Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 68

Thread: Mike Wallace's Career WITH and WITHOUT Ben Roethlisberger

  1. -11
    Shouright's Avatar
    FinHeaven Elite

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    15,064
    vCash:
    1543
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by normaldude View Post
    Or your data could be presented as "Is Ben Roethlisberger a better QB than Charlie Batch & Byron Leftwich?"

    After all, ANY WR would probably have better numbers when playing with an established, elite, pro bowl QB like Ben Roethlisberger, versus a backup QB.

    So your data could be presented this way:

    Mike Wallace WITH an established, elite, pro bowl QB: 65 catches, 1,119 yards, 17.3 yards per catch, 10.2 yards per target, 9 TDs

    Mike Wallace WITHOUT an established, elite, pro bowl QB: 47 catches, 672 yards, 14.4 yards per catch, 7.2 yards per target, 4 TDs
    True. Note the bolded part below from the conclusion in the original post:

    So, given the somewhat stark difference in the numbers I boldfaced above, we're left with one or both of two possible conclusions here, IMO: 1) a broader conclusion, that Wallace has benefitted from the presence of Ben Roethlisberger simply because Roethlisberger is a better quarterback in general than the ones Wallace has had in Roethlisberger's absence, and/or 2) a narrower conclusion, that, to perform as he has typically in his career, Wallace needs a quarterback with Roethlisberger's unique abilities, one who can extend plays and hit him downfield after he's broken coverage.
    Although when it comes to this topic, in addition to Charlie Batch and Byron Leftwich, I'd include Ryan Tannehill, who is not a backup QB.

    Also, there are good data that suggest that backup QBs, when inserted temporarily, typically fare no worse during that period than the starter was faring previously.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -12
    Shouright's Avatar
    FinHeaven Elite

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    15,064
    vCash:
    1543
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by SeasonsMusic View Post
    he looks like dog sh*t to me, guy screwed us multiple times these last 2 weeks. 60mil jackass.
    He certainly isn't spearheading anything IMO. In other words, rather than his being the cause of significantly improved play by the offense overall, it seems rather that he is waiting around to be the recipient of something other people do.

    Contrast that with the acquisition of somebody like Jimmy Graham, for example, who would most likely immediately provide a target who would make a dramatic difference and spearhead improved play by the offense as a whole. Wallace by contrast doesn't yet seem to have the ability to "spearhead" anything in that sort of manner IMO. He seems more like a "supporting actor" than a "lead actor."
    Quote Quote  

  3. -13
    Shouright's Avatar
    FinHeaven Elite

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    15,064
    vCash:
    1543
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by normaldude View Post
    Or your data could be presented as "Is Ben Roethlisberger a better QB than Charlie Batch & Byron Leftwich?"

    After all, ANY WR would probably have better numbers when playing with an established, elite, pro bowl QB like Ben Roethlisberger, versus a backup QB.

    So your data could be presented this way:

    Mike Wallace WITH an established, elite, pro bowl QB: 65 catches, 1,119 yards, 17.3 yards per catch, 10.2 yards per target, 9 TDs

    Mike Wallace WITHOUT an established, elite, pro bowl QB: 47 catches, 672 yards, 14.4 yards per catch, 7.2 yards per target, 4 TDs
    Just to add to this a bit: even if that is the case, we still have a problem IMO, because what we've done is dole out a huge sum of money and a significant percentage of the salary cap to someone who, rather than making his QB significantly better, needs his QB to be very good to be very good himself. Those aren't the kinds of guys you give $60 million to IMO. If you want a guy like that, you sign Ted Ginn for peanuts and let him be the speed merchant who does nothing but draw additional safety attention to his side of the field, while retaining more of your salary cap money to improve your team elsewhere.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -14
    Perennial All-Pro

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2004
    Posts:
    4,502
    vCash:
    3666
    Loc:
    Odessa, FL
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Patriots Homer
Gift received at 08-12-2014, 07:53 PM from flynryan15
Message: Bandwagon fan!Jets Homer
Gift received at 08-12-2014, 07:53 PM from flynryan15
Message: Benedict Arnold!Bills Homer
Gift received at 08-12-2014, 07:53 PM from flynryan15
Message: Traitor
    Quote Quote  

  5. -15
    dolfan91's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2004
    Posts:
    2,570
    vCash:
    2418
    Loc:
    NJ
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Mike Wallace had a drops problem in Pitt and guess what, he's got a drops problem in Miami. I had reservations about signing Wallace, but, did understand why Miami wanted him. His presence has opened up the field for Clay, Hartline and Gibson. Unfortunately his presence hasn't opened up the running game which is something expected when an opponent needs 2 players to cover him and doesn't allow them to drop 8 in the box.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -16
    scodoublet's Avatar
    Scout Team

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2003
    Posts:
    636
    vCash:
    3120
    Loc:
    CT FinFan
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I don't know about his previous vs current stats, but Wallace is frustrating to watch.
    I was pumped when we got him, but it's only week 5 and when he catches a ball I catch myself saying "wow, he caught it!"
    I should not be thinking that, he should just be catching the ball!
    A good friend will come and bail you out of jail...but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
    Quote Quote  

  7. -17
    normaldude's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2003
    Posts:
    1,367
    vCash:
    3161
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by shouright View Post
    Just to add to this a bit: even if that is the case, we still have a problem IMO, because what we've done is dole out a huge sum of money and a significant percentage of the salary cap to someone who, rather than making his QB significantly better, needs his QB to be very good to be very good himself. Those aren't the kinds of guys you give $60 million to IMO. If you want a guy like that, you sign Ted Ginn for peanuts and let him be the speed merchant who does nothing but draw additional safety attention to his side of the field, while retaining more of your salary cap money to improve your team elsewhere.
    The difference is that Ted Ginn will never be an elite WR, no matter who is throwing him the ball.

    On the other hand, if you pair Mike Wallace with an elite QB with an accurate deep ball..

    http://www.finheaven.com/images/impo.../vs6lCIt-1.jpg
    Quote Quote  

  8. -18
    Shouright's Avatar
    FinHeaven Elite

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    15,064
    vCash:
    1543
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by normaldude View Post
    The difference is that Ted Ginn will never be an elite WR, no matter who is throwing him the ball.

    On the other hand, if you pair Mike Wallace with an elite QB with an accurate deep ball..

    http://www.finheaven.com/images/impo.../vs6lCIt-1.jpg
    Right, but then shouldn't you wait until you have that kind of QB before you dole out the money to him? If he needs that kind of QB to function that way, rather than his making the QB function a certain way, then why strap yourself to that kind of cap commitment before you're sure you have that kind of QB?

    In other words, if you never field that kind of QB during Wallace's tenure with the team (for whatever reason), then for all intents and purposes you've strapped yourself cap-wise to a Ted Ginn.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -19
    NY8123's Avatar
    Sophisticated Redneck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    11,778
    vCash:
    5830
    Loc:
    out in the Ding Weeds
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by shouright View Post
    Right, but then shouldn't you wait until you have that kind of QB before you dole out the money to him? If he needs that kind of QB to function that way, rather than his making the QB function a certain way, then why strap yourself to that kind of cap commitment before you're sure you have that kind of QB?

    In other words, if you never field that kind of QB during Wallace's tenure with the team (for whatever reason), then for all intents and purposes you've strapped yourself cap-wise to a Ted Ginn.
    Dude, stop it.

    You talk about leading the site from the top down then you come in and try to compare Wallace to Ginn!!! You want to stir the pot, good for you but stop bitching about getting it thrown in your face. Comparing Wallace to Ted Ginn Jr is like comparing Phil Simms to Chris Simms.
    "I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally" ~ W.C. Fields

    Quote Quote  

  10. -20
    mnphinfan's Avatar
    Lifelong Fin Fan

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    2,315
    vCash:
    1703
    Loc:
    Minneapolis MN
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by dolfan91 View Post
    Mike Wallace had a drops problem in Pitt and guess what, he's got a drops problem in Miami. I had reservations about signing Wallace, but, did understand why Miami wanted him. His presence has opened up the field for Clay, Hartline and Gibson. Unfortunately his presence hasn't opened up the running game which is something expected when an opponent needs 2 players to cover him and doesn't allow them to drop 8 in the box.
    He is consistently taking safeties out of the box. It's not Wallace's fault that the o-line can't do their job. It's simple man on man football and as of right now this oline can't win their individual matchups on even a remotely consistent basis which causes no run game and constant pressure on the QB.

    ---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by shouright View Post
    One of my theories about Mike Wallace's performance this year is that he's been the beneficiary in the past of a quarterback with a unique ability to shed pass rushers and extend plays, and with the arm strength to hit receivers downfield who have broken coverage during that period.

    Of course I'm talking about Ben Roethlisberger. "Big Ben" as they call him, because of his size (6'5" 241) and his unique abilities I described above.

    I decided to put the theory to the test and compare Mike Wallace's performance in games with Roethlisberger, to his performance in games without Roethlisberger.

    Here are the data for the games he's played in his career without Roethlisberger. I excluded his rookie season as a developmental year. "YPT" stands for "yards per target," which, similar to yards per rush, is a measure of receiving efficiency.

    YEAR GAMES TARGETS CATCHES YARDS YPC TDs YPT
    2010 4 19 9 211 2
    2011 1 7 4 82 0
    2012 3 22 10 77 0
    2013 5 28 15 176 1
    TOTAL 13 76 38 546 14.37 3 7.18

    Now of course Wallace has played far more games with Roethlisberger than without him, so to get an unbiased comparison, we need to divide his key statistics by the number of games he's played in both situations. Here's what we get:

    TARGETS CATCHES YARDS YPC TDs YPT
    AVG WITHOUT Roethlisberger 5.85 2.92 42.00 14.37 0.23 7.18
    AVG WITH Roethlisberger 6.89 4.06 69.94 17.25 0.56 10.15

    The above comparison projects to the following figures over 16 games:

    With Roethlisberger: 65 catches, 1,119 yards, 17.3 yards per catch, 10.2 yards per target, 9 TDs

    Without Roethlisberger: 47 catches, 672 yards, 14.4 yards per catch, 7.2 yards per target, 4 TDs


    The latter of those sets of numbers is not unlike that posted by Ted Ginn when he was a starter for the Dolphins.

    So, given the somewhat stark difference in the numbers I boldfaced above, we're left with one or both of two possible conclusions here, IMO: 1) a broader conclusion, that Wallace has benefitted from the presence of Ben Roethlisberger simply because Roethlisberger is a better quarterback in general than the ones Wallace has had in Roethlisberger's absence, and/or 2) a narrower conclusion, that, to perform as he has typically in his career, Wallace needs a quarterback with Roethlisberger's unique abilities, one who can extend plays and hit him downfield after he's broken coverage.
    Your stats, which you try to portray them as, as so ****ty and one sided it's ridiculous.

    Right off the bat you say you can't count Wallace's and Rapistberger's first season because it was developmental yet you are going to count Tannehill's and Wallace's first season together as if they have been playing together for years. Should they not be given the same developmental privilege? Oh, that's right it doesn't fit your myopic view that the O's problem is 100% Tannehill's problem so we'll just include those numbers.

    Second, you are trying to correlate something Wallace did with Rapistberger, that he didn't do with washed up veterans such Charlie ****ing Batch and Byron ****ing Leftwich. Hard to see how the difference in the talent level at the QB position would affect those stats. Call it a sound hypothesis, but I'd bet you dollars to donuts that the offense has a whole consistently performed worse when those two were QB's. Then you try to correlate it again with Tannehill and Wallace who have been on the five for 5 ****ing games that have actually counted.

    Get a ****ing clue, start watching the games with your MIND OPEN to watch what is actually happening, and stop wasting our time with BS stat threads meant to further your agenda.
    When I die I want to hire the Miami Dolphin's to be my pallbearers so they can let me down one last time.

    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Mike Wallace #11?
    By WestSideFin in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-14-2013, 06:42 PM
  2. Mike Wallace and #19
    By fanfin in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-12-2013, 03:44 PM
  3. Mike Wallace....
    By phinatic0083 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-12-2012, 01:35 AM
  4. Mike Wallace
    By Sadetripodalso in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-05-2012, 11:32 PM
  5. How much would you pay to get Mike Wallace?
    By Fins1971 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-16-2012, 06:31 PM

Posting Permissions

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