Greg Jennings vrs Mike Wallace..a year later.

Greg Jennings had worse quarterback play yet produced 8.0 yards per target and 1.62 yards per route. He averaged 5.2 yards after the catch and had a drop for every 13.6 catches. He scored a touchdown on 4.0 percent of his targets. For those that like PFF ratings he had a +7.2 PFF rating (standardized to a per 1,000 snap basis).

Mike Wallace had a better quarterback yet produced 6.8 yards per target and 1.44 yards per route. He averaged 3.8 yards after the catch and had a drop for every 6.6 catches. He scored a touchdown on 3.6 percent of his targets. For those that like PFF ratings he had a +0.5 PFF rating (standardized to a per 1,000 snap basis).

Greg Jennings was categorically better than Mike Wallace in 2013.

 

If you're posing the theory then it is up to you to prove that Ryan Tannehill and Matt Moore were worse than Christian Ponder, Matt Cassel and Josh Freeman. Interesting theory. I'd love to see your evidence for it.

 

What were the average air yards per target/catch for each of the WRs? Earnest question.

I think Tannehill had a really bad 20+ yard rate to all WRs not just Wallace. But I need to go back and look.

 

Both were awful signings IMO.

 

Tannehill threw the ball to players not named Mike Wallace 28 times and they either caught or dropped 13 of those balls which is 46.4 percent. That would have ranked 9th in the league (out of 40 qualifying QBs) according to Pro Football Focus.

That percentage is in line with the 43.1 percent he achieved in 2012 before Mike Wallace arrived, which got him a 9th ranking (out of 33 qualifying QBs) in the league on Pro Football Focus.

However in 2013 he also threw 36 deep balls to Mike Wallace and only 8 of them were completed or dropped. The resulting 22.2 percent dragged down his total percentage to 32nd out of 40.

Question is why is he so much more accurate when throwing to everyone not named Mike Wallace? They call it "chemistry" for a reason. It's not just one-sided.

 

"Incredibly"?

No. There's no basis for that. Marginally? Yes.

However your analysis is one-sided. You're not accounting for how much better Greg Jennings production would have been had Christian Ponder and Matt Cassel been as good as Ryan Tannehill in all other areas aside from "deep ball".

 

Wallace isnt a possesion WR like Greg. Wallace is a game breaker who can put up 6 in one play. He was open consistently deep, thus he did his job in 2013.

It takes 2.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

It must be pretty sweet to get paid $60 mil to be WR that only has to run fast and not catch the ball.

 

If your job is simply to get open deep, he sure as hell aren't worth $12M/yr.

 

That's not his only job, but if your main job is to get open deep and in doing so you put up big numbers it's well worth it. He didn't put up big numbers in year 1, so you could say he wasn't worth it, but there were also other factors than simply Wallace not getting the job done.

As for the OT, IMO it's way too early to compare the signings of the two players (especially when one is much older). However, if you are bringing up the QB play you have to also bring up that while Wallace played with the better QB, his strength was his QB's weakness. That may have been the fault of the scheme of the offense as well, but either way you aren't putting Wallace in the best position to succeed, so I don't see how QB play should factor into the discussion all that much.

 

You guy's are all angry at the wrong people.

Guess it's typical Dolphin fan to blame the guy actually DOING his job

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

I guess in your opinion, a cabbie who only works the pedals and neglects to steer is doing his job too.

 

There's no way to objectively say that one guy outperformed the other. And I'd pay $100 for a chance to slap whoever came up with yards per target/ route run stats.

 

Solid



Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

Wallace can beat you on other than just go routes. It's up to the team to utilize him in those ways. For one, we never used him nearly as often on shallow crosses or drag routes as Pitt did.

 

Jennings is a more complete WR than Wallace, who is a specialty player and ideally a #2 or #1b at best. Jennings probably would have helped Tanny more than Wallace did last year but I still feel like we got the right guy for our future direction. We needed a HR guy and Wallace was the best at that. We are still looking for our #1 WR. Maybe this draft?

Jennings came from a WR factory organization. They just keep popping out those WRs every year without fail in Green Bay. They have had a top notch top 2 WRs since the magic man was playing QB in early 90's. Must be nice to be able to let a player like Jennings go and still have Nelson, Cobb, Jones, and Finley. That is an organization that understands the importance of having weapons for their QB.

 

That's a poor analogy because a cabbie who does that can't get you to your destination. Wallace consistently gets open even if he's only elite at doing it one way. A better analogy would be a fisherman who only knows how to catch fish one way. At the end of the day though, who cares how he caught it as long as he's bringing home fish.

The hatred for Wallace is so humorous to me. If you could have a WR who gets open deep multiple times a game you would take that every single time. Every team would. People make it out to be that this kind of ability is easy to find. Wallace has his flaws and you would certainly like to see him attack the football better, but there isn't a single WR in the league that gets over the top the way Wallace does. But instead being upset at the offense that can't capitalize on this, people are critical of the WR. I don't get it.

 

I still don't understand the Wallace hatred. Yes he didn't contest for the ball but everyone KNEW that isn't him. You have to be an idiot to be upset at something you should have known from day 1.

If RT connected on those passes Wallace would have had a GREAT year and would have lived up to his contract. Yes, Ponder and co' were pathetic but the argument can be flipped back at that defense and say RT didn't have Peterson or a good to decent Oline Teams didn't need to stack 8-9 players in the box to defend miamis run game. AND Sherman used Wallace poorly, $100 says if Minny used Greg the way Miami used Wallace then Gregs numbers would be cut in half.

I see the argument people use on the QB but it is being used in a very bias manner. You want to bash Wallace then do it right. Show me the patterns both WR ran and the protection the line gave and the defensive assignments then we can say player A was better because in the exact same situation player B didn't come through. Until then its a stupid way to argue either side. I view as what I SAW, I saw Wallace not contest balls, I saw RT17 leave at least 8 TDs on the field due to pathetic throws, I saw RT have enough time in the pocket to deliver a decent ball, I also saw Wallace being a threat in a very very poor offensive scheme. I didn't watch much of Greg but I do know he had a great run game to his advantage, less DBs to work against due to the focus being on AP, and 2 COMPLETELY different WRs.

BE HONEST for a minute, if RT connected with Wallace on even 5 of those 8 open TDs, would anyone complain? thats a great year for a WR with a pathetic Oline and offense. Thats 11 TDs and 1k+ yards. Pleae if you want to complain, i dare you. That way I know that no matter what nothing will satisfy that person. Same way people hated Bush but we were better with BUSh, they LOVED hartline because he had 1000 yards, OH WOW lucky miami since we are the only team in the NFL with a 1k yard receiver, right? They hated Marshall because he "talked ****" when upset yet without him we saw how pathetic we were AGAIN and how with Moore how well Marshall did but then he goes to CHI and guess what, he's a top 3-5 WR AGAIN. People are short sighted as usual. Wallace goes to a team with a good QB and offense and he's a threat that helped Pitts win so many games.

Its a stupid conversation that should stop, Miami simply sucks at using talented players. You don't need to mold a player to become something, learn how to use that guys talents in multiple ways, its called an IMAGINATION and CREATIVITY. Miami continues to try to fit a square peg in a circle hole and the fans run with that.

Did running Gasol in D'Antoni system work? Hell no, did he try to change it? Hell no. Hence he's gone. and mind you, i really don't like Gasol AT ALLLLL because he isn't as bad as this idiot coach made him look.

 

Didn't he take a screen almost to the goal line against the Colts? I would love to see more of that.

 

People forget Wallace 40 yard TD across the middle, how many times did we throw him the ball on that route? Did you guys forget he jumped for the ball and even deflected off the defender and continued to run as opposed to fall? So maybe he does have some other qualities but if you don't give him the chance then wtf is the point of arguing he doesn't have it? Show me proof of him running a crossing route 20 yards deep and constantly messing it up then we can put that to rest.

I also remember RT17 during our last stretch of games miss an open Dion Sims I think it was for a 30 yard TD WIDE OPEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD yet he saw Hartline draped with 2 DB and made that throw. Also remember in that game he missed a wide open hartline I think it was or maybe clay in a similar situation and instead hit a WR for a 5 yard gain. It isn't something thats happening just with Wallace. RT17 vision deep is very poor. His ability to throw a deep ball before the WR breaks on the DB is extremely poor. You make a throw while the DB still hasn't flipped his waist and its over, the WR will outrun it because its about ta 2 second lead you give your man.

Same throw Moore made to Hartline for the 50 harder vs the Bills the commentator said thats a throw that RT can't make. That throw was exactly what I am saying that RT17 lacks. If we had Luck throwing the deep ball Wallace would have had 10-14 TDs last year. Go look at Lucks pass to Hilton during the last 3 weeks up the middle over 2 DBs but his ability to read the BREAK the WR was GOING to make in 2 seconds compared to the DBs break was great. Thats the part that RT17 can't do if his life depended on it. Ill look for that tape to show you guys. (luck to ty one)

 

So did Mathews, this team was pathetic at designing these plays. I mean we ran a screen to clay on 4th and 4 that resulted in him needing 8 yards to get the first. WHO THE HELL throws a screen to a TE 4 yards behind the LOS on 4th and 4????!! If Clay didn't make that amazing play it was a freaking 5 yard loss.

 

most hyperbole post of the day

 

Switch out Wallace for Jennings and it would have been even worse for Wallace. Tannehill does really well with receivers that can run routes. Every single receiver save Wallace who has played with Tannehill for significant snaps has either had a career season, or been on pace for one before injury.

Jennings got those numbers with glorified passing JUGS at QB.

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk

 

I think Wallace is going to have a great year. You read it here 1st.

I don't think he knew the route tree from the burning bush when he got here. All he needs to do is watch Hartline's tape and he should be good to go.

 

Lol, dude you are too good of a poster to make erroneous comments like this. He has no intrest in working with Tannehill, he doesn't care, he doesn't watch tape....it's all ridiculous assumptions that display how bad you hate Mike Wallace.

 

I'm telling you, fans of this team absolutely LOVE criticizing the WRs....

Brandon Marshall was an overpaid and sucked according to most of these guys, we trade him, people cry we don't have a legitimate WR, now Wallace sucks and we need to sign blah blah blah.

80% of this board was in love with Davone Bess, a WR who wasn't very good. People round here be weird.

 

Wallace can't get you to your destination if he doesn't catch the ball. The analogy was accurate.

 

Those PFF stats don't really prove anything. Actually the three stats deej listed are more important. As the phrase which I love which my man Sec126 mentioned, Wallace was "college open" many many a time. That's totally true. Tanne himself admitted that he needs to get better with his deep ball and getting it to Wallace. I don't want this to digress into a polarized convo of Tanne lovers and Wallace haters and visa versa. It's not that way for me. I like them both a lot and would love to see them develop better chemistry, etc. I really hope Lazor can help in that dept. We'll see.

 

That's not really true. Mike Wallace has been much better earlier in his career about making an effort for a ball.

Not only that, but the people who went to bat for Mike Wallace on this forum most certainly weren't echoing your comment here about knowing what Wallace was and being OK with that. He was advocated as someone who could run a full route tree well and had room for growth.

In reality, not so much.

No he wouldn't have, unless "those passes" represents a success rate that isn't remotely close to feasible to expect under the best possible circumstances.

 

That's nonsense. You are greatly exaggerating his drops. You would definitely like to see him fight for the ball better and you hate to see drops of any kind, but let's not act like he has horrible hands.

 

Its not nonsense and i'm not talking about drops.

He rarely made a play on a ball that wasn't in the breadbasket. i don't appreciate players who don't give full effort, no matter how fast they are (especially when they are making $60 mil). I'd think after all those years of Zach Thomas, we'd all feel the same way.

Most QBs miss over 50% of their 40+ (in the air) passes. The difference between them and Tannehill is that they usually had more time to throw and their receiver would fight for the ball.

 

He can catch the ball if the passes are accurately thrown. 24/7 is right. The cabbie analogy is a poor one.

 

Sigh.

Fin-O said his job was to ONLY get open. Which is like saying a cabbie's only job is to work the pedals.

This really isn't effing rocket science people.