Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rambos
I watched the Rams game today, saw our QB get pounded once again. You can add Jerry Rice to our line up it won't matter until we fix the O line. Givens could not get any more wide open for an easy TD pass today. Wallace, Givens and Rice on the same team with our QB getting hit early and often will not change anything.
Fix the O line first.
Been reading your post on Sam play really good stuff!
I don't disagree with you that the offensive line needs to be fixed, but this notion that Sam is so pressured that it wouldn't matter what receivers he had is ludicrous IMO.
According to Pro Football Focus, Sam is the ninth most pressured QB in the league. Five of the eight quarterbacks who are pressured on a larger percent of their pass attempts also have a better QB rating than Sam.
It is possible to be pressured but also still be efficient. The Martz-era quarterbacks were heavily pressured but also very efficient. It didn't last more than a couple of years, because those beatings took their toll, but it is possible. Why? Well, it probably helped having such great weapons around them, no?
So yes, the offensive line needs to be upgraded, absolutely. You will not hear a word of dissent on that from me. But I see no reason to subscribe to the idea that the pressure is so overwhelming that he wouldn't be able to do any better even with better weapons around him. The numbers seem to tell a different story.
Ironically, Mike Wallace's quarterback might be able to attest to that. The percentage at which Big Ben is pressured is less than 1% lower than Bradford, and yet Ben has the sixth best passer rating in the league. Ben is kind of an anomaly in the sense that he can escape and withstand pressure so well at his size, but I bet he'd be the first to tell you how having talented outlets around him helps in those situations.
Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rambos
I watched the Rams game today, saw our QB get pounded once again. You can add Jerry Rice to our line up it won't matter until we fix the O line. Givens could not get any more wide open for an easy TD pass today. Wallace, Givens and Rice on the same team with our QB getting hit early and often will not change anything.
Fix the O line first.
Been reading your post on Sam play really good stuff!
I think we can fix the line through the draft that's why I advocating signing Wallace. Especially since linemen seem to struggle far less adjusting to the NFL. The draft is strong in our weak areas and doing something like drafting
1. Warmack
1. Eiefert
2. Elam
3. Tayler
and signing Wallace not only improves our playmaking options it also improves our line play.
Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nick
I don't disagree with you that the offensive line needs to be fixed, but this notion that Sam is so pressured that it wouldn't matter what receivers he had is ludicrous IMO.
According to Pro Football Focus, Sam is the ninth most pressured QB in the league. Five of the eight quarterbacks who are pressured on a larger percent of their pass attempts also have a better QB rating than Sam.
It is possible to be pressured but also still be efficient. The Martz-era quarterbacks were heavily pressured but also very efficient. It didn't last more than a couple of years, because those beatings took their toll, but it is possible. Why? Well, it probably helped having such great weapons around them, no?
So yes, the offensive line needs to be upgraded, absolutely. You will not hear a word of dissent on that from me. But I see no reason to subscribe to the idea that the pressure is so overwhelming that he wouldn't be able to do any better even with better weapons around him. The numbers seem to tell a different story.
Ironically, Mike Wallace's quarterback might be able to attest to that. The percentage at which Big Ben is pressured is less than 1% lower than Bradford, and yet Ben has the sixth best passer rating in the league. Ben is kind of an anomaly in the sense that he can escape and withstand pressure so well at his size, but I bet he'd be the first to tell you how having talented outlets around him helps in those situations.
IMO I see Sam as a QB that plays much better when he's getting time to throw and can step up into the pocket. Fisher in his presser today said one of the biggest factors was the DT where just too disruptive Bradford could not step up.
Mike Sando had these numbers today:
When faced with five or more pass rushers Bradford was 4 of 12 for 58 yards a pick and three sacks.
When the Vikes rushed only four he was 31 of 43, 319 yards 3 TD no INTs.
IMO Bradford is more like Brady then Aaron Rogers or Romo. he's not going to make a ton of plays with his legs. Much like Brady, give him time and he will pick you apart.
You may think it's ludicrous but IMO it's the best way to go, fix the O line over bringing speed on the outside. (heck if they can do both great) I would prefer to fix the O line first and then add the speed on the outside.
I'm old school, you build from the inside out. Les and Fisher did that on the D line now I hope they do it on the O line.
Yesterday I saw Bradford play as bad as I ever have. But again it was after he was rocked early and often. This was the our best group playing on the line and they got handled.
I'm not saying who to draft or when to draft them... I'm saying next year this has to be fixed.
I think Fisher will get it right.
One other note: Martz era had this line
LT Orlando Pace
LG Tom Nütten
C Mike Gruttadauria
RG Adam Timmerman
RT Fred Miller
Not exactly chop liver....
Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rambos
IMO Bradford is more like Brady then Aaron Rogers or Romo. he's not going to make a ton of plays with his legs. Much like Brady, give him time and he will pick you apart.
The key with Brady isn't that he has all day to throw; it's that the scheme has him getting rid of the ball quickly.
He ranks as one of PFF's least pressured quarterbacks, and yet he's second highest in dropbacks when the time in the pocket is less than or equal to 2.5 seconds. Meaning he throws a lot of balls quickly after the snap, and that isn't the result of a lot of immediate pressure.
When you look at Bradford, he's middle of the pack in both average time to throw and number of dropbacks which are 2.5 seconds or less. Which suggests he's not under such outstanding immediate pressure that he couldn't take advantage of better weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rambos
You may think it's ludicrous but IMO it's the best way to go, fix the O line over bringing speed in the outside.
You're putting words in my mouth.
I didn't call your preferred personnel strategy of prioritizing the OL ludicrous; rather, I said it was ludicrous to suggest Sam is so pressured that it wouldn't matter what receivers he had.
The numbers don't support that depiction of events, as other QBs who are pressured more than Sam have found ways to be more efficient as well. Thus, it doesn't make sense to say Sam is under so much pressure that he couldn't benefit from better weapons.
Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nick
The key with Brady isn't that he has all day to throw; it's that the scheme has him getting rid of the ball quickly.
He ranks as one of PFF's least pressured quarterbacks, and yet he's second highest in dropbacks when the time in the pocket is less than or equal to 2.5 seconds. Meaning he throws a lot of balls quickly after the snap, and that isn't the result of a lot of immediate pressure.
When you look at Bradford, he's middle of the pack in both average time to throw and number of dropbacks which are 2.5 seconds or less. Which suggests he's not under such outstanding immediate pressure that he couldn't take advantage of better weapons.
You're putting words in my mouth.
I didn't call your preferred personnel strategy of prioritizing the OL ludicrous; rather, I said it was ludicrous to suggest Sam is so pressured that it wouldn't matter what receivers he had.
The numbers don't support that depiction of events, as other QBs who are pressured more than Sam have found ways to be more efficient as well. Thus, it doesn't make sense to say Sam is under so much pressure that he couldn't benefit from better weapons.
Fair enough.... I misunderstood.
Re: Mike Wallace Benched?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sosa39rams
Or even better what about Mike Williams (TB - WR) last year. He had an amazing rookie year and was totally shut out last year. The Bucs were in the EXACT same dilemma as us. They had a talented rookie in Williams (we do too in Givens) and thought that they were fine at the position. Fast forward a year later and they realize when he starts to attract #1 CB's and double coverage he's a no-one. So they go out and get one of the "OVERPAID STUPID DIVA WR's" (Vincent Jackson) and look where they are now... In a playoff hunt, with a rookie coach, and one of the best offenses in the league.....
Since you made this argument using the Buccaneers and Vincent Jackson. They have now lost five in a row including losing to us today.
I guess it's not so black and white is it?
Re: Mike Wallace Benched?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rambos
Since you made this argument using the Buccaneers and Vincent Jackson. They have now lost five in a row including losing to us today.
I guess it's not so black and white is it?
what does vincent Jackson have to do with them losing? Jackson has over 1300 yards and 8 Td's.
The Bucs having an awful defense has nothing to do with how he's played.
At this point you are grasping at straws to justify your Mike Wallace hate.
What's next a post saying Megatron isn't that good because the rest of the Lions suck?
Re: Mike Wallace Benched?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rambos
Since you made this argument using the Buccaneers and Vincent Jackson. They have now lost five in a row including losing to us today.
I guess it's not so black and white is it?
Well first of all, when I wrote this the Bucs were in the playoff race, wildcard holders actually. Plus, you're really going to pull this out? As if its VJ's fault that the Bucs cant stop the lousy, sorry ass Rams offense to less than 28 points? The Bucs have the WORST pass D in all of football. Considering the fact that its a passing league, of course they're going to get torn up.
Can you even name me their #1 or #2 CB's? Didn't think you could...
Re: Mike Wallace Benched?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mcpeepants232003
what does vincent Jackson have to do with them losing? Jackson has over 1300 yards and 8 Td's.
The Bucs having an awful defense has nothing to do with how he's played.
At this point you are grasping at straws to justify your Mike Wallace hate.
What's next a post saying Megatron isn't that good because the rest of the Lions suck?
The Bucs defense was very solid especially in the second half. The big turnovers and not being able to convert on 3rd and 4th downs gave the Rams an easy win.
I believe this team needs lineman. I believe the WR is getting better and as they get more comfortable with the system and Bradford learns to trust them we really do not need Wallace. I believe we got a future Wallace on the roster already in Givens.
Re: Mike Wallace Benched?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sosa39rams
Well first of all, when I wrote this the Bucs were in the playoff race, wildcard holders actually. Plus, you're really going to pull this out? As if its VJ's fault that the Bucs cant stop the lousy, sorry ass Rams offense to less than 28 points? The Bucs have the WORST pass D in all of football. Considering the fact that its a passing league, of course they're going to get torn up.
Can you even name me their #1 or #2 CB's? Didn't think you could...
Your funny dude.... nice response. You made my point, It's not just about spending all the money on one player. It's a team sport. I will take all of our young guns over one over highly paid WR any day and that include the sorry ass Rams players on the offense.
Re: Mike Wallace Benched?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rambos
Your funny dude.... nice response. You made my point, It's not just about spending all the money on one player. It's a team sport. I will take all of our young guns over one over highly paid WR any day and that include the sorry ass Rams players on the offense.
What are you talking about? "Take all our young guns over one player" It's not a question of "Would you give up Givens, this that, and blah, for Wallace?" No, its adding a proven #1 WR to our WR corps to bolster our entire offense. Our Offense is sorry, and thats all there is to it. I loved watching our team today, but we just cant compete with the best of them.
I'd love for you to name me a true playoff contender that doesn't have at least 1 pro-bowl caliber WR, go ahead, I'll wait.
Re: Mike Wallace Benched?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sosa39rams
What are you talking about? "Take all our young guns over one player" It's not a question of "Would you give up Givens, this that, and blah, for Wallace?" No, its adding a proven #1 WR to our WR corps to bolster our entire offense. Our Offense is sorry, and thats all there is to it. I loved watching our team today, but we just cant compete with the best of them.
I'd love for you to name me a true playoff contender that doesn't have at least 1 pro-bowl caliber WR, go ahead, I'll wait.
Packers............. Pats....... 9ers.......
Re: Mike Wallace Benched?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rambos
Packers............. Pats....... 9ers.......
Oh you mean the Packers that have 4 WR's that could get into the pro-bowl (Cobb has 960 yards, James Jones has 722, Jordy Nelson is a #1 but has missed several games and still have 650, and Jennings is a pro-bowl WR too and missed virtually all year)? The Pats who have Welker (1,260 receiving yards and 5 TD's), and even Crabtree may break 1,000 yards this year (868 yards, 7 TD's).
Re: Mike Wallace Benched?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CRAZYHORNS
The Bucs defense was very solid especially in the second half. The big turnovers and not being able to convert on 3rd and 4th downs gave the Rams an easy win.
I believe this team needs lineman. I believe the WR is getting better and as they get more comfortable with the system and Bradford learns to trust them we really do not need Wallace. I believe we got a future Wallace on the roster already in Givens.
The Bucs 2nd half defense today doesn't somehow erase the fact they've been the worst defense in the entire league this year.
Also why do people constantly act like Givens somehow erases our need for more playmakers? Great offenses do not have just 2 good playmakers(and one when Amendola is healthy).
If you don't have a true elite receiver there is nothing better than having 3,4 or even 5 guys capable of making plays in the passing game.
All of us who support signing Wallace recognize Givens talent. It's not him we want to replace it's Gibson and Pettis. Givens having a good rookie year doesn't erase the fact the rest of our receiving corps is very mediocre.
Amendola and Givens is a nice start but what happens next year when Danny gets hurt again? Then we're forced to watch Gibson and Pettis play huge roles again. Having Wallace would benefit our offense tremendously.
Lastly this isn't a one or the other type of option. yes our line needs improved but we can upgrade our line and our receiving corps at the same time.
Re: Mike Wallace Benched?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sosa39rams
What are you talking about? "Take all our young guns over one player" It's not a question of "Would you give up Givens, this that, and blah, for Wallace?" No, its adding a proven #1 WR to our WR corps to bolster our entire offense. Our Offense is sorry, and thats all there is to it. I loved watching our team today, but we just cant compete with the best of them.
I'd love for you to name me a true playoff contender that doesn't have at least 1 pro-bowl caliber WR, go ahead, I'll wait.
55 Million bucks to get a big time WR, could go to resigning.... guys like William Hayes. SJ, DA, Dunbar should get a new deal. Sign a legit Safety.... I can think of a few ways to spend that kind of cash.
