Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: How Important are Wallace's negatives?

  1. #11
    Ruthless - great perspective.

    Ovi - if you replace Wallace, that is a pick that you aren't spending on the defense. Every additional need created is one that needs to be filled. Moreover, WRs generally do not contribute significantly as rookies. Even the good ones, it often takes a few years. I'm you somehow attribute that to DL, but that is pretty consistently the case throughout the league.

    I don't want to overpay Wallace, but if he walks for nothing, it hurts the team. In no way is it a benefit.

  2. #12
    Hall of Famer ikestops85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,264
    Quote Originally Posted by phillyesq View Post
    Ruthless - great perspective.

    Ovi - if you replace Wallace, that is a pick that you aren't spending on the defense. Every additional need created is one that needs to be filled. Moreover, WRs generally do not contribute significantly as rookies. Even the good ones, it often takes a few years. I'm you somehow attribute that to DL, but that is pretty consistently the case throughout the league.

    I don't want to overpay Wallace, but if he walks for nothing, it hurts the team. In no way is it a benefit.
    Ovi doesn't think we need any players on defense. He thinks the players are great ... that we just need to get rid of LeBeau and switch to the 4-3 and our defense will magically become awesome.
    <a href=http://seahawknationblog.com/files/2011/02/roger-goodell.jpg target=_blank>http://seahawknationblog.com/files/2...er-goodell.jpg</a>

  3. #13
    Wallace is a receiver and he is SELFISH. Sorry. Did you see Ben after the game? He mentioned that someone was very SELF LESS and looked over his shoulder (Like that person needs to be more selfless). I think (assuming) that player was Wallace. Ben is smart. He knows that Wallace is the key to this offense. If you take Wallace out and condense the field then you wont have much success. To get the underneath stuff you have to have Wallace (threat) on the field. Take him out and watch what happens.

    Oh and the wishes for a Corner are ridiculous. We could have REVIS on the team and he would be ineffective. Lebeau's scheme calls for a ZONE corner. Revis would suck in Lebeaus scheme.

  4. #14
    9ers/Cowboys had the best corner of all time and ALWAYS let him play man. In fact Prime wouldnt even go into the huddle. If Sanders played for Lebeau he wouldnt be as effective because he would be in zone. That ZONE hurts Ike and most of the corners we have.

  5. #15
    Legend hawaiiansteel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hawaii 5-0
    Posts
    15,392
    Quote Originally Posted by stopplayn View Post
    Oh and the wishes for a Corner are ridiculous. We could have REVIS on the team and he would be ineffective. Lebeau's scheme calls for a ZONE corner. Revis would suck in Lebeaus scheme.
    zonal defending calls for a CB to defend offensive players in the CB's assigned part of the field or zone, why wouldn't Revis be good at that?

  6. #16
    Because his skills are best suited in man to man. He is hands on, he plays off of what his opponent does. Asante Samuel is the opposite he NEEDS to be in a zone. He would be perfect for Lebeaus scheme. Revis would grow bored in a zone. Its not challenging to play a zone. After all the zone was created to let slow players compete. Ryan Clark would be out of a job if he had to play man to man.

  7. #17
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,265
    Quote Originally Posted by RuthlessBurgher View Post
    If Pro Bowl voting took place today, only 3 Steelers would deserve any sort of consideration (certainly no one on defense, OL or RB). Ben with 10 TD passes in 5 games, Heath with 4 TD catches in 5 games, and Wallace who also has 4 TD catches in 5 games. Ben's our leader, Heath is Mr. Reliable, and Wallace is our deep threat. And yet Steeler fans dump loads and loads of crap on our one true big play weapon on offense. Why? Because we are guessing what he wants to be paid in the future? What about the present? The fact is we are paying him $2.7 million this year...less than Larry Foote is getting, never mind Larry Fitzgerald...and he's given us 21 catches for 345 yards and 4 TD's. What about the past? He made $1.7 TOTAL for his first 3 seasons and gave us 171 catches for 3206 yards and 24 TD's. There are so many guys on this team that you could legitimately complain about this season...but Wallace is far from the guy who should be getting skewered...he's PERFORMING at a BARGAIN PRICE for us AGAIN. There are plenty of players who aren't living up to what they are being paid right now, but people seem to be obsessed about whether Wallace is living up to what he might be getting paid at some point in the future.
    more TDs in 5 games then our "better all around WR" has in his career

  8. #18
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,265
    Quote Originally Posted by phillyesq View Post

    Ovi - if you replace Wallace, that is a pick that you aren't spending on the defense. Every additional need created is one that needs to be filled. Moreover, WRs generally do not contribute significantly as rookies. Even the good ones, it often takes a few years. I'm you somehow attribute that to DL, but that is pretty consistently the case throughout the league.

    t.
    this is what a lot of people dont get. and its not like we go out in free agency to replace them, either

    could have signed plax for the salaries of chucky okobi and El. instead he goes and we're drafting a WR in the 1st round in holmes. keep plax and maybe that pick becomes nick mangold and we have a stud center since '06. domino effect

  9. #19
    Plax was leaving. Ben fought hard for him to stay. We were letting Ben manage games and we hardly passed the ball. Plax was the 2nd option in a system that featured the run. He could go to the big Apple and become the #1 guy and get more money. Why would he want to stay?

  10. #20
    Legend
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    13,551
    Quote Originally Posted by ikestops85 View Post
    Ovi doesn't think we need any players on defense. He thinks the players are great ... that we just need to get rid of LeBeau and switch to the 4-3 and our defense will magically become awesome.
    Well for the purpose of accuracy, all theplayers aren't great but we do have some very good ones. My argument for the 4-3 has always been based on the fact that if you don't have great players you can replneish the talent pool quicker playing the 4-3 because you eliminate 2-3 year "conversion" projects in the front 7.

    However we can just let LeBeau keep doing what he is doing and I'm sure "majically" they will become awesome again because they were 5 years ago. That way no one has to disassemble their basement shrines to LeBeau and they can keep hoping and wishing.
    Playing Fantasy Football does not qualify you to be the in the front office or on the coaching staff of the Pittsburgh Steelers. They are professionals and you are not!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •