Wes Welkers specialty was short passes and yac (IMO). Hartline has never been and never will be a yac receiver .. I don't care who he is playing for...
and why is that exactly? And who is saying this is going to solve our "struggles?" You have a guy who is not performing up to an average level for a starting wide receiver. He should be benched, period. If we were undefeated with his #s, I'd say the same thing.
Can we keep this on Hartline instead of Wallace? Can someone make a case that Hartline should be starting? Thank you and Thank you...
Bill Lazor should do a better job using Hartline, and he should be starting. I'm not sure why we shouldn't be talking about Wallace when it falls pretty much completely under the same umbrella.
It would have been better to pay Greg Jennings, or even better yet not sign a big money FA wide receiver that year and have handled it some other way.
Of course they do... Hartline is on pace for about half the yards as Wallace this season. Wallace is just about pace to catch as many tds this year as hartline does in his entire nfl career. Just about the same all the way around...
I'm not advocating we keep Hartline at his current contract next year, but at very least he's performed up to his contract level at some point. Wallace hasn't and won't. And even as little as Hartline is doing, he's still costing less on a per-yard basis than Wallace by quite a bit. They both should be cut next year.
Is Tannehill having his best season this year, yes or no? How much does Hartline's utilization have to do with that? Hartline had a very solid two years prior to this one. he got his contract. Now, Tannehill and this offense has moved in a different direction and Hartline can't keep up. He's trending the wrong way. So he's either not a fit for this offense or Lazor doesn't know how to use him properly? I don't know about that. I think Ryan has lost some confidence in him. He's dropped some big passes. I think he's lost some quickness out of his cuts because he's got a lower body injury that has been nagging him since the bye. Did we overpay for Wallace? Hell yes. You're going to overpay for the top guys in free agency. But Wallace isn't in danger of being benched because of his performance this year relative to an average starting NFL receiver. Hartline is.
...... to pack his bags maybe. .....the ignition to his car with mapquest's new NFL destination plugged in. .... the lawnmower to trim that spot of grass that tripped him last week. .... to apply for his real estate license.
Agree that it's time to elevate Matthews and Gibson. They just make more happen. Especially after catch. Landry is the #2 guy in my book, regardless of where he lines up. What a pick. As for Wallace, he's a better player than he was in Pittsburgh. He's on pace for career highs despite his particular unique skill - a skill that lends itself to gaudy statistics - not being utilized. I'd say that's performing despite adversity. He's still getting open deep just like in Pittsburgh. I wonder what's different. - posted via Tapatalk -
It's not really some sort of unfathomable magic ritual occurring. Using Hartline better isn't going to compromise the offense. I think you're also wildly overstating the job Lazor has done in general. "You overpay for guys in free agency" doesn't really get you to the point where Wallace's contract is OK. He's got one of the worst contracts in the NFL right now. Tell me they are secretly funneling about half to 2/3rds of it to feed orphans and they've got to hide it because Roger Goodell is an *******. Tell me there's some kind of optical illusion and you're not really paying Mike Wallace what he's actually being paid.
He's performing a lot like he did in Pittsburgh circa 2012. That's not what we're paying him for. Meanwhile, the Steelers keep clicking and has guys stepping up to do what Wallace did.
I got him followed on IG and all that guy does is take photos of himself in a suit on a weekly basis, not sure if he thinks hes Brad Pitt or a football player.
You overpay in free agency. It's basically a given. We paid a premium for something we didn't have. The best part about all of this complaining about contracts, especially wallaces, is that people who have football knowledge LIGHTYEARS ahead of you or me made this deal. Period. That speaks volumes. Keep unreasonably comparing it to other players in different situations, but the fact of the matter is that unless you can lay out a much better plan with better use of the money, with better terms, with or without Wallace, WHILE maintaining his offensive production, there is no point in arguing. Which you cant, realistically, because you dont know if anyone else could be producing in his shoes. He's producing. The conversation would be even more moot if we had a slight semblance of a deep ball.
I will never understand the folks who think Wallace should be gone. If he should be gone, it's not because of his production this year, it should be because he doesn't fit the skillset of our QB. Pittsburgh has found guys to do what Wallace did because they have Antonio Brown, so the other receivers on that squad often have one on one opportunites...not to mention Big Ben throws a pretty great deep ball. Unfortunately, Tannehill does not. Plain and simple. End of story. We see it almost every week. I believe he's completed one over 40 this year, the one in Jacksonville. Before the injuries to the offense, if Tannehill is completes a higher % of those passes, we are an elite offense. Hartline should def be benched. He provides little separation and pretty much nothing past a depth of 12 yards on the football field. The defense knows it and are not generally ready for the slants and occasional comebacks that he runs. It looks like he just isn't a good fit for this offense. I think that we would be much more dynamic starting gibson or matthews w/Landry and Wallace. My two cents
Looking ahead to Thursday night and the Bills. Hartline IIRC will most likely be on the left for most of the game (I'm just going to go ahead and assume he'll start and get his normal reps). Which means he'll be covered by Gilmore. Which means if he catches more than 2 balls for 20 yards I'll be shocked. I wonder if any of the press guys have asked or will ask Philbin or Lazor about Hartline's dramatic drop in production this season?
We're not scoring more points this season than we were last season? Tannehill isn't playing better? The ground game hasn't been better? I'm giving Lazor too much credit by saying these things?
No objections here OP. We need another notch up in the passing game, maybe this is the immediate answer.
The idea that sometimes you pay a premium in free agency doesn't mean that over payment is OK, and no attempts should be made to rectify the situation. Mike Wallace represents about as bad a contract situation as you can get. Nor do I understand why you would do this kind of an appeal to authority in regards to not questioning personnel moves. There's plenty of reason to question it, it's almost certainly correct, and given Jeff Ireland's reputation(correct or not) how is that a good route?
Yes. Utilizing Hartline better does not represent some compromise of Lazor's grand vision, and the offense scoring more points isn't really something that makes him unquestionable.
Well, if there were someone keeping track of the routes he ran the last two years under Sherman and the routes he's running now under Lazor, you're saying it would be a significant switch from routes with Hartline breaking back to the quarterback to routes where he's moving away or parallel to the LOS? Or do I have the routes he runs well incorrectly stated? Do I need to be more descriptive? Maybe you can give me the route tree that he runs better? Because I can go back and chart Lazor's offense for Hartline. not sure about the last two years though.
So far this year, we're paying $2.5 million per Mike Wallace touchdown. We're paying $4.79 million per Brian Hartline touchdown, in comparison. I'll take touchdowns over yards any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Look, Wallace is playing with some heart this year, as opposed to last year. That doesn't change anything, though. He does run poor routes, he does not track well or adjust well to balls, and he doesn't ever lay out for the deep ball. I watched Watkins lay out for a deep ball yesterday for a completion, that same ball to Wallace everyone is complaining about an overthrow. Oh, and he doesn't catch with his hands.
While I am sure many are impressed with the zeal in how you denigrate Wallace, intemperate speech and wild accusations do not further your cause.
