Steelers Fever Forums

Steelers Fever Forums (http://forums.steelersfever.com/index.php)
-   Pittsburgh Steelers (http://forums.steelersfever.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Don't Be Too Concerned If We Don't Sign Wallace (http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=87611)

3rdandlong 03-09-2012 05:40 PM

Don't Be Too Concerned If We Don't Sign Wallace
 
Mike Wallace may not sign with the Steelers. I don't think we will necessarily be worse offensively if we don't sign him.

I was lookin at his receiving stats today. He only had two touchdowns in the red zone. Most of his touchdowns were of the 40+ yard variety. When we got in the red zone his speed was not much of a factor. It was our inability to score touchdowns consistently in the red zone that made the offense less than it should have been.

If we lose Wallace, we'll get a first round pick. We could use that to draft an offensive lineman. Running the ball better in the red zone is something the Steelers need to improve on. Perhaps we can address that in e draft with the Wallace pick. If not the offensive line, we can still replenish the defense. So either way I look at it I dont think it would be as bad to lose Wallace as some think.

NoFieldFive 03-09-2012 06:26 PM

Re: Don't Be Too Concerned If We Don't Sign Wallace
 
play calling sucked - red zone especially. that's where you use Miller or short pass out out of the backfield. I don't put the lack of TD's on Wallace or any receiver....play calling sucked

and when we did run in the red zone - 3 of the same plays right up the middle for a gain of zero. if we had 5 downs to get the TD we would have run it 5 straight times.

did I mention play calling sucked?

6RingsAndCounting 03-09-2012 07:04 PM

Re: Don't Be Too Concerned If We Don't Sign Wallace
 
But who knows if we get to the redzone without Wallace though? I mean, Arians wouldn't have had anyone to gain all those yards with bubble screens and streaks without him.

AgentGold007 03-09-2012 07:34 PM

Re: Don't Be Too Concerned If We Don't Sign Wallace
 
Ask Antonio Brown, who benefits alot from the double-teams Mike Wallace draws, how much he'll be concerned if we don't sign Wallace. Brown is an excellent #2 receiver, but only time will tell if he can shoulder the load without Wallace.

finesward 03-09-2012 08:28 PM

Re: Don't Be Too Concerned If We Don't Sign Wallace
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AgentGold007 (Post 1002004)
Ask Antonio Brown, who benefits alot from the double-teams Mike Wallace draws, how much he'll be concerned if we don't sign Wallace. Brown is an excellent #2 receiver, but only time will tell if he can shoulder the load without Wallace.

:blah:

We've heard this before, and I don't think there is really much validity to this at all. Look at the top receivers in the league, and then look at the #2's on those teams. Find one that has better stats or who you would think would make a better #1 receiver on this team. I'm taking Brown 10/10 times. If we won SB's with Hines and Holmes being #1's then there is no reason to think we can't with Brown. I think Brown will be as good as Holmes was as our #1. He makes all the tough catches, can make plays after the catch which safeties have to respect, and runs crisp clean routes. And if Brown starts trailing off like Wallace did then Sanders, Cotch, or whoever steps up.

Having a shot to legitimately shore up our O-line or revamp the defense at this point is a no-brainer. Ben will only have so many more years of being able to scramble around.

Curtain_of_Steel 03-09-2012 08:41 PM

Re: Don't Be Too Concerned If We Don't Sign Wallace
 
And it continues. Brown is great, wallace sucks, lol We dont need Wallace he did nothing 2nd half, blah blah blah.

Sanders won't finish the season, mark my words. WARD is not the answer, Crotchery is not a Wallace replacement. They will not sign a top flight WR if Wallace leaves.

3rdandlong 03-09-2012 08:52 PM

Re: Don't Be Too Concerned If We Don't Sign Wallace
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Curtain_of_Steel (Post 1002013)
And it continues. Brown is great, wallace sucks, lol We dont need Wallace he did nothing 2nd half, blah blah blah.

Sanders won't finish the season, mark my words. WARD is not the answer, Crotchery is not a Wallace replacement. They will not sign a top flight WR if Wallace leaves.

Who said Wallace sucks? I'm just saying I don't think the scoring will necessarily suffer if we can upgrade some other areas

Curtain_of_Steel 03-09-2012 09:03 PM

Re: Don't Be Too Concerned If We Don't Sign Wallace
 
They will not upgrade the run game. They have eluded to the fact they will mostlikely go with what they have. they will not sign an impact Olineman. Therefore the run game won't be much better or it will be managable. The steelers are not a run first team. they are a pass first team. The league evolved to a pass first league. They will not buck the trend and run and run some more.

So where do you want to upgrade? The kicker?lol

The DB's played 20 plus yards back against Wallace and his deep routes in the 2nd half, picking up on the line than double teaming him late.
Why is it that people refuse to listen when the announcers pointed this out several times during the games.

Run game is marginal at best, and with the guys we have, although I like Redman, is unproven. Dwyer, unproven. Batch what did he do last year aside from tripping trying to race Sanders to the food line and they both got hurt, lol. Again, unproven. Same Oline, if not potentially weaker as Colon will be in a diff position and Gilbert a different position.

pittpete 03-09-2012 10:03 PM

Re: Don't Be Too Concerned If We Don't Sign Wallace
 
4 POSTSEASON GAMES EACH
Wallace
16 rec----141 yards----8.8 avg----1 TD

A.Brown
10rec----160 yards-----16 avg-----0 TD

Brown wasnt even a starter in 2010........
Just saying:hatsoff:

AgentGold007 03-09-2012 10:17 PM

Re: Don't Be Too Concerned If We Don't Sign Wallace
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by finesward (Post 1002010)
:blah:

We've heard this before, and I don't think there is really much validity to this at all. Look at the top receivers in the league, and then look at the #2's on those teams. Find one that has better stats or who you would think would make a better #1 receiver on this team. I'm taking Brown 10/10 times. If we won SB's with Hines and Holmes being #1's then there is no reason to think we can't with Brown. I think Brown will be as good as Holmes was as our #1. He makes all the tough catches, can make plays after the catch which safeties have to respect, and runs crisp clean routes. And if Brown starts trailing off like Wallace did then Sanders, Cotch, or whoever steps up.

Having a shot to legitimately shore up our O-line or revamp the defense at this point is a no-brainer. Ben will only have so many more years of being able to scramble around.

I'm not disputing Brown's abilities to be a #1 at all. Like I said, time will tell. I'm just saying that his life is alot easier when he has a guy like Wallace drawing Revis, Ashomugha, Woodson, or Bailey as opposed to less physical nickelbacks. And as far as the top #1 receivers and their #2's goes, I'm pretty sure the dropoff in talent is a lot more significant in those situations, than it is between Wallace and Brown.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum