Hal Habib article on Jimmy Cefalo quotes on Wallace/Parker/Tannehill "Jimmy Cefalo, former Dolphins receiver, longtime Miami sportscaster and radio voice of the team, fired away on Wallace, saying that during commercial breaks in the booth last season, the talk was, “Can’t he run a pass pattern?”" "“You had to throw a perfect pass or he was done with,” Cefalo said of Wallace. “I think he’s (Parker is) going to make some catches off non-perfect throws that every wide receiver should make. It also is about setting it up, making it an easier throw for the quarterback. And Wallace never did that.”" "“I think he’s going to make some of those catches, because they’re not always a perfect pass, and that doesn’t make it a bad pass, either,” Cefalo said, pointing to outside factors that can hamper a QB’s ability to deliver the ball on target. “Some people have a better knack of throwing a long ball, but he got an unfair rap because I thought that Wallace didn’t give a lot back in return. It’s got to be a real giving relationship between the quarterback and wide receiver.”" "“I don’t think the final book is written on how well Ryan Tannehill can throw a deep ball,” Cefalo said."
Exactly my thoughts...like seeing a pro agree, even if we could both be wrong, it's just how I saw him and was glad to see him and his salary ease on down the road.
Second pass on this video is nowhere near perfect yet Wallace still caught it. A perfect pass would have hit Wallace in stride as he walked into the endzone. Fact is Wallace was so wide open a "competitive pass" was all that was needed. Myth debunked. [video=youtube;dNLTdNxhFvw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNLTdNxhFvw[/video]
Happens to every QB in every game every Sunday. And I have seen the top QBs make some horrible throws it happens. Some people need to watch other games and not just highlights
Wait, you're telling me Ryan Tannehill actually missed his receiver on a couple of throws? That's almost like suggesting NFL quarterbacks don't always complete all their passes.
I'd wager to guess because it's the Dolphins team network, and not a nationally syndicated show. So they may have had directions to not talk negatively about a player or the team.
lol, I love people posting this video as their "proof" in either direction. Theres some plays Tannehill straight misses, and theres some plays where Wallace gives up or displays utterly pathetic effort on the catch. Even on your cited second pass he just kind of slows and waits for it to hit him in the breadbasket. Go to 0:53 - he again just waits for the ball to get to him and hit him in the breadbasket. Thats the kind of throw guys like Dez and OBJ go up and get, over the top of the DB. At the least come back into the ball and draw the PI. This was what annoyed me with Wallace. 1:36 - same as above. We have the same condition - sure it could have been deeper. Maybe it shouldnt have been off of a PA pass, etc. etc. But no matter how you cut it - the ball was heading to him. This is MIKE WALLACE'S opportunity to make a play. Be the big man #1 receiver. And whats he do? Flail and wait for the ball to get to him. Now that said - he did better last year to occasionally fight for tougher / contested catches, but its still overall pathetic attempts / percent of passes for a supposed "#1 receiver". I'll also be the first to say Tannehill blew some passes (first in the video for example). Point of my rant? Trying to use this video as proof either way is stupid. I give more credit to Tannehill taking hits and pushing it deep, than I ever could give Wallace credit for fighting for tough balls.
lol. Yeah that one time. Also, how do you know Wallace was where he needed to be at that point in the route? How do you know Tannehill's job wasn't to throw to a spot and not the receiver?
Answer this question: Do you or do you not think Devante Parker's catch radius is larger than Mike Wallace's?
Has it ever crossed your mind that the coaches didn't say anything publicly about Wallace in an effort to avoid the spoiled baby, diva act? Like the one we saw at the end of last season? How do you think Wallace would have reacted to being publicly criticized by his coaches? Realistically, people are making more of the things that have been said in regards to Tannehill by the coaches, than the statements have warranted. Just my opinion, of course.
I listened to Phil Simms talk about Tannehill's long ball yesterday on Sirius. He also questioned whether Wallace was always in the right spot or not. and also whether other WRs could have caught those balls. People keep standing on one side or the other of this pendulum. Truth is, Tannehill wasn't timing it very well on some of those passes with the single go route for someone as fast as Wallace and Wallace certainly wasn't going up and fighting for the ball like a true #1 WR should be doing. There were quite a few of those passes that Megatron, AJ Green, J Nelson and many other WRs would have come down with the pass. Wallace needs the pass to be right on the money. That's unacceptable for a 60 million dollar WR and it's why he's gone.
Let's stop thinking deep for just a second. Maybe I'm wrong but, I kept noticing that Wallace wasn't catching the ball cleanly even on a lot of his short and intermediate routes. It was like he was fighting the ball no matter where he was on the field. Kinda like Brian Hartline but, without the falling down part.
Not good enough? How about Philbin and Tannehill? http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/nfl/miami-dolphins/article1957644.html And there is a Lazor quote out there that's buried in one of the chat threads in the Club, I've posted it before. Wallace is NOT alpha WR. Just pointing out those who question if it's Wallace rather than Tannehill need to realize it's probably both. Lazor and Philbin after two weeks of the season praised Wallace for catching two contested TDs, yet people in this tread say if it's not at the end of the needle Wallace isn't going to catch the football. That's just ridiculous. http://www.phinmaniacs.com/news/mike-wallace-draws-the-praise-of-joe-philbin-and-bill-lazor I really like how blunt Lazor is. No sugar coating with him. EDIT: Okay here is one: http://dailydolphin.blog.palmbeachp...ppointed-with-a-lot-of-the-play-in-bears-win/
I don't get this. Okay he isn't worth $12 million, but the Tannehill to Wallace connection produced 10 TDs and a 114 rating between the two of them on all attempts, good enough for 4th in the whole NFL I'm told. How is that not a great connection??? Sure, it could be better. A couple more TDs,a couple more bombs, and Tanny'd already be considered top 10 with a bump in rating to the mid or upper 90s probably.
If you could post the chart that you guys use to dictate when Philbin/Sherman are geniuses who know what they are talking about and when they don't know what they are talking about because they are idiots, I'd appreciate it. I find it hard to keep up with when I should or shouldn't respect their opinion. And Wallace does have a small catch radius. This is not new. It is not ridiculous. Wallace is a poor route runner. This is not new. It is not ridiculous. Wallace did improve last year about fighting for the ball. I even made a thread stating such. I've seen most people defending Tannehill, say he needs to improve his downfield accuracy, but Wallace needs to improve X, Y & Z. What I haven't seen very much of, is people who defend Wallace say he needed to improve anything. In fact their argument is almost exclusively, "He was open." As if that is the beginning and end of the WR's job.
I think there are other QB's that can take advantage of what Wallace offers skill-wise better. Tannehill seemed to be off in his timing to Wallace (you yourself just posted evidence of that) and just isn't that good at the long arching deep ball where he lets the WR go get the ball. Wallace isn't a good possession receiver that can run precisely timed routes with a good catch radius. Skill-wise, I just don't think they are good complements to each other. The production issue depends on which stats you look at. So many threads showed evidence Tannehill's deep ball problem was mostly with Wallace by focusing on certain relevant, but not all-inclusive stats, while you focus on others. Regardless of the stat argument, I find it hard to argue they complemented each other's skill sets well.
10 TDs sounds like he did an okay job of catching the ball. 114 rating sounds like he did okay. Tanny's rating to Wallace was higher than his rating to anyone else, and higher than Tanny's own rating. Wallace improved Tanny. That is all.
This is all pretty weak evidence, all in all. I mean seriously, the first quote from Mike Sherman pertained to one game, and it was also worded ambiguously for a reason because he was including instances where the OL didn't block well enough or decisions by Ryan Tannehill to throw underneath in the talk about not getting the ball to Wallace. And you're really going to cite a player talking about how he's got to do better? If you've been following the sport long enough, and I'm pretty sure you have, then you know that most players (especially the good ones) will blame themselves about 95% of the time a play goes wrong. Or at worst they'll shift the focus of the conversation back to what they could have done better. That's the mindset that is instilled into them from youth. Oh and coaches never praise receivers that they wish would play better. That never happens.
Truth is, Jimmy Cefalo is absolutely correct. There's a reason Tannehill had better chemistry with other receivers on the team as opposed to Wallace. If you have some appreciation for sample size issues then you know how something as simple as two or three plays where Mike Wallace inexplicably catches the ball with a foot out of bounds can screw up percentages. That happened at least twice on ultra deep passes. Then you've got other instances where Wallace runs his route to where Tannehill has a tiny window into which to throw, exactly what Cefalo is talking about. It does not take much to screw up percentages with these sample sizes and these variances. Tannehill is above average throwing deep to anyone not named Mike Wallace, and he's below average throwing deep to Mike Wallace, which makes him about average throwing deep. But that's not the narrative. The narrative is that he's awful and that we've got to isolate every single deep ball, every practice where he didn't throw a deep ball, etc. Quite frankly it's ****ing stupid and I can't believe so many intelligent people get taken in by it. It's not a good look.
I agree he is limited compared to the Alpha WRs. He's not Alpha. Yeah he doesn't go up and over someone to get the ball. Neither did Marvin Harrison (no I'm not equating Wallace to Harrison one of the best route runners of all time). You know what? Brandon Marshall rarely beats his man deep, rarely outruns DBs, and rarely has deep passes. They're just different receivers. Wallace does need an offense that suits him.
I'm playing devil's advocate battling the narrative it's all Wallace and our $100 million guy doesn't shoulder any of it. I know Wallace is a flawed WR, with a small catch radius, who doesn't fight hard enough and doesn't track well. Back when Antonio Brown/Wallace/Chad Johnson posted the lockout video of them practicing I posted it here noticing the weakness and sloppiness of Wallace's route running (he was slipping on his cuts while the other two were razor sharp). Wallace excels in an offense that pushes the ball down the field, and under Arians he was moved around quite a bit which helped.
I'd be interested in seeing the breakdown of 2014, Tanny to Wallace 21-30, 31-40, and 40+ vs the other WRs. I don't have PFF so I can't get that. I found this: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/miamis-gamble-what-does-tannehills-new-contract-mean/ Not sure where he's getting that, I'm only seeing 42 deep passes all year. EDIT: Okay, he's counting from 15 yards and on.
Interesting statement.. especially if the word "this" in that statement refers to the statement itself
Exactly. Philbin said it best after the Saints game 'it was a "competitive effort on the catch and a "competitive" effort on the throw.' Meaning there was room for improvement on both ends.
Since its part of a WR's job to make things easier for their QB, the FO's talk of QB friendly WRs could be taken as a criticism of the guys we got rid of.
There was a definite improvement in Wallace's game and fight last season. A real change. I think a good portion of his frustration came from the fact that the offence just want being written for him. Timings were off as well, but even so, we saw Lazor crafting shorter plays and Tannehill being more enthusiastic with those plays, I think, and more and more I'll bet Wallace felt like the odd man out. I think they could have made it work more with Wallace but the cap involved with that, in addition to the late season attitude and what seemed to be the natural dynamics showing up on the team, all spelled the end for Mike.
