I watch him play a lot, and that's not true. Wallace is often bracketed high/low because Pitt likes to involve him in the short passing game b/c of his ability to turn short passes into huge gains. If you play a corner off him he can kill you off quick throws. Outside of short down & distance or obvious run downs, it's rare to either not see him bracketed or at least a safety shaded to minimize both his deep threat and underneath YAC ability. The point is that Wallace is a true deep threat b/c he still beats coverage in spite of seeing either bracketed coverage or a deep safety over the top, not to mention he can actually score, and when he does catch a pass behind coverage he's not tackled from behind, unlike Hartline. How do you personally make the distinction between a guy who can occasionally catch passes behind single coverage and a true deep threat? IMO it is telling after factoring in the entire 2011 season where Hartline ranked 70th in 20+ yarders despite the benefit of Brandon Marshall gobbling up coverage opposite him. I'm sorry but Wallace has nothing to prove, and IMO it only makes your argument look weaker by trying to downplay his ability in order to make Hartline look better WADR. Wallace's career numbers are quite telling. Hartline's are quite telling, too, in comparison. See below. I crunched these stats and posted them about 6 weeks ago. Not sure if you read it, so I'll repost.
I've yet to see it in 5 games in 2011/2012, and I haven't seen any short passes that weren't screens. I don't see how in/out brackets are going to really help stop the short game given that high defender is still basically providing the same deep support a safety would. It would basically be pointless for a guy with Wallace's skillset, he's not suddenly going to become dangerous in the intermediate region where both those players would best come to bear. I don't see how bracketed coverage is going to help stop Wallace from threatening deep, or how a deep safety is somehow an special adjustment. I'm pretty sure there's a big difference with Hartline this year.
First off, I'm sorry but that's a copout excuse. With Marshall on the other side [drawing extra coverage to boot], Hartline should've been able to pull down MORE deep catches, not less. After all, there's no rule saying the QB has to throw every pass to Marshall. If Hartline were a true vertical threat like you're tying to insinuate, then he should be making plenty of plays down field on his own, period, and having Marshall opposite him should only aid that, not hinder it. Secondly, Mike Wallace gets the ball roughly as much as Hartline but that doesn't stop him from racking up big plays downfield, regardless of coverage. That's another copout answer. A. A true vertical threat doesn't need an elite QB throwing pinpoint-accurate passes to him in order to make plays down field. B. Matt Moore, a decent vertical QB and 12 rated passer, was the QB most of 2011. If my numbers didn't show you anything, you might want to revisit the numbers I just reposted above. If those aren't telling I don't know what are. True vertical threats don't need excuses made for them. They get open deep and make plays deep, and they do so in the face of heavier coverage and w/o the need of the ball being perfectly dropped into the bucket. If a receiver needs perfectly thrown passes against single coverage and with the aid of a double move, then how can you classify him as a true vertical threat amongst players like Wallace, D Jackson, V Jackson, CJ, Green, Fitz, Torrey Smith, Jennings, Steve Smith, Hakeem Nicks, Maclin, Marshall, Wayne, Denaryius Moore, Britt, Llloyd, etc? Respectfully, but I find that highly unworthy to put Hartline in the class of those guys. How do you compliment Hartline with the description of "vertical threat" when there's probably 50 guys in the NFL who are as much or more of a vertical threat than he is?
When you play the word association game, the first word that comes to mind following "Brian Hartline" is NOT "vertical threat", "dangerous", "playmaker", "game-changer", "big play threat", etc. Now the Marks Bros on the other hand.... they were vertical threats. It's a slap in their face to minimize their tremendous ability by putting Hartline in their class. Brian is a guy who can occasionally make plays deep. That's it. No more, no less. He's not a "menace", a "danger", "an indication of impending danger or imminent harm" as the definition of "threat" implies. A "threat" demands extra attention, and extra attention is not what Hartline receives; therefore he is not a threat.
This is why you go with what we've seen, Bline does go deep effectively, his out and up move is among the best in the NFL. But 3 yd pass into 80 yd Td prolly is not happening.
... but what happens on those screens if they featured a corner playing 10 yards off him [to respect his speed]? And I disagree about Wallace's route running ability b/c his speed and ability to gear down well makes his intermediate to deep outs a real pain in the *** to defend. Why wouldn't hi-low bracketing help minimize his big play ability both short and long? A deep safety doesn't have to be a special adjustment, but the priority of the safety is. From the onset of every play he has to be aware of Wallace's presence first and foremost. The same isn't said about Hartline who seems to be an afterthought at times. Look at Pitt's run game. They loose half their Oline and their 2nd or 3rd string running back still goes for 100+ yards in 3 straight games. Some of that thanks goes to Wallace's presence. I agree, he has seemed to make more plays, but I guess you and I disagree on our interpretation of "vertical threat". I personally don't call anyone a vertical threat who can be taken out of the game if a defense so decides to do so, and I furthermore don't label a WR as a vertical threat if defenses seem to not pay him attention as such.
C'mon. If this were he'd be routinely seeing extra or heavier coverage. It's not like the coverage has anywhere else to be on the field like when Marshall was here.
but, when we have no real threats at WR/TE, why are defenses not throwing extra coverage his way or routinely putting a man over top? After all, it's not like they have to worry about anyone else that would prevent them from doing such (throwing extra coverage his way that is). I'd argue Hartline gets those PI calls b/c corners don't really fear him deep, and b/c of that, they're more inclined to bite on short to intermediate routes leaving them open to the occasional double move, and frequently with no safety help over top they're left drawing a penalty that likely wouldn't happen against a true vertical threat whom the DB would be receiving extra help downfield/over the top on much to most of the time.
I don't agree with your first paragraph. Marshall routinely has 130+ targets thrown his way each season. That takes away passes from Hartline. As for your second statement: 2009. Wallace was thrown to 71 times, Hartline 54. 2010. Wallace was thrown to 118 times, Hartline 68. 2011: Wallace was thrown to 122 times, Hartline 66. I don't agree with point A. As for point B, we saw Hartline's numbers increase vertically with Moore as opposed to Henne. Hartline doesn't need excuses. He gets open deep, and has as more 20+ yard catches than some of those receivers, and as many as others. Had he not played with Henne for a majority of his career, he would have more.
Which bolsters my point, and yours, sort of, when you watch the games you know Bline can go deep, but it is mostly situational he does not impose his will on defenses but he is quite effective.
The in/out bracket I don't think is real likely to have a corner 10 yards off, especially on Wallace. I don't really see how the deep player is going to be in a better position to provide tackling support on a short pass than in other situations. Bracket coverage is more for someone who is a threat on pretty much any route than someone who is a big threat on a couple routes.
