Obviously, with Philbin and Sherman - they bring a lot of Green Bay background (not just system-wise but coaching). They certainly seemed to help Hartline have a big year last year. I wonder if their coaching, their system, will benefit the new guys (Wallace, Gibson, Keller) such that they could play some of their best football in their careers? Esp. since they are with coaches who come out of a system that is among the best systems in the NFL - esp. in the passing game - and the passing systems they came from were not especially great. Should be interesting to see. IMHO, if there are not major injuries and the LT position can hold its own, We should have a very good passing attack.
1) might be that Martin is the right man for the job. he was a second round pick & protected Andrew Luck successfully. maybe we're so enamored with Jake Long, the #1 over-all, that we use him as the standard to measure the position. Martin is not an untalented undersized moron trying to learn a new position. 2) I noticed that we were very careful to collect several pieces that can assist in the blocking game out of the back field when necessary. 3) Tannehill does some of his best work on the run & has a very quick release reads the field like a veteran. I think we're in excellent shape & this will be the best season in decades... not to worry
I'm still a bit concerned about Mike Wallace. I like him a lot in a vacuum, but I've got concerns about Miami. He fits the idea of quality rather than quantity, as there aren't a lot of guys who can match the productivity level without dominating an offense, but he's not really so much a well-rounded generalist either. I think you're getting away from some of the stuff that helped make the Packers successful because you've got guys who do certain routes quite well and everything else pretty ok. I am quite bullish on Dustin Keller though.
I just can't imagine Philbin signing off on Wallace if he didn't feel like it could work. Maybe this is naive of me, but if Ireland had brought in Wallace during the Sparano years I'd be more worried.
I was thinking this when I made the comment above..his skillset seems to be outside their box, but then again maybe that kind of speed/talent combination changes offensive philosophies, or makes you wanna design a new offense around it?
Really? I think his history as the offensive game planner for the Super Bowl winning Packers is a notch as well. Besides, his whole approach to offense is about adaptability. i think having a horse that is faster than any other, gives you more options, not less.
100%. If you can't fit Mike Wallace's skill set into your system then your system friggin sucks and you need to be fired.
Why the assumption that Ireland/Philbin are trying to be Green Bay South? It's a logical assumption to make but to date there's not much evidence of it. Every time they've had a chance to import an ex Packer who knows the system they've gone another direction. Matt Flynn, nope. Greg Jennings, Jermichael Finley? No and no. Wallace plain and simple solves the number 1 issue the offense had last year, not being able to stretch the field or produce big plays. Wallace should help the run game, which was already a strength, and the short to intermediate pass game, by forcing safeties to honor his speed. He's not going to catch 100 balls but he's one of those guys who affects the defense whether he's getting the ball or not. New England, the team we need to go thru, doesn't even have a good secondary, but look what they're doing here: No QB in the league should have to deal with this, especially given the down-distance, score and field position. LBs walked up on the LOS, CBs in press man w/ inside leverage, safeties 10 yards off the LOS and cheating inside towards the hash marks. McCourty is on the friggin has marks, Gregory seems more worried about Reggie Bush than the WR to his side. And no, this isnt a pre-snap disguise where the all bail into soft zone. As the ball is snapped Mayo is attacking the QB, Spikes is locked in man on the TE, none of the DB's have retreated an inch, and the safeties are actually coming FORWARD. By the time Tannehill sets to throw (notice Long has gotten his *** handed to him), the safeties are 5 yds from the LOS, the CBs are in press man with ZERO safety help being given to the guys covering the X or Z, Hartline and Mathews. It's embarrassing, and it's the reason guys like Mike Mayock say we have a red zone offense all the way down the field. I can just about guarantee the Pats will not put Brandon friggin Spikes on Keller 1 on 1 and they sure as hell won't have the likes of Adrian Wilson, Devin McCourty and Steve Gregory lurking 5 yds from the LOS when there are 70+ yds of room for Mike Wallace to run behind them. The "Wallace effect" won't show up on the stat sheet but it makes a huge difference to the offense as a whole.
They're not trying to be Green Bay South(and I'm not sure the individual players are the important part of that), but there are fundamental principals in common, which is where the Wallace thing comes into question. I don't think what you're showing here is particularly indicative of the absence of a deep threat, or even a particularly good instance of dysfunction. The Dolphins picked a play reasonable for down and distance, and the Patriots countered with a defense fit for that. Not sure Mike Wallace running a deep route is a fix here.
Not sure I agree. True, the down & distance can be a factor and indicates a potential short pass but that doesn't mean N.E. should entirely abandon or sell out the deep ball, which is what free safety Gregory does who eyeballs Tannehill the entire play, never giving Matthews a glance despite initially looking like Matthews is driving upfield. As Tannehill starts his delivery (looking to Matthews), Gregory is roughly 12 yards away from Matthews and parallel to him; that doesn't happen with Wallace. N.E put rookie Alfonso Denard on an island vs Matthews so Gregory could key on both Tannehill and the tight end working across the middle. I can't see them showing Wallace the same lack of respect and utterly daring us to beat them for a 78 yard bomb against such a favorable matchup.
lol, looks like a Face plant a comin..he didnt want to be here GM, and their were times where he did things that almost looked to be incriminating when it came to effort.. He was always so smooth and relaxed when he went into protection mode, I swear watching him come off the line last year he would literally spaz out on his mechanics while going backwards..he just wasn't right in the head.
On that play, if we had Wallace, Ryan would of needed to make a special signal to Wallace, as in, YOOOOOOO!!!!, I'm throwing this sh&$ deep because this mother grabbers trying to get me killed, so run your *** off...type signal.
the other shot where he winds up past Ryan on that same play is just mind boggling how he got that out of whack in his position, I'm sure we could isolate any player and find a play that shows a bad position, but that one is downright hilarious..Freakin nikovich threw his *** 5 yards backwards where jakes back is completely facing the Los..
Yeah really. Could you imagine Wallace on an island vs a rookie with no safety in sight? That's just begging to be raped. Look at this late 4th quarter, 40 yard TD vs Tennessee on 3rd & 6 with a 14 point Steeler lead. Steelers line up in run personnel with an extra left tackle and 2 TE, both of which are lined up to block. Wallace is the only receiver on the field. Titans showing single high safety look/Cover 3 (safety & corner with deep responsibility) and only 7 in the box despite Pitt owning a 14 pt lead with under 3 minutes to play, no timeouts for Tenn, 1 receiver on the field, and Pitt knocking on FG range to make it a 3 possession game. Below you see 4 defenders (CB, LB, SS, FS) covering 2 guys (Wallace & Miller). FS, SS, and CB's first steps upon snap are back (with FS Michael Griffin's hips opening toward Wallace) despite a strong run formation, the right guard pulling to seal the edge, and Roethlisberger showing handoff. That's mad respect for Wallace as far as I'm concerned. This might as well be triple coverage on Wallace with the corner playing off and outside leverage with deep responsibility, the strong safety in zone essentially bracketing Wallace inside & underneath, and the free safety deep selling out the run to key on Wallace & Miller which quickly turns to Wallace. Everything about this play/situation says Pitt should be running and looks to be running yet Tennessee is playing honest and schemed up to defend the deep ball. Looks like a great call on Tenn's part. Coverage initially looks good, but it's no match for Wallace's speed who runs by the corner and turns Griffin's good angle into a bad one. If that's Hartline, he's about even with the corner & safety at the 10 yard line and doesn't separate himself further, leaving Roethlisberger either over-throwing him or throwing into double coverage....... although the corner is probably in man while the strong safety is up playing the run if it's Hartline or Matthews.
I guess Ireland spent 60 million for nothing then. How bout we revisit the issue when we play NE again, and let's see how reasonable that defense is b/c of "down and distance" with Mike Wallace on the field.
The other thing to remember, is that Philbin showed last year, he is not a *****, like Sparano. Philbin will step on the opponent's throat when necessary, he just needs the home run threat to do it. Wallace is that threat.
That is a seriously embarrassing freeze frame. It literally looks like he got hit with a haymaker from an early 70's George Foreman. Just awful.
what's almost as bad is Tannehill has planted his back foot and is looking at Matthews who's working upfield, yet the free safety is more concerned with the crossing TE underneath or spying on our QB. Granted it was likely his play responsibility, but we wouldn't have seen that complete lack of respect with Wallace at split end.
Martin looks like he has good technique on this play. Not as narrow with his footwork as you have mentioned previously.
Teams will still certainly gamble and take chances in terms of letting Mike Wallace get deep. It will alter defenses, but it's certainly not a revolution. The play in question isn't one that will disappear, and is quite possibly indicative of issues that have nothing at all to do with Wallace such as protection, play-calling tendencies, etc.
That's not my concern, my concern is he shouldn't have spent 60 million on what he did. You're going to be sorely disappointed treating Mike Wallace, or for that matter any single player like as much of a panacea as is being done here.
The game was dominated and essentially lost by protection issues. Adding up play selection, defensive response, down and distance, and what you see occurring in that play doesn't exactly take Sherlock Holmes. Blaming that play on the lack of a deep threat is working backward from an already accepted premise. But I'd imagine you're fairly familiar with everything looking like a nail, metaphorically speaking.
I can't believe this is still an issue. Thought it was all said awhile back, in several threads. It's amazing some still think Philbin wasn't part of the off season decisions even though Ireland just said he was and that he made decisions based on what types of players Philbin & co. want. There was also Philbin himself saying that he likes and wanted Wallace and spoke of highly of his abilities, more than just running a deep route. I posted that awhile back. He also said he likes Jennings, but preferred Wallace because he brings more to the table and fits more of a need. There goes that "let's assume everything about the man based off of what he did in Green bay" BS. It's ridiculous. The decisions are always more of a consensus decision and influenced by the entire regime. The HC's plan is a massive influence, especially when that GM helped bring that coach in. Common sense. As for Wallace this has been done to death. The situations and dynamics of each team are different. Wallace fits a big need on this team. He creates more balance. Chunk yardage and TDs baby.
Yea, the Pats bringing pressure and guarding the sticks on one 3rd-and-short must mean we just needed a deep threat. Lol. Add to this the fact that Mike Wallace just doesn't move the chains very often: only 27 catches (on 116 targets) went for 1st downs, compared to Hartline's 48 (on 118), Bess's 37 (on 96), and Gibson's 38 (on 75). Gibson's actually tops in the League in % of targets that convert 1st downs or TDs. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/03/18/sig-stats-first-down-touchdown-conversions-wrs/ And people seem to conveniently forget that thread from a few weeks ago that statistically showed that both Steeler RBs faced loaded 8+ boxes more often than Reggie Bush did last season.
And if you're correct Wallace will never see the entire 60 million, so why not squash the bias b/c I know that you know that NE (and everyone else we play) will be forced to alter the way they defend our offense now that Wallace is here. Not at all. And it's not just Wallace, it's Wallace being added to the other players we have on the offense.
Brandon Fields' muffed punt leading to one of NE's 2 TDs, Jimmy Wilson's roughing the punter penalty leading to the other. Hartline behind the D for 3 potential scores, none of which were converted. Reshad Jones' pick 6 called back by penalty. And that's the short version. Perhaps you were watching a different game. The already accepted premise is that the defense's job is to prevent the offense from scoring TDs. Playing certain coverages, like the one in the frames are extremely risky and unlikely to be employed vs a team with Mike Wallace on the field. That part is common sense, which you're loath to accept b/c it detracts from your accepted premise that Wallace was not a good signing.
I remember Wilfork obliterating us that game. One of the few times I thought a DT was game MVP. But anyway... You're working off the premise that defenses have to play soft or double Wallace, meaning they'd have a harder time loading the box. Well, this didn't happen for Pittsburgh. Their RBs saw more, or just as many, loaded 8+ boxes as ours did. But these statistics detract from your accepted premise. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/05/08/facing-eight-in-the-box/ https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/05/09/facing-eight-in-the-box-with-two-or-more-wideouts/ http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/100680/stacking-the-box-against-a-loaded-question
I think the key point is that with Wallace & Gibson & Keller - we have three weapons that we simply did not have. Players who can run all the routes from their positions. Not a big fan of Gibson but think overall he'll be better than Bess. And, with attention given to Wallace that does allow Hartline increased liberty. The main point is there are 4+ weapons in the passing attack that are all improvements over last year (I think Hartline will be better for the reason above and because he just has more experience). They all can also do more of what Philbin would like to do - and give him increased options in the game plans. A second key point is to see what Wallace will do under Philbin's coaching and offensive system which I think could make Wallace more effective. Add to that, the fact that Tannehill will be improved in knowing the offense; reading defenses; fundamentals; etc. and that makes for a significantly improved offense. I really don't take issue with the $60 million because we are still in very good cap shape and have room next year as well. Sometimes you have to risk it and I really think there were no other options that can enhance the offense. A few of the 1 year deal guys will have very good seasons and we'll probably want them back - but that will be tough. Would love to get Grimes back in the fold and possibly Keller - unless Egnew steps up (and evidently he has had a very good spring, which is a good sign).
Thanks for the links, very interesting stuff. Personally, I prefer watching the games via game rewind, and trusting my eyes, as opposed to letting profootballfocus tell me what did or did not happen.
Except relying on stats in this case omits some very key issues. The weak Steelers OL that they have now completely re-tooled. And the offensive changes that Todd Haley brought in that the players aren't behind (Ben referred to it as "dink and dunk" - http://bit.ly/RMHHsb ). He changed their offense to a conservative ball control based offense with fewer deep balls and riskier plays. They actually handcuffed Wallace.
Ah, so the personnel on the field, namely wide receiver, doesn't affect that or allow a defense to bring the pressure and guard the sticks in the first place? Laughing at the insinuation Wallace isn't a chain mover. He moved the chains 163 of 404 career targets for 40%. That's the SAME as Hartline's but with a whopping 31 more 1st downs than Brian. But wait, Wallace scored touchdowns on 32 of those attempts, so when appropriately factoring those out (because you don't get a 1st down when you score a TD), his actual 1st down percentage is 44% compared to Hartline's 41% and Bess's 38%. You were saying? On top of that, Wallace is at 7.9% TD rate verse Hartline's 1.9% & Bess's 2.4%. I'm excited Gibson led the league with 57% combined 1sts & TDs (with 43) but don't try and make it seem like he's a better receiver than Wallace b/c of it. If that were true he'd receive 100+ targets and would be getting paid the big bucks. Wallace's career combined TD-1st Down Percentage is a respectable 48.3%.... although he averaged 56.33% for 2010 & '11, which would be good for #1 on that chart you listed of all receivers with at least 85 targets. Some trivia for you: Only 2 receivers the past 30 years have tallied more yards and TDs during their first 3 seasons than Wallace. Jerry Rice & Randy Moss.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and this could be a little embarrassing, but isn't that a defensive stat you're referring to (the 2nd PFF link)? Seems it focuses on how often a DEFENSE stacks the box rather than an offense facing a stacked box. Here's a quote from it: It's interesting the 2 defenses showcasing the most 8+ in the box by a staggering amount, New England & Buffalo, both played Miami and our terrible receiving corps twice last year. Unfortunately your ESPN link is quite cursory and leaves out too many factors. However, it does state Miami faced the 11th greatest percentage of 8+ in the box on 1st & 2nd down. Pittsburgh might've been right behind us at 12th but they also featured 1 or 0 WR on the field on 37% of their rushing attempts <per ESPN>, meaning a nice chunk of time Pitt's offense saw 8 in the box Wallace could've still seen bracketed coverage or safety help over the top. Miami on the other hand featured only 21% 1 or 0 WR. It's difficult for Wallace to force an unstacked box when he's the only receiver on the field. Even harder when it's a 0 receiver personnel and he's not even on it.
I guess so...I've watched almost every rep Jon Martin has ever taken in isolation in college and the pros, I actually think my projection of him coming out of college was accurate, he has a lot to prove that he belongs, regardless of a still photo of him overextending himself.
