Mike Wallace..showing signs of life?

"KB21 wrote:

I honestly don't see how anyone can look at that and say the throw was late when if it is thrown any earlier, the safety simply tracks right to the ball and picks it off. You are seeing what you want to see because you only want to blame Ryan Tannehill for Mike Wallace's short comings.

Are you assuming that the Safeties eyes are on Tannehill the whole time? I'd take my chances throwing the ball earlier to the open area in the left endzone.

Again, my exception here was you saying that RT threw a perfect ball and it was an easy catch for Wallace- not. This is not an example of the completely lousy deep balls that RT has thrown to Wallace this year, let's not lose sight of that.

"jim1 wrote:

Again, the coaches, analysts, fans, writers and Tannehill himself have acknowledged that his deep balls to Wallace just aren't good enough

I do love how writers and analysts always become an argument from authority when it happens to suit the, well, argument. When it doesn't, those ****** hacks are not to be trusted :lol:

go to Wallace and Big Ben 1st year together and see what the stats are? compare drops, underthrows/overthrows, ints etc. Could it be that his overall stats were better based on playing 4 years with Ben and Ben knowing where and when he had to throw it to Wallace for success and that was learned over time?

Everything is not black and white and clear as day

"Vendigo wrote:

I do love how writers and analysts always become an argument from authority when it happens to suit the, well, argument. When it doesn't, those ****** hacks are not to be trusted :lol:

Wow, just when I thought that your hissy fit was over.

"jim1 wrote:

Wow, just when I thought that your hissy fit was over.

Hissy fit? I'm having quite a good time. Don't blame me, it was your funny post.

"JMHPhin wrote:

Wtf have you proven? Nothing

I don't need to prove anything, genius. I'm not the one trying to convince others the world is flat by arguing AGAINST Wallace's prior history as the best deep receiver in the game and AGAINST what even our own goddam QB and HC have factually stated- that Tannehill has left too many plays on the field all year while Wallace hasn't just been open but wide open.

Here's an idea: Why don't you list all the deep opportunities that Tannehill did convert, you know- so that you can prove that Tannehill is indeed lying about not converting them. :unsure:

"KB21 wrote:

yeah. Ryan should have anticipated that mike would look the wrong way for the ball.

You are not going to win this argument. This argument has already been won, and you have to look no farther than the numbers Mike Wallace has put up to see this. Mike Wallace was a horrible signing by this organization. He is overpaid, and he will not be here just as soon as the team can save money by cutting him. That die has already been cast.

You've been losing arguements all month

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

"phinsational wrote:

I don't need to prove anything, genius. I'm not the one trying to convince others the world is flat by arguing AGAINST Wallace's prior history as the best deep receiver in the game and AGAINST what even our own goddam QB and HC have factually stated- that Tannehill has left too many plays on the field all year while Wallace hasn't just been open but wide open.

Here's an idea: Why don't you list all the deep opportunities that Tannehill did convert, you know- so that you can prove that Tannehill is indeed lying about not converting them. :unsure:

The one that I can recall, against Carolina, was underthrown and a darned good play by Wallace to take it to the house.

"phinsational wrote:

I don't need to prove anything, genius. I'm not the one trying to convince others the world is flat by arguing AGAINST Wallace's prior history as the best deep receiver in the game and AGAINST what even our own goddam QB and HC have factually stated- that Tannehill has left too many plays on the field all year while Wallace hasn't just been open but wide open.

Here's an idea: Why don't you list all the deep opportunities that Tannehill did convert, you know- so that you can prove that Tannehill is indeed lying about not converting them. :unsure:

Oh so you werent saying its all Ryans fault and there are no other consideration? Ah must be a diff language

Phinsational-> "I saw and incomplete deep ball, must be Tannehills fault, I will post all Wallaces stats from Pittsburgh that will prove I am right"

"jim1 wrote:

Are you assuming that the Safeties eyes are on Tannehill the whole time? I'd take my chances throwing the ball earlier to the open area in the left endzone.

Again, my exception here was you saying that RT threw a perfect ball and it was an easy catch for Wallace- not. This is not an example of the completely lousy deep balls that RT has thrown to Wallace this year, let's not lose sight of that.

Considering that the pump fake is what allowed Mike to get by the safety, yes, I would say that the safety had his eyes on Ryan.

"Fin-Omenal wrote:

You've been losing arguements all month

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

If you want to think that, be my guest.

"Vendigo wrote:

Hissy fit? I'm having quite a good time. Don't blame me, it was your funny post.

The point is that it's nearly universally acknowledged that Tannehill's deep passes are lacking this year, including by the coaches and Tannehill himself. That doesn't change that I'm coming to my own conclusions on the matter, just acknowledging that the vast majority of others indicate that Tannehill has come up short, figuratively and literally in a good number of his deep throws to Wallace this year. Pretty straightforward stuff, so I hope that your skirt isn't riding up on you too hard as you laugh at that concept.

boggles my mind I have decided you are all right and its all Ryans fault. Brady and Manning are both avg to below and are saved by their reciving core. Cause I watched Manning underthrow DT a few times. I have seen Gront dive to catch a pass vs Houston to win the game. Your are SOOOOOO right

"Vendigo wrote:

Not to mention the fact that if was thrown to, say, the 35 with a lot of open field in front of Mike Wallace, it would've sailed 10 yards behind him, because Wallace wasn't tracking the ball until Tannehill threw it.

If it was only throw to the 35, and that early in the play, more DBs than just the safety probably get involved (there is a CB in deep zone on the left side).

"KB21 wrote:

Considering that the pump fake is what allowed Mike to get by the safety, yes, I would say that the safety had his eyes on Ryan.

I haven't been able to see that angle, but regardless given the fact that the play started from around the Miami 30 yard line with Miami down by four and he was throwing to maybe the fastest player in the league, I would have rather seen Tannehill throw the ball sooner and lead Wallace to the open left half of the endzone.

Again, this was a situation with Miami down by 4 and 70 yards away with 20 seconds left in the game. I'd rather see RT let it rip and lead Wallace to the open zone, let him outrun the Safety to the ball. Regardless, this specific play is hardly central the the main point imo. Both RT and Wallace could have done better on this play, most seem to agree on that. Perfect throw? Hardly.

"KB21 wrote:

What they should have done to spend that money is go ahead and give Randy Starks, Paul Soliai, and Chris Clemons the extensions they should get, resign Jake Long, and trade for Branden Albert.

The guy whom you railed on about endlessly before the 2008 draft that he couldn't play LT well in the NFL? :shifty:

"JMHPhin wrote:

boggles my mind I have decided you are all right and its all Ryans fault. Brady and Manning are both avg to below and are saved by their reciving core. Cause I watched Manning underthrow DT a few times. I have seen Gront dive to catch a pass vs Houston to win the game. Your are SOOOOOO right

What's Ryans fault?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Mike is currently on a 28 game trend where he is one of the least efficient down the field threats in the NFL, but we have some fans that want to blame that on the quarterback. It's apparently not Mike Wallace's fault. It must be just a coincidence that this decline has coincided with his move towards a more timing oriented passing game than the offense he played in during his first three years.

We want to ignore that aspect of this though, because we want to think that Mike Wallace should have been signed to begin with.

"jim1 wrote:

Pretty straightforward stuff, so I hope that your skirt isn't riding up on you too hard as you laugh at that concept

I didn't laugh at the concept. I laughed at the fact that you chose to cite analysts and writers as an argument from authority given that the vast majority on this board generally regards writers and analysts as less intelligent than creatures living at the bottom of ponds.

"JMHPhin wrote:

Phinsational-> "I saw and incomplete deep ball, must be Tannehills fault, I will post all Wallaces stats from Pittsburgh that will prove I am right"

Damn, then Tannehill & Philbin must be complete idiots for making a big deal about it since you've clearly shown it was just a one time thing.

JMHPhin-> "I'm a professional crocheter but I like to talk about football from time to time even though I have no idea WTF I'm saying".

After leading the NFL in 20+ yard production the previous 4 years combined, the NFL's best deep receiver has just 1 TD from 20+ this year amidst a season where the HC & QB have stated Wallace has gotten deep all year but Tannehill failed to connect. Do you need it in brail or something?

"KB21 wrote:

Mike is currently on a 28 game trend where he is one of the least efficient down the field threats in the NFL, but we have some fans that want to blame that on the quarterback. It's apparently not Mike Wallace's fault. It must be just a coincidence that this decline has coincided with his move towards a more timing oriented passing game than the offense he played in during his first three years.

We want to ignore that aspect of this though, because we want to think that Mike Wallace should have been signed to begin with.

Dude, have you watched the plays? And are you assuming that deep throws not being completed to Wallace are his fault? When so many have been woefully underthrown, thrown late and off target? How can you, with a clear mind and a straight face, blame ALL of this as you do, or even a great majority of it on Wallace when the deep throws to him by RT have been so crappy? And do you think that it's some kind of great deception when RT himself and his coaches acknowledge this as a major issue? If anyone is seeing things as they want to and not how they really are, I would say that you're the one.

"Stitches wrote:

If it was only throw to the 35, and that early in the play, more DBs than just the safety probably get involved (there is a CB in deep zone on the left side)

And yet, people continue to claim that Tannehill was supposed it throw it before the receiver even turned around to have a look at where it would end up. I suppose Tannehill skipped the mandatory mindreading 101 symposium in the offseason or something. Slacker.

"Vendigo wrote:

I didn't laugh at the concept. I laughed at the fact that you chose to cite analysts and writers as an argument from authority given that the vast majority on this board generally regards writers and analysts as less intelligent than creatures living at the bottom of ponds.

Some writers are good, I happen to like Barry Jackson among others, some are not so good. That's how it goes. That doesn't form my opinion, but imo it is relevant if almost everyone including Ryan Tannehill and his coaches agree that his deep passes to Wallace need major work. I find the idea that Tannehill is lying about that as a means of self deprecation is bs as it pertains to this discussion. His deep passes blow, and he knows it.