Here's an interesting game. Mike Wallace averages 8 TDs a year, which is 7 more than either Hartline or Bess managed in 2012. If we pretended Wallace's production were on the team last season, he would have brought 8 TDs instead of 1 TD at one of those receiver spots. Go back through 2012's results and add 7 extra TDs to whichever games you like and see how many more games we would have won. [Yes, this is totally unrealistic, since in Miami Wallace will have a different QB, different scheme, etc etc... but it is meant to be a fun way to see what sort of impact that level of WR production could have had on our season last year]
I decided to add the 7 TDs as follows... Houston: We lose 30-17 instead of 30-10. Jets: We win 27-23 instead of lose 23-20 Bengals: We win 24-13 instead of 17-13 Rams: We win 24-14 instead of 17-14 Colts: We win 27-23 instead of lose 23-20 Titans: We lose 37-10 instead of 37-3 Patriots (1st game): We tie them 23-23 but lose in OT, instead of lose 23-16 in regulation. If things played out that way, our record would have been 9-7. NOt sure if we would have made the playoffs. The thing is, you can find places to add the seven TDs and still lose the same number of games, but you could also find places to put those seven TDs and win as many as 6 more games. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Know what Wallace's stats were without Roethlisberger last year? 10 receptions, 77 yards, 0 TDs in 3 games. Emmanuel Sanders caught 13 passes for 217 yards and 0 TDs in those games.
Yup, like I said in my disclaimer... he could come in and be nothing like he was in the past. Still, he stands a better chance of scoring more TDs than Hartline than Hartline does of scoring more than Wallace. Also, Tannehill is better than the Steelers backups no?
Going into the year he was averaging 19 yards per catch. Wasn't that good enough for all-time best? Obviously, Pitt really changed their scheme w/Haley and holding out didn't help, so his 2012 season wasn't on par with his previous ones. Can't deny that. But the guy makes ridiculous plays. He's entering is prime. Has a solid injury history. No character issues. And if Philbin thinks he can play in this offense, that's good enough for me (same would apply if thinks otherwise). He's as good as we're going to get. There's no better options. He costs us no picks, either. All he does he cost us some money. Aren't we going to have a ton of money next year too? And the year after? I've hated on Ireland my fair share, but we're OK cap wise. We've got no contracts of concern on the books going forward as of now. Maybe in two-three years we'll actually develop a young receiving core like GB did. And in the event things don't work out, we just dump him. Unlike Marshall, we won't be eating picks. Just some cap, which we should have plenty of.
Add one to Jets game, we win Add one to Cardinals game, we win Add two to Patriots game, we win Add two to 49ers game, but we lose in OT Add one to Bills game, we win 11-5 a guy can dream right?
If he is a $12+ million receiver, he should produce for whoever is throwing the ball. This guy is a modern day Alvin Harper.
Um, even if that was his point (which I'm not sure it was), its still not the same thing as him saying:
For the purposes of this exercise, you can easily take away that 1 TD by Hartline. Just Add Wallace. And for those who think Hartline will get better if there is a better receiver opposite of him, think again. He will never ever again in his life get as many as targets or opportunities. This season was the peak of his career. He will not get better.
I REALLY don't understand this one. He CAN'T produce if the QB doesn't throw him the ball, or only throws it to him on short routes OR if the QB is not accurate enough for him to make a move after catching the ball.
Then why pay him $12 million plus per season? That is why the WR position as a whole is an overvalued position. Their production is directly tied to their quarterback. It is the most dependent position on the football field. Some of you are falling into the same trap you did with Brandon Marshall, thinking that even if he doesn't touch the football, the fact that he will draw coverage and open up things for everyone else will make the offense better. Except for the fact that Brandon Marshall DID NOT make the offense better, mostly because Miami's quarterback play was terrible.
You have been arguing for 3 days now that production equals touchdowns. Now in this post you're saying receptions and yards. Make up your mind
You build your team and allocate the finances based on the value of the position. On offense, your most valuable positions are QB and LT. On defense, it is pass rusher and cornerback. That's your premium positions in the NFL.
His ascension has been marked. This is only the beginning. Imagine when he actually gets an off-season with Tannehill.
I think the value changes with each NFL rule. Before Marino begane to light it up, value was the big running back and the interior line. Position value is relative to scheme, trends, and rules. The trendy thing now is tall, fast WR's who catch anything and score. The rules have been changed to help the WR's and QB's.
Not really. The only thing that ascended were the targets thrown Hartline's way [by default]. What resulted from those targets actually descended. Yards per target, yard per catch, 1st down%, and TD% were all down. Heck, he had only 1 more game over 50 yards last year than he did in 2010.... but he did manage 8 games at 50 yards or less and a 250 yard game that'll never happen again... so there's that to build on. .... and a new receiver in FA replacing him as the main guy..... and then another one in the draft. So I imagine 2012 might very well be the last time Hartline sees 1k yards unless he's looking at Mike Wallace's 2013 football card.
Here's the thing though...could it be that IF we had him in 2012, in those games some of the TDs WOULDN'T of happened because it was thrown to him, and it was picked off, or dropped, incomplete etc..? I'm not saying this as a knock on Wallace, I want him here. But if you gonna play the "What If" Game, you gotta consider the other side of the coin.
If Wallace saw the same coverages that Hartline got last year he'd have put up 15-1800 yds and 10 TDs. But he'd never see the Hartline coverages bc teams know better.
I wouldnt want LF on my team right now… he is going to be on the wrong side of 30 soon and his skill are clearly in decline! He was outperformed by Hartron in just about every category imaginable! Except TD's.. and that is not Hartrons fault…
Using this as a worst case scenerio, that would equal a season of 53 receptions and 410, which is a pretty crappy 7.7 yards per attempt. While not worth $12 million, it still would have improve the offense to have a 3rd receiver that actually has an impact. Miami would have improved because they would have at least three wide receivers who are above decent. Best case scenerio is that he fit into Miami's high octane offense and has his average year, which adds instead of takes away. Would Wallace be willing to work in an offense that is not slow?
Okay, so to be fair... we have a QB. We MAY have an LT, but there are also draft options there. We have Wake. Cornerback is the big questionmark and I'd expect us to go with a CB in round one or at 2a. Unless they plan to go after a Free Agent CB as a starter, I think the money exists to get a more explosive WR. For what it's worth, Keith, I agree with you about Wallace not being a great fit for our offensive philosophy, but I find the idea of having him preferable to having NEITHER him nor Jennings.
Just watched Wallace's 2012 highlight video on youtube… Anyone that says Wallace is a one trick pony either doesnt know what they are talking about or they are choosing to ignore the facts to try to make a point. Wallace caught 8 TD's last year and three were down the sideline three came from crossing routes (one was a classic Jerry Rice slant… gone TD) one was on a corner fade and one was on a post pattern. In the little highlight video that I saw he caught more balls across the middle than Hartron has ever dreamed of.
Anyone who bases their opinion on a Youtube highlight film, shouldn't tell people whether or not they know what they are talking about.
If WR's are an after thought as you are suggesting then why in the world do you need CB's for? I mean who are they covering?
my opinion wasnt based on the youtube video, the youtube video just confirmed what I thought. Cant argue with the video…
Your opinion isn't based off coaches footage, because there is plenty who have shown that he isn't that good of a route runner. You can ignore that fact if you want. He might be worth signing, however that doesn't mean we should ignore his faults.
I think the point is that WRs, for the most part are the same. Sure, you have your above average guys like Megatron and your below average guys like Legedu, but not a lot separates the guys in between them. (I'm fully aware this is not a popular view). Then, you dilute their impact more when you take out for running plays. Further still when you have 2-3 of them on an average play. I disagree with KB about the importance of CBs, though. I think safeties are infinitely more important than CBs.
maybe I wasnt clear enough in my first post. I dont think Wallace doesnt have faults… as a matter of fact I think he runs some pretty sloppy routes from what I have seen but to say he is a one trick pony is either ignorant or hyperbole… you choose… I am not an NFL scout, I dont pretend to be… to be honest my opinion is that of a novice. I can admit that…
I personally think that is a narrow point of view. Personally, I think it all goes together… you could have the best QB in the world but if he doesnt have guys that can make plays he is going to suffer for it. If he doesnt have an OL that can keep him up right he is going to suffer for it… You have to have good receivers to make an offense click. You have to have that guy that can catch a ball anywhere on the field and score from there. We dont have that guy and Wallace is that type of guy. BUT we are getting away from the crux of the issue I have with some people here… to say Mike Wallace doesn't run good routes is understandable IMO, to say he is a one trick pony and in essence claim that all he can do is run straight down the sideline is just wrong.
