PDA

View Full Version : Nate Washington Vs Mike Wallace



calmkiller
01-21-2010, 09:18 AM
Just a side by side comparison of the the rookie vs the guy that use to play his spot.


Nate Washington 47 Rec 569 Yds 12.1 YPC 35 Long 6 TDs

Vs

Mike Wallace 39 Rec 756 Yds 19.4 YPC 60 Long 6 TDs


Once again the Steelers make the right choice in letting a guy walk. Nate had more receptions but less yards. Mike is clearly a bigger play kind of guy. And he is only a rookie. He can learn more and polish his game.

steelblood
01-21-2010, 09:32 AM
I agree. Washington is obviously not a real effective starter. I think Wallace has a lot of untapped potential. He still body catches too much and doesn't high point the ball well. He also can get better running routes. Polishing these parts of his game will only make him better.

Jooser
01-21-2010, 09:50 AM
Not only does he have more YPC, but he is more sure-handed than oopsies Washington.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
01-21-2010, 09:59 AM
:Agree Nice post, calm-killer. And I agree about surehandedness Joost - there is more surprise when rook Wallace doesn't catch the ball, where as if I remember right, it was more of a 50-50 thing with Washington.

phillyesq
01-21-2010, 10:16 AM
For starting as an UDFA, I'm very happy with what Nate Washington did during his time with the Steelers. Having said that, Wallace is a much better player already, and I'm glad the Steelers let Washington get his payday with the Titans.

SidSmythe
01-21-2010, 10:18 AM
Washington is NOT a "baller" . . . I watched some Tennessee games and this guy makes me cringe. It's a crap shoot w/ this bum and when he does catch the ball it just seems so "unnatural" to him.
Nate has great athleticism and can get open . . . he just doesn't always finish on plays and really doesn't offer anything much more than catching some passes.

RuthlessBurgher
01-21-2010, 10:28 AM
Just a side by side comparison of the the rookie vs the guy that use to play his spot.


Nate Washington 47 Rec 569 Yds 12.1 YPC 35 Long 6 TDs

Vs

Mike Wallace 39 Rec 756 Yds 19.4 YPC 60 Long 6 TDs


Once again the Steelers make the right choice in letting a guy walk. Nate had more receptions but less yards. Mike is clearly a bigger play kind of guy. And he is only a rookie. He can learn more and polish his game.

Also, consider that Nate was a starter in Nashville, while Mike Wallace was the #3 WR here.

A fairer comparison may be Nate's numbers in '08 when he was the #3 WR behind Hines and Holmes with Ben throwing to him (the same situation Wallace found himself in '09)

Nate Washington in '08 40 Rec 631 Yds 15.8 YPC 65 Long 3 TDs

Wallace is still more impressive (younger, faster, cheaper, and more sure-handed too).

Oviedo
01-21-2010, 11:07 AM
Nate Who?????????

SteelBucks
01-21-2010, 11:47 AM
Nate Who?????????

Exactly!

It'll be fun to watch Wallace's development over the next few years.

Ghost
01-21-2010, 01:58 PM
Didn't need to see a single stat to know Wallace was the better choice by far.

They have NW on the field for the last play against Green Bay and the Steelers lose!

feltdizz
01-21-2010, 02:04 PM
Did we know who Mike Wallace was when we let Nate go? Just asking...

I liked Nate and think he did a great job while he was here...

Just about every Nate detractor said Sweed was the answer... just sayin.

I love Wallace :tt2

RuthlessBurgher
01-21-2010, 02:39 PM
I must admit that when the pick came in as WR Mike Wallace, I was ticked off for a second, thinking that we just picked the really short WR from Arizona as a return specialist in the middle of the third round. When I found out shortly thereafter that it was the 6' tall speed demon from Ole Miss instead of the 5'8" Wildcat, I was immediately relieved.

As it turns out, that was Mike Thomas I was thinking of (whoops) and he was drafted by Jacksonville a round later (he had a pretty solid rookie campaign in his own right, by the way, with 48 catches for 453 yards and a TD, 12 rushes for 86 yards, 26 kick returns for 644 yards, and 14 punt returns for 118 yards).

feltdizz
01-21-2010, 02:55 PM
Just a side by side comparison of the the rookie vs the guy that use to play his spot.


Nate Washington 47 Rec 569 Yds 12.1 YPC 35 Long 6 TDs

Vs

Mike Wallace 39 Rec 756 Yds 19.4 YPC 60 Long 6 TDs


Once again the Steelers make the right choice in letting a guy walk. Nate had more receptions but less yards. Mike is clearly a bigger play kind of guy. And he is only a rookie. He can learn more and polish his game.

We got lucky Wallace was the real deal.... Sweed was our replacement and in all honesty it has been a real let down. I just hope the kid can put together one game or catch one TD pass to get out of this funk.

SteelAbility
01-21-2010, 03:04 PM
The biggest difference is not YPC. It's the percentage of balls caught. Wallace is only going to get better. When it's over NW will be a mere afterthought in Steelers lore (not that he isn't already, but I had to make it dramatic somehow). :Beer

feltdizz
01-21-2010, 03:15 PM
The biggest difference is not YPC. It's the percentage of balls caught. Wallace is only going to get better. When it's over NW will be a mere afterthought in Steelers lore (not that he isn't already, but I had to make it dramatic somehow). :Beer

why the hate for NATE like he dropped game-sealing wide open passes?

you talk about Nate like he lost a game for us...LOL

flippy
01-21-2010, 03:34 PM
Bigger question on my mind is how soon should we roll with Wallace and Holmes as our starting WRs?

We should be talking about Wallace versus Ward. That's a real situation that coming soon.

RuthlessBurgher
01-21-2010, 03:46 PM
Bigger question on my mind is how soon should we roll with Wallace and Holmes as our starting WRs?

We should be talking about Wallace versus Ward. That's a real situation that coming soon.

They play such different roles, so it is difficult to compare them. And since our base offensive set more often than not is now 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR), arguing about which two WR's are the starters and which WR is the #3 is essentially arguing over semantics.

feltdizz
01-21-2010, 04:21 PM
Bigger question on my mind is how soon should we roll with Wallace and Holmes as our starting WRs?

We should be talking about Wallace versus Ward. That's a real situation that coming soon.

They play such different roles, so it is difficult to compare them. And since our base offensive set more often than not is now 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR), arguing about which two WR's are the starters and which WR is the #3 is essentially arguing over semantics.

for boards sake.. if we go 2 WR's who do you prefer? I think it's time for Hines to step back and let the young legs get separation...

hawaiiansteel
01-21-2010, 04:24 PM
for boards sake.. if we go 2 WR's who do you prefer? I think it's time for Hines to step back and let the young legs get separation...[/quote]


I think Hines Ward has another good year or two left in him and he is a team leader. I for one will miss him when he's gone, we shouldn't rush him out the door just quite yet.

RussBII
01-21-2010, 04:37 PM
for boards sake.. if we go 2 WR's who do you prefer? I think it's time for Hines to step back and let the young legs get separation...


I think Hines Ward has another good year or two left in him and he is a team leader. I for one will miss him when he's gone, we shouldn't rush him out the door just quite yet.[/quote]

Hines needs to be retained as WR Blocking/Toughness coach.

I feel like Santonio isn't dependable 100% of the time. Seems like he's more prone to have a bad game if it's not a big game. I still like him and think he has a ton of talent.

When we drafted him he was supposed to be the guy who took the top off of the defense with his speed, right? Well now we have Wallace to do that, I'd like to see Santonio settle down into more of Hines' role. If he does that, and stops being flat when there is no spotlight, I would think we could role with Wallace and Holmes for sure.

Oviedo
01-21-2010, 05:11 PM
The biggest difference is not YPC. It's the percentage of balls caught. Wallace is only going to get better. When it's over NW will be a mere afterthought in Steelers lore (not that he isn't already, but I had to make it dramatic somehow). :Beer

This just in: Nate was an afterthought even before he left. He's less than that now.

calmkiller
01-21-2010, 05:18 PM
Now lets all hope that Wallace doesn't turn into this:

Troy Edwards 61 Rec 714 YDs 11.7 YPC 5TDs 41 Long

SanAntonioSteelerFan
01-21-2010, 05:19 PM
Hines played really well this year, wouldn't think of pushing him out the door before his final set of injuries do :-(

RuthlessBurgher
01-21-2010, 05:19 PM
Bigger question on my mind is how soon should we roll with Wallace and Holmes as our starting WRs?

We should be talking about Wallace versus Ward. That's a real situation that coming soon.

They play such different roles, so it is difficult to compare them. And since our base offensive set more often than not is now 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR), arguing about which two WR's are the starters and which WR is the #3 is essentially arguing over semantics.

for boards sake.. if we go 2 WR's who do you prefer? I think it's time for Hines to step back and let the young legs get separation...

Hines still led the team in catches with 95 this past season (which is 56 more than Wallace's 39 catches). That's three-and-a-half more catches per game. Hines is the man until he gets knocked off that mountain.

SteelAbility
01-21-2010, 06:34 PM
The biggest difference is not YPC. It's the percentage of balls caught. Wallace is only going to get better. When it's over NW will be a mere afterthought in Steelers lore (not that he isn't already, but I had to make it dramatic somehow). :Beer

This just in: Nate was an afterthought even before he left. He's less than that now.

No argument there ... I suppose.

flippy
01-21-2010, 06:42 PM
What should be our base offense? 3 WRs/1TE, 2WRs/2TEs, or 2WR/1TE/1FB

And remember the goal is to improve the running game.

A dynamic 2nd TE would have the biggest impact on running the ball.

Followed by a FB.

I'm not sure 3 WRs is going to be the long term core of our offense if we want to run consistently.

feltdizz
01-21-2010, 06:45 PM
Bigger question on my mind is how soon should we roll with Wallace and Holmes as our starting WRs?

We should be talking about Wallace versus Ward. That's a real situation that coming soon.

They play such different roles, so it is difficult to compare them. And since our base offensive set more often than not is now 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR), arguing about which two WR's are the starters and which WR is the #3 is essentially arguing over semantics.

for boards sake.. if we go 2 WR's who do you prefer? I think it's time for Hines to step back and let the young legs get separation...

Hines still led the team in catches with 95 this past season (which is 56 more than Wallace's 39 catches). That's three-and-a-half more catches per game. Hines is the man until he gets knocked off that mountain.


Kinda hard to knock a guy off the mountain when he has one leg and can't get separation but still starts..

I think Wallace and Holmes would cause major problems

feltdizz
01-21-2010, 06:47 PM
What should be our base offense? 3 WRs/1TE, 2WRs/2TEs, or 2WR/1TE/1FB

And remember the goal is to improve the running game.

A dynamic 2nd TE would have the biggest impact on running the ball.

Followed by a FB.

I'm not sure 3 WRs is going to be the long term core of our offense if we want to run consistently.

Does Mend prefer a FB? Kinda depends on his style...

I think BA would go 2 TE first...

SanAntonioSteelerFan
01-21-2010, 07:09 PM
Bigger question on my mind is how soon should we roll with Wallace and Holmes as our starting WRs?

We should be talking about Wallace versus Ward. That's a real situation that coming soon.

They play such different roles, so it is difficult to compare them. And since our base offensive set more often than not is now 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR), arguing about which two WR's are the starters and which WR is the #3 is essentially arguing over semantics.

for boards sake.. if we go 2 WR's who do you prefer? I think it's time for Hines to step back and let the young legs get separation...

Hines still led the team in catches with 95 this past season (which is 56 more than Wallace's 39 catches). That's three-and-a-half more catches per game. Hines is the man until he gets knocked off that mountain.


Kinda hard to knock a guy off the mountain when he has one leg and can't get separation but still starts..

I think Wallace and Holmes would cause major problems

Actually, I think he had NO legs for the last game or two (two hammies gone :shock: ). He STILL somehow got separation, and had a lot meaningful catches. I think he's still on that pedestal, until his injuries start keeping him out more than he's in. We'll be in good shape when that happens, though very :( of course.

Depth at safety is another story ... I'm actually more worried about Polamalu's apparent brittleness (or bad luck if you will), but that's another story ...

cruzer8
01-21-2010, 07:26 PM
Ward just turned in another 1,000 yard season. Suggesting he lose his starting job at this point is foolish.

We go 3 wide for the majority of our sets anyway.

RuthlessBurgher
01-21-2010, 07:34 PM
What should be our base offense? 3 WRs/1TE, 2WRs/2TEs, or 2WR/1TE/1FB

And remember the goal is to improve the running game.

A dynamic 2nd TE would have the biggest impact on running the ball.

Followed by a FB.

I'm not sure 3 WRs is going to be the long term core of our offense if we want to run consistently.

We should be running a 3 WR, 1 TE offense most of the time (i.e. between the 20's), because you maximize Ben's potential weapons, and Rashard runs well out of a single back set. However, once you get into the red zone, you should be flexible enough that you can bring in an extra TE (either to block or even to throw to those big targets in the end zone...imagine that!) or utilize a FB when you are in close and want to bang the ball across the line. It was when we were in close that the run game really seemed to struggle, so that is where you need to adapt.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
01-21-2010, 07:39 PM
What should be our base offense? 3 WRs/1TE, 2WRs/2TEs, or 2WR/1TE/1FB

And remember the goal is to improve the running game.

A dynamic 2nd TE would have the biggest impact on running the ball.

Followed by a FB.

I'm not sure 3 WRs is going to be the long term core of our offense if we want to run consistently.

We should be running a 3 WR, 1 TE offense most of the time (i.e. between the 20's), because you maximize Ben's potential weapons, and Rashard runs well out of a single back set. However, once you get into the red zone, you should be flexible enough that you can bring in an extra TE (either to block or even to throw to those big targets in the end zone...imagine that!) or utilize a FB when you are in close and want to bang the ball across the line. It was when we were in close that the run game really seemed to struggle, so that is where you need to adapt.

I have to admit I was GREEN with envy when I saw the Jets line up for, AND GET that 1st down and 1 to seal the deal with a run. A rookie coach, for the JETS of all teams, can count on his team to pound the rock 1 yard. Of all Arien's faults (I perceive) that is the one that is most damning in my eyes - our coach can't.

feltdizz
01-21-2010, 07:57 PM
What should be our base offense? 3 WRs/1TE, 2WRs/2TEs, or 2WR/1TE/1FB

And remember the goal is to improve the running game.

A dynamic 2nd TE would have the biggest impact on running the ball.

Followed by a FB.

I'm not sure 3 WRs is going to be the long term core of our offense if we want to run consistently.

We should be running a 3 WR, 1 TE offense most of the time (i.e. between the 20's), because you maximize Ben's potential weapons, and Rashard runs well out of a single back set. However, once you get into the red zone, you should be flexible enough that you can bring in an extra TE (either to block or even to throw to those big targets in the end zone...imagine that!) or utilize a FB when you are in close and want to bang the ball across the line. It was when we were in close that the run game really seemed to struggle, so that is where you need to adapt.

I have to admit I was GREEN with envy when I saw the Jets line up for, AND GET that 1st down and 1 to seal the deal with a run. A rookie coach, for the JETS of all teams, can count on his team to pound the rock 1 yard. Of all Arien's faults (I perceive) that is the one that is most damning in my eyes - our coach can't.

better blocking solves the problem. Mend was getting the short yards more often this year...

Lonbull
01-22-2010, 05:14 PM
Nate Washington is / was one of my favorite UDFA's of all time - he came in when Fred Gibson had been drafted and basically found a way of making the team. Washington had deceptive speed and from the beginning you could tell he knew how to get seperation. Also he taught all of us a little something about a school named Tiffin.

I don't think his biggest sin was that he dropped a "lot" of passes - his biggest sin was that he dropped a couple of very memorable passes.

(Hines Ward dropped a pass in Super Bowl XL, and drops a number of passes during any given season - it's just he finds a way to make up for it ---- usually by "dropping" Ravens / Bengals or Browns).

I would also remind people that Nate Washington has the dynamic duo of Kerry Collins and Vince Young throwing the ball.....while Wallace has Ben.

But (outside of game experience) I don't think Washington compares well with Wallace.

Wallace had hands down one of the best rookie seasons for a Steeler (maybe the best aside from Ben) that I can remember.

Wallace's speed isn't deceptive - it's blazing. His speed is the kind that says "I'm going to blow by you....and there isn't much you can do about it!"

His hands were very solid this season (see Green Bay), and there were any number of games when he was asked to make a tough catch near the middle and he brought it down.

With his first season under his belt - I suspect with more time to learn the playbook, and his blocking assignments - he's still got quite a bit of upside.

With Wallace's ability to get down field that "hopefullY" enables Holmes to find space underneath - and I think that's where Holmes is most dangerous.

Then again there will be times when Holmes will go deep and Wallace will look for space - that spells a big headache for any secondary.

L.B.

flippy
01-22-2010, 05:19 PM
Nate Washington is / was one of my favorite UDFA's of all time - he came in when Fred Gibson had been drafted and basically found a way of making the team. Washington had deceptive speed and from the beginning you could tell he knew how to get seperation. Also he taught all of us a little something about a school named Tiffin.

I don't think his biggest sin was that he dropped a "lot" of passes - his biggest sin was that he dropped a couple of very memorable passes.

(Hines Ward dropped a pass in Super Bowl XL, and drops a number of passes during any given season - it's just he finds a way to make up for it ---- usually by "dropping" Ravens / Bengals or Browns).

I would also remind people that Nate Washington has the dynamic duo of Kerry Collins and Vince Young throwing the ball.....while Wallace has Ben.

But (outside of game experience) I don't think Washington compares well with Wallace.

Wallace had hands down one of the best rookie seasons for a Steeler (maybe the best aside from Ben) that I can remember.

Wallace's speed isn't deceptive - it's blazing. His speed is the kind that says "I'm going to blow by you....and there isn't much you can do about it!"

His hands were very solid this season (see Green Bay), and there were any number of games when he was asked to make a tough catch near the middle and he brought it down.

With his first season under his belt - I suspect with more time to learn the playbook, and his blocking assignments - he's still got quite a bit of upside.

With Wallace's ability to get down field that "hopefullY" enables Holmes to find space underneath - and I think that's where Holmes is most dangerous.

Then again there will be times when Holmes will go deep and Wallace will look for space - that spells a big headache for any secondary.

L.B.

This Holmes and Wallace talk is getting me excited. Now if we had a TE with elite speed to pull a safety out of coverage over the top on these 2 speedsters and pull a LB out of the box to help the running game, we'd be scoring like crazy.

feltdizz
01-22-2010, 06:31 PM
No flippy... You had it until you said TE with elite speed... lol. I love it though, this is the time of year for fans to frame their case for a desired pick.

Amy TE who helps the run doesn't need speed or hands.