You're right I had forgotten about that throw. Wallace needed to come back to the ball, which is something people say when they're evaluating receivers coming out of college all the time. It's pretty basic. He didn't and so he didn't catch it even though it hit his chest. So you have that play, the play that hit him right on the facemask which was actually really funny, the play where he didn't look back on time and then started flopping while he should have been focusing on the tip drill, you have the fumble, and you have the perfectly catchable deep ball where he shows zero sideline awareness. Oh but he had a wonderful day, because Revis accidentally tipped a ball straight into his hands.
^^^ when wallace watches the film this week, he should see some of these issues - they are easy to see. The delayed search for the tipped ball and the waiting for that pass to hit him instead of stepping into it (Hartline does that well by the way), and i'll even throw in the out of bounds catch. It should be a wake up call that he's not where he perhaps thought he was on the WR totem pole.
Compare it to the play in the Seattle game where the defender went up for the sure pick, but the WR jumped in and broke it up instead of begging for a flag.
Just this weekend I saw receivers doing that a ton. Especially in that Seattle game. Concentration on the football is a thing, and he no haz it. Or at least not consistently. Credit him on the tipped touchdown, even if it did get tipped serendipitously right into his hands.
Quite frankly it would be nice if we were paying $17 million for a wide receiver who did not induce 246 rounds of "who is to blame".
It was a bad throw. It was a gimme TD. CB's never get beat as bad as Revis was beat on the play and when they are, you deliver it with no margin for error. Instead, Tannehill tried to be perfect and made a nervous pass, when there was no FS that could close on the play. Again, WR's are taught to catch the ball first. Tannehill Threw Wallace toward the sideline.
He he f**ked up the entire first half and knew he had to make up for it. Still a Wallace hater but got pretty damn pumped to see him fight for the ball and lower his pads.
Hey...which brings up a good point. Props to the grounds crew. Columbia Brazil Friday night...FAU UM Sat night..and field looked in good shape!
I'm now watching it again on my DVR: There was also that pass where Wallace ran a medium to deep slant out. It was a nice completion, but Wallace had to catch it behind him which prevented him from getting YAC. Had Tanne put it in front of him, like he was supposed to, that could have been an even much bigger play and possibly a long TD. With the defenders tight on Wallace, it had to be ahead of him. It was still a decent play, so I was happy, but it certainly could have a much bigger play. A few plays later, Tanne tries a deep pass to Wallace down the middle. Wallace was COLLEGE OPEN(thanks Sec) and Tanne threw it like five yards too short and it was a pick. Walllace's fault? LOL!
HE caught it and dragged his feet...it was decent technique but a longer WRs feet are inbounds...a slightly better throw and its not necissary...a perfect throw and Wallace is running through the back of the endzone throwing the TD ball into the crowd.
That ball should have been caught in bounds, plain and simple. Also, btw, Tannehill threw that particular ball on the run while being chased out of the pocket, he didn't try to be perfect or make a nervous pass, he tried to make a play and a play was there to be made.
Can you blame Tannehill for trying to get it perfect in stride? Every time he underthrows Wallace by a mere 3 or 4 feet (on a 180 foot throw), Wallace ends up recognizing it late, jerking suddenly and awkwardly to a stop, and either making a catch and going to the ground for no YAC or just not catching the football...and then everyone in the world is like oh there goes Ryan Tannehill underthrowing Mike Wallace again. All professional wide receivers, no matter what they're paid, are supposed to have sideline awareness and are taught to keep their feet inbounds. All of them. From the minimum players all the way up to the $17 million salaried ones. As Dupree said, professionals catch that ball inbounds.
He played with a lot of fire and had the opportunity to catch the ball all over the field. He's the lead dog, so Tannehill needs to keep getting him the ball.
Well one thing is absolutley certain...its amazing how different..different people see the exact same play.
Professionals also don;t throw their WR toward the boundary when he has his man beat by 5 yards and there is no safety to be found.
Sect, I'm pretty sure Tannehill was scrambling right escaping pressure and threw on the move. Can't fault him for the throw not being on an absolute tee. Wallace could and should have kept his feet inbounds.
You can compare him to Roethlisberger and just say...well..he isn't Big Ben... Or you can realize it takes less than 4/10's of a second to set your plant foot and Tannehill has a decent release. It wasn't a "desperate" throw.
That's a great point Sumlit. The play is a bootleg play-action and Tannehill is rolling to his right after the play-fake, and he had a defender breathing down his neck so he had to make that throw all arm on the run without properly setting his feet. And we're talking about Tannehill's throw rather than the fact Mike Wallace has no sideline awareness. Reminds me of this play against the Bucs which everyone blamed on Tannehill for throwing it "out of bounds". It's only out of bounds if you have no sideline awareness.
I might be wrong, I don't have the replay with me, but he was getting chased from behind by a rusher and he just flung it on the move. Don't know if he had time to stop his momentum, plant and throw. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But still, that's a place Wallace should make, regardless of what happened before.
Actually it was because as he turned around off the play-fake he had a guy chasing him and breathing down his inside shoulder. He was completely unable to set his feet and had to throw the ball on the run. If he'd set his feet and stopped, he'd have been hit.
You were correct. Vince Wilfork had seen the play-fake and ran toward where Tannehill was going to set up. To avoid him, Tannehill had to run further to his right and keep running while he threw the ball rather than stop and set his feet.
Actually.....thats exactly what Green said now that I think about it. Im pretty sure he said Wilfork was getting ready to pop him, and he did NOT have time to set his feet and throw...
That's exactly right. I wasn't really listening to the game commentary to be honest. I had the baby while I was watching the game. He couldn't set his feet to throw and had to run further out to the right in order to avoid Wilfork. But hey, that's football. Stuff doesn't go exactly as you draw it up. Tannehill didn't get a perfect setup because a savvy guy like Wilfork read the play-action boot and ran out to Tannehill's spot. You've still got to make the throw. The thing is, he DID. And he didn't underthrow the thing to where Revis could've got back into the play. He threw a catchable football. So now you turn it on Wallace and say hey, that's football. Stuff doesn't go exactly as you draw it up. Your quarterback got pressured, couldn't set his feet, had to throw on the run and the ball is about 3-4 feet wider than it ideally should be on this 160 foot throw. It's still inbounds and you still have the opportunity to make the catch and get your feet in. He DID NOT do that. It's been mentioned about seeing very different things on the same play but I think both of us acknowledge Wallace didn't get it 100% right and Tannehill didn't get it 100% right. Where we differ is the relative "size" or significance of the two mistakes. Wallace's mistake was much, much, much, much bigger.
and that might be why Ben Roethlisberger completes deep balls. As for the throw being "desperate" . What we may think is desperate and difficult really isn't for professional quarterbacks.
How I see it is.....given the variables of the play...throwing on the run....not getting the time to set your feet, Tannehill threw a ball that was good enough to get caught. It wasnt perfect, but ... Are we only looking for receivers that can catch the ball when its thrown perfectly to them? Go back and look at most NFL game tapes yesterday....look at the QBs completions and tell me how many were perfect? Less then 10%?
Ok so you think getting the ball about 3 or 4 feet wider than ideal on a 160 foot throw at a dead run with Vince Wilfork breathing down your neck is a worse sin than a receiver catching a ball that came down inbounds and stepping out with his feet rather than making sure to keep his feet inbounds. Got it. Moving on.
This is the point that SO MANY people overlook whenever we get into one of these Mike Wallace debates. Literally I would suggest people do exactly what you say watch those other receivers do it for other teams and tally up how often those receivers have it "perfect". Or hell just watch Tom Brady complete a deep underthrow to Julian Edelman against the Dolphins, but it not end up looking like an underthrow because Julian Edelman actually (*GASP*) found and adjusted on the ball in the air.
Tannehill has an accuracy problem with the long ball he has a below average completion rate with those passes. That's what the stats, coaches, and pundits say. He needs to continue to improve on his inconsistancies and accuracy. It was show that he could throw balls through moving hoops at various distances and so he was picked 8. When you add pads and pressure, from what I see, he has been inconsistent with various throws, not just the deep pass.
How about we accept they both made a mistake on the play. Why is it just one or the other. Both are to blame. Throw that could have been better, catch that should have been better.
Everything you just stated agrees 1000% with what I've stated about the play in this thread. Especially your choice of "could" versus "should" at the end.