Wallace has been \is the problem.

j-off-her-doll

Finheaven VIP
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
17,793
Reaction score
5,728
Location
Dream Songs
You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Now your argument is that Kevin Kolb and John Skelton are the equal of Kurt Warner? WTF?

Your attempted point (totally unsupported by facts) was that even a WR as great as Fitzgerald can be held back by poor QB play. This was yet another thinly veiled attempt at blaming Tannehill for all the team's problems (in this case Wallace's relative ineffectiveness).

Seriously, you are embarrassing yourself.
It's not about how good the QB is. It's about how well his skill set meshes with the skill set of a given WR. Hartline puts up good numbers, because his favorite route to run is Tannehill's favorite route to throw - sideline comeback. Brandon Marshall would have been great with Tannehill - too bad the staff didn't see it. I'm not blaming Tannehill for Wallace sucking. I'm blaming the staff for thinking that Wallace and Tannehill would be a good combination.

Stafford is pure garbage, but in between his 50 to's per season (alert, I'm being facetious), he has the arm to get Calvin Johnson the ball. Same was true for Kolb and Skelton. Andy Dalton isn't very good, but he can get the ball to AJ Green. Cris Chambers had a fantastic year with Gus Ferotte as his QB. Fiedler was a better QB than Ferotte (maybe not by a ton), but Chambers was never as successful with Fiedler. The point is that it's not Wallace's fault that the staff overestimated Tannehill's ability to hit the deep pass. Wallace is what he is - a WR who is extremely dangerous if he has a QB that can get him the ball deep. I think he'll have a much better season, because a decent OC will find other ways to get him the ball and utilize his speed. He should kill on deep crossing routes, and Tannehill throws that pass well.
 

FinfanInBuffalo

Perennial All-Pro
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Apr 29, 2003
Messages
14,497
Reaction score
3,721
Location
Northern VA
Wallace isn't the greatest receiver thats ever lived but this video brings things into perspective if you want to play the blame game. If anything, Wallace's ability to get sooooo wide open, which increases the target zone, resulted in a few catches on poorly thrown balls.
Apparently, we just focus on different things when watching the video. I see a highly paid WR making piss poor attempts at going after the ball. I HATE to watch him attempt the pathetic basket catches at his waist when reaching up to get the ball at a higher point will greatly increase the chance at a reception.

I saw one really poor throw (the first one). I saw one ridiculously great throw (the one against Buffalo). I saw a few slight over throws. I saw a few slight under throws I saw a WR that never left his feet to get the ball (well he had a 12 inch vertical on one and then tried to catch it below shoulder height). I saw some stupid play design that forced the QB to try and throw the ball 50 yards in the air to make the completion. Most of all I saw a QB and WR that just weren't on the same page.

I agree (and have many times) than Tannehill needs to improve his deep ball (especially to Wallace), but IMO, Wallace is at least as much to blame as Tannehill.
 

j-off-her-doll

Finheaven VIP
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
17,793
Reaction score
5,728
Location
Dream Songs
Apparently, we just focus on different things when watching the video. I see a highly paid WR making piss poor attempts at going after the ball. I HATE to watch him attempt the pathetic basket catches at his waist when reaching up to get the ball at a higher point will greatly increase the chance at a reception.

I saw one really poor throw (the first one). I saw one ridiculously great throw (the one against Buffalo). I saw a few slight over throws. I saw a few slight under throws I saw a WR that never left his feet to get the ball (well he had a 12 inch vertical on one and then tried to catch it below shoulder height). I saw some stupid play design that forced the QB to try and throw the ball 50 yards in the air to make the completion. Most of all I saw a QB and WR that just weren't on the same page.

I agree (and have many times) than Tannehill needs to improve his deep ball (especially to Wallace), but IMO, Wallace is at least as much to blame as Tannehill.
Again, not about blame for players. Their strong points don't intermingle. Lazor will use Wallace's speed in ways that don't contradict Tannehill's game. We should blame the FO and Mike Sherman (and by association Joe Philbin) for not doing this last season. Wallace should have 1,100+ yards and 8+ TD's this season with Lazor as the OC.
 

FinfanInBuffalo

Perennial All-Pro
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Apr 29, 2003
Messages
14,497
Reaction score
3,721
Location
Northern VA
It's not about how good the QB is. It's about how well his skill set meshes with the skill set of a given WR. Hartline puts up good numbers, because his favorite route to run is Tannehill's favorite route to throw - sideline comeback. Brandon Marshall would have been great with Tannehill - too bad the staff didn't see it. I'm not blaming Tannehill for Wallace sucking. I'm blaming the staff for thinking that Wallace and Tannehill would be a good combination.

Stafford is pure garbage, but in between his 50 to's per season (alert, I'm being facetious), he has the arm to get Calvin Johnson the ball. Same was true for Kolb and Skelton. Andy Dalton isn't very good, but he can get the ball to AJ Green. Cris Chambers had a fantastic year with Gus Ferotte as his QB. Fiedler was a better QB than Ferotte (maybe not by a ton), but Chambers was never as successful with Fiedler. The point is that it's not Wallace's fault that the staff overestimated Tannehill's ability to hit the deep pass. Wallace is what he is - a WR who is extremely dangerous if he has a QB that can get him the ball deep. I think he'll have a much better season, because a decent OC will find other ways to get him the ball and utilize his speed. He should kill on deep crossing routes, and Tannehill throws that pass well.
I agree with one huge caveat - an elite WR will have a much larger skill set than Wallace. Your example of Fitzgerald is a perfect example of that. Warner, Anderson, Leinart, Kolb, and Skelton do not have the same skills sets, yet Fitzgerald managed to perform great with all of them. He is able to make all kinds of catches, all over the field. He is an elite WR, Wallace is not. That should be obvious.

Regarding Chambers, I guess we will never agree on anything. Which season is more successful?

64 963 yds 15.0 avg 11 TDs
82 1,118 yds 13.6 avg 11 TDs

One had more catches, the other had a higher average. Same number of TDs. I'd call them about equal.

This is pretty damn good for a rookie too:

48 883 18.4 7

During the Fielder era, Miami just ran the ball more and threw it less, resulting in fewer receptions for Chambers but a much higher YPC.
 

FinfanInBuffalo

Perennial All-Pro
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Apr 29, 2003
Messages
14,497
Reaction score
3,721
Location
Northern VA
Again, not about blame for players. Their strong points don't intermingle. Lazor will use Wallace's speed in ways that don't contradict Tannehill's game. We should blame the FO and Mike Sherman (and by association Joe Philbin) for not doing this last season. Wallace should have 1,100+ yards and 8+ TD's this season with Lazor as the OC.
I agree, so I was wrong in my last post, we can agree on something.
 

j-off-her-doll

Finheaven VIP
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
17,793
Reaction score
5,728
Location
Dream Songs
I agree with one huge caveat - an elite WR will have a much larger skill set than Wallace. Your example of Fitzgerald is a perfect example of that. Warner, Anderson, Leinart, Kolb, and Skelton do not have the same skills sets, yet Fitzgerald managed to perform great with all of them. He is able to make all kinds of catches, all over the field. He is an elite WR, Wallace is not. That should be obvious.

Regarding Chambers, I guess we will never agree on anything. Which season is more successful?

64 963 yds 15.0 avg 11 TDs
82 1,118 yds 13.6 avg 11 TDs

One had more catches, the other had a higher average. Same number of TDs. I'd call them about equal.

This is pretty damn good for a rookie too:

48 883 18.4 7

During the Fielder era, Miami just ran the ball more and threw it less, resulting in fewer receptions for Chambers but a much higher YPC.
I'm not arguing that Wallace is elite or in the class of the best WR's in the NFL. You're right that the best WR's give their QB's more ways to get them the ball. Wallace has always been very QB dependent, but in the right situation, he's dangerous. We gave him too much money - given his skill set - but he's still the most unique WR on our team. If/when Landry reaches his potential, he'll overtake Wallace as the most unique talent, because he has a special blend of football IQ, toughness, and skill.

As I've said before, I understand why Wallace frustrates fans. He's exactly the kind of player that will piss you off, because he doesn't maximize his talent. His talent, though, is enough to make him very worthwhile. It's on Lazor to do much better than Sherman at utilizing him.
 

roy_miami

2020 cant get here soon enough
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
11,163
Reaction score
735
Location
Moncton, NB
Apparently, we just focus on different things when watching the video. I see a highly paid WR making piss poor attempts at going after the ball. I HATE to watch him attempt the pathetic basket catches at his waist when reaching up to get the ball at a higher point will greatly increase the chance at a reception.

I saw one really poor throw (the first one). I saw one ridiculously great throw (the one against Buffalo). I saw a few slight over throws. I saw a few slight under throws I saw a WR that never left his feet to get the ball (well he had a 12 inch vertical on one and then tried to catch it below shoulder height). I saw some stupid play design that forced the QB to try and throw the ball 50 yards in the air to make the completion. Most of all I saw a QB and WR that just weren't on the same page.

I agree (and have many times) than Tannehill needs to improve his deep ball (especially to Wallace), but IMO, Wallace is at least as much to blame as Tannehill.
It all goes back to: Wallace is what he is. And what he is is a one trick pony. Its a hell of a trick but if you think he's going to morph into Megatron you have unrealistic expectations. His trick is getting wide open, which is great for QBs because it increases the target zone. The bad part is Wallace himself needs a lot of that cushion in order to make the catch, which decreases the target zone. It probably doesn't work out to being a wash but its not as advantageous as it appears, though a QB thats extremely accurate down the field would have a field day with Wallace.

Anyway, I'm not upset about the money we paid him. We had the money and it would be stupid to not spend it so why not take a chance on a high risk high reward type. The bottom line is winning teams aren't built through free agency, if you're able to afford all the highest priced free agents by spending 100's of million of dollars then that in itself is a red flag and you're probably already ****ed. But if you don't spend the money then you are definitely ****ed. I just wish we would have front loaded a few of those contracts so we would have been in position to unload some of those guys if need be.
 

j-off-her-doll

Finheaven VIP
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
17,793
Reaction score
5,728
Location
Dream Songs
It all goes back to: Wallace is what he is. And what he is is a one trick pony. Its a hell of a trick but if you think he's going to morph into Megatron you have unrealistic expectations. His trick is getting wide open, which is great for QBs because it increases the target zone. The bad part is Wallace himself needs a lot of that cushion in order to make the catch, which decreases the target zone. It probably doesn't work out to being a wash but its not as advantageous as it appears, though a QB thats extremely accurate down the field would have a field day with Wallace.

Anyway, I'm not upset about the money we paid him. We had the money and it would be stupid to not spend it so why not take a chance on a high risk high reward type. The bottom line is winning teams aren't built through free agency, if you're able to afford all the highest priced free agents by spending 100's of million of dollars then that in itself is a red flag and you're probably already ****ed. But if you don't spend the money then you are definitely ****ed. I just wish we would have front loaded a few of those contracts so we would have been in position to unload some of those guys if need be.
Yeah, it's almost impossible to keep Wallace after this season - unless he agrees to restructure, which is unlikely.
 

FinfanInBuffalo

Perennial All-Pro
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Apr 29, 2003
Messages
14,497
Reaction score
3,721
Location
Northern VA
I'm not arguing that Wallace is elite or in the class of the best WR's in the NFL. You're right that the best WR's give their QB's more ways to get them the ball. Wallace has always been very QB dependent, but in the right situation, he's dangerous. We gave him too much money - given his skill set - but he's still the most unique WR on our team. If/when Landry reaches his potential, he'll overtake Wallace as the most unique talent, because he has a special blend of football IQ, toughness, and skill.

As I've said before, I understand why Wallace frustrates fans. He's exactly the kind of player that will piss you off, because he doesn't maximize his talent. His talent, though, is enough to make him very worthwhile. It's on Lazor to do much better than Sherman at utilizing him.
Agree 100%.

I do think the deep ball will improve a bit and he will get the ball in more creative ways.
 

FinfanInBuffalo

Perennial All-Pro
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Apr 29, 2003
Messages
14,497
Reaction score
3,721
Location
Northern VA
It all goes back to: Wallace is what he is. And what he is is a one trick pony. Its a hell of a trick but if you think he's going to morph into Megatron you have unrealistic expectations. His trick is getting wide open, which is great for QBs because it increases the target zone. The bad part is Wallace himself needs a lot of that cushion in order to make the catch, which decreases the target zone. It probably doesn't work out to being a wash but its not as advantageous as it appears, though a QB thats extremely accurate down the field would have a field day with Wallace.

Anyway, I'm not upset about the money we paid him. We had the money and it would be stupid to not spend it so why not take a chance on a high risk high reward type. The bottom line is winning teams aren't built through free agency, if you're able to afford all the highest priced free agents by spending 100's of million of dollars then that in itself is a red flag and you're probably already ****ed. But if you don't spend the money then you are definitely ****ed. I just wish we would have front loaded a few of those contracts so we would have been in position to unload some of those guys if need be.
Most of my arguments in this thread were with people trying to tell me that he isn't a one trick pony.

I will say one thing, Wallace on Seattle would be insane. Wilson extends plays and throws a great deep ball and the safeties have to respect the run.
 

ghost_fish

Starter
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
345
Reaction score
0
Location
Toledo
Wallace indeed is terrible. There is no way he could duplicate the success he had in Pittsburgh with any other team. Just watch! In fact, I bet if he went back to Pittsburgh he would still be the same Wallace in Miami and not the Wallace he was with the Steelers. When the dolphins cut/trade him he will be garbage. It happens all the time with this team. Listen to the fans Philbin, they know.
 

gregorygrant83

Starter
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
6,566
Reaction score
2,412
Wallace indeed is terrible. There is no way he could duplicate the success he had in Pittsburgh with any other team. Just watch! In fact, I bet if he went back to Pittsburgh he would still be the same Wallace in Miami and not the Wallace he was with the Steelers. When the dolphins cut/trade him he will be garbage. It happens all the time with this team. Listen to the fans Philbin, they know.
Wallace is far from being a terrible player. He might be limited in some areas, but some of this bashing is so far out of line it's crazy.
 

Chubby

SUPERFAN
Joined
May 22, 2002
Messages
6,875
Reaction score
46
Age
43
Location
Homestead, FL.
Wallace is far from being a terrible player. He might be limited in some areas, but some of this bashing is so far out of line it's crazy.
I wont call him Terrible but I do think he is hurting our Offense more then he is helping... I will leave it at that.
Wallaces shortcommings and Thill's specific skillset lends to a better Onfiled lineup of Hartline, Matthews, Gibson and Landry
Chubbs
 

cleezy13

Scout Team
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
311
Reaction score
1
First off everyone in here is hilarious with their comments, yes its a forum I get that and I respect everyones opinion....But how in hell do you accurately asses Wallace and Tannehill for that matter when they played behind one of the worst lines ever (Most sacks were on two step drops) and also they couldn't even run block to open things up this plays an enormous role in your success.

Wallace's biggest asset is that he can beat just about anyone going deep. Well I got news for you he isn't getting the ball if the line can't block so Wallace's greatest asset is taken away right out the gate combine that with an O Coordinator that doesn't know how to use him or put him in deff positions well then yeah of course your gonna fail its common sense (then you hear lack of effort, drops, one trick pony, etc lol)..Even if he did have time on some of his throws the timing will be off because Tannehill is thinking about getting hit rather than reacting and trusting his line in order to stand tall and deliver, this will also affect Wallace's timing and rhythm as well (prob why he did have a few drops he should of had). Thats why you see over and under throws. Apparently nobody in this forum gets that.

Lets talk after this year when everyone is blowing Wallace and Thill cause their tearing it up all because of a little bit more protection.
 

Chubby

SUPERFAN
Joined
May 22, 2002
Messages
6,875
Reaction score
46
Age
43
Location
Homestead, FL.
First off everyone in here is hilarious with their comments, yes its a forum I get that and I respect everyones opinion....But how in hell do you accurately asses Wallace and Tannehill for that matter when they played behind one of the worst lines ever (Most sacks were on two step drops) and also they couldn't even run block to open things up this plays an enormous role in your success.

Wallace's biggest asset is that he can beat just about anyone going deep. Well I got news for you he isn't getting the ball if the line can't block so Wallace's greatest asset is taken away right out the gate combine that with an O Coordinator that doesn't know how to use him or put him in deff positions well then yeah of course your gonna fail its common sense (then you hear lack of effort, drops, one trick pony, etc lol)..Even if he did have time on some of his throws the timing will be off because Tannehill is thinking about getting hit rather than reacting and trusting his line in order to stand tall and deliver, this will also affect Wallace's timing and rhythm as well (prob why he did have a few drops he should of had). Thats why you see over and under throws. Apparently nobody in this forum gets that.

Lets talk after this year when everyone is blowing Wallace and Thill cause their tearing it up all because of a little bit more protection.
You are forgetting 2 important issues that are not Oline Dependent. He has horrible issues catching with his hands and he has 0/zero/none/zilch/No Heart (NO Effort)
Chubbs
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top Bottom