Wallace vs. Nicks (1 Viewer)

[Biap1206]

Has anyone noticed that Mike Wallace and Hakeem Nicks' stats are extremely similar?

Wallace: 25 yrs old

2009 - 4 games started, 39 rec, 756 yds, 6 TDs

2010 - 16 games started, 60 rec, 1257 yds, 10 TDs

2011 - 16 games started, 72 rec, 1193 yds, 8 TDs

Nicks: 24 yrs old

2009 - 6 games started, 47 rec, 790 yds, 6 TDs

2010 - 12 games started, 79 rec, 1052 yds, 11 TDs

2011 - 15 games started, 76 rec, 1192 yds, 7 TDs

Based on team, stats, situation (emergence of Cruz/A. Brown), etc. who would you rather own?

I've been offered Victor Cruz for Mike Wallace (owner wants to do it straight up, but Nicks seems to be a better option, no?)

Cruz and Wallace are both 25 yrs old.

What do you think?

 

[Run It Up]

You'll probably catch a lot of grief for posting this in the pool. That being said ive always been of the opinion that Nicks is the superior talent and ive seen nothing to change my opinion. Even though he is seemingly always hurt, he plays hurt and produces hurt.

To top it all off, hes on the better offense with the better QB.

I think Cruz actually helps Nicks, whereas I think Brown hurts Wallace.

Lol after rereading your post im not sure if youre asking Cruz vs Wallace (your trade) or if your asking for opinions of Nicks vs Wallace.

As far as Cruz vs Wallace to me it depends on scoring, for a PPR league I would prefer Cruz to Wallace, Standard Wallace over Cruz.

 

[griff321]

In before someone ignorantly calls Wallace a one trick pony.

 

[Donsmith753]

Without getting too deep into it I personally feel Nicks is more likely to repeat those strong stats in the next 5 years than Wallace is.

 

[Punch]

Nicks > Wallace > Cruz

That sums it up for me anyway. I'm also not clear what you're asking.

Personally, I have a feeling that Cruz won't be as effective on the outside as he was in the slot. We may have seen his peak.

Wallace runs a lot more routes than people realize but he isn't great at making contested catches in traffic.

Nicks is no doubt the most complete WR in this group and still very young. I can't believe all the numbskulls talking 'bout taking Cruz over him this year. He's a dominant WR when healthy.

 

[Biap1206]

Well the owner has Cruz and Nicks and wants to break that up for Wallace. So he offered Cruz straight up, but to me Nicks is who I would be more likely to trade Wallace for straight up.

As for Cruz, one year with 1500+ years is great, but the second year always gets harder. If it was one year 1500+ yards from a first or second round pick opposed to an undrafted free agent, then I would be more inclined to trade straight up. No much risk of possible failure or lack of production for me to make that move. Nicks on the other hand... I probably would.

Regardless, those three years of stats are pretty close.

----------

BTW that's fine if I catch grief. This is my first time posting here so if an admin wanted to move this thread to the correct location I will be more conscience of that next time.

 

[Koya]

IMO, Nicks is more talented, more athletic overall, better hands and more versatile.

That said, he seems more injury prone as well. My take is Nicks has more upside and is better on any given healthy game day, but there is fore risk IMO, if that factors into your thinking.

 

[Phlash]

Nicks > Wallace > CruzThat sums it up for me anyway. I'm also not clear what you're asking. Personally, I have a feeling that Cruz won't be as effective on the outside as he was in the slot. We may have seen his peak. Wallace runs a lot more routes than people realize but he isn't great at making contested catches in traffic.Nicks is no doubt the most complete WR in this group and still very young. I can't believe all the numbskulls talking 'bout taking Cruz over him this year. He's a dominant WR when healthy.

If 1500 receiving yards is a WRs ceiling I think I will take that ceiling all day.

 

[az_prof]

Without getting too deep into it I personally feel Nicks is more likely to repeat those strong stats in the next 5 years than Wallace is.

This

 

[Steelersfan15]

Both are young, proven studs. I have Nicks as my 4th ranked dynasty WR and Wallace as my 5th. Yea, I feel they are that close.

 

[RavenLunatic]

Agree Nicks>Wallace>Cruz

Honestly I would just stick with Wallace unless you are getting additional compensation...and need it.

I doubt he will offer more than a straight up trade but definitely know he will not offer Nicks for Wallace. And Wallace is not that far behind Nicks to part with much that isnt just a token acknowledgement that Nicks is superior. and sure he will want more than a token.

Obviously trying to sell Cruz at his high.

Seriously, how much higher can Cruz's value reach? He will never match Larry or Calvin.

Keep Wallace.

 

[cvnpoka]

incredible how high ppl are on nicks itt considering the denigration he incurred in the last big nicks thread. ill take wallace. both are like top 5 tho.

 

[meyerj31]

I don't think it's particularly close. Nicks is built just like Roddy. He's a big, possession type receiver that will move the chains. He can catch against double-teams. With Manning at the helm and Cruz running around underneath I expect Nicks to have closer to a 1400-yard ceiling the next 5 years, and actually be able to repeat it. I don't see any way Wallace has a 1400 yard ceiling. But we'll see.

Nicks also got stronger as the postseason wore on. The guy had 444 receiving yards in the playoffs. I know the Packers don't have the best secondary, but he literally went up and caught a pass over Woodson then blatantly outran him 40 yards to the endzone. He's a beast.

 

[Tau837]

Has anyone noticed that Mike Wallace and Hakeem Nicks' stats are extremely similar?Wallace: 25 yrs old2009 - 4 games started, 39 rec, 756 yds, 6 TDs2010 - 16 games started, 60 rec, 1257 yds, 10 TDs2011 - 16 games started, 72 rec, 1193 yds, 8 TDsNicks: 24 yrs old2009 - 6 games started, 47 rec, 790 yds, 6 TDs2010 - 12 games started, 79 rec, 1052 yds, 11 TDs2011 - 15 games started, 76 rec, 1192 yds, 7 TDsBased on team, stats, situation (emergence of Cruz/A. Brown), etc. who would you rather own?

These numbers aren't as similar when you take games played into account, since Nicks missed 6 games in his first 3 seasons and Wallace missed none. Nicks averages more targets, receptions, yards, and TDs per game. Wallace has a higher yards per reception average, but Nicks' average is still very good at 15 ypr.And Nicks has been much better in the postseason, with 28/444/4 in 4 games, compared to 16/141/1 for Wallace in 4 games. We may not care about postseason production from a fantasy perspective, but it certainly provides us with a larger sample size within which to compare players.Nicks gets a huge amount more targets. In 2011, he got 38 more targets than Wallace in the regular season, despite playing one fewer game than Wallace. In 2010, he got 30 more targets than Wallace, despite playing three fewer games than Wallace.Unsurprisingly, Nicks is a much better red zone target. Over the past 2 seasons, he has 32 targets for 19/146/12 in the red zone, compared to 23 targets for 9/74/4 for Wallace.And Nicks is 17 months younger than Wallace.Add it all up and it's an easy call to say Nicks deserves to be much higher ranked than Wallace in dynasty WR rankings. It's not close.

 

[JohnnyU]

I would start a thread saying that Mike Wallace passed away yesterday, but that would be uncool. However, the 60 minutes Mike Wallace did die yesterday RIP.

 

[ninerfanatic492000]

Nicks reminds me of a smaller and less cut from steel TO with his strong hands and my ball mentality with angry run after catch skills. To me his skills seem to be more maintainable over the years. I don't think Wallace is a one trick pony but his game is built mostly on speed and randy seems to be one of the few wrs to have sustained great success with that being his main attribute. Randy also had being the freakiest athlete maybe ever also going for him.