tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post5601638505033643830..comments2024-01-01T18:41:14.457-05:00Comments on NFL from the sidelines: More silver liningsMoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13612323587459830074noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-39380122665676304752013-02-08T14:55:24.906-05:002013-02-08T14:55:24.906-05:00wallace has more "total yards after catch&quo...wallace has more "total yards after catch". i converted the YAC to be "per reception" since i felt that was a better apples-to-apples comparison.<br /><br />i understand your thought process, and would agree if it weren't for the fact the rest of the steeler's receivers were more efficient with the ball in their hands than wallace. <br /><br />this whole conversation got me thinking of hines ward and i went back to check his stats thru his whole career. the guy was never big on yards per catch, or plays over 20 yards, or even TD catches (he had more than 7 only 3 seasons)...but he got open, made catches, and fought for the ball and every yard. ward didn't need great speed to do all that.<br /><br />once wallace loses his speed, he's toast. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-1920284591280476522013-02-08T14:42:49.387-05:002013-02-08T14:42:49.387-05:00I should add that I'm not disputing the number...I should add that I'm not disputing the numbers you found. I guess our sources got their numbers a different way. I honestly don't remember where I looked, it was before the playoffs.kylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-67641752746453602532013-02-08T14:35:28.712-05:002013-02-08T14:35:28.712-05:00The difference is Flacco doesn't throw underne...The difference is Flacco doesn't throw underneath to receivers. Rice and the tight ends (and even Leach) get those throws. Smith gets more first downs because he gets a lot of throws down field. Wallace, for all his faults, gets more variation in his targets. And I looked up Wallace and Smith in regards to yards after catch for this season and Wallace was ahead, not by much, but ahead. Gotta love stats.<br /><br />I'm not saying any of this as proof that Wallace is amazing and Smith is garbage. I really don't think they are miles apart. Smith just has not shown me enough for me to say he is better than Wallace.kylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-31306981003289932432013-02-08T13:17:39.233-05:002013-02-08T13:17:39.233-05:00well, smith has 4.8 YAC per reception. that is be...well, smith has 4.8 YAC per reception. that is better than wallace. and some of those bombs are at the sidelines or touchdowns which result in zero yards after the catch, so it goes both ways.<br /><br />jump balls are not the only determining factor here. but when a WR's primary weapon is the deep pass, he better be good at going for the ball instead of shying away like a little girl...which wallace has done more then once. <br /><br />we could also talk about wallace's 2 fumbles compared to zero for smith.<br /><br />or smith's 38 first down catches in 49 receptions versus wallace's 33 first down catches in 69 receptions. to put that into perpsective, there were 14 players who caught passes for the steelers this season and all but chris rainey had a higher percentage of their receptions go for first downs than wallace. i don't know, that doesn't exactly invoke an image of someone fight through traffic for a first down, not to me anyway. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-50499165454124476922013-02-08T12:06:25.511-05:002013-02-08T12:06:25.511-05:00Wallace's yards after catch is also better tha...Wallace's yards after catch is also better than Smith's but the total yards after catch isn't what i'm talking about. Smith (or Wallace) gets 10 or 15 yards on the end of a bomb if the DB falls down. I'm talking about gaining yards in traffic. Wallace is not fantastic at it but he has shown much more of that than Smith has.<br /><br />I might be the only one not definitively stating one is better than the other but from what I have seen of both Wallace has shown more. I don't know when jump balls became the sole rubric for WR success.kylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-22738995573325975342013-02-08T11:58:14.539-05:002013-02-08T11:58:14.539-05:00i just have to disagree with that, kyle. i don...i just have to disagree with that, kyle. i don't think wallace is really that good at scampering around after catching a screen pass. his yards-after-catch (YAC) per reception is 4.3...miller,brown, and sanders were all better than that. additionally, i think he goes down to easily (for a WR).<br /><br />imo, if smith and wallace switched teams at the beginning of this past season, the steelers would have been better off.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-29234214400015433672013-02-08T11:11:58.108-05:002013-02-08T11:11:58.108-05:00Smith is better than wallace, Wallace has no abili...Smith is better than wallace, Wallace has no ability to fight for the ball. Boldin fights for it and so does Smith. Wallace is an average WR at best , He is fast and he could come back to haunt the Steelers if he gets hooked up to a good QB. If he is all about the money, he won't care where her plays or who he plays with.<br />Funny thing about the NFL, It's a business with fans.<br />emotional ties are stupid. wallace is gone and The steelers need big changes to win, Starting with Tomlin, who holds plays in his back pocket and cannot motivate a team as evidenced by the Chargers game.<br />Tomlin has ruined the Steelers team by bringing in average talent and not being able to coach them up to even the basic Football rules. <br />let's unleash hell, yeah right. Zipposteelershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00510430566465227969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-35720147279538279212013-02-08T10:54:58.325-05:002013-02-08T10:54:58.325-05:00"wallace is poor at that, smith is very good ..."wallace is poor at that, smith is very good at it. that is the major difference between the two."<br /><br />I think that's A difference between the two.<br /><br />Smith is clearly better at going up for the ball. To my eyes, Wallace is clearly better underneath, in the screen game, and taking short catches for extra yards. I don't think it's night and day with these two. I think they're both very fast, if limited elsewhere, receivers.<br /><br />kylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-29070110332803768022013-02-08T09:51:48.345-05:002013-02-08T09:51:48.345-05:00you can't compare the numbers between the two ...you can't compare the numbers between the two because it's two different types of offenses that target their WR's in different ways.<br /><br />no one has said wallace is bad, or even average. but rather, he is overrated and not as good as smith. when a WR has great speed and is often sent deep, it is EXPECTED that he go up and fight for the ball. wallace is poor at that, smith is very good at it. that is the major difference between the two.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-24178536843741468222013-02-08T09:45:45.879-05:002013-02-08T09:45:45.879-05:00T. Smith was the more productive of the two this y...T. Smith was the more productive of the two this year. Wallace had 15 more catches, but T. Smith had as many touchdowns as Wallace, more yards, more first downs, and no fumbles (compared to Wallace's 2).Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-44079101718753236672013-02-08T07:37:40.908-05:002013-02-08T07:37:40.908-05:00"Its really not even a question whether Walla..."Its really not even a question whether Wallace is better than Smith or not.<br /><br />Wallace is better if you have a brain. End of Story."<br /><br />You haven't watched Steelers football for the past two years, have you? Have you been in a coma? That's the only way I can understand someone making that comment.Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-35855322622566161832013-02-08T06:18:11.619-05:002013-02-08T06:18:11.619-05:00smith is better and no one should be comparing tar...smith is better and no one should be comparing targets and catch % considering flacco sucks accuracy wise compared to ben especially preplayoffsstop being retardednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-48716838213248675842013-02-08T05:30:02.278-05:002013-02-08T05:30:02.278-05:00hoping that Kruger laves, my fb statushoping that Kruger laves, my fb statusSri Lanka Tourshttp://www.journeylankaholidays.co.uk/about-sri-lanka-tours/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-34121990719856284312013-02-08T01:53:01.571-05:002013-02-08T01:53:01.571-05:00Dale,
People are just thinking that because the R...Dale,<br /><br />People are just thinking that because the Ravens just won a Superbowl, while we didn't even make the playoffs.<br /><br />Its really not even a question whether Wallace is better than Smith or not.<br /><br />Wallace is better if you have a brain. End of Story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-76016780821510001892013-02-07T17:00:29.556-05:002013-02-07T17:00:29.556-05:00"How about Wallace's TD catch against KC?..."How about Wallace's TD catch against KC? People have selective memories when it comes to Wallace.<br />Guy had 32 touchdown catches in four seasons with the Steelers. To say he only made a couple of plays is ignoring the facts."<br /><br />I remember the KC catch- I was going to make the quip that his knees are better than his hands. However, for every circus catch he made, he had five passes clank off of his hands (or passively allow the DB to defend or intercept a pass).<br /><br />No one is saying the Wallace is terrible or can't make great plays from time to time. He obviously can. His speed is formidable. My point is that and you and others overrate him. <br /><br />I can see someone arguing that Wallace is better that T. Smith. However, I think your "what are you smoking" retort is every bit as hyperbolic as my "T. Smith is clearly better" position. The numerical comparisons demonstrate that they're close on numbers alone.<br /><br />This is all moot, though, because there's no chance he's a Steelers next year. Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-14482085276188011262013-02-07T15:37:14.648-05:002013-02-07T15:37:14.648-05:00Thanks for making my point. Better is better.Thanks for making my point. Better is better.Dale Lolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13089003781188560287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-56608169987055219132013-02-07T15:25:27.114-05:002013-02-07T15:25:27.114-05:00Dale: I could go 20 percent (or 10 pecentage point...Dale: I could go 20 percent (or 10 pecentage points) better, but 1/3 is a stretch.<br /> <br />99/205 = 48%<br /><br />235/404 = 58%<br /><br />58/48 = 1.2<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-28368162697280497892013-02-07T15:00:26.347-05:002013-02-07T15:00:26.347-05:00How about Wallace's TD catch against KC? Peopl...How about Wallace's TD catch against KC? People have selective memories when it comes to Wallace.<br />Guy had 32 touchdown catches in four seasons with the Steelers. To say he only made a couple of plays is ignoring the facts.<br /><br />Torrey Smith has 99 career catches on 205 targets. Wallace, 235 on 404. So they both average about 100 targets per season, yet Wallace's production is nearly 1/3 better. And he's every bit the deep threat - if not better - than Smith.Dale Lolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13089003781188560287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-18372389210185532562013-02-07T13:58:20.953-05:002013-02-07T13:58:20.953-05:00"Wallace's catch to beat Green Bay his ro..."Wallace's catch to beat Green Bay his rookie year was very good and another type of catch I have not seen out of Torrey Smith."<br /><br />Have we ever seen Wallace make a catch like that since? <br /><br />I admit, I was probably too hyperbolic re: T. Smith being clearly better. But seeing the performances that T. Smith, Boldin, and J. Jones had this post-season, combined with Wallace's performance and attitude over the past year and a half or so, has basically made me fed up with Wallace.<br /><br />I think that Wallace is the most overrated Steelers player in recent memory. I don't think that he's as good as he thinks he is, and and I don't think that he's a top 20 receiver.Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-51368378592309546452013-02-07T12:46:11.214-05:002013-02-07T12:46:11.214-05:00"Don't let Wallace's one great play a..."Don't let Wallace's one great play against the Giants mislead you into thinking that Wallace is a complete receiver."<br /><br />And don't let Wallace's attitude mislead you. Wallace's catch and run against the Giants is something he's done before and something I have not seen out of Torrey Smith. Smith seems good at adjusting for the ball. Wallace is ok at it. Wallace's catch to beat Green Bay his rookie year was very good and another type of catch I have not seen out of Torrey Smith.<br /><br />Smith might turn out to be fantastic but to say you've seen enough of him to definitively state that he's easily better than Wallace is shaky at best.kylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-68577816485899601212013-02-07T10:38:22.764-05:002013-02-07T10:38:22.764-05:00"Yep, the receiver who had eight games this s..."Yep, the receiver who had eight games this season - including one against the Steelers when he had one catch on seven targets - where he had two or fewer catches, is clearly better than Mike Wallace"<br /><br />He is, and cherry picking numbers doesn't change that fact. Switch Smith and Wallace, which would actually give Roethlisberger a WR who has decent hands and who tries and is able to adjust to catch a ball that's not perfectly in stride, and T. Smith's numbers would surpass Wallace's.<br /><br />Wallace is good at putting up garbage time numbers. For example, his best game this year was the second half of the Chargers game, long after it had gotten out of hand. <br /><br />Wallace really hasn't been great for the past year and a half. Teams have figured him out.<br /><br />I respect your opinion, Mr. Lolley, and I usually agree with your take on things, but I stridently disagree with you on this. Don't let Wallace's one great play against the Giants mislead you into thinking that Wallace is a complete receiver. Given his attitude, I say good riddance. Maybe Wallace and Mendenhall can share a cab to the airport.Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-19767555223117094852013-02-06T19:11:49.410-05:002013-02-06T19:11:49.410-05:00I don't see the making any moves until they ha...I don't see the making any moves until they have to, which is in March. No real reason to do so before thatDale Lolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13089003781188560287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-17498946053743082072013-02-06T19:07:12.592-05:002013-02-06T19:07:12.592-05:00Speaking of Ahmad Bradshaw, any chance he'd be...Speaking of Ahmad Bradshaw, any chance he'd be a fit for the Steelers? <br /><br />He's only 26, should be fairly cheap having just been cut, has had 2 1,000 yrd seasons, has a career ypc of 4.6 and catches out of the backfield.<br /><br />I could've sworn he was 28 or 29, but at 26 he could be a steal. (The big if...if he can stay healthy)DAVEnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-50648745573086840862013-02-06T18:25:04.698-05:002013-02-06T18:25:04.698-05:00Dale, I don't know why you bother with these j...Dale, I don't know why you bother with these jokers. <br /><br />Should we be expecting any roster moves made for cap purposes (other than the Rainey release), ala the Giants cutting Bradshaw?Eric Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330208991091877097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15287012.post-51294622194876409882013-02-06T18:24:52.865-05:002013-02-06T18:24:52.865-05:00Yep, the receiver who had eight games this season ...Yep, the receiver who had eight games this season - including one against the Steelers when he had one catch on seven targets - where he had two or fewer catches, is clearly better than Mike Wallace.Dale Lolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13089003781188560287noreply@blogger.com