, Greg Olsen and a spy on Cam Newton opening him up to have DECENT numbers in Carolina. He would NOT have that same success here. Defenders would have time and resources to account for Ginn on the Dolphins. Ill do you one better. Mike Wallace would be having a BETTER year if he replaced Ginn in Carolina.
Every point of the specifics of your own argument against Wallace in this thread have been blown out of the water and all you can come back with is this? Weak bro. Weak. I now have to refer to that clip of Seinfeld which GM posted as my last feeling. Get some rest. Peace!
TBF, his thing about Ginn has nothing to do with how he's playing this year. He's simply saying all Wallace brings is speed and that's all Ginn has to bring as well and we could have got that speed cheaper. Whether he's right or wrong, I don't know, but that's what he meant with that statement.
Hes wrong. Ginn has never had the success with his speed as a WR as Wallace. It proves him wrong because Ginn has nothing but speed, Wallace has more success so hes more than JUST speed obviously.
When has it been blown out of the water? No one has provided any statistical evidence of any impact that "drawing coverage" has had on this team, nor any statistical evidence that proves me wrong about his route running.
Well back to the original posters point and the point of the thread....yes it looks like Mike and Tanny are getting comfortable so he is heating up....and looking a lot closer to the guy we thought we signed.
interesting point considering Pittsburg tried to re-sign Wallace but couldnt. So, I guess you can say that is about a useless point.
The guy has consistently gotten open deep through out the season. The reason he doesnt have better stats is because Tannehill has not been able to deliver the ball to him. You can argue everything you want to argue but the fact of the mater is he has been open Tannehill has not got him the ball. PERIOD..
Tannehill has gotten him the ball plenty of times. Wallace simply hasn't made plays on the ball. That has been proven.
Sure, I did a couple of posts ago and GM showed you a picture. All you need is your eyes for that one bro. As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm reaching that point my man. You're obviously unable to admit when you are wrong, but it really doesn't matter to me. It's cool. Rock on!
But that is not what you have been arguing in this thread. The last three pages have been about whether Wallace's presence on the field alters the way defenses play and creates openings for other players. Its a simple question that has nothing to do with his contract or whether he is a complete WR. Despite photo evidence of safeties playing deeper and cheating to Wallace's side of the field, you keep saying its not having an impact on our offense. I know you are a smart enough guy to know that simply isn't true. Sure we could have signed a guy like Ginn to a much lower contract to also stretch the field and that would have helped to a degree (I actually think one of Ireland's bad decisions was to trade Ginn after signing Marshall but that's another story) but Wallace wasn't signed to just be a decoy. We also signed Wallace for his ability to make big plays and yes that is where he has not been earning his money but I think that has a lot to do with an OL that hasn't been able to give Tannehill the necessary time to go deep often enough.
This offense doesn't want the #1 mentality on the football team, that's why they dumped Marshall, a move that I agree with, Wallace doesn't seem like Marshall in that regard and seemingly understands that the offense is a progression offense and getting targeted or being a decoy is just as important..I think he also understands that when he doesn't get the ball he's aware that he has an affect on the offense.. What he isn't...he's not a jump ball receiver, and he's not a polished route runner..some of the route running will always sacrifice so that he can engage his speed in unique ways, I think a happy medium can be found, and continued refinement.. He's in his first year in the offense, if he helps us make this playoff run, then his game may of been the difference to us making it.. Can we just wait til the seasons over man for all this speculation, if we don't win 3 of four, then we can speculate on firings and sh&$.
Mike Wallace has not regressed as a player, he is what he is..the offense coaches want him to adapt his game and they want to take advantage if his explosive speed within the scheme, basically extendeding the schemes circumference while sacrificing a little refinement.. Rothlisberger is a great Qb, Ryan has a ways to go to be able to trust his eyes and just throws it.
It's the same thing some of you said about Brandon Marshall. That his presence on the field has an impact. All I am asking is to measure it then. If there is an impact, it can be measured in an objective stat. I have already provided evidence that Mike Wallace's presence on the field has not improved the numbers of the other receivers on this team. Yet, you want to continue to think that because teams respect his deep speed, it has this MAJOR effect on the game. It doesn't. It has an effect, but that effect is minimal.
and we've seen vice versa... Lets give it some time..we might make the playoffs..you leave yourself no room for that positive equation.
I can't answer for manis but by no means do I think Marshall's skillset puts the same fear and have the same effect, same spacing principles as Wallace could have.. Marshall is a big bodied possession receiver who lacks speed..lacks a lot of speed.
Again, he's saying all Wallace has brought to us is speed. Wallace has been successful in Pitt, but he hasn't been particularly successful here. The small success he has had here is due to speed. I don't think anyone is arguing that Wallace has been more successful then Ginn in the past.
One could say the OL sucks this year worse than last yes? Even with a known bad running game and OL, Ryan Tannehill is averaging 259.6 yards per game verse last years 205.9 yards per game. That shows direct improvement in a passing game from some where.
If all Wallace brought is speed. Then we can sign usain bolt and get the same production (based on what hes saying)....I am saying based on Wallace and Ginn having comparable speed and Wallace having a wayyyyyy better career proves Wallace brings MORE THAN just speed.
I have already provided better evidence which shows you are wrong. "Just when I thought I was out, he pulls me back in".
I mean, if you pay a WR 60mill, your QB's numbers sure as sh-t better go up some. Tannehill's averaging 8 more attempts per game this year than last as well. Bad run games make you throw the ball more, too. And generally guys improve from their rookie years. But in the end here, there are too many variables to harp on this stuff, imo, no one's going to change their mind even after all this debating. Let's just win some games.
Well, he is no longer a rookie and has more experience, so that is part of it. He's also throwing 7 more passes per game than last year, which obviously impacts passing yards per game. His yards per attempt is virtually the same as last year (6.8 v. 6.9) and his yards per completion is down from last year. This issue has been discussed for years and I've yet to see any remotely compelling evidence that one receiver improves the performance of the others or of the passing game overall (beyond what that receiver actually does when he catches the ball). The Dolphin passing game didn't really improve when Marshall came here and it didn't really get worse when he left. Same with Wallace. Wallace does do a great job of getting open deep and fortunately, we have been looking for him deep more in recent weeks. Obviously, if he catches a bunch of deep passes that makes the passing game's production much better. But I don't think there is much, if any, indication that it really opens up the middle of the field for the other receivers. On passes in the middle of the field between the LOS and 20 yards past the LOS, Tannehill's completion percentage and ypa is pretty much the same this year as last year. The small improvement (from 67.4% to 69.7% and from 7.55 ypa to 7.8 ypa) is likely due to Tannehill's development and improvement from raw rookie to 2nd year starter.
And how do you effectively measure that? The RBs are different. Most of the OL is different. You can't just plop the numbers down versus last year and say "here, here's the quantified effect". It doesn't work that way. You must know better than that. The question is, if you took Mike Wallace out of THIS year's offense, how would it have performed? Who knows, that's nothing more than a hypothetical. One other troubling aspect of your argument is that you consistently downplay how often Wallace has been wide open deep, and how effected his stats have been by less than stellar deep throws. If the deep throws were better against the Panthers, and granted if Wallace caught the hail mary at the end of the game which he should have, could Wallace have have around 250 yds receiving and 3 touchdowns? I think so. Forget the stats for a minute and look at the film- as imperfect as Wallace is as a receiver, if RT threw quality deep balls this year to Wallace as Ben Roethlisberger has done in the past, and if Tannehill were as good at buying time in the pocket, Wallace's stats would be totally jacked up as compared to what they are now. And is the OL somewhat to blame for Tannehil often experiencing a lack of time to get the ball deep to Wallace? Of course.
The idea that a receiver has this much effect on the game is one of those traditional thoughts that the NFL has, and advanced statistics have pretty much shown that a lot of traditional thoughts in the NFL are bunk. What we have at hand here is blame shifting. The team signs a receiver for big money....fans believe that said receiver will improve the offense by more than a TD per game....the offense doesn't improve....fans refuse to admit that receivers don't have the impact they think they do and shift the blame to someone else....blame goes to coaching staff for "not using receiver properly" and quarterback for "not being able to get him the ball". The fact of the matter is, receivers are in general little more than shiny hood ornaments. The elite receivers aren't the difference between winning and losing in the NFL, and the large majority of receivers are interchangable. If I were running a NFL franchise, the receiver position would have the lowest percentage of the salary cap devoted to it on the entire team, with the exception of punter, place kicker, and long snapper. The players that would get the bulk of the money on my team are the quarterback, pass rushers, cover guys, and pass blockers.
Please answer the question- with so many moving parts on the offense as per the changes at Rb and the OL from last year, how can you effectively measure the difference that Wallace is making? Offensive line in shambles for most of the year, no Reggie Bush- do these things not matter in your view of the situation? Put Jake Long at LT, Martin at RT and Incognito back at OG, with Reggie Bush at RB, then we can talk. But that ain't gonna happen. There are no true comps, just hypotheticals or weak year over year comparisons that don't add up, because the parts are different this year. What I'd like to see as a viable statistic- how many times has Wallace gotten deep on the DB covering him this year? How does that compare to Dolphins players of previous years? You can define getting open deep as one yard past, 2 yards, 5 yards, whatever makes sense. The point really is, to what exptent did Wallace do his job, provide scoring opportunities? That strikes me as a reasonable, measurable stat. And given that the OL was better last year than this year and the QB is the same (granted a rookie last year) I'm particularly interested in how often the 2012 Miami WRs actually got open deep. Wallace certainly has his flaws, but to deny that he's created his share and then some of scoring opportunities this year is nonsenscial to me.
OMG!!! It's not just about completion percentages. Hardly. Already explained a few posts back. Look at Tds!!!
I wish people would stop looking at cherry picked plays and say see if this person did this on that play we would have ......xyz. football is an accumulation of plays, some made some not. Yeah if RT threw 1 better deep ball or if Wallace made a better route adjustment we could have another td. But one action causes other actions, some of you are certain that of the decisions, plays , results would remain the same. You can't say that 2 deep balls in 2nd & 3rd qtrs cost is the game when we had them 4th n 10 less than 3 minutes deep in theory own territory . Any combination of things went wrong that could have changed outcome and not all are on RT. The fact is you point out his misses but take for granted his successes. And you trivilialize that the deep ball is a highly inaccurate pass by nature.
I think the problem is that people overrate how valuable getting open deep actually is. Tannehill isn't great throwing deep, but he certainly isn't bad either. He is average at it IMO. But its such a low-success type of throw, that its going to fail a lot more than it succeeds. Saying that if RT did what Ben Roethlisberger does is indicative of the problem here. Ben Roethlisberger is a once in a lifetime type player. He is one of the greatest QBs at buying time in the pocket. You can't reasonably expect another QB to do what he does.
Common sense doesn't add up well when there is so much more involved than being able to stick a number on the outcome. Not pointing any fingers here either.
He'd better improve on throwing deep, and quick. The deep ball might be a low risk throw in general, but when a WR gets open in a major way, it should be a higher percentage play. If Rt and the OL are struggling as per deep balls, that's not Wallace's fault. His job is to get open, catch the ball and make the play. He can't make the throw as well. This offense has had problems scoring points this year- deep balls to Wallace can provide a quick - very quick- fix to that. I think that RT and Wallace getting on the same page as per deep balls should be an offensive priority. The OL has to block better and RT has to stop underthrowing deep balls, bottom line. There's nothing wrong at all with RT hitting Wallace in stride with a deep ball, I haven't seen nearly enough of that.
