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

[Shouright]

That was a nice visual breakdown. Thanks. :up:

You said that prior to the snap, the safety who was late getting to Gibson was shaded to Wallace's side and lined up deeper, perhaps implying that he was lined up there out of respect for Wallace. However, he was also lined up wider and deeper on the side with two receivers than was the other safety, who was lined up on the side with only one wide receiver.

How do we know the safety was lined up where he was out of respect for Wallace, or because he was on the side with two receivers versus only one?

Additionally, you said this is "how we can measure Wallace's impact on the opposing defense." Even if the defense is indeed allocating more resources toward Wallace, which IMO is debatable, how does only one play -- and an obvious long-distance passing down that could've ended a game had it been successfully defended -- measure his overall impact on opposing defenses, across a great many different types of situations?

 

[NCFINFAN13]

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

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.

Henne sucks.

 

[dreaded34]

 

[ciscoholgate]

How do we know the safety was lined up where he was out of respect for Wallace, or because he was on the side with two receivers versus only one?

Additionally, you said this is "how we can measure Wallace's impact on the opposing defense." Even if the defense is indeed allocating more resources toward Wallace, which IMO is debatable, how does only one play -- and an obvious long-distance passing down that could've ended a game had it been successfully defended -- measure his overall impact on opposing defenses, across a great many different types of situations?

Because after the ball snaps he does not react to Gibson's route in anyway. He is squatting and watching Wallace. He is so focused on Wallace (after the snap) that he looses sight of Tannehill and does not move with Tannehill as Tannehill moves away from him.

You're right, this is one play. So just imagine how many more are similar to this. Also, it is not debatable that three defenders are keeping an eye on Wallace. You can clearly see all three watching Wallace even as Tannehill is on the other side of the field. Use some common sense man.

 

[Shouright]

Because after the ball snaps he does not react to Gibson's route in anyway. He is squatting and watching Wallace. He is so focused on Wallace (after the snap) that he looses sight of Tannehill and does not move with Tannehill as Tannehill moves away from him.

They've used a safety in a cover two (or quarters) to monitor Wallace (the outside receiver) more than Gibson (the slot receiver) on a play in which the probability of a pass is 99.99%, time is running out in the game, we're backed up in our own territory, and an unsuccessful play wins the game for the defense. Do you really think we should use that play to "measure" the impact of Wallace on other players in general?

You're right, this is one play. So just imagine how many more are similar to this. Also, it is not debatable that three defenders are keeping an eye on Wallace. You can clearly see all three watching Wallace even as Tannehill is on the other side of the field. Use some common sense man.

Well, "common" sense might tell me there are a whole lot more, and "uncommon" sense might tell me there might not be a whole lot more. In other words, there are a lot of errors of logic made by the common man in everyday thought. If we're going to know this issue for sure either way, we can't make the conclusion by using our "imagination."

See here, for example:

Where an anecdote ("I know a Brazilian man who...") is used to "prove" an entire proposition or to support a bias, the availability heuristic is in play. In these instances the ease of imagining an example or the vividness and emotional impact of that example becomes more credible than actual statistical probability. Because an example is easily brought to mind or mentally "available," the single example is considered representative of the whole rather than as just an anecdotal example in a range of data. An example is when a person argues that cigarette smoking is not unhealthy because his grandfather smoked three packs of cigarettes each day and lived to be 100 years old. (The grandfather's health could be an exception to the rule.)

A person sees several news stories about cats leaping out of tall trees and surviving, so he believes that cats must be robust to long falls. However, these kinds of news reports are far more common than reports where a cat falls out of the tree and dies, which could be more common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

And even if there are a whole lot more, we still haven't touched the issue of what that does measurably for other players in general, which could itself be insignificant.

If you want to believe something based on your own personal theory, that's fine. But personally I don't. I want to have the theory and have the ability to measure it objectively before I say I know anything anywhere near certain about it. That may make us agree to disagree again in the end, and if so that's fine as well. :)

 

[realdolphin]

His presence is not near the potential he has. but there is nothing negative about having him. silly thread.

 

[ciscoholgate]

They've used a safety in a cover two (or quarters) to monitor Wallace (the outside receiver) more than Gibson (the slot receiver) on a play in which the probability of a pass is 99.99%, time is running out in the game, we're backed up in our own territory, and an unsuccessful play wins the game for the defense. Do you really think we should use that play to "measure" the impact of Wallace on other players in general?

Well, "common" sense might tell me there are a whole lot more, and "uncommon" sense might tell me there might not be a whole lot more. In other words, there are a lot of errors of logic made by the common man in everyday thought. If we're going to know this issue for sure either way, we can't make the conclusion by using our "imagination."

See here, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

And even if there are a whole lot more, we still haven't touched the issue of what that does measurably for other players in general, which could itself be insignificant.

If you want to believe something based on your own personal theory, that's fine. But personally I don't. I want to have the theory and have the ability to measure it objectively before I say I know anything anywhere near certain about it. That may make us agree to disagree again in the end, and if so that's fine as well. :)

On this one play Wallace had a HUGE impact in getting Gibson open so wide open so I do think it is relevant and a great way to measure how Wallace POSITIVELY impacts the offense.

There IS a measure available to exam how much impact Wallace has on the team. It's in the film. We can watch it, quantify it, and measure it. I've seen it time and time again in watching the game film. There is no "imagination" involved. It is there before our eyes. You just need to open yours and WATCH THE GAME FILM and you'll be a more knowledge football person for it as well.

As for the last part.....OK?

 

[Shouright]

On this one play Wallace had a HUGE impact in getting Gibson open so wide open so I do think it is relevant and a great way to measure how Wallace POSITIVELY impacts the offense.

It's a poor way IMO because of the availability heuristic I mentioned.

There IS a measure available to exam how much impact Wallace has on the team. It's in the film. We can watch it, quantify it, and measure it. I've seen it time and time again in watching the game film. There is no "imagination" involved. It is there before our eyes. You just need to open yours and WATCH THE GAME FILM and you'll be a more knowledge football person for it as well.

Well then let's do it! And then let's compare that to the effect of speedy receivers on other teams, so we can really know whether we're getting our money's worth with Mike Wallace right now.

Isn't it interesting that we're nearly 200 posts in here, and we're having to propose an objective study that no one can possibly have the means to accomplish, to ascertain Mike Wallace's value to this team, rather than simply being able to point to his own individual statistics?

Let's have a debate on Calvin Johnson's value to the Lions, or Andre Johnson's value to the Texans. I won't have to go real far (if at all) past their own personal statistics in making the point. I certainly won't have to be proposing a video study of all NFL teams to prove it. :)

 

[ciscoholgate]

It's a poor way IMO because of the availability heuristic I mentioned.

Well then let's do it! And then let's compare that to the effect of speedy receivers on other teams, so we can really know whether we're getting our money's worth with Mike Wallace right now.

Isn't it interesting that we're nearly 200 posts in here, and we're having to propose an objective study that no one can possibly have the means to accomplish, to ascertain Mike Wallace's value to this team, rather than simply being able to point to his own individual statistics?

Let's have a debate on Calvin Johnson's value to the Lions, or Andre Johnson's value to the Texans. I won't have to go real far (if at all) past their own personal statistics in making the point. I certainly won't have to be proposing a video study of all NFL teams to prove it. :)

It is a perfect example actually because the Ravens KNOW we are going to pass it and they don't have to worry about the run and they still get caught up watching Wallace and forgetting about Gibson.

Wallace's stats do show his impact. In his career he has more 40+ yard receptions since he entered the league. If you're going to compare Calvin or Andre's stats, why not include what they've all done since entering the league. Why just cherry pick the five game Wallace has played with a new team, in a new offense, and with a new QB?

The stats I mention CAN be compiled, it's not hard to do. Time consuming yes, not very hard though. Well for you it may be because I really don't think you have a strong understanding of the game.

 

[Shouright]

It is a perfect example actually because the Ravens KNOW we are going to pass it and they don't have to worry about the run and they still get caught up watching Wallace and forgetting about Gibson.

But they also know we need at least 10 yards on a highly probable pass play or the game is over. Do you realize just how few plays there are like that in the NFL?

In every game there are roughly 120 plays (about 60 on average by each team). What percentage of the 1,920 plays on average that are run every week (without a bye) in the NFL do you think are like that one? 0.01%? One out of every a thousand perhaps? And that should be our "calling card" play in determining Wallace's value? Come on.

Wallace's stats do show his impact. In his career he has more 40+ yard receptions since he entered the league. If you're going to compare Calvin or Andre's stats, why not include what they've all done since entering the league. Why just cherry pick the five game Wallace has played with a new team, in a new offense, and with a new QB?

Because that's the focus of the thread, what he's done since becoming a Dolphin.

The stats I mention CAN be compiled, it's not hard to do. Time consuming yes, not very hard though.

When it's been done, and done well, I'll be the first to say it means something. :)

But in the meantime, let's pan back to the big picture and again realize that we're having to go around Robin Hood's barn here to prove Mike Wallace's value to this team right now. We're down to a video study that no one will do, to support an idea that so far has had no measurable impact (statistically) for certain on the players said to be benefitting from Wallace's presence.

I've seen this happen time and time again here, the tack of defaulting to "other players" when someone wasn't performing up to snuff individually. Chris Chambers was a QB away. Ted Ginn was a QB away (oh and by the way, he "opened things up" similarly for other players, as well, which was used to prop up his perceived value in the meantime). Chad Henne was a number-one receiver away. Ronnie Brown was a stud receiver away because teams were jamming eight in the box on him. Ryan Tannehill was "weapons" away from playing like RG3 and Russell Wilson did last year. And so on, and so on.

Let's stick to these players' individual stats. We're far more likely to be correct that way IMO. :)

 

[Krush]

This guy needs to be on sports science, Mike Wallace is Mike Wallace which is speed and threating the field, for the most part he has been great for this offense because the safety has to play over top of him, that's why Clay is having success, now the other teams are blitzing because of the inability of the O-line to protect Tannehill, not because of Wallace, I think the fins need different type of bruising RB to get tough yardage, but once Mike Sherman start calling down an distance plays the fins will be fine, 3rd and inches and you don't do a QB sneak? really? you don't spike the football when you're already in field goal range with 40 seconds left, you run the rock for positioning , which Philbin's fault for allowing it, what team would've done that?

 

[greasyObnoxious]

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

statistics don't have any significance on the future either, stat boy. they just document what happened.

 

[Shouright]

Nearly 38% of the poll as something other than "positive." More than a third of the forum is unable or unwilling to call his contribution "positive" to this point.

 

[finjim]

 

[finjim]

It's a poor way IMO because of the availability heuristic I mentioned.

Well then let's do it! And then let's compare that to the effect of speedy receivers on other teams, so we can really know whether we're getting our money's worth with Mike Wallace right now.

Isn't it interesting that we're nearly 200 posts in here, and we're having to propose an objective study that no one can possibly have the means to accomplish, to ascertain Mike Wallace's value to this team, rather than simply being able to point to his own individual statistics?

Let's have a debate on Calvin Johnson's value to the Lions, or Andre Johnson's value to the Texans. I won't have to go real far (if at all) past their own personal statistics in making the point. I certainly won't have to be proposing a video study of all NFL teams to prove it. :)

You know the majority of those posts are making fun of you, right?