Mike Wallace's Effect on Ryan Tannehill's Downfield Passing

Also for the numbers geeks, you do realize that "20 Yds in the air" factors in the drop back which is normally 5-8 yards behind the LOS. So in some cases all it takes to reach that number is a 12yd completion. Yet, it's being factored in with the "deep ball".

Sucks but what ya gonna do?? It's a public site.

 

He has adjusted his game to help Ryan, and things have been going well....he will make 5M less next season so maybe that will help tame the Wallace haters and their obvious agenda.

Actually? Not likely

 

Tune in on Sunday's.

 

It's worth noting that both Wallace and Hartline are statistically having their CAREER WORST year regarding 20+ yard receiving this season under Lazor. So perhaps certain lamentations are being misdirected.

 

i think wallace is just out of place in this offense but i think for the most part he has made the best of it. there have been times it seemed like he gave up on a play but there was many more times where he fought and had crazy second effort to score a td or make more yards after a catch. hartline to me anyway looks like he lost a step and just looks old.

 

I don't know and it's probably me... but Wallace has scored 10 TD's this year and it was not Hartline...

Hartline has scored a total of 12 receiving TDs in the 6 years he has been here... it comes down to who is the playmaker to score points on receptions and not just yards as a measuring stick... only in Fantasy Football do they give points for yards, I assume...

 

Wallace is now a more complete receiver, I think next season we are going to see something special.

 

Context. In 2012 I'd wager that over 50% of the yards came against Arizona and Oakland. Hartline was abysmal even in his 1000 yard seasons. I'll never understand the love for him.

Also if you look around the league deep ball accuracy fluctuates as much, if not more, than any other statistic. It's highly common to have the best deep passer one year be in the bottom third the next. A three year sample, one without Wallace, is indicative of absolutely nothing.

 

This ^

 

I don't see how you've proven the long game won't be rectified going forward.

 

Um....you tell me.......

....cause I made my post because that ^ certainly seems like you predicting the future, no?

 

Mike Wallace is not a football player who's fast, he's a fast guy who plays football. His lower body isn't as strong as I'd like it to be. His technique in almost every area is sloppy. Developing Mike Wallace into a better WR at the NFL level is risky business in my opinion. I think it's going to be an uphill battle all the way.

However, Ryan Tannehill is far from perfect himself. He has issues feeling pressure and understanding how to scramble and sustain plays. He also hesitates too often to push the ball down-field and take shots. He's conservative which has helped keep the INT numbers down this year while keeping the Completion Percentage up, HOWEVER, part of being a big-time offense means taking those risky shots because they change the outcome of games.


Go watch a highlight reel of Aaron Rodgers throwing to Jordy Nelson. In that reel you'll see Rodgers display a level of accuracy and willingness to sling it deep that Tannehill will probably never have. You'll also notice that Wallace will never have Jordy Nelson's legs/butt (jumping ability), hands, and overall attention to detail in running his routes.

But I do see Rodgers rolling out and I do see Nelson getting behind the Safeties. Why aren't we doing that? If you're throwing the ball 50 yards down-field you'd better have elite pocket protection or an athletic QB who can scramble to evade pressure. We've seen GB and NE benefit from the former. We've seem Pittsburgh and Seattle benefit from the latter. Why can't we? Until we start rolling Tannehill out of the pocket and start deliberately taking risky shots down-field when we have chances, we're never going to get close to seeing the potential of Mike Wallace.

I think we're incredibly lucky to have gotten 10 TDs out of him this year. It took exceptional effort and a couple monumental catches to do that. In other words, we were lucky this year and we're probably not going to get 10 TDs out of Wallace every year. However, the yardage is a problem and it's not going to get better until we can start taking more shots.

When someone looks at Mike Wallace and complains that he's not enough of a physical possession receiver, it makes about as much sense as complaining that your new Lamborghini doesn't seat five. I don't see why we're throwing to him behind the line of scrimmage and taking 10-yard chunks when the CB is playing off. I understand it's easy to do that and those are low-risk throws (which is maybe why Tannehill looks so smart this year) but it's not going to get Mike Wallace the big yards that we all want him to get.

It's not going to lead to 10 TDs being a sustainable number. Now if we pushed the ball down the field more often, who knows if 10 TDs would be sustainable or not? In order to find out we have to be more aggressive than we were in 2013 or 2014. Those two guys have been together long enough that Tannehill needs to be slinging it deep much more often than he is.

Mike Wallace is not Jordy Nelson. He doesn't have the hands or the lower body to do what a true #1 WR should be able to in this offense. I think he was acquired with Philbin probably saying to himself, 'he's not ever going to be perfect, but he's young and athletic and we can develop him in the direction of what we want in a WR.' I'm pretty much okay with that. I think the Dolphins have successfully pushed Mike Wallace in that direction and he's become a more well-rounded WR than he's ever been.

The problem is, that isn't good enough if it's at a cost of not getting the deep ball too. He was elite in 2009-2011 and we certainly need to put him in a position to replicate those kinds of elite numbers again. He's the most outstanding WR on this roster BY FAR.

After watching the Dolphins this year, I don't think it's reasonable to say that Tannehill or Wallace are problematic. The offense is simply not aggressive enough.

 

Can't say I noticed.

 

Routes, routes, routes.

Hartline ran mostly outs and comebacks, Wallace runs more go routes, completely different throws.

 

The 14.6 ypc is impressive. I'll grant you that. We took lots of shots down the field in the 30-40 yard range and Hartline did a wonderful job of catching those and getting his feet down. Out of the 16 games, Hartline had 8 games with a catch that went for 25+ yards. I don't care who you are, that's a pretty impressive stat, isn't it? And we all know that those yards didn't come on YAC!!!

And it's not like this guy didn't have a great relationship with Tannehill at one point. There IS a reason why we gave him a big contract: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gCG2TFAaw4

Why are we not doing more of that I would ask? Why are we not throwing more quick outs to Hartline? Well, that's Bill Lazor's fault honestly.

I certainly thought that Hartline would improve within this offense as Mike Wallace took up the duties of facing the oppositions #1 CB. What I didn't account for were the reduced targets and the fact that Hartline is a backside read that generally comes AFTER Wallace and Clay/Sims -- an unfortunate fact that generally negates his above-average route running ability inside 15 yards.

Bill Lazor clearly circled Wallace as "the guy" when he implemented this offense. I'm pretty sure that Lazor thought to himself, 'this is my Desean Jackson and I'm going to throw the ball to him as much as I possibly can.' I can kind of understand that because Wallace clearly has the bigger upside over Hartline, and it's pretty easy to get 1000 yards and 5 TDs if you just jam the ball in his general direction enough times. But at the end of the day, that has hurt our offense as a whole because we've asked Wallace to do things he not very good at and we've completely forgotten about Hartline.

The 10 TDs is a sign of how often we look to Mike Wallace down in the red-zone even though he's not really an ideal target. For example, Wallace made an amazing catch against Buffalo but that probably wasn't a throw I'd like to see us making on a regular basis. Wallace doesn't have the size, the physicality or the hands to reliably make contested catches like that. Neither does Hartline for that matter! They are both abysmal options for a QB to have down in the red-zone as far as I'm concerned.

If that play was Lazor's doing then F you Bill Lazor! 99% of the time, that play design with that personnel is going to FAIL.

The point is that when we have looked to our outside WRs to make a play, it's generally been Wallace that has been given the opportunity and thus while his yardage still stinks to high heaven, his TD total is at least come up. And if you want to know who has more upside, consider that in 2014 Wallace will have 10 or more TDs while in 2012 (a supposed break-out year) Hartline only had 1.

I could cite lots of examples--the throw against Minnesota to the outside on which Wallace made a great catch securing the ball and diving into the end-zone. That throw should NEVER have been made. Not only was it a bad decision by Tannehill, but Wallace was entirely covered and a better CB would've likely made that a pick-6. Now, Wallace actually made that play into a TD, which I doubt Hartline could ever do which is why I at least reserve a bit of hope for our offense as it is.

However, we're not properly (or optimally) using either Wallace or Hartline. Both should be getting more down-the-field opportunities. Clearly Wallace's speed warrants it and I agree to some extent that Hartline 2012 season shows he has potential. At the end of the day, we have forgotten just how clutch Hartline was and how often he came down with the ball on those toss-ups down the sideline. During that season, Hartline absolutely made the best of his chances and I quite frankly would like to know why Bill Lazor hasn't done something more with Hartline.

Now, I don't want to go overboard here on glorifying Hartline. I want to put something in perspective. How good was Hartline in 2012? Look at the 3 outlier performances:

258 yards against Arizona. 111 yards against Oakland. 107 yards against Indy.

In just 3 games, we can account for some 43.5% of his overall yardage output that season -- and yes, that accounts for his ONLY touchdown that year as well. That's absolutely LUDICROUS. So while the 14.6 ypc is very good, the overall production of 1083 was blown way out of proportion with those 3 performances. If we take away only the best, the 258 against Arizona, you'd see a yardage total was around 850-900 yards.

So while the 14.6 is a great number, Hartline was really fortunate to get to 1083. And if we don't include the explosion of offense in Arizona, we're left with 1 catch for over 40 yards and 0, count 'em 0, TDs.


I like Hartline a lot but he's clearly not being used optimally by Lazor and as a result we cannot pay him $6M.

 

I will take Wallace over Hartline any day of the week and his 10 TOUCHDOWNS with one game to go..I think they will have an even better year next year after mini camp and training camp I think the deep ball will be with us..and I am not considering those in the 20 & 30 yard range to be deep balls..I am considering the 40 yarders plus hitting Wallace in stride as the deep balls.

 

Wallace is a certified score on any play WR, he's generally treated and defended as such. Hartline is a poss WR and is defended in an entirely different way.

You bring up Hartline in 2012, but that was one season out of 6 and a large chunk of that deep yardage came on two plays vs Arizona in week 4 IIRC, one on a double move the other on a blown coverage. He's definitely not facing cloud, sky, or deep shell looks regularly the way Wallace is.

 

How can you make a case for or against anyone in a year when the offense hasn't done anything to push the ball down the field?

In my opinion both Hartline and Wallace have underachieved in Bill Lazor's offense considering their potential and their past accomplishments.

This is an issue with Bill Lazor, not with Wallace or Hartline or Tannehill.

Those footballs players don't control the scheme and the problem is inherent to the scheme.

 

Indeed. Wallace and RT should have better production and efficiency once the O as a whole improves. What was missing this year was a consistent run game, as well as pass pro once Albert went down. Should RT improve his pocket managing that will help as well.

For his part Wallace needs to continue to refine his route running, become more of a threat on the short to intermediate throws. I'd love to see him running more posts, digs and shallow crosses, but those routes are not used much in the offense(s) we've run since he's been here.

 

Show me balls that travel 30+ yards in the air. 20+ is not a deep ball. That skews the numbers.

 

Ok, so what are you proposing exactly?

Gun to your head, you're acting as the GM...what decision do you make?

over the next 3 seasons, Hartline's cap hits are going to be $5-7M while Wallace's are $10-12M.

 

Is this real life?

 

A) What are you going to do with Hartline if Wallace stays?

B) What are you going to do with Hartline if Wallace goes?

C) What are you going to do to replace Hartline if he goes?

D) What are you going to do to replace Wallace if he goes?

E) Does Wallace have any incentive to restructure his contract?

 

How about finding a WR who is a threat in his own right instead of a guy like Hartline who's basically dependent on favorable converges and matchups? Wallace has shown he can be productive even when his primary role as a deep threat is taken away for the most part. Hartline needs to do the same or make way for someone else Imo.

 

A cut him. B cut him. C none whatsoever.

Paying Wallace 12 per season is probably not a good idea overall but that was fair market value for a top FA WR. If we cut him we'll eat the bonus, we have no viable replacement and Wallace will get similar money elsewhere.

 

I can't Fist Bump you enough for that so I won't even try!