Wallace vs. Fitz vs. Megatron

No, I'm not going to make an argument that Mike Wallace is as good as Larry Fitzgerald or Calvin Johnson right now. But comparing them, especially at the same points in their careers, isn't as laughable as a lot of Steelers fans seem to think.

Let's look at their first 3 years in the league:

.....................1st year Yds/TDs ............. 2nd year Yds/TDs ................. 3rd year Yds/TDs .......... TOTAL
Fitzgerald .... 780 yards, 8 TDs ........... 1,409 yards, 10 TDs .............. 946 yards, 6 TDs ......... 3,135 yards, 24 TDs
Johnson ....... 756 yards, 4 TDs ........... 1,331 yards, 12 TDs .............. 984 yards, 5 TDs ......... 3,071 yards, 21 TDs
Wallace ........ 756 yards, 6 TDs ........... 1,257 yards, 10 TDs ............. 1,193 yards, 8 TDs ...... 3,206 yards, 24 TDs

At the same point in their careers, Wallace was statistically better than both Johnson and Fitz. And here's something to keep in mind ... Fitz started all 16 games his rookie season. Johnson started 10. Wallace started only 4. Wallace's numbers would blow away both Fitz's and Megatron's if his playing time hadn't been limited his rookie year.

Maybe it has more to do with perception than the stats.

Look at Fitz and Johnson. Both of them were drafted to teams looking for an identity. Those two became those teams. When the Steelers got Wallace our WR corp already had an identity - Hines Ward.

i'd rather have fitz or Megatron than Wallace i'm not hating on Wallace i just think they're more complete WR's. If anything happens to Wallace and he loses a step than what? he will not out jump anybody in the end zone, and he's not even the best route runner in the team!



Edit: IDK maybe i'm just drunk



Edit: Wait I don't drink

stlrtruck wrote:

Maybe it has more to do with perception than the stats.

Look at Fitz and Johnson. Both of them were drafted to teams looking for an identity. Those two became those teams. When the Steelers got Wallace our WR corp already had an identity - Hines Ward.

You could be right. Perception is a problem. Just look at how fans view Wallace in the second half of last season. The perception is that he's totally to blame for his drop off in production. But the game tapes show that Wallace was consistently getting open against double teams, but Ben wasn't throwing him the ball. Probably because he was having trouble throwing the ball because of his injury, Ben was looking more at the short routes, so Brown sort of became the No. 1 option in the second half of the season.

fer69 wrote:

i'd rather have fitz or Megatron than Wallace i'm not hating on Wallace i just think they're more complete WR's. If anything happens to Wallace and he loses a step than what? he will not out jump anybody in the end zone, and he's not even the best route runner in the team!

Wallace is a different kind of receiver than Fitz and Johnson. He's not going to be able to do some of the things they can do, just as they can't do some of the things Wallace can do. It's no different than if we were to compare Ben with Peyton Manning. We could make the argument that Manning isn't as big and strong as Ben and isn't able to shake off tacklers and make something out of nothing. Does that mean that Manning isn't as good as Ben? No, they're two completely different quarterbacks. Manning can't do some of the things Ben can do, and Ben can't do some of the things Manning can do. But they're both great at what they do. They both get the job done in their own ways. And the same is true for Wallace. He's not big and strong like Megatron. He's not going to out-muscle bigger and stronger cornerbacks or safeties for the ball. And he's never going to be as good of a blocker as Hines Ward, and I think that's part of the problem. It goes back to what Truck was saying about perception .... fans expect Wallace to be a tough SOB and attack defenders like Ward did. But since he doesn't, he must not be all that good. There's also a perception that Wallace isn't a good route runner. But yet he was consistently getting open despite being double teamed. Ben just wasn't throwing him the ball. In the first 8 games, Wallace had 43 receptions. In the final 8 games, he had only 29 receptions. He was getting open against double teams, but because Ben was having difficulty throwing to the longer routes, he chose to look first underneath at Brown. And that's the reason for Brown's surge and Wallace's drop off. But the perception is that Wallace sucked in the second half of the season.

Looking at their production, Wallace is every bit as good as Fitz and Johnson at the same point in their careers. Fitz and Johnson continued to improve their skills, and their production also increased. Everything I've read says that Wallace is a hard worker. He's only going to get better. And if he's as good as Fitz and Johnson after three years, there's no reason to think that he might not be as good as them after four years, or five years.

Speaking of perception, I keep hearing arguments that suggest that great receivers are a dime a dozen. But as I pointed out in another thread, we've had a lot of receivers sandwiched between Swann/Stallworth and Ward. How many of them were great? How many were even just really good? Once we get past Lipps, we'll struggle to name anyone else. But we have a great receiver in Wallace. Over the next few years, he'll likely emerge as one of the top 3 or 4 receivers in the NFL. And I imagine he wants to be paid that way. But if he signs a deal that most fans seem to think he's worth right now, by year 3 of the deal, he won't be in the top 15 in terms of pay. This is Wallace's first (and possibly only) chance at a big payday. So we can't blame him for trying his best to get as much as he can. After all, the NFL is a business ... and both players and teams are going to do what they feel is in their best interest. As a fan, it's frustrating, but if Wallace comes in and has another Pro Bowl year, Steelers fans will forget about all the drama this offseason. And they're proudly be cheering for No. 17 once again.

I would trade Wallace for Calvin Johnson in half a second. He's strong, tall and physical, all of which Wallace isn't. He has great work ethic, and may just be the first wide receiver to crack 2,000 yards in a season. I love Wallace, but I don't think he's as talented as Johnson. He may turn into a receiver of Johnson's caliber down the road, but he'll definitely need to improve his strength. Speed doesn't last forever. Look at Johnson, 111 yards at the half!

bayz101 wrote:

I would trade Wallace for Calvin Johnson in half a second. He's strong, tall and physical, all of which Wallace isn't. He has great work ethic, and may just be the first wide receiver to crack 2,000 yards in a season. I love Wallace, but I don't think he's as talented as Johnson. He may turn into a receiver of Johnson's caliber down the road, but he'll definitely need to improve his strength. Speed doesn't last forever. Look at Johnson, 111 yards at the half!

Everyone seems to be hung up on Johnson's style of play. The big, strong, intimidating receiver. But the goal for receivers is to catch passes, gain yards, and score touchdowns. After 3 years, Wallace is as good or better than Johnson in those areas. Johnson had a few more receptions (193 vs. 171). You don't get extra points for HOW you get it done.

Once again, it's all about perception. People keep saying that Wallace is all speed, that he's not a good route runner. Yet the tapes from last season show him consistently getting open while being double teamed. Wallace also takes heat for not going across the middle. But he can't just make stuff up ... he has to run the routes as they're called. I'm sure Haley will mix it up more rather than just sending him to the end zone on every other play.

Going back to the comparison, there's no doubt that Johnson is a much better receiver right now. But I'm comparing them at the same point in their careers (after 3 years). Wallace had more yards, nearly as many as receptions (despite only starting 4 games his rookie season), and had just as many TDs (which, ultimately is the main goal .... to get in the end zone, no matter how you do it). So after 3 years, Wallace was just as good as both Johnson and Fitz. And again, we can't deduct points for style of play. If that's the case, are you going to make the same argument for Ben? Would you trade him for Brady? Ben isn't as good of a pure pocket passer as Brady, and with his style of play, Ben's career probably won't be as long as Brady's. The same kind of arguments you're using against Wallace could also be used against Ben.

I think once again this goes back to perception. Steelers fans laugh at the suggestion that Wallace is as good as Fitz or Johnson, although from a statistical and production standpoint, he is. But Steelers fans won't say that Brady is better than Ben, despite the fact that Brady is a better pure passer, has way better stats, and has won one more Super Bowl. Brady is better than Ben no matter how we measure it. But Steelers fans say there's no way in hell they'd trade Ben for Brady. But suggest trading Wallace for Fitz or Johnson, and the same fans are like, "SHIT YEAH!!!!" ... why is it different? Why would we trade Wallace for Johnson but not Ben for Brady?

If a Wallace for Johnson trade presented itself today, the Rooney's probably wouldn't waste even a minute. Johnson is better than Wallace at this point in his career, and if we're going to win another SuperBowl with this group of Steelers, the time is NOW.

bayz101 wrote:

If a Wallace for Johnson trade presented itself today, the Rooney's probably wouldn't waste even a minute. Johnson is better than Wallace at this point in his career, and if we're going to win another SuperBowl with this group of Steelers, the time is NOW.

Then I go back to my last post ... why wouldn't you trade Ben for Brady? Or how about Rodgers? They're both better QBs than Ben and would give us a better chance at winning another Super Bowl.

Wallace108 wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

If a Wallace for Johnson trade presented itself today, the Rooney's probably wouldn't waste even a minute. Johnson is better than Wallace at this point in his career, and if we're going to win another SuperBowl with this group of Steelers, the time is NOW.

Then I go back to my last post ... why wouldn't you trade Ben for Brady? Or how about Rodgers? They're both better QBs than Ben and would give us a better chance at winning another Super Bowl.

Honestly I'd trade Ben for Rogers but Brady(the first woman to play QB) Child please!!!

solardave wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

If a Wallace for Johnson trade presented itself today, the Rooney's probably wouldn't waste even a minute. Johnson is better than Wallace at this point in his career, and if we're going to win another SuperBowl with this group of Steelers, the time is NOW.

Then I go back to my last post ... why wouldn't you trade Ben for Brady? Or how about Rodgers? They're both better QBs than Ben and would give us a better chance at winning another Super Bowl.

Honestly I'd trade Ben for Rogers but Brady(the first woman to play QB) Child please!!!

I'd trade Ben for Rodgers as well. And probably even Brady.

But this is the point I'm getting at. The same fans who say they'd trade Wallace for Johnson in a heartbeat aren't so willing to trade Ben for Brady or Rodgers. And I'm curious as to why. Is it because Ben is perceived as a tough SOB and Brady is perceived as a girly man? Or do those fans think Ben is better than Brady?
---------------------------------------------

I'm just curious as to why there seems to be a double standard here. We love Ben and wouldn't trade him for the world even though his style of play is much different than the top QBs and his production isn't as good. Yet we don't even wanna mention Wallace in the same sentence as Fitz and Megatron because he's not viewed as in their league ... even though his production is just as good as theirs at the same point in their careers. And Wallace is only going to get better.

Basically, I'm just trying to understand the hate. I understand the frustration over the holdout ... but I don't understand the criticism. I keep hearing from everyone that Wallace isn't a complete receiver because he's not big and strong and can't fight for the ball. But would we say that Willie Parker wasn't a complete running back because he couldn't pound it up the middle and run over defenders like Bettis? No, because they were two completely different kind of running backs. And Wallace is a different kind of receiver than Johnson. Wallace is 6-foot-0 and 199 pounds. Johnson is 6-foot-5 and 236 pounds. Johnson is a lot bigger and stronger. So why do we expect Wallace to do what Johnson does? Do Lions fans criticize Johnson for not being able to fly by corners and safeties like Wallace does? And what's more important ... style or results? Over the first 3 years of their careers, the style was different, but the results were the same.

I have defended Wallace's right to seek as much financial gain as he can. I know too well the Stats comparing Wallace to Fitz and CJ. But what anyone can tell by watching all three play is this, Fitz and Calvin have the type game that can and will last, even though they may lose a step later on. Wallace on the other hand depends solely on his break away speed. On top of that he is the type of receiver who rarely pulls in an errant throw from his QB. I for one have seen him drop many very catchable balls while at the same time NOT pulling in many off target throws. On the other hand Fitz and Calvin routinely pull in those type throws. If Wallace loses just a fraction of his speed or goes up against CBs with comparable speed then he becomes a non issue. As long as he is fast he can stretch the field and make it easier for everyone else, but to give him the type money he seems to want will make it harder for the Steelers to fill other needs on the team and I for for am against it. Listen there is a reason he disappeared the last half of the season, partly Ben's injuries, the other is he does appear to be a "one trick" pony and that is either the deep ball or nothing. I am not downing Wallace I honestly hope we resign him but not at a cost too high. Sometimes players just have too high of an opinion of their talent and cannot look at their situation in an honest fashion.

riccosuavez wrote:

I have defended Wallace's right to seek as much financial gain as he can. I know too well the Stats comparing Wallace to Fitz and CJ. But what anyone can tell by watching all three play is this, Fitz and Calvin have the type game that can and will last, even though they may lose a step later on. Wallace on the other hand depends solely on his break away speed. On top of that he is the type of receiver who rarely pulls in an errant throw from his QB. I for one have seen him drop many very catchable balls while at the same time NOT pulling in many off target throws. On the other hand Fitz and Calvin routinely pull in those type throws. If Wallace loses just a fraction of his speed or goes up against CBs with comparable speed then he becomes a non issue. As long as he is fast he can stretch the field and make it easier for everyone else, but to give him the type money he seems to want will make it harder for the Steelers to fill other needs on the team and I for for am against it. Listen there is a reason he disappeared the last half of the season, partly Ben's injuries, the other is he does appear to be a "one trick" pony and that is either the deep ball or nothing. I am not downing Wallace I honestly hope we resign him but not at a cost too high. Sometimes players just have too high of an opinion of their talent and cannot look at their situation in an honest fashion.

You're 100% right if he loses a step do to injury or whatever then he becomes an average or even below average WR IMO

Quote :

I keep hearing from everyone that Wallace isn't a complete receiver because he's not big and strong and can't fight for the ball. But would we say that Willie Parker wasn't a complete running back because he couldn't pound it up the middle and run over defenders like Bettis? No, because they were two completely different kind of running backs

Didn't Parker play for only six years or so while Bettis (soon to be in the HOF) played for Over 10 and at a good level?

riccosuavez wrote:

I have defended Wallace's right to seek as much financial gain as he can. I know too well the Stats comparing Wallace to Fitz and CJ. But what anyone can tell by watching all three play is this, Fitz and Calvin have the type game that can and will last, even though they may lose a step later on. Wallace on the other hand depends solely on his break away speed. On top of that he is the type of receiver who rarely pulls in an errant throw from his QB. I for one have seen him drop many very catchable balls while at the same time NOT pulling in many off target throws. On the other hand Fitz and Calvin routinely pull in those type throws. If Wallace loses just a fraction of his speed or goes up against CBs with comparable speed then he becomes a non issue. As long as he is fast he can stretch the field and make it easier for everyone else, but to give him the type money he seems to want will make it harder for the Steelers to fill other needs on the team and I for for am against it. Listen there is a reason he disappeared the last half of the season, partly Ben's injuries, the other is he does appear to be a "one trick" pony and that is either the deep ball or nothing. I am not downing Wallace I honestly hope we resign him but not at a cost too high. Sometimes players just have too high of an opinion of their talent and cannot look at their situation in an honest fashion.

Valid argument, ricco. I guess I'd counter that Wallace is still young and isn't polished yet. He's going to get better. His route running is already a lot better than it was his rookie year. But if by some chance he's as good as he's ever going to be, then your argument (which is similar to Fer's), is tough to argue against. I'll agree that Wallace needs to do better at going after bad throws. I'm putting my money on the belief that Wallace is going to be a beast two years from now.

Oh, and good to see you back at Xtreme.

fer69 wrote:

Didn't Parker play for only six years or so while Bettis (soon to be in the HOF) played for Over 10 and at a good level?

Yeah, but that really didn't have anything to do with their style of play. Parker never really returned from his broken leg. He was never the same after his injury. The same injury very easily could have happened to Bettis.