Tannehill says he won’t force it to Wallace

The only thing that kills me about this distraction is, we're 1-0.

We're 1-0 and beat our opponent by two touchdowns but all week this has been a distraction. Why can't they get the ball to Mike Wallace? How does Mike Wallace feel about that? How does Joe Philbin feel about it? How does Ryan Tannehill feel about it? Will they get him more involved? OHHH Tannehill just went out and said he's not going to force the ball to Wallace. Is there a disconnect between those two? Etc etc.

We're 1-0 and this is what we're dealing with all week. Blame the media all you want but they're nothing more than a mathematical equation that was set off by Mike Wallace's language and behavior after the game, coupled with the context (his $60 million contract).

I can GUARANTEE this week that several times Joe Philbin has muttered, either to himself or others, that this is exactly why he hates the idea of a big-money number one receiver.

This is a media created distraction. If he had anything less than 40-50 yards they were going to create a story about him being under utilized and mentioning his big offseason contract. He was one of the biggest stories and signings offseason. This a money maker for the media.

Obviously his comments didn't help the situation post game. I think RTH's comments are spot on. Wallace will create his own opportunities. RTH doesn't need to force it to him at the expense of this offense and team.

As annoying as the griping in the media about Wallace's targets is especiall after a win. I am glad that Tannehill is confident enough in himself as a QB and leader of this team, that he doesn't feel that he has to force the ball to Wallace into situations that don't call for it. He's not going to force throws to please the media, or Mike Wallace.

I dunno... that first deep ball in the second half last week was pretty telegraphed.

While I obviously agree that Tanny should not throw to a double covered Wallace if gibson is wide open, we do need Tanny to start trusting Wallace to the point that he will throw to him even if covered.

He needs to see if Wallace will be the type who can bail you out on bad throws or when the play breaks down.

I can't just conclude this is all media driven, and I will give you a GREAT example of why.

Tihs week I wrote a pretty extensive piece detailing from a scheme and skill set standpoint why Brian Hartline had such a GOOD day against the Cleveland Browns secondary

You know who I didn't mention in the piece AT ALL?

Mike Wallace.

You know who I got asked about THE MOST in the comments section of the article, on Twitter, and on two message boards (this one and FH)?

Mike Wallace.

Don't blame the media.

I agree with the Tannehills thought process, you the boss, don't crumble to his diva pressure, if he doesn't fall in line with Philbins direction, then we go from there.

Re: Tannehill says he won’t force it to Wallace

"ckparrothead wrote:

I can't just conclude this is all media driven, and I will give you a GREAT example of why.

Tihs week I wrote a pretty extensive piece detailing from a scheme and skill set standpoint why Brian Hartline had such a GOOD day against the Cleveland Browns secondary

You know who I didn't mention in the piece AT ALL?

Mike Wallace.

You know who I got asked about THE MOST in the comments section of the article, on Twitter, and on two message boards (this one and FH)?

Mike Wallace.

Don't blame the media.

The media looks to generate revenue... Mike Wallace generates revenue, not Brian Hartline. Comparatively speaking, of course.

"schmolioot wrote:

While I obviously agree that Tanny should not throw to a double covered Wallace if gibson is wide open, we do need Tanny to start trusting Wallace to the point that he will throw to him even if covered.

He needs to see if Wallace will be the type who can bail you out on bad throws or when the play breaks down.

While I agree with you on the premise of giving your big money receiver the opportunity; after all, that's why you brought him in. If Tannehill does throw to a double covered Wallace and is picked off, everyone starts screaming and comparing him to Chad Henne for a poor decision.

This is Tannehill's team now. He's running the offense and he's being disciplined to make his reads before throwing the ball. Our team is talented enough that big plays can and eventually will come, but in the meantime, protect the ball and don't turn it over trying to give your money receiver a "chance"

Wallace is supposed to be speedy. Well, outrun your defenders then and the ball will come your way.

"ckparrothead wrote:

I can't just conclude this is all media driven, and I will give you a GREAT example of why.

Tihs week I wrote a pretty extensive piece detailing from a scheme and skill set standpoint why Brian Hartline had such a GOOD day against the Cleveland Browns secondary

You know who I didn't mention in the piece AT ALL?

Mike Wallace.

You know who I got asked about THE MOST in the comments section of the article, on Twitter, and on two message boards (this one and FH)?

Mike Wallace.

Don't blame the media.

You're absolutely right. The media wouldn't push stories like this if there wasn't a market for them. That's what makes your pieces this week so refreshing, while John D Mainstream is out there flinging mud you're sticking to topics relevant to what's happening on the field and I applaud you for it.

Promise you won't go mainstream on us...

Call me crazy, but if Tannehill just goes through his progressions how the plays are called, and If Wallace gets open shouldnt he end up with at least 10 targets a game? Make at least 3 of those deep balls, and you got yourself a stew goin. Am I over simplifying it?

"ckparrothead wrote:

I can't just conclude this is all media driven, and I will give you a GREAT example of why.

Tihs week I wrote a pretty extensive piece detailing from a scheme and skill set standpoint why Brian Hartline had such a GOOD day against the Cleveland Browns secondary

You know who I didn't mention in the piece AT ALL?

Mike Wallace.

You know who I got asked about THE MOST in the comments section of the article, on Twitter, and on two message boards (this one and FH)?

Mike Wallace.

Don't blame the media.

Its the media that invented this distraction and now the fans believe it is one.

Without Armando "breaking" the "HUGE" story of Wallace being upset about his performance, then speculating the reasons and causes of him being upset, then this wouldn't have been the distraction it was.

Its like the media members are the only ones infected with a disease and write about how fast the disease is spreading, then go out and cough all over the public.

"Fin D wrote:

Its the media that invented this distraction and now the fans believe it is one.

Without Armando "breaking" the "HUGE" story of Wallace being upset about his performance, then speculating the reasons and causes of him being upset, then this wouldn't have been the distraction it was.

Its like the media members are the only ones infected with a disease and write about how fast the disease is spreading, then go out and cough all over the public.

On the bright side, this aint a distraction for the team. The fans may be unnecessarily alarmed but I'm willing to bet it's business as usual a the facility. Or is Philbin racking his brain in Davie trying to figure out how to get Omar and Armando off his back? LOLz

Despite the way Wallace was acting. I literally had to wonder how Marshall would have taken a 1 catch game from us.

If we go 2-0, our situation will also reach critical mass.

"ckparrothead wrote:

The only thing that kills me about this distraction is, we're 1-0.

We're 1-0 and beat our opponent by two touchdowns but all week this has been a distraction. Why can't they get the ball to Mike Wallace? How does Mike Wallace feel about that? How does Joe Philbin feel about it? How does Ryan Tannehill feel about it? Will they get him more involved? OHHH Tannehill just went out and said he's not going to force the ball to Wallace. Is there a disconnect between those two? Etc etc.

We're 1-0 and this is what we're dealing with all week. Blame the media all you want but they're nothing more than a mathematical equation that was set off by Mike Wallace's language and behavior after the game, coupled with the context (his $60 million contract).

I can GUARANTEE this week that several times Joe Philbin has muttered, either to himself or others, that this is exactly why he hates the idea of a big-money number one receiver.

How big a distraction does it become if we are 2-3 later.

FOr that matter, if there is discontent and players are expressing it publicly (see Starks too, Soliai only by hearsay) after a win, I wonder how it looks if we struggle for any spell.

"mlb1399 wrote:

This is a media created distraction. If he had anything less than 40-50 yards they were going to create a story about him being utilized and his big offseason contract. He was one of the biggest stories and signings offseason. This a money maker for the media.

Obviously his comments didn't help the situation post game. I think RTH's comments are spot on. Wallace will create his own opportunities. RTH doesn't need to force it to him at the expense of this offense and team.

Not true. The media took it and blew it up.
But make no mistake...it was created by Mike Wallace and his words and body language after the game.

"CantinaJack wrote:

Call me crazy, but if Tannehill just goes through his progressions how the plays are called, and If Wallace gets open shouldnt he end up with at least 10 targets a game? Make at least 3 of those deep balls, and you got yourself a stew goin. Am I over simplifying it?

And that's he point! IF he gets open! Did he in the last game?

I haven't read a good analysis on how many plays he was really open and Tannehill had the time to find him. Does anybody know?

"Fin D wrote:

Its the media that invented this distraction and now the fans believe it is one.

Without Armando "breaking" the "HUGE" story of Wallace being upset about his performance, then speculating the reasons and causes of him being upset, then this wouldn't have been the distraction it was.

Its like the media members are the only ones infected with a disease and write about how fast the disease is spreading, then go out and cough all over the public.

I don't think its the huge distraction the media wants to believe it is. But the media didn't create anything. Mike Wallace did that on his own. The media may be trying to make a mountain out of kiddie slope....but there certainly was something there on Sunday.

Why did RT have to even answer that question.

Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I like Tannehill's answer in that it's well stated and mature, given the question. But that said, what else is he really going to say?

Even if the game plan were to force Wallace the ball, for whatever reason, Tannehill isn't going to come out and make it known; if he were to do as much, he may as well send Indy's D a nice little note saying "Dear Sirs, in case you weren't going to try to make Mr. Wallace's afternoon difficult and frustrating enough in the first place, please let it be known that you should given that I intend to throw him the ball throughout the game, whether it is the right play call or otherwise."

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is Tanny isn't used to his game-time speed and doesn't yet really know to what degree he's actually open even if he looks covered. I don't know how long that takes to establish, but I can't help but think that's a part of it.

I think forcing it is what got Big Ben in trouble.

Gotta believe if Mike Wallace continues to run his routes, doesn't half-arse them, and plays hard even when he doesn't see the ball for a while, then he's going to end up getting his, and he's gonna get his big. It's just a matter of time before Tannehill gets in step with him -- Wallace just has to be patient. It's coming together for Tannehill and starting to click.

Obviously, the Dolphins can do some things to target Wallace, such as screens, short stop patterns, whatever. And if that's what it takes to keep the boat from taking on water temporarily, then I guess they'll probably do it. But I'd rather they don't. Just run the offense, like Tannehill says in his statement, go thru the reads, and throw it to the open guy. If Tannehill does that, he's going to end up finding Wallace open quite a few times a game. And Wallace, if he keeps his head in it, will make the most of those situations when they come. His stats will be there in the end if he does that.

The one thing that will derail all that is if Wallace gets upset and starts running lackadaisical routes, because he's upset. That will kill timing and Tannehill's confidence in him. I can certainly empathize with how he felt in the first half. Running wind sprints and never seeing the ball, and the Dolphins are down 7-6. That's frustrating as balls. Thing is, though, he's a professional, and he's being paid well not to take plays off, whatever the case.

Just persevere Mikey, and you'll get yours. You will. Probably starting this week.