Page 6 of 10
Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 10:23 am
by allday1991
dead_poet wrote:
I'd be quite happy with that. Wallace got way open on numerous deep routes that could of been easy scores, whether Bridgewater can hit him and if he would of caught it are two different stories. And of course it has to be for alot less money.
Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 1:20 pm
by halfgiz
If we bring Wallace back will that change the way we approach the draft?...I think it would.
I don't think we would still need a round 1 reciever.
Also with Steelers losing their receiver for a year. Will they now be looking at Wallace? He had his best years in Pittsburgh.
Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 1:32 pm
by fiestavike
halfgiz wrote:If we bring Wallace back will that change the way we approach the draft?
I'm not so sure. I think they could still use that tall, angular, jump ball kind of WR. They don't have many "needs" at this point outside of OL. Best case scenario is probably a trade up to nab Stanley if he starts falling past 10. Otherwise Doctson at 23 wouldn't be a bad choice.
Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 1:57 pm
by mondry
halfgiz wrote:If we bring Wallace back will that change the way we approach the draft?...I think it would.
I don't think we would still need a round 1 reciever.
Also with Steelers losing their receiver for a year. Will they now be looking at Wallace? He had his best years in Pittsburgh.
I don't think it changes our draft, if the BPA is a WR it's not like a 30 year old mike wallace should stop them from making the pick.
Maybe on the Steelers, I think they really like marcus wheeton and they still have Antonio Brown. They could use another weapon though with heath miller retiring and the suspension. I get the feeling most teams aren't that interested in Mike though... could be wrong.
Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:01 pm
by Denardus
fiestavike wrote:I think they could still use that tall, angular, jump ball kind of WR.
I really don't know much about them other than their size but DeRunnya Wilson (6'5") and Keyarris Garrett (6'4") have some size; might be worth a late round shot.
Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:32 pm
by dead_poet
Denardus wrote:
I really don't know much about them other than their size but DeRunnya Wilson (6'5") and Keyarris Garrett (6'4") have some size; might be worth a late round shot.
Wilson ran one of the slowest times at the combine (4.85) for a WR. That's going to kill his draft stock.
Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 5:01 pm
by PurpleKoolaid
dead_poet wrote:
Wilson ran one of the slowest times at the combine (4.85) for a WR. That's going to kill his draft stock.
His other skills will make up for his being slightly slower. How did Wallace's 'speed' work out for us? I like both Wilson and Garrett. A lot. Speed and athleticism can only do so much, with every pick heh.
Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:03 pm
by Pondering Her Percy
PurpleKoolaid wrote:
His other skills will make up for his being slightly slower. How did Wallace's 'speed' work out for us? I like both Wilson and Garrett. A lot. Speed and athleticism can only do so much, with every pick heh.
I agree. Speed isn't everything. You look at the most successful WRs in the league and they aren't "Mike Wallace" fast. They are so successful because of good hands, route running, high pointing the football, etc. At this point I want Treadwell or Doctson. Possibly Coleman but he's a lot smaller than those guys. Outside of that, I'd be upset if we drafted someone else.
Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:51 am
by DK Sweets
I want DeRunnya Wilson.
I have to admit: the only things I know about him right now are that he's 6'5" and his name is DeRunnya. But that's enough for me.
Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:13 am
by dead_poet
DK Sweets wrote:I want DeRunnya Wilson.
I have to admit: the only things I know about him right now are that he's 6'5" and his name is DeRunnya. But that's enough for me.
I know speed isn't EVERYTHING, but it is SOMEthing. Wilson ran the 40 in the same time as DT Robert Nkemdiche. There's slow and then there's SLOW. Wilson is in the latter category.
In fact, he ran the slowest 40-yard (4.85) and had the worst vertical jump (28’’) of all participants at his position. His combine was so bad, his agent said, “That’s it. We’re done here,” before he attempted a single agility drill.
For some more perspective, Wilson would have been middle of the field in the vertical against offensive linemen and would have edged out three 300-pounders by just 0.1 second in the 40.
I can see him being a red zone threat, but if you can't separate you're not going to be effective; I don't care how tall you are. Maybe have him put on 20 pounds and move to TE.
Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 7:38 am
by fiestavike
dead_poet wrote:
I know speed isn't EVERYTHING, but it is SOMEthing. Wilson ran the 40 in the same time as DT Robert Nkemdiche. There's slow and then there's SLOW. Wilson is in the latter category.
In fact, he ran the slowest 40-yard (4.85) and had the worst vertical jump (28’’) of all participants at his position. His combine was so bad, his agent said, “That’s it. We’re done here,” before he attempted a single agility drill.
For some more perspective, Wilson would have been middle of the field in the vertical against offensive linemen and would have edged out three 300-pounders by just 0.1 second in the 40.
I can see him being a red zone threat, but if you can't separate you're not going to be effective; I don't care how tall you are. Maybe have him put on 20 pounds and move to TE.
Runnya Wilson was fast, but DeRunnya slowed down considerably. Meanwhile Forrest Buckner might be investigated by the NCAA for taking $ from the Oregon logging industry to change his name to DeForrest Buckner.
Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:07 pm
by DK Sweets
dead_poet wrote:
I know speed isn't EVERYTHING, but it is SOMEthing. Wilson ran the 40 in the same time as DT Robert Nkemdiche. There's slow and then there's SLOW. Wilson is in the latter category.
In fact, he ran the slowest 40-yard (4.85) and had the worst vertical jump (28’’) of all participants at his position. His combine was so bad, his agent said, “That’s it. We’re done here,” before he attempted a single agility drill.
For some more perspective, Wilson would have been middle of the field in the vertical against offensive linemen and would have edged out three 300-pounders by just 0.1 second in the 40.
I can see him being a red zone threat, but if you can't separate you're not going to be effective; I don't care how tall you are. Maybe have him put on 20 pounds and move to TE.
But his name is DeRunnya.
Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:14 pm
by Mothman
DK Sweets wrote:But his name is DeRunnya.
Unfortunately, it's not DeRunrightbya.

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:39 pm
by fiestavike
Mothman wrote:
Unfortunately, it's not DeRunrightbya.

Good one!

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:22 pm
by jackal
sounds like Wallace through Teddy under the bus after signing with Baltimore
not too surprised Wallace has a reputation of being a little bit T.O. at times