Wallace is money in the tank

AP file by Gene J. Puskar




Wide receiver Mike Wallace's disinterested play is costing himself and the Steelers.


.


Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 8:02 pm | Updated: 9:00 am, Tue Nov 27, 2012.

By Mike Bires mbires@timesonline.com | 1 comment




PITTSBURGH -- When Mike Wallace was holding out last summer, Steelers management made it clear that they hoped to extend his contract and keep him in Pittsburgh for years to come.

That still may be the case. But you have to wonder what coach Mike Tomlin and general manager Kevin Colbert think about Wallace’s performance in recent weeks.

Flash back to the Nov. 4 win over the New York Giants when Wallace gave the Steelers the lead for good by catching a short pass and then using his dazzling speed to break free for a 51-yard touchdown. That was the kind of splash play that makes Wallace such a coveted wide receiver.

However, since that TD against the Giants, Wallace has hardly been a factor. Here are his stats in the last three games:

* Three catches, 14 yards, 1 TD vs. the Chiefs.

* Four catches, 24 yards vs. the Ravens.

* One catch, 9 yards vs. the Browns.

Wallace accounted for more yards on that 51-yard TD against the Giants than he has in the past three games.

Granted, Charlie Batch under-threw Wallace twice Sunday in Cleveland on long pass plays.

In the first quarter, Wallace got behind the secondary but Batch couldn’t get the ball to him. The throw bounced off the helmet of strong safety T.J. Ward, who was trailing on the play. On the last of his three interceptions, Batch again didn’t have enough arm to get the ball to Wallace, who had a step on cornerback Joe Haden late in the fourth quarter. But it was Haden who made the catch on the underthrown ball.

So Wallace can’t be blamed for poor passes that could have changed the outcome of the 20-14 loss in Cleveland. Still, he just seems too disinterested at times.

He’s had several drops this season. His fumble in Steelers territory against the Ravens on Nov. 18 led to a field goal in a 3-point decision in an AFC North showdown. On Batch’s second interception in Cleveland, his pass was slightly behind Wallace, who bobbled the ball that eventually wound up in the hands of a Browns defensive tackle.

Although Batch accepted blame, great receivers find ways to hang on to throws like that. Unfortunately for the Steelers, Wallace didn’t.

For the season, Wallace has 47 catches for 572 yards and six TDs. It sure looks like his two-year streak of over 1,000 yards will end.

Last year, Wallace played well enough to make the AFC Pro Bowl roster. That will not happen this year.



http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mike_bires/wallace-is-money-in-the-tank/article_bda1e6e0-b736-52a7-8d71-0b6430a71c19.html

not all Wallace's fault but there has been some balls thrown his way he could of done a better job at going and getting them.

effyou515 wrote:

not all Wallace's fault but there has been some balls thrown his way he could of done a better job at going and getting them.

I completely agree with this statement. As I was reading the article, I was ready to go into defense mode when Bires brought up Wallace's stats over the past 3 games. I don't know how many times Wallace was open against the Ravens, and Lefty couldn't get him the ball. Against the Browns, he was open deep at least 2 times that I saw, and Batch couldn't get him the ball. That's not Wallace's fault. He might have 2 or 3 more big plays and touchdowns if they could have gotten the ball to him. But I agree that he has shown a lack of aggressiveness this season. I can't explain it, but it's there. I don't buy into the sentiment that Wallace sucks. He's a damn good receiver. He's just not playing like it this season.

Wallace108 wrote:

effyou515 wrote:

not all Wallace's fault but there has been some balls thrown his way he could of done a better job at going and getting them.

I completely agree with this statement. As I was reading the article, I was ready to go into defense mode when Bires brought up Wallace's stats over the past 3 games. I don't know how many times Wallace was open against the Ravens, and Lefty couldn't get him the ball. Against the Browns, he was open deep at least 2 times that I saw, and Batch couldn't get him the ball. That's not Wallace's fault. He might have 2 or 3 more big plays and touchdowns if they could have gotten the ball to him. But I agree that he has shown a lack of aggressiveness this season. I can't explain it, but it's there. I don't buy into the sentiment that Wallace sucks. He's a damn good receiver. He's just not playing like it this season.

i'm like Fox News Wally, fair and balance.

effyou515 wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

effyou515 wrote:

not all Wallace's fault but there has been some balls thrown his way he could of done a better job at going and getting them.

I completely agree with this statement. As I was reading the article, I was ready to go into defense mode when Bires brought up Wallace's stats over the past 3 games. I don't know how many times Wallace was open against the Ravens, and Lefty couldn't get him the ball. Against the Browns, he was open deep at least 2 times that I saw, and Batch couldn't get him the ball. That's not Wallace's fault. He might have 2 or 3 more big plays and touchdowns if they could have gotten the ball to him. But I agree that he has shown a lack of aggressiveness this season. I can't explain it, but it's there. I don't buy into the sentiment that Wallace sucks. He's a damn good receiver. He's just not playing like it this season.

i'm like Fox News Wally, fair and balance.

You're about as balanced as a Bruce Arians offense.

Wallace108 wrote:

effyou515 wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

effyou515 wrote:

not all Wallace's fault but there has been some balls thrown his way he could of done a better job at going and getting them.

I completely agree with this statement. As I was reading the article, I was ready to go into defense mode when Bires brought up Wallace's stats over the past 3 games. I don't know how many times Wallace was open against the Ravens, and Lefty couldn't get him the ball. Against the Browns, he was open deep at least 2 times that I saw, and Batch couldn't get him the ball. That's not Wallace's fault. He might have 2 or 3 more big plays and touchdowns if they could have gotten the ball to him. But I agree that he has shown a lack of aggressiveness this season. I can't explain it, but it's there. I don't buy into the sentiment that Wallace sucks. He's a damn good receiver. He's just not playing like it this season.

i'm like Fox News Wally, fair and balance.

You're about as balanced as a Bruce Arians offense.

There is nothing "balanced" about Eff... fairness, mentally, or otherwise.

I don't put it all on Wallace. And in my opinion, it's not even about the balls he's catching or not catching. It's more about what I perceive to be his mentality on the field. It looks to me as if he just isn't giving 100%.

I like Wallace, I think his potential is unlimited in regards to what he can do on the field. But before he can reach that physical potential, he needs to overcome the mental part of the game.

During the offseason, everyone was going nuts over the rumor that Wallace wanted Fitz money. Well, perhaps Fitz should be getting Wallace money.

As everyone keeps crapping all over Wallace for having a down year, just for fun, let's look at Fitz's production compared to Wallace:

.................Receptions....Yards....TDs
Fitzgerald.........55............627......4
Wallace............47............572......6


Fitz's production is almost identical to Wallace's this season. Yep, even the great ones occasionally have a down year. Here's an interesting take on Fitz. It sounds a little familiar:

Quote :

But Larry himself is going through a bit of a funk. PFF credits him with two drops on Sunday. I recall only one -- the one that was bobbled and caught by the Rams for Ryan Lindley's fourth INT of the night. He didn't come down with a throw on fourth down against Atlanta. He also ran off the field when there was a fumble instead of trying to grab it.

He has even logged negative ratings from PFF against the Rams on Sunday.

Is there something wrong?

Clearly, the losing is getting to him. He cares so much about winning, and losing just eats at him. And to make things worse, he doesn't even have the comfort of stats.

http://www.revengeofthebirds.com/2012/11/27/3696324/larry-fitzgerald-not-able-to-make-plays-but-its-not-for-a-lack-of

I just found all the comparisons rather interesting. It's a good thing Fitz doesn't play for the Steelers. Everyone would be trying to run his sorry ass out of town.

Fitz's best are in the rear-view.

Calvin Johnson has 1,200+ yards and Andre Johnson has 1,000 yards as well, including two consecutive 200 yard receiving games and an overtime 48 yard catch to win. These guys HAVE contracts and they STILL out perform everyone in the league . Wallace isn't proving anything in a year that he NEEDS to dominate to get paid the big money. It isn't about Fitz money anymoreg He needs to step it up or he'll be second fiddle to the younger Antonio Brown IF he even stays with us.

bayz101 wrote:

Calvin Johnson has 1,200+ yards and Andre Johnson has 1,000 yards as well, including two consecutive 200 yard receiving games and an overtime 48 yard catch to win. These guys HAVE contracts and they STILL out perform everyone in the league . Wallace isn't proving anything in a year that he NEEDS to dominate to get paid the big money. It isn't about Fitz money anymoreg He needs to step it up or he'll be second fiddle to the younger Antonio Brown IF he even stays with us.

You're missing the point of my post.

I just find it interesting that all we heard all summer is that Wallace wanted Fitz money. It wasn't Megatron money or Andre money. It was Fitz money. After all that drama, Wallace and Fitz are both having similar subpar years. The joking part of my post is that maybe Fitz should be getting Wallace money.

Wallace108 wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

Calvin Johnson has 1,200+ yards and Andre Johnson has 1,000 yards as well, including two consecutive 200 yard receiving games and an overtime 48 yard catch to win. These guys HAVE contracts and they STILL out perform everyone in the league . Wallace isn't proving anything in a year that he NEEDS to dominate to get paid the big money. It isn't about Fitz money anymoreg He needs to step it up or he'll be second fiddle to the younger Antonio Brown IF he even stays with us.

You're missing the point of my post.

I just find it interesting that all we heard all summer is that Wallace wanted Fitz money. It wasn't Megatron money or Andre money. It was Fitz money. After all that drama, Wallace and Fitz are both having similar subpar years. The joking part of my post is that maybe Fitz should be getting Wallace money.

Yes, but you have to factor in who's throwing Fitz the ball. Skelton? Kolb? Ryan Lindley?

It's hard to have a great season as a receiver if your QB sucks eggs.

I can give Wallace somewhat of a pass in the last 2 games considering the QB performances from Lefty and Batch, but he's been mostly a non-factor in all games but the Giants, even with Ben. The effort just doesn't seem to be there and it's head scratching considering he appears to be the one with the most to lose by NOT performing to the best of his capabilities. I think Wallace has great speed and talent, but he needs the desire, effort, heart, and mental toughness to compliment that and make him rise to the level he wants to be considered at and he isn't showing it at all right now.

I think you're both missing the point. I'm not being serious.

Wallace108 wrote:

I think you're both missing the point. I'm not being serious.

Christ, for a minute there I thought you had lost all rational thought process in your crusade to defend Castle Wallace to the bitter end.

Good to know you're only somewhat of an apologist and not a completely out to lunch, raving, drunk lunatic.

Buddha Bus wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

I think you're both missing the point. I'm not being serious.

Christ, for a minute there I thought you had lost all rational thought process in your crusade to defend Castle Wallace to the bitter end.

Good to know you're only somewhat of an apologist and not a completely out to lunch, raving, drunk lunatic.

I guess the part of my post that said I was joking didn't make it clear that I was joking.

Wallace108 wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

I think you're both missing the point. I'm not being serious.

Christ, for a minute there I thought you had lost all rational thought process in your crusade to defend Castle Wallace to the bitter end.

Good to know you're only somewhat of an apologist and not a completely out to lunch, raving, drunk lunatic.

I guess the part of my post that said I was joking didn't make it clear that I was joking.

It's hard to tell with you anymore. You also said we'd be fine with Lefty or Batch with a straight face.

Buddha Bus wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

I think you're both missing the point. I'm not being serious.

Christ, for a minute there I thought you had lost all rational thought process in your crusade to defend Castle Wallace to the bitter end.

Good to know you're only somewhat of an apologist and not a completely out to lunch, raving, drunk lunatic.

I guess the part of my post that said I was joking didn't make it clear that I was joking.

It's hard to tell with you anymore. You also said we'd be fine with Lefty or Batch with a straight face.

I couldn't foresee Tomlin leaving Lefty in with 2 broken ribs and every running back, including Bettis and Franco, fumbling.
My argument was that our defense is good enough to win games without the offense having to put up a lot of points. All Lefty and Batch had to do was control the ball and not mistakes. It was just a couple of freak games.

Wallace108 wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

I think you're both missing the point. I'm not being serious.

Christ, for a minute there I thought you had lost all rational thought process in your crusade to defend Castle Wallace to the bitter end.

Good to know you're only somewhat of an apologist and not a completely out to lunch, raving, drunk lunatic.

I guess the part of my post that said I was joking didn't make it clear that I was joking.

It's hard to tell with you anymore. You also said we'd be fine with Lefty or Batch with a straight face.

I couldn't foresee Tomlin leaving Lefty in with 2 broken ribs and every running back, including Bettis and Franco, fumbling.
My argument was that our defense is good enough to win games without the offense having to put up a lot of points. All Lefty and Batch had to do was control the ball and not mistakes. It was just a couple of freak games.

After this week will it be 3 freak games?

Quote :

Ravens could benefit from Steelers' decision to alter Mike Wallace's role


By Edward Lee

The Pittsburgh Steelers’ decision to list wide receiver Mike Wallace as a co-starter with Emmanuel Sanders on the team’s updated depth chart didn’t draw much of a reaction from Wallace.

“I don’t really have anything to say about it,” he said during a conference call with Baltimore media Wednesday. “It is what it is.”

But the move could benefit the Ravens, who would be thrilled not to have to worry about the 6-foot, 199-pound speedster this Sunday.

Playing Sanders over Wallace would seem to rob Pittsburgh of its best deep threat. Since entering the NFL in 2009, Wallace ranks third in the league with 43 catches of at least 25 yards and fifth with a 17.3-yard average per reception.

And despite just one catch for nine yards in Sunday’s 20-14 loss to the Cleveland Browns, Wallace still leads the Steelers in yards (572), is tied for first in touchdown catches (six), and ranks second in receptions (47).

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bal-ravens-could-benefit-from-steelers-decision-to-alter-mike-wallaces-role-20121129,0,785148.story

There's no doubt the Ravens would prefer that Wallace not be on the field. Even with him struggling, they still have to account for him. It's just like Chiefs coach Romeo Crennel said:

Quote :

"You have better eyes than I have because he's so fast, I haven't seen him on tape yet," Crennel said of Wallace. "He's a blur. That's how fast he is. He's really fast and makes it difficult to defend him because he has that kind of speed.

"You've got to stay back, or either he runs past you, and when you stay back, then he stops and hooks it up in front of you and then it's a catch-and-run. You're kind of between a rock and a hard place when you're trying to defend that kind of speed.

"What you have to do is you have to try to affect the quarterback to try to get him off the spot and destroy some of the timing, which is tough with Ben [Roethlisberger] because he's a big, strong quarterback in the pocket, knows how to move, doesn't go down easy, so it's a tough task."

http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2012/11/8/3618912/chiefs-coach-on-steelers-mike-wallace-hes-a-blur

I'm sure they're just as worried about having Brown out there.

This depth chart crap might last all of the first 5 minutes of the game.

Personally I don't give a rats arse where the hell he's on the depth chart. He's going to be on the field, it all depends on what position, what play, etc. He's still going to run routes, people are still going to have to chase him down, and I can only hope that Batch can get him the ball in stride and he can make the catches he needs to make in order to beat these purple turds from baltimoron.

bayz101 wrote:

I'm sure they're just as worried about having Brown out there.

Sure. He's tough to defend against as well, although for different reasons. What I'd love to see is some 4-receiver sets with Brown, Wallace, Sanders, AND Burress on the field. Send Wallace and Burress deep and allow Brown and Sanders to terrorize the defense underneath. Cripes!!! How do you defend that?

Wallace108 wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

I'm sure they're just as worried about having Brown out there.

Sure. He's tough to defend against as well, although for different reasons. What I'd love to see is some 4-receiver sets with Brown, Wallace, Sanders, AND Burress on the field. Send Wallace and Burress deep and allow Brown and Sanders to terrorize the defense underneath. Cripes!!! How do you defend that?

Honestly, if Batch just took the snap, waited three seconds, and launched the ball ahead of Burress, there's like a 60% chance PI will be called if the CB can't reach the ball.

Wallace108 wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

I'm sure they're just as worried about having Brown out there.

Sure. He's tough to defend against as well, although for different reasons. What I'd love to see is some 4-receiver sets with Brown, Wallace, Sanders, AND Burress on the field. Send Wallace and Burress deep and allow Brown and Sanders to terrorize the defense underneath. Cripes!!! How do you defend that?

Easy.... let Wallace and Burress run free and double up Sanders and Brown underneath. It's not like Batch can get the ball to Wallace and Burress anyway.

Buddha Bus wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

I'm sure they're just as worried about having Brown out there.

Sure. He's tough to defend against as well, although for different reasons. What I'd love to see is some 4-receiver sets with Brown, Wallace, Sanders, AND Burress on the field. Send Wallace and Burress deep and allow Brown and Sanders to terrorize the defense underneath. Cripes!!! How do you defend that?

Easy.... let Wallace and Burress run free and double up Sanders and Brown underneath. It's not like Batch can get the ball to Wallace and Burress anyway.

Even if he could, Wallace would drop it or fail to reach for it.