Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 166
Like Tree78Likes

Thread: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

  1. #16
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    8,957
    Rep Power
    74

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    I would be very happy if the Rams signed Wallace, but...

    Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, A.J. Green, Reggie Wayne, Demaryius Thomas, Roddy White, Brandon Marshall, Vincent Jackson, Marques Colston... he's not a Top 7 WR.
    If we go that route and get a FA WR, I would take him but not at the asking price he wants. There is a reason that they did not sign him to a long term contract. They wanted to see more and so far they don't like what they are seeing.
    BarronWade likes this.


  2. #17
    sosa39rams's Avatar
    sosa39rams is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, On
    Posts
    5,410
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    I would be very happy if the Rams signed Wallace, but...

    Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, A.J. Green, Reggie Wayne, Demaryius Thomas, Roddy White, Brandon Marshall, Vincent Jackson, Marques Colston... he's not a Top 7 WR.
    I'd 100% of the time take Mike Wallace over Reggie Wayne, Vincent Jackson, and Marques Colston.
    ZiaRam likes this.


    THE DREAM TEAM

  3. #18
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,491
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by sosa39rams View Post
    I'd 100% of the time take Mike Wallace over Reggie Wayne, Vincent Jackson, and Marques Colston.
    Given their age, I would too. But if you ask me to rank those four right now, I'd have Wallace last.

  4. #19
    THOLTFAN81's Avatar
    THOLTFAN81 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,938
    Rep Power
    25

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    I don't understand how some of you guys are arguing against the signing of a true #1 WR....

    Really struggling to figure out why. Somewhere Sam Bradfords shaking his head.

    Look at what VJax has done for that Tampa offense. They were pathetic last year, and they bring in a top flight caliber WR and are going off offensively. Mike Wallace would take this offense to new places alongside Givens and Amendola. Not to mention Quick can have the time needed to truly develop.

    The draft is a terrible proposition in my humble opinion to add a WR because it will just be more of the same. WRs take time, sometimes years to develop, unless you are Julio, AJ or Calvin. And there is no Julio,AJ or Calvin in this class. Now, if Marqise Lee was in this class that is an entirely different story.

    If posed with the option to sign a top flight OLineman and draft a WR round 1, or sign a top flight WR and draft a OLineman round 1... Im choosing option 2 all day every day.
    ManofGod, sosa39rams and ZiaRam like this.

  5. #20
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    8,957
    Rep Power
    74

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by THOLTFAN81 View Post
    I don't understand how some of you guys are arguing against the signing of a true #1 WR....

    Really struggling to figure out why. Somewhere Sam Bradfords shaking his head.

    Look at what VJax has done for that Tampa offense. They were pathetic last year, and they bring in a top flight caliber WR and are going off offensively. Mike Wallace would take this offense to new places alongside Givens and Amendola. Not to mention Quick can have the time needed to truly develop.

    The draft is a terrible proposition in my humble opinion to add a WR because it will just be more of the same. WRs take time, sometimes years to develop, unless you are Julio, AJ or Calvin. And there is no Julio,AJ or Calvin in this class. Now, if Marqise Lee was in this class that is an entirely different story.

    If posed with the option to sign a top flight OLineman and draft a WR round 1, or sign a top flight WR and draft a OLineman round 1... Im choosing option 2 all day every day.
    If posed with the option to sign a top flight OLineman and draft a WR round 1, or sign a top flight WR and draft a OLineman round 1... Im choosing option 2 all day every day.

    Somewhere Sam Bradfords shaking his head.


    Ok I don't know if he's shaking his head, but he is throwing his arms up in disgust.




    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3OXXSkUMBw


    Could the best FA WR help him or the Rams on this play?

    I have seen enough of Bradford getting hit and or not having enough time to throw.
    Last edited by Rambos; -11-30-2012 at 04:55 PM.

  6. #21
    BarronWade's Avatar
    BarronWade is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,427
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by THOLTFAN81 View Post
    I don't understand how some of you guys are arguing against the signing of a true #1 WR....

    Really struggling to figure out why. Somewhere Sam Bradfords shaking his head.

    Look at what VJax has done for that Tampa offense. They were pathetic last year, and they bring in a top flight caliber WR and are going off offensively. Mike Wallace would take this offense to new places alongside Givens and Amendola. Not to mention Quick can have the time needed to truly develop.

    The draft is a terrible proposition in my humble opinion to add a WR because it will just be more of the same. WRs take time, sometimes years to develop, unless you are Julio, AJ or Calvin. And there is no Julio,AJ or Calvin in this class. Now, if Marqise Lee was in this class that is an entirely different story.

    If posed with the option to sign a top flight OLineman and draft a WR round 1, or sign a top flight WR and draft a OLineman round 1... Im choosing option 2 all day every day.
    Yea Vincent Jackson has been a huge difference maker...Its going to be interesting between Wallace Jennings and Bowe all three have a good chance to hit FA.......

    But at what price do you sign these WRs? Because Vincent Jackson got 11 mil a year and we still have Danny Amendola to re-sign

  7. #22
    mcpeepants232003's Avatar
    mcpeepants232003 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    741
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    If posed with the option to sign a top flight OLineman and draft a WR round 1, or sign a top flight WR and draft a OLineman round 1... Im choosing option 2 all day every day.

    Somewhere Sam Bradfords shaking his head.


    Ok I don't know if he's shaking his head, but he is throwing his arms up in disgust.
    Could the best FA WR help him or the Rams on this play?

    I have seen enough of Bradford getting hit and or not having enough time to throw.
    uhm what does one play have to do with anything? Our line has played much better lately and no one is suggesting we don't add talent to the line. Seriously you could take one play from literally every single team and do the same thing

    Most of us want a veteran WR and a rookie linemen because if we did the opposite it would take longer for the WR to contribute.

    I don't see how anyone could argue against us signing someone like Wallace and drafting someone like Matthews.

  8. #23
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    I don't think anyone will argue that Big Ben can extend a play like no other and the throw the ball deep. I don't see Bradford making through types of plays with Wallace on the other end.
    You seem to be working off of a generalization of what Wallace does in the Steelers offense, because you're making it sound like all he does is run deep routes that are only possible because Ben extends plays so he can get open.

    Of the 18 receivers who have played 50% or more of their offense's snaps this season, Wallace ranks 8th this year in number of targets beyond 20 yards. Vincent Jackson, Calvin Johnson, A.J. Green, and Reggie Wayne are among those who have been targeted more. Last year, Wallace was 19th out of 29 in this category, which suggests to me he's not being targeted on a disproportionate amount of deep throws when compared to his peers.

    The larger point being, he's not simply a deep threat whose production is due to his QB extending plays.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    If it's all on the QB why can't the coaches see that on the film? If they have a sub par QB why would the coach want to bench the best WR that sub par QB has? Why take the weapon away form the team trying to make the playoffs?
    Once again, that's not what I said. However, obviously the guy delivering the ball has an effect on the product on the field and how productive the other guys around him can be. This would be like arguing that the Rams' offense would be equally as productive and efficient with Clemons behind center instead of Bradford.
    sosa39rams likes this.

  9. #24
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    8,957
    Rep Power
    74

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants232003 View Post
    uhm what does one play have to do with anything? Our line has played much better lately and no one is suggesting we don't add talent to the line. Seriously you could take one play from literally every single team and do the same thing
    This one play represents the years of "Most of us" not happy with the O line and that includes Bradford. I do agree they have played better lately and will continue to as Wells the FA pick has rejoin the group.

    Most of us want a veteran WR and a rookie linemen because if we did the opposite it would take longer for the WR to contribute.
    It's not a majority rules sorry....

    I don't see how anyone could argue against us signing someone like Wallace and drafting someone like Matthews.
    I heard you say that already... and again it's OK you don't need too.
    Last edited by Rambos; -11-30-2012 at 06:21 PM.

  10. #25
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    8,957
    Rep Power
    74

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    You seem to be working off of a generalization of what Wallace does in the Steelers offense, because you're making it sound like all he does is run deep routes that are only possible because Ben extends plays so he can get open.

    Of the 18 receivers who have played 50% or more of their offense's snaps this season, Wallace ranks 8th this year in number of targets beyond 20 yards. Vincent Jackson, Calvin Johnson, A.J. Green, and Reggie Wayne are among those who have been targeted more. Last year, Wallace was 19th out of 29 in this category, which suggests to me he's not being targeted on a disproportionate amount of deep throws when compared to his peers.

    The larger point being, he's not simply a deep threat whose production is due to his QB extending plays.




    Once again, that's not what I said. However, obviously the guy delivering the ball has an effect on the product on the field and how productive the other guys around him can be. This would be like arguing that the Rams' offense would be equally as productive and efficient with Clemons behind center instead of Bradford.
    I agree that the back up QB's are not playing at the level Bog Ben was... so yes his production is down. So the answer is to bench him because of the drop in their play? I'm not buying that one. Do you have a reason other then his play that has got him in the dog house?

    Thought you did a great job explanation that Wallace does more then just the deep routes... I will have to take a look at his game, maybe there is more to his game then I think.

  11. #26
    sosa39rams's Avatar
    sosa39rams is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, On
    Posts
    5,410
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    I agree with the "sign Wallace camp". This is ridicolous. You draft an LG or OT (There are several EXTREMELY talented one's - Warmack and Joeckel for example - and sign a true #1 WR) and imagine how far this offense could go? Tampa sort of did the same thing as NJ said.. They signed Carl Nicks (OG) and Vincent Jackson (#1 WR) and look at them now. Not only were those two playing terrific football, but guys like Mike Williams their previous #1 WR has had soo many opportunities to make plays, which he has taken advantage of.

    I'm telling you. Draft an OG (GET WARMACK!), the guy is one of the better OG prospects in quite some time, and snag your #1 WR in FA. The two biggest holes on our offense can be solved, and at an actually realistic proportion, this off-season.
    ZiaRam likes this.


    THE DREAM TEAM

  12. #27
    Tampa_Ram's Avatar
    Tampa_Ram is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Bat Yam, Israel
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,951
    Rep Power
    29

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by sosa39rams View Post
    I agree with the "sign Wallace camp". This is ridicolous. You draft an LG or OT (There are several EXTREMELY talented one's - Warmack and Joeckel for example - and sign a true #1 WR) and imagine how far this offense could go? Tampa sort of did the same thing as NJ said.. They signed Carl Nicks (OG) and Vincent Jackson (#1 WR) and look at them now. Not only were those two playing terrific football, but guys like Mike Williams their previous #1 WR has had soo many opportunities to make plays, which he has taken advantage of.

    I'm telling you. Draft an OG (GET WARMACK!), the guy is one of the better OG prospects in quite some time, and snag your #1 WR in FA. The two biggest holes on our offense can be solved, and at an actually realistic proportion, this off-season.
    I agree 100% with grabbing a wr in FA. need someone proven who doesnt have to be given a year or two to develop.

    What about RT? i still prefer getting a RT over a LG. I know Warmack is a beast and i would love to have him, but at this moment(im still giving Turner a chance to prove himself) i think beefing up at RT is more of a concern then LG. These last 5 games is Turners interview in my eyes.


  13. #28
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    8,957
    Rep Power
    74

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by sosa39rams View Post
    I agree with the "sign Wallace camp". This is ridicolous. You draft an LG or OT (There are several EXTREMELY talented one's - Warmack and Joeckel for example - and sign a true #1 WR) and imagine how far this offense could go? Tampa sort of did the same thing as NJ said.. They signed Carl Nicks (OG) and Vincent Jackson (#1 WR) and look at them now. Not only were those two playing terrific football, but guys like Mike Williams their previous #1 WR has had soo many opportunities to make plays, which he has taken advantage of.

    I'm telling you. Draft an OG (GET WARMACK!), the guy is one of the better OG prospects in quite some time, and snag your #1 WR in FA. The two biggest holes on our offense can be solved, and at an actually realistic proportion, this off-season.
    So if I'm hearing you... you now think RT Richardson is good enough. I recall you had him as one of the worst tackles in the NFL at the start of the year. You now believe Rodger Saffold our LT is no longer injury prone? I recall you saying he always is going to be hurt... or something to that effect.

    Do you really have that much faith in this line... just add a rookie OG and we are set?

  14. #29
    mcpeepants232003's Avatar
    mcpeepants232003 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    741
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by sosa39rams View Post
    I agree with the "sign Wallace camp". This is ridicolous. You draft an LG or OT (There are several EXTREMELY talented one's - Warmack and Joeckel for example - and sign a true #1 WR) and imagine how far this offense could go? Tampa sort of did the same thing as NJ said.. They signed Carl Nicks (OG) and Vincent Jackson (#1 WR) and look at them now. Not only were those two playing terrific football, but guys like Mike Williams their previous #1 WR has had soo many opportunities to make plays, which he has taken advantage of.

    I'm telling you. Draft an OG (GET WARMACK!), the guy is one of the better OG prospects in quite some time, and snag your #1 WR in FA. The two biggest holes on our offense can be solved, and at an actually realistic proportion, this off-season.
    Warmack is a great prospect but OG never, I mean never get taken in the top twenty picks. There's been one in like 10 years. Let's not forget how good a prospect Decastro was and he still didn't get drafted until pick 24.

    Plus RT is a far bigger need. If it's take Matthews or Warmack I take Matthews just because of how badly we need a RT.

  15. #30
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    I agree that the back up QB's are not playing at the level Bog Ben was... so yes his production is down. So the answer is to bench him because of the drop in their play? I'm not buying that one. Do you have a reason other then his play that has got him in the dog house?
    Look, I'm not saying he's blameless in his slump. He shares in some part of the responsibility, I'm sure. But when you've got Leftwich and Batch at quarterback, you're not going to put up big numbers, offensively. To me, that's probably the biggest factor, especially when you look at what Wallace was averaging prior to Big Ben going down.

    Here's what Pro Football Focus had to say about the Steelers' Week 12 loss to the Browns, of which Wallace only had one reception (I believe)...

    With both Roethlisberger and Byron Leftwich out with injuries, it was up to veteran Charlie Batch (-5.9) to lead the offense. When forced to move the team through the air, Batch struggled mightily. He was reliably off-target, and his QB rating of 38.7 really sums up his day. He threw three interceptions, and while one was the product of a dropped ball by Mike Wallace, he easily could have had another if T. J. Ward turned to locate an underthrown pass that ended up hitting him in the back of his helmet. It became painfully obvious that Batch lacked the arm strength to take advantage of what a deep threat Wallace can be, underthrowing him horribly on several occasions. Perhaps the most disappointing part is that he wasted a really solid day in pass protection from the Pittsburgh line — Batch was pressured on only five of his 35 drop-backs.
    So yes, while Wallace had a drop that resulted in a turnover, he also did not have a QB that could consistently take advantage of his abilities. He shares in some of the blame for his numbers, but the larger factor (at least as I see it) is who is delivering the ball.

    As for the coach's decision to bench him or split his starting job with someone else, it could be any number of things. As fans, it's impossible for us to really get a true reading of the motivation behind a move unless we're explicitly told. But since he's also benching Mendenhall, Tomlin could be trying to just mix it up to try and spur some better play, to motivate. Wallace may not be particularly motivated after his summer contract dispute and watching the Steelers instead give $40+ million to Brown instead of him.

    It could also be because he sees the writing on the wall when it comes to Wallace leaving in free agency, and wants to see how Sanders does in that role when given the opportunity. Because chances are, the Steelers are going to have to plan for life after Mike Wallace, so maybe this gives them the opportunity to do that.

    I'm not a huge Bleacher Report fan in terms of legitimate information, but I did think this write up about Wallace and Pittsburgh offered an interesting perspective to at least consider in regards to this discussion...

    More than anything, though, it's starting to look like Wallace just isn't a good fit for offensive coordinator Todd Haley's scheme.

    Under former coordinator Bruce Arians, Ben Roethlisberger and Wallace became one of the best big-play tandems in the league. Under Haley, Wallace is on pace to have just 832 receiving yards this season, as the emphasis on the deep pass has almost vanished.

    In fact, Roethlisberger described the offense using the dreaded "d-and-d" phrase earlier this season—and I'm not talking Dunkin' Donuts.

    “Haley’s offense is not a big-play offense,” Roethlisberger said (via the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's Joe Starkey). “It’s kind of a dink-and-dunk offense.”

    Later in the interview, when asked why the Steelers don't use more quick-strike plays, Roethlisberger replied, “There’s a guy calling the plays. That’s on him.”

    While the Steelers quarterback later told USA Today's Jarrett Bell that the comment "wasn't meant in a negative way," Roethlisberger was correct about the team's lack of downfield aggressiveness.

    Employing a more conservative look that uses checkdowns and underneath routes more heavily, Haley's offense is far less aggressive than the one run by Arians. And nowhere is that fact more evident than the yards-per-catch statistics of Steelers receivers, particularly Wallace.

    After averaging 18.7 yards per reception in his first three years in the league, Wallace is down to a mere 12.2 in 2012. For reference, the New England Patriots' Wes Welker averages 12 yards per reception this season.

    Considering that no Steelers receiver is averaging above 15 yards per reception thus far, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the problem is more systematic than with Wallace.

    That still doesn't change Tomlin's unhappiness with his receiver's performance. If the Pittsburgh head coach truly feels that Wallace and Sanders are equals at this point, there's little to no chance the former returns next season.

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: -04-13-2012, 03:24 PM
  2. A Mike Wallace tidbit
    By Nick in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: -03-23-2012, 07:44 PM
  3. Mike Wallace , WR RFA -- Pittsburgh Steelers
    By richtree in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: -02-24-2012, 11:36 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •