hoops scoops...fins patriots

[FinfanInBuffalo]

his effort and football IQ is extremely poor.

This is my biggest issue with Wallace. It is not that he didn't get the second foot down. It is that it didn't look like it occurred to him to try. It wasn't a missed attempted toe tap or foot drag. It was a big step that put him out of bounds.

Look where Wallace's body is in relation to his foot on the step out of bounds.

View attachment 12913

Now compare to a far tougher play by James Jones.

View attachment 12914

One guy is focusing on getting his feet in bounds and the other is not.

This is in addition to the fact that Wallace didn't need to lean to the sideline in the first place. Just totally oblivious.

 

[DolfanDuBbZ~]

I agree with that. What I don't agree with is the idea that anything other than an average catch was required on that play. All the apologists are defending the blown play by claiming that Wallace can't make "acrobatic" catches. (as if that is somehow a defense :idk:).

This irks me because of 12 months of listening the the Tannehaters complain about the deep ball. When it is there Wallace HAS to catch it. Period. No excuses.

So hoops is a Wallace apologist and a all in Tannehill booster? What a bind that has to be for him.

Your bias is making you a angry person. And people are not apologizing for Wallace, we just know and understand the player he is. As we also understand Tannehill for what he is and isn't.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

So hoops is a Wallace apologist and a all in Tannehill booster? What a bind that has to be for him.

Your bias is making you a angry person. And people are not apologizing for Wallace, we just know and understand the player he is. As we also understand Tannehill for what he is and isn't.

Anybody who doesn't think Wallace should have caught that pass in bounds in being an apologist. Period.

Interesting how you deny being an apologist and apologize for his sub par play in the same sentence.

---------- Post added at 10:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 AM ----------

and I'm actually discussing Tannehill beyond that one play....his play during the game in general which was sub-par. You pick that one play to prove some point and are not taking the game a whole. The fact that both of his coaches have said he needs to play better should be some indication to that. Maybe when you start to see Tanneheill as an elite QB instead of mediocre one you will stop making excuses for him...He can play better...

Well then stop responding to my posts on that one play. Simple.

 

[DolfanDuBbZ~]

Anybody who doesn't think Wallace should have caught that pass in bounds in being an apologist. Period.

Interesting how you deny being an apologist and apologize for his sub par play in the same sentence.

---------- Post added at 10:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 AM ----------



Well then stop responding to my posts on that one play. Simple.

If you take it that way. But your bias has clouded your reasoning.

 

[DolfanDuBbZ~]

I should have followed hoops lead on this. He said his peace and left. Knowing the water boys would listen to no reason.

hoops when or if you see this. Out of the 30 or so snaps Wilfork had, how many one on ones with Satele did he have? So far I've seen a lot of the guards handling him one on one, with Satele kinda being lost at the 2nd lvl.

 

[hoops]

This is still going on....

Outside of all 22 pictures to see players placements on the field, still images are almost pointless to prove a point...

pointless indeed...we need the shot down the boundary otherwise we got nothing

 

[GasPed]

Seems to me everyone is in violent agreement here. We all agree that if Wallace had made that catch, it would've been superstar, highlight reel stuff. The question is really about expectations - do we expect him to make that catch or not? Some say yes, based on his salary; some say no, based on what they've seen of him. Both sides are probably right. Anything else I've missed?

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

If you take it that way. But your bias has clouded your reasoning.

Ditto.

 

[hoops]

give finfaninbuffalo a break...he has to deal with that northern virginia traffic every day...he's gonna be in a foul mood when he comes on here a lot

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

I don't think it would have been an amazing catch. A good one, yes. I don't know. I think the QB deserves much blame for several missed opportunities in that game, but that one particular play, I think Mike Wallace needs to get his damn foot down in bounds.

I just don't feel it's worth arguing. I think that Ryan Tannehill and Mike Wallace both had deficient games, and yet they were still productive and we still put up 33 points and we STILL managed to sustain drives to keep our defense off the field so that they could wreck the Patriots in the second half.

So I'm excited. Mike Wallace had some ugly, ugly plays in that game; so did Ryan Tannehill. And yet we were still dominant in the second half and still overcame three turnovers, and we still have reason to believe that it'll get better. Be excited! :up:

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

I should have followed hoops lead on this. He said his peace and left. Knowing the water boys would listen to no reason.

I will listen to reason. Problem is that no one has presented any.

I get it. You agree Wallace is playing below average and you are okay with that, because "he is what he is". If that justifies it for you, so be it. You can leave out the BS exaggerations about needing to make an acrobatic catch.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

I don't think it would have been an amazing catch. A good one, yes. I don't know. I think the QB deserves much blame for several missed opportunities in that game, but that one particular play, I think Mike Wallace needs to get his damn foot down in bounds.

This has been my point the whole time. I'm really puzzled by the opposite POV.

I think that Ryan Tannehill and Mike Wallace both had deficient games, and yet they were still productive and we still put up 33 points and we STILL managed to sustain drives to keep our defense off the field so that they could wreck the Patriots in the second half.

I agree.

So I'm excited. Mike Wallace had some ugly, ugly plays in that game; so did Ryan Tannehill. And yet we were still dominant in the second half and still overcame three turnovers, and we still have reason to believe that it'll get better. Be excited! :up:

Couldn't agree more.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

give finfaninbuffalo a break...he has to deal with that northern virginia traffic every day...he's gonna be in a foul mood when he comes on here a lot

Didn't notice you were in Richmond. I am recent transplant to Northern VA (hence the FinFanInBuffalo name). Moved here almost 4 years ago.

Regarding the traffic, I spent 2 1/2 years commuting from Herndon to Alexandria, then my company moved to Herndon. 12 minute commute. I'll have to come up with another reason for the foul moods.

 

[Geordie]

I don't think it would have been an amazing catch. A good one, yes. I don't know. I think the QB deserves much blame for several missed opportunities in that game, but that one particular play, I think Mike Wallace needs to get his damn foot down in bounds.

I just don't feel it's worth arguing. I think that Ryan Tannehill and Mike Wallace both had deficient games, and yet they were still productive and we still put up 33 points and we STILL managed to sustain drives to keep our defense off the field so that they could wreck the Patriots in the second half.

So I'm excited. Mike Wallace had some ugly, ugly plays in that game; so did Ryan Tannehill. And yet we were still dominant in the second half and still overcame three turnovers, and we still have reason to believe that it'll get better. Be excited! :up:

Couldn't agree more, we won in spite of the lackluster play of our two main guys on offense, and in a way that's encouraging, it shows that the rest of the offense is a lot stronger than last year. Thill and Wallace both need to step up their game though if this team wants to make the playoffs, from an offensive point of view this win was down to the line and Moreno, during the course of the season they will have off days so we need a bigger output from Thill and his wideouts.

 

[DolfanDuBbZ~]

I will listen to reason. Problem is that no one has presented any.

I get it. You agree Wallace is playing below average and you are okay with that, because "he is what he is". If that justifies it for you, so be it. You can leave out the BS exaggerations about needing to make an acrobatic catch.

Nice try.