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

[nick1]

You might want to check the stats first. Wallace isn't doing much better, and Heyward-Bey is making a whole lot less money.

And hey, isn't Heyward-Bey's speed "opening things up" for TY Hilton? I assume we've studied the Colts' games enough to know either way?

you have to look at previous production. Wallace has much much more production then heyward bey in his career. previous production is a huge factor in a defense respecting any player

anybody who knows football could have Told you Hilton was going to breakout. Reggie Wayne gets credit before heyward bey when it comes to hilton

 

[Zounds]

In other words, you think X about Mike Wallace's improvement of the Dolphins' offense. How do we know you're not wrong about X?

Because it was capture on film? Is film not proof anymore? I'm pretty sure that catching something on video is the highest standard of proof there is, unfortunately you would have no idea since you've never seen one.

 

[Shouright]

How is drawing up offensive plays to get your best weapon the ball in the open field a bad thing?

When the "weapon" doesn't produce return on those plays.

That doesn't change the fact that he has had a POSITIVE impact on this team in regards to our offense from last year. Regardless of any stat you pull up, he has.

There is no stat anyone can pull up to prove that Mike Wallace's presence has had a positive impact on the offense this year, and I'm far less sold on people's (including my own) deductive capabilities via observation than others are. That's a difference that'll never change here, so we might as well stop debating it.

I don’t mind the coaches drawing up specific plays for him because he has talent and a rare skill set. I also trust Tannehill to get the ball to him when he thinks he can make a play and to go elsewhere with the ball when the coverage dictates. That's NFL 101. Take advantage of mismatches of the opponents and Wallace is a mismatch for almost all CBs.

And back in 2010, when Mike Wallace got his name, that worked out great. He produced the highest number of yards per target in the league back then (12.7). Last year and this year however, he's been a shadow of his former self.

So Tannehill can go where the coverage dictates, which is sound football, but when he's gone to Wallace, there hasn't been much return on the investment.

 

[Shouright]

Because it was capture on film? Is film not proof anymore? I'm pretty sure that catching something on video is the highest standard of proof there is, unfortunately you would have no idea since you've never seen one.

Seeing something on video tells you nothing about its frequency or significance. It means only that it happened the time you saw it.

 

[Zounds]

Seeing something on video tells you nothing about its frequency or significance. It means only that it happened the time you saw it.

Come on, if I see something happen on film multiple times, it absolutely tells you something about its frequency.

And you still wont answer my simple question: You have claimed Tannehill has not improved, and claimed that Wallace has negatively contributed to this team, so what EXACTLY to you believe has enabled us to score 22% more points per game this year? Ive answered your ridiculous questions, how about getting off the fence and answering mine.

 

[Shouright]

Come on, if I see something happen on film multiple times, it absolutely tells you something about its frequency.

It tells you something very inexact about it IMO. To be exact, you'd have to gather all the available data and analyze it.

And you still wont answer my simple question: You have claimed Tannehill has not improved, and claimed that Wallace has negatively contributed to this team, so what EXACTLY to you believe has enabled us to score 22% more points per game this year? Ive answered your ridiculous questions, how about getting off the fence and answering mine.

Lord! Like I said! Post #136! :)

And you want me to trust your visual abilities?

 

[ciscoholgate]

When the "weapon" doesn't produce return on those plays.

There is no stat anyone can pull up to prove that Mike Wallace's presence has had a positive impact on the offense this year, and I'm far less sold on people's (including my own) deductive capabilities via observation than others are. That's a difference that'll never change here, so we might as well stop debating it.

And back in 2010, when Mike Wallace got his name, that worked out great. He produced the highest number of yards per target in the league back then (12.7). Last year and this year however, he's been a shadow of his former self.

So Tannehill can go where the coverage dictates, which is sound football, but when he's gone to Wallace, there hasn't been much return on the investment.

In the two games where the coaches made a concerted effort to get Wallace mismatches (weeks 2 and 5), Wallace had 16 receptions for 220 yards and a TD. That is producing pretty well if you ask me.

No stat that has been compiled YET. Again, you are assuming that every possible stat in football has already been compiled and we know for fact that is NOT true. Since no stat exists yet, go back to where the pencil pushers got their stats to find out for yourself. That would mean you have to go watch some GAME FILM.

You are judging how well Wallace will produce for us for his entire contract's length (up to a possible 80 regular season games) off of his first 5 games on a new team, in a new offense, and with a new quarterback? Just think that over for a second so you can realize how ridiculous that is.

 

[Zounds]

It tells you something very inexact about it IMO. To be exact, you'd have to gather all the available data and analyze it.

This is football, not elementary particle physics. If you cant analyze whats going on without seeing metrics then you just aren't watching.

Yea I read your response, but you haven't proved it with stats. So show me EXACTLY how you came to that conclusion, because in your Tannehill threads, you directly contradict what you said in post #136

 

[mnphinfan]

Come on, if I see something happen on film multiple times, it absolutely tells you something about its frequency.

And you still wont answer my simple question: You have claimed Tannehill has not improved, and claimed that Wallace has negatively contributed to this team, so what EXACTLY to you believe has enabled us to score 22% more points per game this year? Ive answered your ridiculous questions, how about getting off the fence and answering mine.

I read shourights threads for the lunacy of some of his posts, and believe me i get a good laugh sometimes, but just give it up already. He will do the same thing he did to you that he did to the rest of us. Get mad when when you debunk one of his pointless stat/theory threads, answer your questions with questions when he doesnt have a legitimate answer and then block you when he knows he cant win the debate.

 

[Shouright]

In the two games where the coaches made a concerted effort to get Wallace mismatches (weeks 2 and 5), Wallace had 16 receptions for 220 yards and a TD. That is producing pretty well if you ask me.

He was a lot more like his former self in the Colts game than he was in the Ravens game. In the Colts game he produced 10.5 YPT, primarily by catching the ball 9 of the 11 times he was targeted. In the Ravens game, however, he had an abysmal 6.5 YPT.

When you think about whether he's "producing pretty well," IMO you have to view this like you would a running back with yards per carry. As an analogy, in the Colts game he had let's say 5.5 yards per carry, and in the Ravens game he had let's say 2.0. We wouldn't say running backs were "producing pretty well" if they were getting 2 yards per carry, even if they ran the ball 55 times for 110 yards.

No stat that has been compiled YET. Again, you are assuming that every possible stat in football has already been compiled and we know for fact that is NOT true. Since no stat exists yet, go back to where the pencil pushers got their stats to find out for yourself. That would mean you have to go watch some GAME FILM.

True, but to get at the things we're talking about here, you'd have to do it like the folks at PFF do, where objective criteria are applied systematically to the entire body of data.

You are judging how well Wallace will produce for us for his entire contract's length (up to a possible 80 regular season games) off of his first 5 games on a new team, in a new offense, and with a new quarterback? Just think that over for a second so you can realize how ridiculous that is.

Actually no. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm talking about his performance for the Dolphins to date, only. I'm saying nothing about what he might do in the future, although it's concerning IMO that his early performance here is consistent with his performance last year, even though he didn't have a new quarterback and a new team last year. He had a new offense, but route trees are route trees.

 

[Shouright]

This is football, not elementary particle physics. If you cant analyze whats going on without seeing metrics then you just aren't watching.

Well then why do you think the majority of the forum was wrong about Chad Henne? Were we all "not watching"?

Yea I read your response, but you haven't proved it with stats. So show me EXACTLY how you came to that conclusion, because in your Tannehill threads, you directly contradict what you said in post #136

I didn't say I could prove it. I said it was my personal belief that could be wrong. It's an educated guess, and I'm calling it such. Unlike others, I'm not saying I know it to be true because I watch the games.

In the thread I started about Tannehill, again, I didn't say he hadn't improved. I said he'd improved in the same manner Chad Henne did between 2009 and the first four games of 2010, in terms of QB rating.

 

[phins_4_ever]

What's interesting is how such a dumb thread could drag on for so many pages.

They keep feeding the troll.

 

[ciscoholgate]

He was a lot more like his former self in the Colts game than he was in the Ravens game. In the Colts game he produced 10.5 YPT, primarily by catching the ball 9 of the 11 times he was targeted. In the Ravens game, however, he had an abysmal 6.5 YPT.

When you think about whether he's "producing pretty well," IMO you have to view this like you would a running back with yards per carry. As an analogy, in the Colts game he had let's say 5.5 yards per carry, and in the Ravens game he had let's say 2.0. We wouldn't say running backs were "producing pretty well" if they were getting 2 yards per carry, even if they ran the ball 55 times for 110 yards.

True, but to get at the things we're talking about here, you'd have to do it like the folks at PFF do, where objective criteria are applied systematically to the entire body of data.

Actually no. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm talking about his performance for the Dolphins to date, only. I'm saying nothing about what he might do in the future, although it's concerning IMO that his early performance here is consistent with his performance last year, even though he didn't have a new quarterback and a new team last year. He had a new offense, but route trees are route trees.

Again with comparing a WR to a RB (it's absurd). YPT is just one measure of production. It doesn't take into account how well the opposing defense is playing or if any other players are open on the target Wallace got or many many other of factors that take place in a football game. To say ONE measure (YPT in this case) is the only way to measure productivity is silly. There is not one or two or three stats that sum up a football player and their impact on the game or their productivity. You can repeat the same stats and the same things you have been spewing this whole thread, but that doesn't change the fact that Wallace has a POSITIVE impact on our offense. Nothing you say will change that FACT.

Stats and football analysis has existed for decades before PFF ever existed and will go on long after it's demise. Anyone with access to game film can compile all the stats PFF uses and can actually compile more (much much more more you desire). The way to interpret the data is by having a good understanding of football (which you do not posses).

If you have no idea how well Wallace will play from this point forward, why say he is not worth $60 million? There is too small of a sample of data regarding Wallace's productivity thus far in Miami. The fact that you've already drawn a conclusion based upon such a small sample size already shows your bias.

---------- Post added at 04:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:50 PM ----------

They keep feeding the troll.

It's bye week. Not much else to do on FH. :tumbleweed:

 

[Shouright]

Again with comparing a WR to a RB (it's absurd). YPT is just one measure of production. It doesn't take into account how well the opposing defense is playing or if any other players are open on the target Wallace got or many many other of factors that take place in a football game. To say ONE measure (YPT in this case) is the only way to measure productivity is silly. There is not one or two or three stats that sum up a football player and their impact on the game or their productivity. You can repeat the same stats and the same things you have been spewing this whole thread, but that doesn't change the fact that Wallace has a POSITIVE impact on our offense. Nothing you say will change that FACT.

Stats and football analysis has existed for decades before PFF ever existed and will go on long after it's demise. Anyone with access to game film can compile all the stats PFF uses and can actually compile more (much much more more you desire). The way to interpret the data is by having a good understanding of football (which you do not posses).

If you have no idea how well Wallace will play from this point forward, why say he is not worth $60 million? There is too small of a sample of data regarding Wallace's productivity thus far in Miami. The fact that you've already drawn a conclusion based upon such a small sample size already shows your bias.

Sounds like we've reached an agree to disagree point. Thanks for the discussion. :up:

 

[ciscoholgate]

We can agree to disagree shouright.

This is the play I was talking about and how you can measure Wallace's impact on the opposing defense:

We can see here by alignment and by watching this play that the Ravens are in nickel defense and are playing a cover two zone defense. The safety on Wallace's side is lined up about 27 yards deep and shading to Wallace's side (he is all the way over to the numbers). By looking at the alignment of the safety on the other side of the field, we can see him lined up about 19 yards off the ball and well inside the numbers. His respect of Hartline's speed is obviously much less than Wallace's because Hartline is the only WR on his side and he is shading towards the middle a bit. Clay and Miller are lined up in the back field (both are flanking Tannehill) and are staying in to block and give extra pass protection (Miller will chip and release to the flat). I should also mention that at the snap of the ball we can see how good of a jump Suggs gets because he is almost in Martin's face right after the snap and Martin is barely getting out of his stance. Suggs is still a beast and our coaches had Martin trying to block him one on one most of the game.

At the snap of the ball Tannehill instantly has pressure in his face. Tannehill leaves the pocket and scrambles to his left. At this same moment We see Gibson and Wallace push their routes vertically for ten yards. Hartline (on the other side of the field) is running a post corner route trying to get behind the corner back and in front of the safety. Wallace (not knowing Tannehill had fled the pocket) runs a stop route just past the first down marker. In this shot we can see three defenders are tracking Wallace's movements (the backside safety, the nickel corner, and the corner covering Wallace at the snap). The back side safety is so concerned about Wallace that he hasn't noticed Tannehill has rolled to the opposite side of the field and is still at the numbers when he sees Gibson's post route is behind the linebacker and going to get behind the play side safety.

Tannehill (who was exceptional on this play) throws a near perfect strike to Gibson. The back side safety was so far out of position that he totally undercuts the route (probably because he couldn't see the ball) and Gibson makes a great diving catch. This throw and catch was maybe a foot off from Gibson catching it in stride and running for a TD. Plays like this show me why I am excited for Tannehill and how Wallace has a positive impact for our offense. This is just one example of how opposing teams track Wallace. An easy way to compile a "stat" out of this is to mark how many defenders the WR influences on each route (in this case it is three for Wallace).

Don't be naive and continue to say Wallace has not had a positive impact on the Dolphins or for Tannehill's development (and NO DHB does not get attention like this from opposing defenses).