All 22: The Mike Wallace Effect

[stillers4me]

Alex Kovora
On the whole, the 2013 offseason was not kind to the Pittsburgh Steelers. Rashard Mendenhall ended up in Pittsburgh West, Keenan Lewis to the Big Easy, and James Harrison to the Bengals.

But arguably the toughest blow was letting Mike Wallace go to the Dolphins. It can be argued it was a decision made out of financial necessity but there’s no question the team is losing a playmaker. A prime example of that from Week 6 against Tennessee...............

Read more from Chidi29 @ http://www.pittsburghsportingnews.co...allace-affect/

Don't be shy Chidi! Please feel free to post all your articles here!

[GBMelBlount]

Nice Breakdown Chidi.

I agree.

Wallace and Sanders are fast but Wallace has pure game breaking speed.

[steelreserve]

Let's look at this play from Week 7 against the Bengals. Wallace lines up in single coverage on the outside, with help over the top. The Steelers are hoping his speed will draw the safety's attention, freeing up Antonio Brown to come over the middle.





Wallace breaks off his route and the safety covers Brown. Roethlisberger checks down and targets Wallace on the sideline, but the pass inexplicably falls incomplete.





Back on the bench, Wallace's face shows the frustration typical of his season.





Wallace does a good job looking cool and expressing his disappointment; however, in this case, his vision and mental discipline are clouded by something else. Will he perform better in Miami without those distractions? We'll see next season.

[st33lersguy]

however, in this case, his vision and mental discipline are clouded by something else. Will he perform better in Miami without those distractions? We'll see next season.

No, since he got his payday, he will not be putting forth much of an effort

[Chidi29]

Thanks for posting it stillers. Didn't want to feel like I was spamming you guys by posting them.

Couple other recent ones I've done.

http://www.pittsburghsportingnews.co...cent-sleepers/
http://www.pittsburghsportingnews.co...s-and-cover-3/
http://www.pittsburghsportingnews.co...ail-technique/

[Texasteel]

Thanks for posting it stillers. Didn't want to feel like I was spamming you guys by posting them.

Couple other recent ones I've done.

I've never read anything you've wrote that could be called spam. Wish I could write like that. Now if you start advertising your new book signings we may have to talk.

[steelreserve]

Thanks for posting it stillers. Didn't want to feel like I was spamming you guys by posting them.

If you wrote crappy articles and didn't know what you were talking about, maybe it would be spamming, but I think most of us are pretty impressed by your knowledge and the time you take to break things down. The more of them the better, if you ask me. And thanks for having a thick skin/good sense of humor about it too.

[tube517]

Thanks for posting it stillers. Didn't want to feel like I was spamming you guys by posting them.

Couple other recent ones I've done.

http://www.pittsburghsportingnews.co...cent-sleepers/
http://www.pittsburghsportingnews.co...s-and-cover-3/
http://www.pittsburghsportingnews.co...ail-technique/

Get outta here with the humbleness. Spam? LMAO. Post away. Real journalism is welcome here, not toilet stain homerism like Jamison what's his face. Great job with the articles!

[Hindes204]

Get outta here with the humbleness. Spam? LMAO. Post away. Real journalism is welcome here, not toilet stain homerism like Jamison what's his face. Great job with the articles!

This.


you are a very talented young man with a bright future, I enjoy reading your analysis of the game. Post as many articles as you like

[Chidi29]

Thanks guys, means a lot!

[Shoes]

Nice job, Chidi! Always enjoy reading your stuff.

[salamander]

Nice job as usual, Chidi!

[steelreserve]

hey, not to be a dick, but on the site, shouldn't it be "Effect" instead of "Affect?" You may want to change that.

[Chidi29]

hey, not to be a dick, but on the site, shouldn't it be "Effect" instead of "Affect?" You may want to change that.

Ah....the great debate. I usually go with "e" or bust but I looked up to try and make sure I got it right.

This site says to use affect.

http://words.journalism.ku.edu/affect.html

“Affect” as a verb. (The norm) To have an influence on; to impress or to move; to produce a change in something or someone.

But honestly, I really have no idea if it's right. I like to think I have decent grammar but that is one thing I never figured out. I thought "affect" looked wrong too but hey, it's the Internet and it's never wrong, right?

[pepsyman1]

Ah....the great debate. I usually go with "e" or bust but I looked up to try and make sure I got it right.

This site says to use affect.

http://words.journalism.ku.edu/affect.html

“Affect” as a verb. (The norm) To have an influence on; to impress or to move; to produce a change in something or someone.

But honestly, I really have no idea if it's right. I like to think I have decent grammar but that is one thing I never figured out. I thought "affect" looked wrong too but hey, it's the Internet and it's never wrong, right?

Chidi, that you were already aware and already researched it before anyone else had noticed is all the back up I need. That puts you only 10 steps ahead of 95% of the Internet "journalists" I've seen who are too lazy to do a spell check let alone double check their grammar. I'd say you're doing just fine. "affect" works for me. Lol

[fansince'76]

Ah....the great debate. I usually go with "e" or bust but I looked up to try and make sure I got it right.

This site says to use affect.

http://words.journalism.ku.edu/affect.html

“Affect” as a verb. (The norm) To have an influence on; to impress or to move; to produce a change in something or someone.

But honestly, I really have no idea if it's right. I like to think I have decent grammar but that is one thing I never figured out. I thought "affect" looked wrong too but hey, it's the Internet and it's never wrong, right?

In this case, I'm pretty sure the "Mike Wallace effect" is a noun, so "effect" is the proper usage: http://english.clas.asu.edu/files/sh...ctvsEffect.pdf

3. A scientific law, hypothesis, or phenomenon

EXAMPLE: The Greenhouse Effect is the rise in temperature that the Earth experiences because certain gases in the atmosphere

trap energy from the sun.

[Chidi29]

Hmm...bummer

[Craic]

Ah....the great debate. I usually go with "e" or bust but I looked up to try and make sure I got it right.

This site says to use affect.

http://words.journalism.ku.edu/affect.html

“Affect” as a verb. (The norm) To have an influence on; to impress or to move; to produce a change in something or someone.

But honestly, I really have no idea if it's right. I like to think I have decent grammar but that is one thing I never figured out. I thought "affect" looked wrong too but hey, it's the Internet and it's never wrong, right?

It should be "effect," since you're talking about what he brought about.

"Affect" is more the way(s) that something a person does influences something or another person. "My little escaped affected the entire audience." "Mike Wallace's on field performance affected his team mates."

"Effect" is more along the lines of bringing something about or accomplishing something. "The final effect of my little escaped was a $10,000 check in exchange for a promise to never get up on a Chippendales stage during amateur night again." "The effect of Mike Wallace's speed was seen in the cushion DBs gave him." "Mike Wallace effected open receivers on the other side of the field."

Or, what relates more to your title, "The Mike Wallace effect will be missed this year."

[Chidi29]

Chippendale images burned in my head aside, I learned something today.

[GBMelBlount]

Perhaps Chidi didn't post the articles because he knew how it would affect the board members.

Anyway, I gotta agree with Hindes.

Thanks for posting.

Hindes204

you are a very talented young man with a bright future, I enjoy reading your analysis of the game. Post as many articles as you like

[SteelGhost]

Wow Chidi

[HollywoodSteel]

It should be "effect," since you're talking about what he brought about.

"Affect" is more the way(s) that something a person does influences something or another person. "My little escaped affected the entire audience." "Mike Wallace's on field performance affected his team mates."

"Effect" is more along the lines of bringing something about or accomplishing something. "The final effect of my little escaped was a $10,000 check in exchange for a promise to never get up on a Chippendales stage during amateur night again." "The effect of Mike Wallace's speed was seen in the cushion DBs gave him." "Mike Wallace effected open receivers on the other side of the field."

Or, what relates more to your title, "The Mike Wallace effect will be missed this year."

Actually, it should be ,"Mike Wallace affected open receivers on the other side of the field."

"Affected" is your active verb in that sentence, not a result of another verb. Other than that, you were spot on.

[HollywoodSteel]

A pretty easy general rule is if you can swap the word for "result" it should be "effect." If it has an "ed" at the end it is almost certainly "affected." If you put the word "to" in front of it, it is almost certainly "affect."

[zulater]

I'll wager anyone that if Ben stays healthy he'll have a more productive season this year and the wide receivers as a unit will do so also.

So so much for the Mike Wallace affect.

Addition by subtraction 2012 Mike Wallace wont be missed even a little.

Now if you're point is 2009-11 Mike Wallace was missed last year I'll agree with you. But that guy barely showed up last season, the 2012 version was mostly worthless. I'm not buying into the premise that he did a whole fucking lot to open up things for others. As I remember it was when Brown went down that Ben had so much trouble finding anyone open that he reverted to hero ball and got his ribs blown up.

[Chidi29]

I wasn't trying to say that on the whole, losing Wallace will be a crushing blow to the team. We've lost key pieces before and have survived. We'll do it again.
like
But there's no denying that it's special to have a guy that can just outrun coverages like he did. You don't have to get ultra-creative with him. And guys like that are tough to replace.

[zulater]

I wasn't trying to say that on the whole, losing Wallace will be a crushing blow to the team. We've lost key pieces before and have survived. We'll do it again.
like
But there's no denying that it's special to have a guy that can just outrun coverages like he did. You don't have to get ultra-creative with him. And guys like that are tough to replace.

Sorry. I've just had my fill of Mike Wallace already. To me the guy checked out on the team last year. I'm not a big fan of quitters. Particularly ones that haven't won anything.

[Chidi29]

Sorry. I've just had my fill of Mike Wallace already. To me the guy checked out on the team last year. I'm not a big fan of quitters. Particularly ones that haven't won anything.

I'm not talking about his attitude, I'm just talking about his speed. Article doesn't mean to imply we should have kept him. We weren't going to at that price so entertaining the idea was a moot point anyway. But are we going to see that kind of speed on the roster again this year? No. And that was the article's point.

[zulater]

I'm not talking about his attitude, I'm just talking about his speed. Article doesn't mean to imply we should have kept him. We weren't going to at that price so entertaining the idea was a moot point anyway. But are we going to see that kind of speed on the roster again this year? No. And that was the article's point.

It's not as if our opponents are going to leave this year's x receiver uncovered. I'm sure whoever it is they line up out there, be it Wheaton, Sanders, or other, they'll make some plays and draw extra coverage situationally.

If Wheaton and Sanders run better routes and don't drop the ball as often as wallace did last season then chances are we'll get more value out of that position this season than last.

[Chidi29]

It's not as if our opponents are going to leave this year's x receiver uncovered. I'm sure whoever it is they line up out there, be it Wheaton, Sanders, or other, they'll make some plays and draw extra coverage situationally.

If Wheaton and Sanders run better routes and don't drop the ball as often as wallace did last season then chances are we'll get more value out of that position this season than last.

It's not about just drawing extra coverage. In the play I used in the article, there was no one over the top. Frankly, drawing coverage does happen, but I really think that's become more of a crutch and cliche for a lot of fans/analysts.

It's about having a guy that can burn a cornerback playing off coverage and bail technique for an 80+ TD. Those don't grow on trees.

[steelreserve]

I'm not talking about his attitude, I'm just talking about his speed. Article doesn't mean to imply we should have kept him. We weren't going to at that price so entertaining the idea was a moot point anyway. But are we going to see that kind of speed on the roster again this year? No. And that was the article's point.

Apparently we've got two new guys with that kind of speed on the roster. Can either of them play WR for shit? Who knows!