Mike Wallace

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from FLY2K. Show FLY2K's posts

    Mike Wallace

    I know a lot of people don't care for Wallace but this guy can give the Pats the deep threat that has been missing since Moss was traded. Even with a healthy Gronk the offense is still missing a big play WR. 

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FLY2K. Show FLY2K's posts

    Re: Mike Wallace

    In response to DontQuestionBB's comment:

    Makes more sense than spending a ton on Welker.



    I agree! The dwarf WRs are killing this team!! Wallace will make defenses respect the deep ball.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from wonderdrums. Show wonderdrums's posts

    Re: Mike Wallace

    Wallace over Welker? If you look at their stats, I dont think thats a very wise tradeoff. If the Pats let Welker go, who fills his role on the offense? There is no way Hernandez or Edelman could survive the hits Welker takes over the middle. I'm not bashing either player, but they haven't shown the ability to stay healthy for an entire season. Ill agree the Pats need a physically big receiver. I don't mean a TE. I mean a guy like Julio Jones or Megatron.  A true #1 wide receiver. If it be in the draft or they trade for one, it would make Welker, Lloyd, Gronk,Hernandez, and everyone else more effective. Maybe with the rookie salary slots already established,  BB will someday draft a skill position player in the first round. 

    What they really need to draft is pass coverage and lineman on both sides of the ball. Go Pats!

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Brad34. Show Brad34's posts

    Re: Mike Wallace

    In response to FLY2K's comment:

    I know a lot of people don't care for Wallace but this guy can give the Pats the deep threat that has been missing since Moss was traded. Even with a healthy Gronk the offense is still missing a big play WR. 



    They need someone who can be a deep threat.  And I reckon forget the draft. Pats have been horrible at DB, and wide receiver with the draft. Free agency with a bucket of money this year and  fill the couple of holes the team has. Reload and get that 4th ring.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from vertigho. Show vertigho's posts

    Re: Mike Wallace

    Dwayne Bowe would be nice too!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Mike Wallace

    Lets just pay for all the WRs!!!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Mike Wallace

    In response to wonderdrums' comment:

    Wallace over Welker? If you look at their stats, I dont think thats a very wise tradeoff. If the Pats let Welker go, who fills his role on the offense? There is no way Hernandez or Edelman could survive the hits Welker takes over the middle. I'm not bashing either player, but they haven't shown the ability to stay healthy for an entire season. Ill agree the Pats need a physically big receiver. I don't mean a TE. I mean a guy like Julio Jones or Megatron.  A true #1 wide receiver. If it be in the draft or they trade for one, it would make Welker, Lloyd, Gronk,Hernandez, and everyone else more effective. Maybe with the rookie salary slots already established,  BB will someday draft a skill position player in the first round. 

    What they really need to draft is pass coverage and lineman on both sides of the ball. Go Pats!



    Why do people keep saying this like the Julio Jones' and Calvin Johnsons' of the world grow on trees.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Mike Wallace

    When will you people understand??? To make it work you need Welker on the short to mid field passing game and a deep threat for the mid to long passing game and you use the TE's for the mid field passing game.  Defense can't cover the whole field when you have a deep threat, a short to mid threat and the TE's.  It all works together otherwise the offense faces being shut down in the passing game.  It's very easy to understand.  We have seen this happen ever since Moss left and now you want to get rid of the NFL's biggest short to mid field threat?  Unreal!!  Getting rid of Welker and getting a deep threat isn't going to change one thing.  They will have the same problem, take away the mid to deep field and the passing game is shut down.   What part of this don't you get?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from angel3781. Show angel3781's posts

    Re: Mike Wallace

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    When will you people understand??? To make it work you need Welker on the short to mid field passing game and a deep threat for the mid to long passing game and you use the TE's for the mid field passing game.  Defense can't cover the whole field when you have a deep threat, a short to mid threat and the TE's.  It all works together otherwise the offense faces being shut down in the passing game.  It's very easy to understand.  We have seen this happen ever since Moss left and now you want to get rid of the NFL's biggest short to mid field threat?  Unreal!!  Getting rid of Welker and getting a deep threat isn't going to change one thing.  They will have the same problem, take away the mid to deep field and the passing game is shut down.   What part of this don't you get?

    I think what you are describing is a luxury that basically not team that I can think of features at a high level.  The problem with the Pats over the past few seasons is that we regularly feature the top statistical offense during the regular season, but then struggle to scrape together 21 points or more once the playoffs come around.  The reason being is our overreliance on short to intermediate passing.  As a result we rarely get many huge chunks of yards through the air allowing us to move the ball down field very quickly.  Instead we have a keep the chains moving style of passing attack.  How many times have you saw Brady taking shots deep down the field in order to keep defenses honest this season?  Another thing to consider is that Welker is about to become 32 years old and is a smallish reciever who in my opinion has had issues with dropped passes this season (very uncharacteristic of him by the way).  Besides given the inability of our TE's to consistently stay healthy and be on the field simultaneously, We therefore have to lean too heavily on welker.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Mike Wallace

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    When will you people understand??? To make it work you need Welker on the short to mid field passing game and a deep threat for the mid to long passing game and you use the TE's for the mid field passing game.  Defense can't cover the whole field when you have a deep threat, a short to mid threat and the TE's.  It all works together otherwise the offense faces being shut down in the passing game.  It's very easy to understand.  We have seen this happen ever since Moss left and now you want to get rid of the NFL's biggest short to mid field threat?  Unreal!!  Getting rid of Welker and getting a deep threat isn't going to change one thing.  They will have the same problem, take away the mid to deep field and the passing game is shut down.   What part of this don't you get?



    Wasn't Moss on the roster when we lost to the Giants in 2007? In the end we've lost to the Giants twice and the Ravens this year. What is the common denominator? Both teams possessed the ability to bring the wood and pressure Brady. In all three contest our defense was the worst of the two on the field. During the dynastic years our defense was typically the better of the two and we complimented it with a ball control offense...

    So in my mind perhaps the question that begs to be answered is not personnel, rather scheme...we're now a finesse team that relies on our offense to score points to make the other team one dimensional and then force them to open up and throw the ball. The Ravens and the Giant's have the personnel to defend our offense and the path to another ring lyes in decoding their advantage and devising a game plan to attack them...To date dating back to 2007 I've not seen any evidence to suggest that they have or can....

    The definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing and expect a different result....

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Mike Wallace

    Plenty of teams have better receiving corps than we have.  This idea that somehow the Pats can't find a decent deep receiver or two is silly.  It's just a matter of using our picks and free agent signings to get one rather than a pile of useless back-up DBs and TEs.  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from wonderdrums. Show wonderdrums's posts

    Re: Mike Wallace

    In response to dapats1281's comment:

    In response to wonderdrums' comment:

     

    Wallace over Welker? If you look at their stats, I dont think thats a very wise tradeoff. If the Pats let Welker go, who fills his role on the offense? There is no way Hernandez or Edelman could survive the hits Welker takes over the middle. I'm not bashing either player, but they haven't shown the ability to stay healthy for an entire season. Ill agree the Pats need a physically big receiver. I don't mean a TE. I mean a guy like Julio Jones or Megatron.  A true #1 wide receiver. If it be in the draft or they trade for one, it would make Welker, Lloyd, Gronk,Hernandez, and everyone else more effective. Maybe with the rookie salary slots already established,  BB will someday draft a skill position player in the first round. 

    What they really need to draft is pass coverage and lineman on both sides of the ball. Go Pats!

     



    Why do people keep saying this like the Julio Jones' and Calvin Johnsons' of the world grow on trees.

     



    I understand Jones and Johnson are rare talents, my point was that a lot of good receivers have been drafted in the top two rounds over the years. Do I need to start naming them for you? The Pats may even have a roster spot or two if they get rid of some of the excessive number of  TEs and DBs who never play. Go Pats!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Mike Wallace

    Cruz, Nicks, Manningham?

    Boldin, Smith, Jones?

     

    We need guys like this who can get downfield.  They don't have to be Megatron, just good NFL quality receivers who can get deep occasionally.  Lloyd was supposed to be that, but he hardly did anything but make back shoulder catches on the sideline. Branch?  Welker?  And after that, guys like Slater and Aiken?  That's a terribly thin receiver corp. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Mike Wallace

    Wallace is going to cost way more then Welker so not exactly a great trade off, plus Wallace only works a certain portion of the field. I'd rather have a guy like Bowe that can work short, mid, and long parts of the field

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from FLY2K. Show FLY2K's posts

    Re: Mike Wallace

    In response to vertigho's comment:

    Dwayne Bowe would be nice too!



    I agree 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Mike Wallace

    the point is that you CAN get a vertical threat capable of seperation with out breaking the bank. this means no to Wallace, Bowe and the likes. A player like Donnie Avery is a free agents, or drafting a guy like T.Y. Hilton would be perfect for the Pats.

    I am starting to think the Pats will not cross a line with Wes, as Hernandez, Gronk, Edelman, Lloyd and Vereen all can be that intermediate route runner.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share