Mike Wallace..showing signs of life?

After doing some research, the only WRs to average 1000 yards and 8 TDs over the past 4 years other than Wallace are: Calvin Johnson, Marques Colston, and Roddy White.

Not Larry Fitzgerald. Not Wes Welker. Not Brandon Marshall. Not Reggie Wayne. Not Andre Johnson.

I would say that's hardly dime a dozen.

"KB21 wrote:

Wallace is a receiver that averaged 51 receptions for 805 yards and 7 TDs during his Pittsburgh career. .

Still more than double the amount of TDs from all of our WRs combined from last year.

This idea that he impacts the game when he isn't touching the ball is probably the most overrated impact in all of football.

Brian Hartline isn't anymore productive now than he was without Wallace last year. Charles Clay is giving us the same production he had on a smaller scale from last year. The only difference is that this year, he is getting an opportunity.

Your impact on the game is what you do when you touch the football.

Hmmm. I wonder if Tanne being the most sacked QB in the NFL has something to do with that as well.

"djphinfan wrote:

mike Wallace is duckfooted..lol

sorry.

... Wow lol

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

"Alex44 wrote:

I love how KB says 16 game stretch like its nothing.

:shifty: Maybe he's a baseball guy?

So, you think a 16 game span in the middle of a 64 game set tells you more than the entire the set of data? You also want to ignore a 24 game stretch at the end of that data set that shows a downward trend in production that has continued through this year's 12 game set?

Why not? We have ignored the fact that he is a lousy route runner who was put into a timing passing offense.

"KB21 wrote:

So, you think a 16 game span in the middle of a 64 game set tells you more than the entire the set of data? You also want to ignore a 24 game stretch at the end of that data set that shows a downward trend in production that has continued through this year's 12 game set?

Why not? We have ignored the fact that he is a lousy route runner who was put into a timing passing offense.

You should put your tremendous intellect to use on a subject that's still up for debate.

"GMJohnson wrote:

You should put your tremendous intellect to use on a subject that's still up for debate.

Yep. The fact that Mike Wallace may be the most overpaid receiver in the NFL right now is not up for debate. That fact that this is just another in a long line of poor personnel decisions by Jeff Ireland isn't up for debate. It is very apparent that there are still a lot of Dolphins fans that do not realize this.

"KB21 wrote:

So, you think a 16 game span in the middle of a 64 game set tells you more than the entire the set of data? You also want to ignore a 24 game stretch at the end of that data set that shows a downward trend in production that has continued through this year's 12 game set?

Why not? We have ignored the fact that he is a lousy route runner who was put into a timing passing offense.

A) one is trying to apply bull**** stats to the NFL..do not do that
B) gosh binky, your methodology is flawed, 64 games, then where is the chart or stats that show the matrix between other players' production, other Wr production, dropped passes etc

Of all the things, I truly despise, this idea of "stats rule all things" in the NFL is at the top of the list

Each and every NFL game is 120 plays or more of a heavy weight fight with wildly unpredictable results as to outcome and yet...gosh..let's reduce the guy sticking a finger into the offensive or defensive lineman's facemask, and a missed tackle into it

KB, you of all people should know better, one has been seduced by numbers and not by what you are seeing

"KB21 wrote:

From 2009-2012, Wallace was 10th in receiving yards in the NFL, 21st in receptions, and 4th in TDs. Outside of that 16 game stretch, Mike Wallace is a receiver that averaged 51 receptions for 805 yards and 7 TDs during his Pittsburgh career. That 16 game stretch, which obviously was a fluke, inflated his numbers.

Disagree. Vehemently.

Poor KB, it must pain him to see Wallace producing while doing everything he said he couldn't. All that while consistently being open deep.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

What's really funny about this debate is that many of the same people that are the first to cry about persecution when people disagree with them about being negative on Tannehill, are turning around a persecuting people who are negative about Wallace.

"Fin D wrote:

What's really funny about this debate is that many of the same people that are the first to cry about persecution when people disagree with them about being negative on Tannehill, are turning around a persecuting people who are negative about Wallace.

Being "negative" is one thing...going out of your way to hate on a player is another.

Wallace has been playing fantastic, and still there are some that can't just admidt that. Funny to me.

"KB21 wrote:

This idea that he impacts the game when he isn't touching the ball is probably the most overrated impact in all of football.

Brian Hartline isn't anymore productive now than he was without Wallace last year. Charles Clay is giving us the same production he had on a smaller scale from last year. The only difference is that this year, he is getting an opportunity.

Your impact on the game is what you do when you touch the football.

Hartline right now is catching the highest percentage of passes thrown his way in his career. Hartline improving? Wallace effect? Dunno. But he is more productive now than any year previous.

"KB21 wrote:

This idea that he impacts the game when he isn't touching the ball is probably the most overrated impact in all of football.

Brian Hartline isn't anymore productive now than he was without Wallace last year. Charles Clay is giving us the same production he had on a smaller scale from last year. The only difference is that this year, he is getting an opportunity.

Your impact on the game is what you do when you touch the football.

I would think that a Dolphins fan, having been subjected to years of having the lack of speed from Bess and Hartline constrict and reduce our offense, would disagree with that premise more than fans of just about any other team. It's simple math- the more players are occupying themselves with covering Wallace, the less players are available to cover the other offensive players. Maybe one indirect result is the increase in Tannehill's passing yards this year over last year. Furthermore, he would have touched the football more, had more yards and more TDs if some of the deep ball passes, on which he tended to be wide open, were better thrown.

I'm not trying to rehash the Tannehill discussion, but these things seem pretty obvious to me. Which receiver had 29 catches for 606 yards and 3 Tds in 1972? Paul Warfield. I bet if you asked Don Shula, Bob Griese or Larry Czonka they'd say that Warfield had quite an impact on that championship team despite his relatively low production. He had to be accounted for by defenses, took pressure off of the running game and the other receivers, and that counts for a lot.

Wallace displayed extra value this past game. The Jets safeties were consistently 12-15 yards back. Although this didn't allow for any deep passes, it opened up the short to intermediate passes as well as opened up the run game against the top run defense in the league.

"KB21 wrote:

This idea that he impacts the game when he isn't touching the ball is probably the most overrated impact in all of football.

Brian Hartline isn't anymore productive now than he was without Wallace last year. Charles Clay is giving us the same production he had on a smaller scale from last year. The only difference is that this year, he is getting an opportunity.

Your impact on the game is what you do when you touch the football.

Space is what it's all about, in a game of inches, any space you get is extra room to make moves.

"rtl1334 wrote:

Wallace displayed extra value this past game. The Jets safeties were consistently 12-15 yards back. Although this didn't allow for any deep passes, it opened up the short to intermediate passes as well as opened up the run game against the top run defense in the league.

Try 20+ yards back :lol:

"djphinfan wrote:

Space is what it's all about, in a game of inches, any space you get is extra room to make moves.

Then give me a stat that shows the effect this has. Because if there is an effect, it can be measured. Or are we once again talking about this mystical effect that certain players have on the game that just cannot be measured?

I find that more often, this premise of the effect that a player has by "drawing coverage (which isn't the case because Mike faces one on one the large majority of the time)" is little more than a rationalization for why they aren't producing when the ball is going their way.

GM - this is why Wallace was acquired. It sets up well for our remaining games. Vs Carolina, the safeties were up and took away the run so we hit two deep passes. Vs NYJ, they have the safeties back so we dink and dunk them all over the field.

Our passing game appears to becoming a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of weapon.

"KB21 wrote:

Then give me a stat that shows the effect this has. Because if there is an effect, it can be measured. Or are we once again talking about this mystical effect that certain players have on the game that just cannot be measured?

I find that more often, this premise of the effect that a player has by "drawing coverage (which isn't the case because Mike faces one on one the large majority of the time)" is little more than a rationalization for why they aren't producing when the ball is going their way.

Keith - take a look at GM's photo. This is the Wallace effect on display.

"rtl1334 wrote:

Keith - take a look at GM's photo. This is the Wallace effect on display.

Unless he's making the play, where is the effect. Measure it for me. There is no such thing as an effect that cannot be measured.

"KB21 wrote:

Then give me a stat that shows the effect this has. Because if there is an effect, it can be measured. Or are we once again talking about this mystical effect that certain players have on the game that just cannot be measured?

I find that more often, this premise of the effect that a player has by "drawing coverage (which isn't the case because Mike faces one on one the large majority of the time)" is little more than a rationalization for why they aren't producing when the ball is going their way.

First play of the game...

The safety to Wallace's side is mystically 17 yards off the LOS at the snap, and in a back pedal to get even deeper.

"KB21 wrote:

Unless he's making the play, where is the effect. Measure it for me. There is no such thing as an effect that cannot be measured.

The effect is that Clay has the entire middle of the field to himself and Tannehill hits him for the first down on 3rd and 12.