Mike Wallace's Contribution to the Miami Dolphins: Positive or Negative? | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Mike Wallace's Contribution to the Miami Dolphins: Positive or Negative?

Mike Wallace's contribution to the Miami Dolphins has been:


  • Total voters
    103

Shouright

☠️ Banned ☠️
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
15,051
Reaction score
18
Age
53
There's been some thought that the Dolphins under Joe Philbin are trying to establish a "spread the ball around" offense, similar to what Philbin was associated with in Green Bay, where Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, Donald Driver, James Jones, and Jermichael Finely were the primary recipients of Aaron Rodgers's passes, with each catching a significant number of passes, and none standing out to the degree seen on teams with a dominant, go-to receiver such as Calvin Johnson or Julio Jones.

Prior to this season the Dolphins functioned with Brian Hartline, Davone Bess, and Anthony Fasano, and while it could be argued that no one in that group was as good individually as anyone in the Green Bay group noted above, it was perhaps nonetheless the case that everyone in the group fit with the "spread the ball around" mentality Philbin purportedly espouses, in that each can contribute significantly, though none are a "feed me the ball" dominant, go-to receiver.

Now, enter Mike Wallace in 2013, and with his salary being so much greater than those of the other receivers, one question becomes whether he's going to fit with the "spread the ball around" mentality, or whether he's going to need the ball fed to him like Brandon Marshall did when he was a member of the Dolphins, while whining when it isn't.

Well it didn't take long for Wallace to start whining. We know that. After the first game in Cleveland, Wallace was reportedly dejected if not angered after a game the Dolphins won, citing his lack of sufficient involvement in the offense.

Now that can be taken two ways, one positive and one negative: 1) he unselfishly wants to contribute more and help the team win, which is positive, or 2) he selfishly wants to be an individual star whether the team wins or loses, which is negative.

I don't think we can say with any certainty whether the former or latter is more true. However, what we can do is see whether Mike Wallace's performance to date fits with the "spread the ball around" mentality Philbin and company are supposedly striving for, and thereby get a sense of whether Mike Wallace is unselfishly contributing to the offensive mission if you will.

One way of doing that is by determining Wallace's production as a function of how often the offense targets him in the passing game. Yards per target (YPT) is an effective measure of that IMO.

When we look back over his career prior to joining the Dolphins, we find that Wallace's YPT in 2009, his rookie season, was 10.0, which put him 9th overall in the league in that category. In 2010 his YPT was a staggering 12.7, which placed him first in the league, and in 2011 his YPT was 10.5, which placed him 11th. In 2012 his YPT decreased a great deal to 7.0, which placed him 54th.

So far this season Wallace's YPT with the Dolphins has been 6.4, which is 61st in the league. In other words, Wallace is needing nearly twice the number of targets he had in 2010, to produce the same number of yards. Said differently, for every 100 yards of passes he's caught this year, Wallace has had to be thrown the ball (whether he catches it or not) about twice as many times as he was thrown the ball in 2010.

Now, some have thought that Wallace's presence, while perhaps not resulting in a great number catches for him specifically, might "open things up" for the other receivers on the team. So let's investigate that possibility by looking at the YPT numbers for both Brian Hartline and Brandon Gibson.

Brian Hartline, in 2012, prior to Mike Wallace's arrival, had 8.3 YPT and 14.3 YPC on the season. This year, with Wallace on the opposite side of the field, Hartline's YPT is the same (8.3), while his YPC has decreased to 13.3. Now, granted Hartline's decrease YPC could be because Wallace has assumed the downfield role formerly occupied by Hartline, with Hartline's assuming the possession role formerly occupied by Davone Bess, leaving Hartline with a greater percentage of shorter routes on the tree.

Brandon Gibson's YPT in 2012 was 8.4, and his YPC was 13.5. Granted this was with a different quarterback, in a different role (outside receiver versus slot receiver). This year his YPT is 8.5, a 0.1 yard increase, and his YPC is 11.8, which I think reflects a difference in the routes he's running from the slot.

Now let's see if Mike Wallace is "opening up" the running game. Last year the Dolphins rushed for 4.1 yards a carry, good for 19th in the league overall. This year they're rushing for 4.0 yards a carry, good for 20th.

So, we're left with three possible conclusions here IMO: 1) that Mike Wallace's presence has been predominantly positive, that the play of the offensive line has prevented him from functioning as he does customarily, and that the team would be doing even worse offensively without Wallace on the field, 2) that Wallace's presence has been predominantly negative, that he's "absorbing" offensive play and not offering enough in return, or 3) that we really don't know enough about the inner workings of the team to know for certain.
 
Positive, if nothing else, he draws attention away from the other WRs giving them opportunities...
 
Positive, if nothing else, he draws attention away from the other WRs giving them opportunities...
Is that supported statistically?

On the other hand, it could be the case that he robs them of opportunities and offers less in return. If his YPT is 6.4, and Hartline and Gibson's are both over 8, doesn't it make more sense to throw the ball to them?

You can throw the ball to Hartline or Gibson 10 times and get about 85 yards down the field, whereas throwing the ball to Wallace 10 times will get you only about 65 yards.

And once again, these numbers are no different for Hartline and Gibson this year than they were for them last year, suggesting that Wallace's presence alone isn't doing anything for them in that regard.

Saying Wallace "opens things up for other people" makes sense logically and sounds great in theory, but I don't think we can say there's anything objective we can put our mitts on right now that would support that notion.
 
Is that supported statistically?

On the other hand, it could be the case that he robs them of opportunities and offers less in return. If his YPT is 6.4, and Hartline and Gibson's are both over 8, doesn't it make more sense to throw the ball to them?

You can throw the ball to Hartline or Gibson 10 times and get about 85 yards down the field, whereas throwing the ball to Wallace 10 times will get you only about 65 yards.

And once again, these numbers are no different for Hartline and Gibson this year than they were for them last year, suggesting that Wallace's presence alone isn't doing anything for them in that regard.

It is film supported....Wallace almost always gets safety help leaving the other three targets...Clay, Hartline and Gibson in single coverage. The fact that the yards that all 3 are getting and the total yards that Tannehill has thrown for has increased also helps provide the "statistical support" you crave. You can look at each player individually in different situations and try to use that to support some theory, but it doesn't work as each are now in a unique season working together. Its why film works better then some arbitrary stat spun to support some argument.
 
It is film supported....Wallace almost always gets safety help leaving the other three targets...Clay, Hartline and Gibson in single coverage. The fact that the yards that all 3 are getting and the total yards that Tannehill has thrown for has increased also helps provide the "statistical support" you crave. You can look at each player individually in different situations and try to use that to support some theory, but it doesn't work as each are now in a unique season working together. Its why film works better then some arbitrary stat spun to support some argument.
What film are you watching that enables you to determine whether Wallace is drawing safety help any more than let's say Hartline did last year? Are you studying the "all-22" film to the degree necessary to make that determination?

Also, Tannehill's yardage may have increased whether Wallace was brought on board or not. I don't think we can look at the increase in Tannehill's yardage and conclude for certain that it's attributable to the addition of Wallace. Hell, for all we know, we could've added a different receiver and accomplished a similar or even greater increase. Who knows?
 
sample size not large enough, imo. is he worth the 60mil in 5 games, no. come back after the season, or close to season's end.
 
Can you check Charles Clay's YPT and YPC too and compare it to his previous years. I don't lean to neither side, I'm just curious about Clay's numbers.
 
We are not better without Mike Wallace. That's all you need to know.
 
Just an suggestion but you might want to include the TE in your data. Once of Wallace's greatest attributes, his speed, requires a defense to move the safety from the middle of the field to the sideline to cover him over the top, while then having to put a LB on the TE. The vast improvement of production from Clay this year can be directly attributed to that. I'm guessing the production from the TE position compared from 2012 to 2013 is immense.

Also until Wallace and Tannehill are on the exact page in the offense I think it's a little premature to judge him on every target thrown his way. There has been numerous times where Wallace has been open and he and Tannehill have failed to connect due to them not having perfect chemistry. Once these two get on the same page the production per target will go up as well. Big Ben said it took an entire year of getting used to throwing the ball to Wallace and that was after he was in the league for five years. Tannehill and Wallace will get on the same page it will just take time.

Last, as we have seen while watching games the o-line can't even open holes for the RB's when they are only facing 4-5 man fronts. I fail to see how that places any fault on Wallace.
 
What film are you watching that enables you to determine whether Wallace is drawing safety help any more than let's say Hartline did last year? Are you studying the "all-22" film to the degree necessary to make that determination?

Also, Tannehill's yardage may have increased whether Wallace was brought on board or not. I don't think we can look at the increase in Tannehill's yardage and conclude for certain that it's attributable to the addition of Wallace. Hell, for all we know, we could've added a different receiver and accomplished a similar or even greater increase. Who knows?

Hartline sees A LOT more single coverage than Wallace does.

Wallace has really opened up the offense and allows Sherman to anticipate what the defense is doing.
That said, Sherman is still squandering this opportunity and has rarely used Wallace effectively.
 
We may not be measurably better without Wallace, but are we better with him? Anyone soaking up $60 million in cap money should be making the team considerably better IMO, at least at some point if not immediately.
 
I think it's amazing how other high paid alpha receivers in the league STILL consistently produce, even when facing bracketed coverage. Unfortunately for us, our $60million man lines up in the same spot 90% of the time.
 
Back
Top Bottom