Deep Threats: Mike Wallace vs Kenny Stills

[Sons Of Shula]

Mike Wallace is a great deep threat, but only when paired up with the right type of QB (like Ben Roethlisberger), who is good at arcing a deep ball into a fast bucket (over-the-shoulder go route, in stride).

Ryan Tannehill is better at throwing low-trajectory direct laser beams, which is a better match for an acrobatic catch radius guy like Kenny Stills.

Full of **** analysis right there. That's all I've got for that crap.

 

[Njphinsfan]

Get him out there with Tannehill, Landry and Matthews. Would live to see that start now! That would already be an upgrade over Wallace.

 

[normaldude]

And honestly, Still's doesn't have a "huge" catch radius . . . he's very similar to Wallace, except slower.

No way.

- On direct throws, Mike Wallace is a natural body catcher.

- On direct throws, Kenny Stills is a natural hands catcher.


Mike Wallace: "..Wallace is a dependable receiver, but most evaluators would describe him as a "body catcher." He prefers to trap and cradle the ball against his chest rather than snatching the ball cleanly out of the air. There are times when all receivers are forced to cradle the ball, due to ball positioning or the proximity of defenders, but the fact that Wallace routinely utilizes this method suggests he isn't a confident pass catcher.."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...greg-jennings-which-freeagent-prize-will-rise


Kenny Stills: Good hands. Flexible, and can make the adjustment to reel in off-target throws. Shows body control and the ability to catch the football at the high point.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/profiles/kenny-stills?id=2540202


Mike Wallace is better at catching the over-the-shoulder go route in stride.

But Kenny Stills will win contested jump balls by ripping the ball out of the air, like Larry Fitzgerald would.

 

[nick1]

Its very close and considering the money difference. The team is better off

 

[FightingPhins]

KDawg, just watch the vids, just look at Stills snatch the ball from the defenders hands over and over. Book it, regardless of who is better, Tannehill will have a better season with Stills.

This is what I think many are overlooking. I (like most) went right to YouTube after the trade to see this kid, and I was shocked how well he attacks the ball. Under thrown, overthrown, DB in front or behind, this guy went and GOT it. I think he fits OUR QB's skill set much better than Wallace does. And despite the slight speed difference, I would be willing to bet he catches way more deep balls from T-Hill (with more consistency) than we saw from Wallace. These two wide outs have different skillsets and I think Sills fits us better.

 

[Carne Asada]

Only wart I have heard on Stills is FO soured on him because of night life.

That sure worries me, although he's 22. Hardly even drinking age. What did you expect? I bet that as he matures he'll get over that. Come on guys, who wasnt 22 once? Now remember how wasted you used to get and throw in being an NFL player. Wouldn't you party once in a while if you had had that type of money and celebrity status? I sure wouldn't like having trouble finding a job cause I was hung over to work a few times at 22.

 

[The Tannehills Have Eyes]

Brees vs. Tannehill . . . let's be serious.

And honestly, Still's doesn't have a "huge" catch radius . . . he's very similar to Wallace, except slower.

I like that we cleared the money, but I can't sit up here and say we upgraded at WR. We didn't, we got worse.

not even close to the truth.

"STRENGTHS Good athlete. Good first step off of the line of scrimmage well and has the speed to get behind cornerbacks and the quickness to create separation out of his breaks. Tracks the deep ball very well. Good hands. Flexible, and can make the adjustment to reel in off-target throws. Shows body control and the ability to catch the football at the high point."

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/profiles/kenny-stills?id=2540202

does the bold sound like wallace?

 

[ohall]

Great comparison..Wallace just never clicked with tannehill

I can't remember how many deep balls Wallace simply lost sight of, or simply dropped. If I was Tanny I wouldn't throw to him either.

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

I believe that Stills could be a better fit for Tannehill.

Good luck to MW. Unlike some folks, I don't hate the guy. But he punched his own ticket out of town.

 

[Mike13]

Brees vs. Tannehill . . . let's be serious.

And honestly, Still's doesn't have a "huge" catch radius . . . he's very similar to Wallace, except slower.

I like that we cleared the money, but I can't sit up here and say we upgraded at WR. We didn't, we got worse.

Stills runs a 4.35

 

[VCU2000]

This is laughable. We are comparing that Saints offense to ours.

 

[kingfin23]

Stills is a Ok signing. He ain't yet a #2 WR in the NFL. Never mind a #1. We left a whole big time dumping Wallace. We have the worst WR crew in the AFC east right now but if we Get Parker then we good. Stills is a cheap Wallace but won't put up them numbers with Tanny. Getting rid of Wallace was the 1st bad move.

 

[dolpns13]

Two very different WRs..

Wallace needs the ball placed PERFECTLY or chances are he doesn't catch or it even try to catch it, Stills doesn't.

Wallace is a body catcher, Stills catches with his hands.

Wallace masters just one route, Stills seems to know and will master every route on the tree.

Wallace is 3 tenth of a second faster - big deal

 

[Austin Tatious]

Stills is ascending. He's still getting better. Wallace is who we think he is.

Stills can adjust to the ball and can get it in traffic. He's still growing and a better fit.

 

[enigmatics]

Only wart I have heard on Stills is FO soured on him because of night life.

Shhhhhhhh .....