Why don't you dissect other players with such vigor? Why do you insist on being so pessimistic about the guy? Did he pick on you in school or something? The hate is out of hand.
I'm excited we can "discuss" this on the heels of a win, because god knows if we lose what some of us would be saying. #nailMikeWallacetoacross
Trust me. I've watched the play plenty. I don't need to watch it more. It's crystal clear that Tannehill notices Wilfork bearing down on him and steps up and to the right in order to get away from him, and that's also why he never sets his feet properly for the throw. I mean it's not even something that should be disputed so we don't need to keep arguing about it.
yes, exactly... zero effect on the throw. Tannehill did a good job of recognizing he was there and stepped up. Wilfork when behind him and never touched him. CK, I really respect your opinion and knowledge of the game. With that said I am done with this thread... I am old enough to know that when people don't want to see something they are not going to see it.
Thread was titled PROPS to Wallace, not let's continue to find reasons to bring up his salary. If you would've showed me his stat line before the game I would've been very content with it. Especially when you consider who was covering him (from 10yds back)
Wallace was both awesome and terrible in this game and it was extremely frustrating. Positive -Fought for a ball!!!!! -7 receptions -of those 7 receptions none were deep, so much for one trick pony -showed some energy....looked like he gave a sh!t, as a matter of fact it looked like he gave many sh!ts -got open deep Negative -fumble -a ball that literally hit him in the face -keep those feet inbounds on the deep ball, that was a good throw in stride On a side note we seem to do really well against the Pats when one of our players takes a ball to the face. Last time it was Fields this time it was Wallace.
You're being silly. Most people who complain about Wallace complain that he didn't fight for the ball or run better routes. These things are demonstrably true. The Tannehill bashers have been off the deep end going as far as saying we're a better team with Moore starting.
During the first half I kept thinking that Wallace is just not a football player. Skilled athlete, fast as hell but not a football player. And not enough competitive fire. Doesn't go after the ball aggressively like it belongs to him. Also, the tipped ball in the end zone when it popped up; he had stopped on that play and then almost as an after thought looked for the ball. If he had a football players instincts, that would have been six points.
Carrothead isn't hating Wallace. That is silly. He's just calling it like he sees it. You just disagree. Different attitudes. Different latitudes. It's cool.
of course I am being silly... Honestly, I am not a Wallace supporter nor am I a Tannehill supporter. However, I give credit where it is due. I point out fault when I see it. That is just me... honestly, I would love it if Wallace and Tannehill were the best players at their respective positions... I think they are both good players... I don't think either are great.
Wallace was unreal yesterday. He had one of the best games I've seen from a Dolphins receivers, he was playing possessed football after the fumble. As far as his hands, it's an issue. I heard Philbin today in a presser praise Wallace for working with jugs all offseason. They all know it's an issue that needs improvement. Landry had a drop too, and he probably has the best hands on the team. RT throws fastballs with 0 touch, even on screens, and plus they are often inaccurate.
What I don't understand is why some people are acting like Tanne threw a lame duck, two feet out of bounds, three feet above his head pass, and Wallace did a miraculous job at even getting his hands on it, nevermind getting his feet down. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Tannehill threw a ball that was easy to catch, and should have had the receiver come down in bounds. Realistically, just like with Hartline, people expect the number one receiver to make those plays. They also expect the number one to turn dog turd passes into completions. That is what a highly paid, number one receiver does. Wallace does some things well, you can't denyy that he gets open. However, he seems to have poor body control (or awareness) at times, doesn't fight for balls usually, and has a penchant for catching with his body, not his hands. That is a bad fit for a young QB with some minor accuracy issues. If Tannehill had a Andre Johnson/Calvin Johnson/Vincent Jackson/Steve Smith(in his prime) instead of Wallace, these conversations look much different. Instead, we'd be talking about how great X receiver is, and how gaudy Tanne's numbers are.
And if Wallace had Big Ben / Manning / Brady/ Stafford / Brees / Ryan/ Luck/ he would've had 1300 yds and 11 TDs last year. But...they have eachother...so let's hope they make it work.
Right...that's kind of my point? Wallace isn't a guy to give to a young, raw quarterback. At the same time, Tannehill did enough bad things in the game, we don't need to blow the throw to Wallace out of proportion. It wasn't perfect, but it was good enough. If Wallace needs perfection, then we're really in trouble. There was so much else in there, and of course, you only want to talk about Tannehill. I know his shortcomings, but we need Wallace to do more to support Tannehill on the field. If people are saying Tannehill had a bad game, they should really use the same microscope on Wallace.
Brian wouldn't have got that far behind Revis to begin with, so it would have been a contested throw. Wallace was wide open. Ryan led him out of bounds. Section is spot on regarding this play.
Ball was thrown in bounds. Wallace isn't a college football player. EDIT: The fact that he was wide open gives him less excuse for not getting his feet in bounds.
With respect , there is a lot of inaccuracies in your post. Obviously it wasn't a gimme TD as it wasn't , CB's get beat that bad regularly , you then say never then say when they do you need to deliver the ball with no margin for error then say Tannehill tried to be perfect. Ball was in bounds and a relatively easy catch to make for the TD but wasn't primarily because Wallace has little awareness and composure for those plays. Could the throw have been better? Of course, but that wasn't the key factor in not getting 6 . As I have said 17 had some gaffes yesterday but not as many as his receivers and certainly imo not on this play.
He'd moved slightly to his right, and had a pass rusher bearing down on him, but he was able to set before the throw. He wasn't still on the move that I recall.
Maybe putting it like this will help people understand...had Wallace stayed in bounds on that play, literally no one would be talking about the amazing catch Wallace made. That is what people do when receivers catch bad passes for TDs. This was a run-of-the-mill catch, that he failed to make. We're only talking about it because Wallace missed it, and some people want to act like Tannehill threw such a bad ball that only a miraculous circus-catch, like David Tyree, could have been successful.
It was certainly a catch you expect a wr making 17 million to make. Period. For me, that's actually all its about. If he wasnt literally the highest paid wr in the league this year, I might not be so demanding of him, but he is. And he has to make that play.
Let's see, if that is what he averages for the rest of the season, he'll finish with 112 catches, 1296 yards and 16 TDs. If he did end up with those numbers, some here would still fault him.
http://now.nfl.com/browse/18 week 1 Patriots vs Dolphins Around 45 seconds in , you don't see all the play but you see the end and if people think that was 17's fault as opposed to 11's , well we'll never agree on this play . Not even close imo.
Maybe putting it like this will help people understand...had Wallace stayed in bounds on that play, literally no one would be talking about the amazing catch Wallace made. That is what people do when receivers catch bad passes for TDs. This was a run-of-the-mill catch, that he failed to make. We're only talking about it because Wallace missed it, and some people want to act like Tannehill threw such a bad ball that only a miraculous circus-catch, like David Tyree, could have been successful.
Would you be happy if he averaged a couple clear drops , a fumble or two and misplaying a deep ball for 6 every game? Sure he had some production , he was targeted the most , he had some nice plays but imo his poor ones clearly were more prominent.
When some people that Wallace should have done this and done that and it wasn’t a perfect ball, but he should have caught it or he should have fought for it or come back and adjust etc, etc, etc. The thing is, those passes where he throws some poorly thrown balls, etc, etc, etc, those type of off throws should be an anomaly rather than the norm. which is what they are now or, at the very least, somewhere in between. It’s not even close to being even. When they’re an anomaly rather than the norm, it’s easier to make adjustments. When you don’t know from one play to the next how the pass will be, it’s hard to get into a rhythm and have confidence It’s harder to use natural instincts when, on just about every play, you’re wondering and thinking where the ball is going to be rather than just going on your instincts and talent. When they actually get some solid throws under their belts and I still have confidence that they will, they will develop a chemistry and repoire and the better throws and long plays should come more easily.
Did Tannehill have time to set up before the throw or was it on the dead run? I'm remembering it that he got set, but some here are saying the throw was on the dead run.
