The case for keeping Mike Wallace

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
allday1991
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:31 pm

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace

Post 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.
“I remember my mistakes more than my success.” - Adrian Peterson
User avatar
halfgiz
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace

Post 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.
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4969
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace

Post 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.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
mondry
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8455
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace

Post 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.
Denardus
Backup
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:12 pm

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace

Post 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.
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24788
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace

Post 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.
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
User avatar
PurpleKoolaid
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8641
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace

Post 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.
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9241
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace

Post 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.
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
DK Sweets
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2908
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:46 am
Location: Missouri

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace

Post 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.
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24788
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace

Post 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.
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4969
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace

Post 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.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
DK Sweets
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2908
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:46 am
Location: Missouri

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace

Post 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.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace

Post by Mothman »

DK Sweets wrote:But his name is DeRunnya.
Unfortunately, it's not DeRunrightbya. :tongue:
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4969
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace

Post by fiestavike »

Mothman wrote: Unfortunately, it's not DeRunrightbya. :tongue:
Good one! :lol:
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
User avatar
jackal
Strong Safety
Posts: 11583
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:05 am
Location: California

Re: The case for keeping Mike Wallace

Post 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
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Post Reply