Hickey And Wallace Had A Sit Down To Discuss Future

I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear but that's what I was referring to.

 

And that's where you fail. I know you've argued yourself into a corner so pride is keeping you from clearly seeing this. You keep saying equal footing as if they are racing against each other, with no pads on, and nobody in front of them, and no football behind them coming their way.

If you pick a spot 40 yards away, not only does Wallace get there faster but he's also out of that area even faster. What makes you look even more foolish is look at the video above and just at the 30 yard mark Wallace is already 3 yards ahead of whoever is running the route at the top. Both go routes. That's 9 feet, 10 yards away from the LOS. At the 40 yard mark he's 5 yards ahead of the other WR.

We don't have any WR that run 5.35 40s do we? Because he's blowing that one away.

Wallace is not the first fast WR to enter the game but he's been one the more successful and it just isn't his straight line speed. Look at all of the failed 4.2-4.3 WRs. Where is Heyward Bey, Marquise Goodwin, Yamon Figurs and Jacoby Ford when you need them. Wallace is more talented at getting past the DB than Hartline, and once he's there, he's faster pulling away. He gets to the point he can start fully accelerating, quicker than other receivers.

Keeping harping back to your "race" between Wallace and Hartline in nothing but a speedo and track shoes, I'll just keep watching the games. Take your straight line speed, I'll stick with how well the WR can translate that speed on the field. You're trying to take their times off the field, using a calculator, then assuming on the field results will match. That's absurd. As if they get to run in a straight line from the LOS

Also, whoever said above he doesn't think Wallace can blow a DB away with speed needs to rewatch those first 5 yards.

 

He certainly can do it, especially when he gets the CB off-balance with his route-running, as in the video above, but he isn't the kind of skilled route-runner who does that as his bread and butter. Certainly we shouldn't think that a video of one play provides evidence of the norm with regard to Mike Wallace's game. It shows what he can do, but it doesn't show what he does do, regularly.

 

Nah, that's just the only one I chose to post. There are many, many, others. Anyone who watches the games would know that. In fact, on the last play of the first half he runs by Butler again, this time vs off coverage, and makes a great one handed catch, the type of catch I keep hearing he can't make.

 

Wallace can do what he did in the vid to 90% of the DBs in the league, regularly. The reason it doesn't happen more often is bc teams arent pressing him at the LOS with no safety help as NE did on that play.

 

This literally has next to nothing with what you said, and is only tangentially related to my reply. And you've managed to work yourself into some weird sense of self-righteousness over it that's genuinely bizarre.

You said this:

Mike Wallace is not covering distance so much more quickly than anyone else that it's problematic. It's genuinely ridiculous notion with even a basic grasp of the functional difference in speed.

And again, the thing you're trying to come up with an explanation for has already been covered. Mike Wallace's selling point is on very deep routes, but he's far below average in terms of catch radius on the kind of passes its most helpful. There are statistics and everything that don't require a gross abuse of physics and common sense.

 

What the hell is a "speeding Hartline". I've never seen one, do they sell em at Walmart? Maybe I can find one of I go back to Ohio St...

 

All you really need to do is focus on how DBs play Hartline vs how they play Wallace. How fast is their backpedal, when do they turn their hips? It's night and day.

 

Why does anyone at any point in life need evidence that Mike Wallace is faster than Brian Hartline? Likely, the same folks who claim Hartline is a better deep threat than Wallace....so ridiculous, it's funny.

 

.2 seconds and a calculator.

 

Preach!

On that note lets go head and end the discussion before it gets any sillier...

 

Yeah and in the last couple of games Tanne appeared to be getting better with the deep ball on some throws. He seemed to be finally getting that timing and anticipation and muscle memory, etc, down. It's a shame it was at the end of the season because he'll have to relearn it rather than having the chance to reinforce it more. Hopefully he continues from there and they work on it during the off-seaosn. I think the potential is there. We'll see.

 

Hitting Wallace on a go route is harder than hitting Hartline. You objected to that claim. Bringing up 40 yard dash times. Claiming they'd only be 2 yards different at 40 yards. I call BS, because we're talking in game, not in shorts, and having to beat a DB. Wallace's speed lets him get by the DB easier and earlier. Allowing him to get to full speed earlier and further ahead. I don't even know what you are claiming now. But that's where we started. Whoever that WR is above (it might not be Hartline) is an example of what I'm talking about. Wallace only needs half a full move and he's past the DB 5 yards out. The WR above needed a double move and got around the DB much later.

Wallace is not the crispest route runner but he knows how to get past the DB which is why he's open so much during his career compared to other even faster receivers. You can't look at 40 yard dash time and extrapolate how far two receivers will be down the field. Wallace gets there faster and he's out of there faster.

 

that's what I remember. In the middle of the season they completely stripped the deep ball out of the repertoire. And Lazor did it reluctantly because he wants the chunk play. He needs the chunk play. Just a couple of these a year on top of what we produce already could be the difference.

Remember when we controlled the game against Petyon and Indy and he had the ball 3 minutes the whole game and beat us

 

The argument was never "Hartline is a better deep threat than Wallace." The argument that someone made was "Hartline had more success deep in Miami than Wallace." Those two concepts are not the same. Feel free to continue restating old arguments into things they weren't, though.

 

Oh yeah. I agree and the chunk yardage is huge in sustaining success. You can't slowly matriculate the ball down field all year. That certainly catches up with you and jeopardizes the health of your O, especially the OL. ....and yes, it is certainly more difficult to hit a faster reciver in stride. Arguing that is just foolish.

 

Chunk yardage isn't really 40 yard plays, though. Chunk yardage is 15-20 yard plays. Right in Tannehill's wheelhouse.

 

Lol wut? No it's not. Go ask Lazor.

The dolphins were great at getting in the red zone (I think the best) but terrible at punching it in. That's because we were limited to 15-20 yard plays. That is not a chunk play. At one point in Nov or Dec the longest TD play was from 21 yards, and that was the only TD from outside th red zone. Lazor was asked about this. He said they were both symptoms of the same problem That we could not produce chunk plays. So There are no scores from the 30, 40, our own 40, our own 30. We move slowly into the red zone and then sputter. He said the best way to fix the red zone problem is to not get there in the first place. Score from the 40. Score from the 50. He wants to do it. He just couldn't because of Tanny's limitations.

http://dailydolphin.blog.palmbeachp...lazor-denies-report-says-players-respect-him/

We were 1st in getting into the red zone, but 30th in getting a TD there. That's terrible.

EDIT: Here is a more complete quote:

 

What are you disagreeing with? The chunk play yardage? Or Tannehill being good at intermediate throws? Lazir pulled the deep bombs, remember, though, can't pin that all on Tannehill with all drops early on, but they still were throwing in that 10-20 yard range all season. Tannehill is very good at those. We don't need to start making up criticisms of him.

 

Why u mad doe

 

Wtf are you talking about?

 

So now you disagree with Tannehill being good at intermediate throws?? You've said before that he's good at those.

 

Are you arguing that chunk yardage is only considered over 20 yards?

 

He's not good at intermediate throws...


He is great at them, but what does that's have to do with chunk yardage

 

You said chunk yardage was 15-20 yards, I disagree...

Although it is a loose term I suppose

 

Chunk yardage isn't always 50 yard plays. Lazor talks about "explosive"plays, and lacking them, but I don't think those are the same as chunk plays.

I could be wrong, perhaps Lazor doesn't consider 15-20 yard plays to be chunk plays.

 

http://www.chatsports.com/miami-dol...rtance-of-chunk-yardage-on-offense-2-10502748

There it is...perhaps 15 yards are more.

 

Anyone discussing "chunk yardage" or "explosive plays" may find this informative:

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/...icting-success-wednesdays-with-billick-112812

 

The Dolphins didn't have significantly fewer plays of 21+ yards than the average team in the league in 2014. In fact, they had a greater number of those plays than the Super Bowl champion.

 

So then shouldn't hitting Wallace downfield be easier than hitting Hartline?

If Wallace is open easier and sooner on the play, achieving the necessary separation much faster than Hartline, shouldn't the QB be able to pull the trigger for Wallace sooner than for Hartline, thereby avoiding the impending pass rush?

 

Oh, I certainly don't object to that basic claim.

It's just in reality it's mostly because he can catch the ball outside of the numbers far worse than most deep threats and consequently presents a bad target.

And again, none of what you're saying passes a smell test from a physics standpoint.

Mike Wallace's speed does not make him harder to hit. Not with pads, not with differing accelerations. The scale you're talking about is totally negligible.