1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Greg Jennings vrs Mike Wallace..a year later.

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by djphinfan, May 1, 2014.

  1. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    How is that possible? I thought RT was dead on accurate to every receiver other than Wallace...;)
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  2. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    :dunno:

    I guess every instance of Tannehill, Philbin, and Lazor emphasizing the need for Tannehill to improve the downfield game was apparently a form of speaking in riddles, when what they really meant was- Wallace, one of the game's best and most productive vertical receivers, was somehow the real problem for the offense and Tannehill's deep ball woes, and the fact Mike was frequently running open behind defenses is irrelevant. :unsure:
     
    MrClean, RGF, GMJohnson and 5 others like this.
  3. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University

    Do you have a background in physchology? What makes Dolphins fans lunge at whatever WR we have? It was much the same with Brandon. Is it lack of aptitude? A scorned history? Enlighten me.
     
  4. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    But we love receivers like Oronde Gadsen and Davone Bess.

    There were posters arguing Bess was every bit as good as Wes Welker. Lol.
     
    Fin-Omenal likes this.
  5. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    Exactly. Good times.
     
  6. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    Well, psychologically speaking it's about maintaining a consistent belief system. Some people didn't like the idea of Wallace coming here in the first place, so even though the sun, the planets, and the moon realize Tannehill struggled mightily downfield, it's easier for those fans to scapegoat Wallace for Tannehill's woes so that they can make it fit their initial belief that Wallace was a bad signing. The same is true about fans not wanting to alter their beliefs about Tannehill, whom many have grown quite fond of, so rather than accepting the truth that he struggled downfield and thus potentially having to change their belief system about him, it's easier to blame Wallace. This is how POW's get brainwashed into turning on their own countries.

    It's a lot easier for an individual to distort the facts or story in order to match it to their beliefs than it is to change their beliefs to meet the facts.
    Now, for those like myself who have been Tannehill fans since before he was drafted and also liked the Wallace signing, we've got no reason to be for Wallace at Tannehill's expense or for Tannehill at Wallace's expense. That leaves us being far more objective and honest about the situation b/c we don't have a scapegoat. We notice Tannehill strugged downfield b/c Tannehill struggled downfield, and we've watched enough pro & college ball to understand when a QB's deep ball is experiencing serious accuracy issues, as Tannehill's was.
     
    MrClean, RGF, 13Machine8385 and 3 others like this.
  7. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    That's what I thought also.

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  8. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    Thanks bro. I've mentioned this point many a time.
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  9. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    i think this thread shows that numbers lie without context, variables, and, don't be to quick to join the stat side of things just because it sounds cool.

    i simply made a comparison between the player i wanted and the player we chose, i thought about how many reps they got, i thought about what wallace had to deal with last year that could directly affect his numbers, the same for Jennings, and no matter how i broke it down, wallace did better than my first choice..thats reason for some kinda of hope considering my respect for jennings game.

    who here thinks that those 4 negative variables that effected his game last year do not have a decent chance to get better?, thus maybe pushing his numbers to a level of respect..
     
    Fin-Omenal likes this.
  10. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    No worries, Todd basically ended the debate for now.

    My take is Jennings does fit in with 2013 RT better than Wallace. My hope is that 2014 RT finally clicks with Mike, if so we become dangerous.
     
  11. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    That wasn't a catch rate argument and I'm sorry if you can't see the difference.
     
  12. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    These numbers do not prove who the problem was with, just that there was a problem.
     
  13. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    No need to be condescending when you try and backpedal/spin. I know you didn't use catch rate to definitively argue X receiver is good/bad, but you used a subset of catch rate in a discussion of a WR, when you specifically said catch rate is as useless as **** on a bull when evaluating WRs. All your words, not mine ;)

    You were using it as evidence there was a lack of chemistry between Tannehill and Wallace (and not an issue solely with Tannehill as you contrasted his catch rate with other WRs) to attribute partial blame on Wallace for this lack of chemistry.

    But it's all good, we know how you feel about Wallace, I'm just being optimistic with him. Didn't want to originally sign him but now he's here, hoping he has a resurgence. We'll see this year. Same with Brandon. Didn't want to sign him, didn't want to get rid of him. I think I coddle Dolphin's WRs too much sometimes
     
    Fin-Omenal likes this.
  14. RGF

    RGF THE FINSTER Club Member

    6,066
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    NY


    There`s your answer right there. The people who thought the Wallace signing was a bad move have no problem criticizing him every chance they get regardless if his 2013 production, or lack of, was entirely his fault or not. I honestly believe those Wallace bashers actually root against him to make a point that they`re right. Bottom line is if the Dolphins are going to be successful in 2014 then the chemistry between Tannehill and Wallace must improve greatly. And that all begins with Tannehill progressing.
     
    jim1, MrClean, ToddPhin and 1 other person like this.
  15. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    No, the people that thought Wallace was a bad signing understood that in order for him to be successful, he needs everything around him to be functioning at a very high level. What he does well is such a low-probability option, primarily because it inherently requires so many other things to go right. The highest paid player at any position should be carrying dead weight, not accentuating it.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
     
    fin13 and Fin D like this.
  16. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    As usual the Good Will Hunting of thephins.com totally nails it! :up:
     
    djphinfan, ToddPhin and Fin-Omenal like this.
  17. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    :lol:
     
  18. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    that's pretty darn ridiculous WADR. Even amidst Tannehill's downfield woes, stiffer coverage faced than anyone else on the team, and a fired OC who cared more about both using Wallace as a decoy and less-effectively lining him up in the same spot play after play, Wallace STILL caught 73 balls for 930 yards and 5 TDs.

    Nice exaggeration by the way. An NFL quarterback operates under certain expectations, one of which being he hits his open throws downfield when the opportunities exist, which is more often with a Mike Wallace on the field. Therefore it's asinine to suggest the functioning around Wallace needs to be "at the highest level". This ain't Dan Henning's dink-and-dunk NFL. It's a big play league where chunk yardage is valuable and highly valued dude. You bring in a Mike Wallace b/c you EXPECT your QB to make those throws and get you those chunk yards like other above average QBs get their damn teams, period. It's absurd the depth of excuse-making that you and others are willing to go here to make it seem like hitting a deep throw to an open receiver is some sort of miraculous feat. If your argument is- one of the game's best weapons can't succeed b/c the parts around him aren't up to snuff [which is what you're saying with this post], then I think you seriously need to reassess where the problem is rather than calling Wallace a bad signing b/c Tannehill and our ex OC couldn't get him the ball even though he's doing his job by getting open.
     
  19. Disgustipate

    Disgustipate Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    31,608
    55,632
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Almost all these things has been discussed.

    If Tannehill has down the field woes, it's only to Wallace.

    Wallace facing stiff coverage as an apologetic for him is asinine. He didn't face particularly stiff coverage, he faced the same shells that he's done his entire career that aren't supposed to help and are supposed to turn the rest of the field into a jailbreak.

    Mike Wallace was not in any sense a decoy. He was heavily targeted among wide receivers, especially deep.

    A receiving lining up in the same perceived spot is not detrimental, there are offenses where guys pretty much only play a side.

    That production is bad and the excuses are worse.
     
  20. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Then blame Aponte. Not even Larry Fitzgerald can throw to himself.

    Now he's here, we can hope he turns it up next year. It's not your money, and they're not in cap trouble. Why worry about stuff someone else is getting paid to worry about? It's like a fan worrying about excess bubble gum wrappers on the ground. Let Philbin worry about that!

    Although I do think he's overpaid, he's not the highest paid WR. I know you're clinging to the cap/bonus shenanigans the NFL plays with contracts but his APY salary is less than a few. He is one of the most paid though.
     
    RGF and MrClean like this.
  21. Disgustipate

    Disgustipate Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    31,608
    55,632
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    I can't believe you aren't being purposefully obtuse here.

    Salary cap health is directly a function of a team not making or carrying contracts that are inefficient and bad. Wallace has a bad contract, hence it's worth discussing. Even more so when his contract very much appears to have been built as a two-year deal in case of him sucking.

    Welp, close it down boys why have ThePhins at this point?
     
  22. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Oh his name is Will hunting?

    I thought it was Mike Hunt.

    Ba dum tsssss
     
  23. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Worrying about a WR being paid $2-3 million more than he should, when the team is $30 million under the cap? Why worry about that? Aponte is a HAWK. The poster I'm replying to, has sang her praises for months now. Now he's worried she isn't doing her job. Context is important.
    By your own statement she did her job, structuring the team an exit plan if he does suck.
     
  24. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    yeah okay, Wallace is such a difficult WR to get production from and needs such special circumstances to do so that he just so happened to be 1 of 3 receivers in the entire league [with Calvin Johnson & Fitzgerald] to average 1000+ yards and 8+ TDs during his first four years in the league from '09 to '12, plus be the most productive WR beyond 20 yards during that stretch. But then he comes to Miami with a young second year QB, second year HC, and soon-to-be-fired OC, yet apparently it's the guy with a proven track record who is to blame. sure.

    And Tannehill's downfield woes weren't exclusive to Wallace. I've already gone into factual detail on that in the past. There's no two ways about this. If a WR is running open deep and the QB can't get it to him, then that's a QB issue above all else, especially when it involves a PROVEN deep receiver. But hey, no need to listen to guys like Tannehill, Philbin, or Lazor speak of how the quarterback play needs to improve in this area when we've got you and a few other fans correctly telling us otherwise.
     
    Sceeto, shula_guy and jdang307 like this.
  25. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    [video=youtube;dNLTdNxhFvw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNLTdNxhFvw[/video]

    Not sure if this is all over and under throws to Wallace. Notice Tannehill's hesitation and how consistent they are. Lots of patting the baby, tapping the feet etc. Wallace's faults are known. He's not the tough, his catch radius isn't great ahead of him (laying out/diving etc.). He can improve on contested catches better on underthrown balls. But there is a lot of room for improvement for Tanny too. Cuts both ways.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  26. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    You misunderstand what "perfect" means.

    Lol, yes to be productive he needs to have: Good Qb, Good Coach.
     
  27. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I wonder why you think a QB WOULDN'T have hesitation throwing to a receiver that does the underlined and bold stuff.....
     
  28. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Then don't throw it to him.
     
  29. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I see. So your position is that the best way to use Wallace is to not use him at all?
     
  30. Sumlit

    Sumlit Well-Known Member

    4,796
    2,760
    113
    Feb 27, 2012
    Miami
    Tannehill needs to improve his accuracy and anticipation on deep throws.

    Wallace needs to improve his effort, route running and ability to come back for the ball and fight for it in the air.

    /thread.
     
    shula_guy likes this.
  31. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Wallace must fix his issues before Tannehill can fix his issues.
     
  32. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    Production comes in many different forms. In week 1 Wallace was followed all over the field by Joe Haden, who had safety help for most of the day. Meanwhile Hartline is having a feast vs Buster Skrine and Chris Owens. You Hartline lovers will point and say "look how good he is" but if not for Wallace Hartline draws Haden and most likely gets shut down. And that's basically a microcosm for the season.

    A players worth is ultimately determined by how much he hurts/helps his teams chances of winning, not by stat sheets. By that measure Wallace was 2nd only to RT. What's totally stupid about this whole discussion is that both of them were severely hampered by the lack of a decent OL.

    Youre a football guy, tell me, how do you throw deep with any level of success when you can't run the ball to condense coverage shells or protect long enough for Wallace to get behind those shells?

    Wallace routinely got got behind the coverage, and there were at probably 8-10 near misses on TDs that way. That's not on Wallace or RT. The problem is there were not enough attempts, on average 1-2 per game when there should be 3-5 per. There was also a lack of plays designed to set up those deep shots or take advantage of coverages designed to prevent them. The digs, deep curls or comebacks, etc. Again the pass pro was too shaky for those routes. All year long the focus was on getting the ball out quickly, basically negating Wallace's speed advantage, and when we did try to go deep it was usually telegraphed by the position of the backs and/or into the teeth of coverage bc we had no way of forcing teams out of what they wanted to do.

    If the run games becomes respectable we can use play action to get Wallace time. Better pass pro will work wonders. Not only for Wallace getting down field, but for the backs and TEs, free from baby sitting the QB, leaking into the voids that are crEated by deeper shells that Wallace creates.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  33. Alex44

    Alex44 Boshosaurus Rex

    20,810
    8,965
    0
    Jan 7, 2008
    Hollywood, Florida
    He can't dive and he isn't a jump ball receiver?

    Nice job trying to be snarky but the underlined describes MOST receivers, even the better ones.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  34. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Of course that would be your interpretation. The correct one is my position is that Tannehill needs to grow a pair and throw it, or check down. As much as I like Tannehill and hope to see a huge jump last year, let's not forget he's played at the Matt Cassell/Jason Campbell/Ryan Fitzpatrick level. I think his ceiling is much higher than theirs but that's what he's played at. He has a lot to improve.

    [video=youtube;08f3uKVpebA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08f3uKVpebA[/video]

    One thing Arians did that Philbin/Sherman did none of, was have Wallace in motion to throw off the offense.
     
    RGF and MrClean like this.
  35. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Your fact is made up.

    I wasn't being snarky. you clearly were though.

    Most #1 WRs are not scared to fight for the ball and have a small catch radius.
     
  36. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Then your opinion is stupid, because Tannehill did throw to him quite a bit. I'm also fairly certain that between the two players the one that needs to show balls is not Tannehill.
     
  37. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    I swear if someone who'd never seen Wallace play read these posts they'd think he was a total scrub. Like a Ted Ginn level scrub. We all know he isn't Randy Moss, that doesn't mean he isn't a tremendous asset on his own right.
     
  38. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    So Tannehill doesn't need to worry about ball placement until Wallace becomes the perfect receiver???
     
    MrClean likes this.
  39. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Sigh. You have a real tough time following along, or purposely just misconstrue arguments because that's what you do.

    I don't see why I need to break this down because this is stoopidly simple, but I will anyway.

    Yes Tannehill threw it to him quite a bit, and he was hesitant more often then he should be. So my opinion is, when you commit to throwing to Wallace, then commit, because when he hesitates Wallace is that much further away, and as touted as his arm strength is it's not enough to catch up to Wallace with this hesitation.

    I swear it's like you can't remember back more than one post when having a debate.
     
    MrClean and Fin-Omenal like this.
  40. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    Tannehill does need to "grow a pair", just throw the friggin ball as far as you can and let Wallace run under it. Don't wait for him to get a step, it's too late by then. Don't measure him and try to put the ball right on him, no need for that. Don't even look in his direction, look the deep help off and then launch. That's how you maximize success with a guy like Wallace. Complaining about how he's not Vincent Jackson or Brandon Marshall doesn't help at all.
     
    djphinfan, MrClean and jdang307 like this.

Share This Page