Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Easy schedule = more second half leads = more running out the clock = less catchup/garbage time stat-padding passing opportunities.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Mike Wallace, WR, Pittsburgh Steelers (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jason Wood
- Start date
Interesting logic. How do you figure that sports fan?
griff321
Footballguy
Riiiiiiight.Any evidence to back this logic that is clearly wrong?Wait...did we go back to 2006 and The Chin is still the HC!?Easy schedule = more second half leads = more running out the clock = less catchup/garbage time stat-padding passing opportunities.
Last edited by a moderator:
griff321
Footballguy
Last year in the 4th quarter Mike Wallace has 19rec.(1st by quarter) for 373yds.(2nd) and 4tds(1st tied).
When playing ahead he has more receptions(27), yards(645 compared to 452 while behind), and TDs(5).
How about this gem of a TD. The first play of the 4th quarter with the Steelers leading 21-3 on a 2nd and 8...
When playing ahead he has more receptions(27), yards(645 compared to 452 while behind), and TDs(5).
How about this gem of a TD. The first play of the 4th quarter with the Steelers leading 21-3 on a 2nd and 8...
Grahamburn
Footballguy
Feel free to expect 100 receptions and 2,000 yards. 
griff321
Footballguy
So is this your way of saying, "I was wrong"?I'm all for dissent, but it better be grounded in reality or people will call you out on it.Feel free to expect 100 receptions and 2,000 yards.
Grahamburn
Footballguy
Wrong about what? The Steelers' schedule is just one of the many reasons Wallace is unlikely to have 100 receptions this season. Because you were able to find one highlight of a TD reception when the Steelers had a lead doesn't really make me think Roethlisberger will be chucking the ball all over the field late in games with double digit scoreboard advantages against bad teams.So is this your way of saying, "I was wrong"?I'm all for dissent, but it better be grounded in reality or people will call you out on it.Feel free to expect 100 receptions and 2,000 yards.
Grahamburn
Footballguy
Yes, I saw the stats. Wallace had 60 receptions last season. Even prorating his second half from week 9 forward when he really caught on fire he'd still be in the mid 80s.
I also realize that the Steelers pass the ball more with Bruce Arians as their coordinator, but they still aren't the Colts. The Steelers want balance. In fact, in their entire history they've only had one WR catch more than 100 passes in a season. Hines Ward had 112 in 2002.
So, in conclusion, Pittsburgh's schedule in 2011, their history, the emergence of other young WRs, and Wallace's usage to date leads me believe that a prediction of 100 receptions is, well, silly.
I also realize that the Steelers pass the ball more with Bruce Arians as their coordinator, but they still aren't the Colts. The Steelers want balance. In fact, in their entire history they've only had one WR catch more than 100 passes in a season. Hines Ward had 112 in 2002.
So, in conclusion, Pittsburgh's schedule in 2011, their history, the emergence of other young WRs, and Wallace's usage to date leads me believe that a prediction of 100 receptions is, well, silly.
His splits don't really support that.Leading: 47 - 27 - 645 - 23.9 - 5 (tgts-rec-yds-ave-TDs)Wrong about what? The Steelers' schedule is just one of the many reasons Wallace is unlikely to have 100 receptions this season. Because you were able to find one highlight of a TD reception when the Steelers had a lead doesn't really make me think Roethlisberger will be chucking the ball all over the field late in games with double digit scoreboard advantages against bad teams.So is this your way of saying, "I was wrong"?I'm all for dissent, but it better be grounded in reality or people will call you out on it.Feel free to expect 100 receptions and 2,000 yards.
Trailing: 41 - 27 - 452 - 16.7 - 4
Wallace Splits
ETA:
Never mind. I see you were only arguing against 100 receptions. I agree with you there.
Last edited by a moderator:
baconisgood
Footballguy
This isn't weighted though- the Steelers went 12-4 so they should have been leading a much higher % of their games than losing.His splits don't really support that.Leading: 47 - 27 - 645 - 23.9 - 5 (tgts-rec-yds-ave-TDs)Wrong about what? The Steelers' schedule is just one of the many reasons Wallace is unlikely to have 100 receptions this season. Because you were able to find one highlight of a TD reception when the Steelers had a lead doesn't really make me think Roethlisberger will be chucking the ball all over the field late in games with double digit scoreboard advantages against bad teams.So is this your way of saying, "I was wrong"?I'm all for dissent, but it better be grounded in reality or people will call you out on it.Feel free to expect 100 receptions and 2,000 yards.
Trailing: 41 - 27 - 452 - 16.7 - 4
Wallace Splits
griff321
Footballguy
Ahh I can get behind some of this. I also thought you ment that his reception totals wouldn't increase like many are predicting in this thread. 100 is a bit much but he could still hit around 80-90 and be a top end WR. Hell I think he could be elite with 75 receptions.
Grahamburn
Footballguy
Surprised Ben overthrew him on the deep ball last night. Didn't think that was possible? Anyways, it was nice to see Wallace smoked the coverage. If Pittsburgh's offensive line can consistently give Roethlisberger time Wallace should have another excellent season.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
And for all of that, Jared Bush made him very mortal in the Super Bowl.
Team ROFLCOPTERS
Footballguy
You brought up the 100 catches my man. I don't think anyone epects even 80.Wrong about what? The Steelers' schedule is just one of the many reasons Wallace is unlikely to have 100 receptions this season. Because you were able to find one highlight of a TD reception when the Steelers had a lead doesn't really make me think Roethlisberger will be chucking the ball all over the field late in games with double digit scoreboard advantages against bad teams.So is this your way of saying, "I was wrong"?I'm all for dissent, but it better be grounded in reality or people will call you out on it.Feel free to expect 100 receptions and 2,000 yards.
Grahamburn
Footballguy
You brought up the 100 catches my man. I don't think anyone epects even 80.Wrong about what? The Steelers' schedule is just one of the many reasons Wallace is unlikely to have 100 receptions this season. Because you were able to find one highlight of a TD reception when the Steelers had a lead doesn't really make me think Roethlisberger will be chucking the ball all over the field late in games with double digit scoreboard advantages against bad teams.So is this your way of saying, "I was wrong"?I'm all for dissent, but it better be grounded in reality or people will call you out on it.Feel free to expect 100 receptions and 2,000 yards.
Actually, Wallace did.
I was just pointing out that I thought it was silly. Then a few posters kind of misunderstood what I was trying to say. I drafted Wallace Thursday night, so I'm all for him having a big year.
pghrob
Footballguy
Wallace's game has evolved to much more than just go routes. A very soft schedule, another year of Bruce Arians and Big Ben wanting to air it out, an aging Hines Ward, and voila: a slim chance for Wallace to have 95 receptions.
Even if his 20.3 yards career YPC avg. is reduced by 5 yards to 15.3, that would equate to 1453 yards at 95 receptions. The more I think about it, I think he has a shot at a prolific type of receiving season if he and Big Ben stay healthy.
A 5 yard reduction in YPC offset by an increase of about 35 receptions is possible.
Which of the two possible swings is more realistic? A 25% decrease in YPC or almost a 55% increase in receptions (he had 60 last year)?
I am thinking we will more than likely see a reduction in YPC (but not one that is 25%) but also will not see a 55% increase in receptions which would get him to the low to mid 90's.
Regardless, Wallace has some things lining up for him to have a very solid season.
Even if his 20.3 yards career YPC avg. is reduced by 5 yards to 15.3, that would equate to 1453 yards at 95 receptions. The more I think about it, I think he has a shot at a prolific type of receiving season if he and Big Ben stay healthy.
A 5 yard reduction in YPC offset by an increase of about 35 receptions is possible.
Which of the two possible swings is more realistic? A 25% decrease in YPC or almost a 55% increase in receptions (he had 60 last year)?
I am thinking we will more than likely see a reduction in YPC (but not one that is 25%) but also will not see a 55% increase in receptions which would get him to the low to mid 90's.
Regardless, Wallace has some things lining up for him to have a very solid season.
5-ish Finkle
Footballguy
I was wondering how "9 for 89 and a TD" was being held in check myself. I guess if Wallace isn't smoking a team for a 50+ yard score, but he's getting more catches and still scoring he's less valuable?Yeah Wallace would project to only have 144 receptions for 1424 yds with 16tds if Bush covered him every week. Yeah those stats scream mortal.'Sabertooth said:And for all of that, Jared Bush made him very mortal in the Super Bowl.
This has happened more often than you'd think. Ben's got a big enough arm, but sometimes his accuracy on the deep ball abandons him.It's nice Wallace is confident....but there's about "none" chance he sniffs 100 catches. It's almost ludicrous to assume he'd approach 2,000 yards.'Grahamburn said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
I was wondering how "9 for 89 and a TD" was being held in check myself. I guess if Wallace isn't smoking a team for a 50+ yard score, but he's getting more catches and still scoring he's less valuable?Yeah Wallace would project to only have 144 receptions for 1424 yds with 16tds if Bush covered him every week. Yeah those stats scream mortal.'Sabertooth said:And for all of that, Jared Bush made him very mortal in the Super Bowl.
This has happened more often than you'd think. Ben's got a big enough arm, but sometimes his accuracy on the deep ball abandons him.It's nice Wallace is confident....but there's about "none" chance he sniffs 100 catches. It's almost ludicrous to assume he'd approach 2,000 yards.'Grahamburn said:
Sweetness_34
Footballguy
Amazed at the Mike Wallace love. I love folks who want to spend their high draft choice on a Bernard Berrian one-trick pony clone. Good luck!
Grahamburn
Footballguy
Bernard Berrian? That seems a bit harsh. BB's best season doesn't even approach what Mike Wallace just did in 2010.
People like that Wallace was able to produce such a great season without being a highly targeted WR, meaning they like the upside potential for this season. It's a pretty simple concept to grasp.
People like that Wallace was able to produce such a great season without being a highly targeted WR, meaning they like the upside potential for this season. It's a pretty simple concept to grasp.
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
I have two questions for you, Sweetness.1. Have you ever watched Bernard Berrian play.2. Have you ever watched Mike Wallace play.
T with T
Footballguy
seems to me that guys a hater... BB never had over 1200 yards and 10 tds in his second season.. pretty dumb posting, and pretty much is the only one on the whole board saying such stupid things. I would say 80-1300-12 is a very real assessment or projection for him.
PahtyTom
Footballguy
Mike Wallace had 60 catches for 1257 yards and 10 TDs on just 98 targets. He was the most efficient WR in the NFL by a wide margin. This was in his 2nd season as a pro.
FantasyTrader
Footballguy
Actually not true. If we're speaking pure efficiency - Kenny Britt led the league in fantasy points scored per route run last year.
rocketsauce
Footballguy
Love the thread, love the thoughts, and love Mike Wallace (nothing crazy -- 9th among WRs for me right now.)
Quick thought that I just want to contribute that makes me very interested in owning Wallace. In 2010 he was the 8th best WR in my PPR, and that was without his starting QB for 5 weeks, and he only HAD 60 CATCHES. 60 catches in a PPR and he finished 8th?
Just saying.
Quick thought that I just want to contribute that makes me very interested in owning Wallace. In 2010 he was the 8th best WR in my PPR, and that was without his starting QB for 5 weeks, and he only HAD 60 CATCHES. 60 catches in a PPR and he finished 8th?
Just saying.
T with T
Footballguy
And remember he was only in his second year and he was top 10.. I think he can really break out this year.
Gold Standard
Footballguy
Rather than sweating it out in the 3rd round I took him at 2.06 in a 10 team - gladly took him over Nicks and Fitz. Paired him up with Ben in the 10th round. I'm ready to roll.
OnTheReg
Footballguy
Wow - I love Wallace this year, but over Nicks and Fitz? Ballsy move.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
And let's not forget that Roethlisberger missed a wide open Wallace for a TD in the 3rd quarter, too. His stats could have been closer to 10-150-2.Bottom line: Wallace is a stud, and even though he is going in the top 10 for WRs this year, I think he still might be being undervalued.Yeah Wallace would project to only have 144 receptions for 1424 yds with 16tds if Bush covered him every week. Yeah those stats scream mortal.And for all of that, Jared Bush made him very mortal in the Super Bowl.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jaysports
Footballguy
Agreed, not sure I could do that. Actually, I know I couldn't take him over Fitz. Nicks is debatable since he doesn't have a long track record yet. Wallace could add another 15-20 catches, but....Fitz should have around 100 catches and double digit TD's. If Wallace catches more balls than his YPC will for sure go down. Wallace - Lets just pretend he adds 15 receptions for 75 catches while his YPC dropping from 21 to 18 givig him 1,315 yards. Lets say he matches his 10 TD's from last year which is hard to predict year to year. That would give him 270 in PPR.Fitz - He had 12.6 YPC last year, lets pretend he increases that by 2YPC. That would give him 1,460 yards. We'll give him 10 TD's as well with a legit QB. That would give him 306 points.Bottom line for me is that there is still work to be done for Wallace to even get to 270 pts which is Fitz's floor imo while the one thing that had to happen for Fitz to get back to his elite 100 rec / 10 TD days.....and that's getting a compitent QB which happened already. I understand that many are saying look at the catch per game numbers with and w/out Roethe last year, but that is by no means a guarantee that he'll blow out his catch total this year with more options in the passing game and more coverage rolling to Wallace regardless of Ben being there all year.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I definitely have Wallace ranked higher than Nicks. Don't underestimate the loss of Steve Smith and what that will do to coverage of Nicks. Not saying he won't be still be really good, but a slight dropoff wouldn't surprise me. Meanwhile, Wallace had 1,257 yards and 10 TDs despite missing his starting QB for 1/4 of the season. Wallace is more of a sure thing than Nicks, IMO.
ghostrider55
Footballguy
It's a contract year for Wallace as well.
Gold Standard
Footballguy
A small roll of the dice perhaps, but he was just too good to pass up and I didn't want to white knuckle it to the third round. I think Nicks, although a monster, is on an offense with a great deal of uncertainty - Smith and Boss gone, revamped O-Line, tons of turnovers on that offense and lets not forget that Nicks got banged up late in the season. I think the Giants are in for a long season. Fitzgerald in the past two seasons has been out scored by the likes of Desean Jackson. As a diehard Eagle fan Kolb going over there will spike his numbers a bit, but I don't think they'll have the same chemistry as Ben and Wallace already have. Pitt is stacked offensively, still blows my mind why people spend high on QB's when a 4000 yd 25+TD QB in Big Ben is waiting for you in 6-7th rd in a 12 teamMike Wallace is Desean Jackson with more size - I'll take the risk.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Shhhhhhhhhhhh!
griff321
Footballguy
Week 18 Rec.-107 Yds.-13.4 Avg.One trick pony eh?
duaneok66
Footballguy
what a post - putting Berrian and Wallace in the same sentence is telling . . .
⚡DEADHEAD⚡
Footballguy
Absurd.
Grahamburn
Footballguy
Wow. Averaging 7 receptions, 125.6 yards, .66 TDs at 17.95 yards per catch.
Maybe that 2,000 yard prediction wasn't as ludicrous as I thought? He's on pace for 2,009...
Maybe that 2,000 yard prediction wasn't as ludicrous as I thought? He's on pace for 2,009...
griff321
Footballguy
Yeah he's a beast. I'm loving how he's developed his game and is turning into one of the better all around receivers. I had a good feeling he would, but who really ever knows for sure and the lockout helps nothing. Just happy to see he's even blowing generous projections like mine out of the water so far. Their's still a lot of people out there that have to put Wallace in a box, but he's slowly changing minds.'Grahamburn said:
Any word if he sustained any type of injury, tightening, etc? After his last 6 yd catch I didn't seem him on the field again while they were driving down for the game winning score. A couple of times there was a 1 WR set and it was Sanders out there. A little concerned but not seeing anything out there about this?
Touchdown There
Footballguy
Very happy with his production. The Steelers tend to look his way early on the deep shots, then he gets one, then very few deep balls for the rest of the game. Not trying to be "fantasy point greedy" but the Steelers cut it pretty close playing the Colts last night. I would have liked to seen 1-2 more deep targets.
T with T
Footballguy
It could be because the steelers knew they had it wrapped up and were gonna kick the FG. If you noticed or watched the game, I found it interesting that Mendenhall wasn't in the game in that last couple of plays before the FG either. He could have just pulled mendy/wallace and put in sanders/ redman to give them confidence or rest his big time guys, although Mendy did have a bad game, he is still a top tier rb. Anyways, he looked fine on the bench from what I hear and no word of any injury, should be the reason he wasn't in the game.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gold Standard
Footballguy
Like I said a month ago Desean Jackson with size - happily took him a 2.04 and paired him with Ben. Going to be a fun year.
Ribs. Should play, but could be limited
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Tomlin did not seem concerned about Wallace at all today at his presser. He said he will be fine for Sunday.
The Doctor
Footballguy
Similar threads
