BearSox Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 http://www.blogdownchicagobears.com/2009/0...ars-draft-hand/ “The (Chicago) Bears are really high on me. They’re talking about taking me with their first pick in the 40’s.” That is Mike Wallace talking. Personally, if all of the other top receivers are gone by this point, Wallace would probably be my next top pick for a WR. I really like him. He has great speed (4.33 40) and quickness, and is a very explosive player. He is a legit deepthreat, but is kind of raw. However, he's got potential to be a really solid weapon in the passing game, and he's a great returner. Also, JA talked the other day about how they don't want a "vanilla cone" when they pick. They want someone with a swirl, some sort of twist. I thought that was a pretty good analogy, as I think it shows we won't be drafting someone for the sake of drafting them. I think Massaquoi or Iglesias are that vanilla cone his talking about. I think Wallace fits that bill as a swirl, JA was talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Smoke screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawhizz Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Actually, that's kind of an interesting call. I saw one website that said Wallace was more polished than DHB and when you look at the stats and numbers, they aren't that much different as prospects: Darrius Heyward-Bey, 6'2", 210 40 time: 4.25 20 time: 2.50 10 time: 1.44 225 reps: 16 Vertical: 38 1/2" Broach Jump: 10'6" 20 yd Shuttle: 4.18 3-cone: 6.80 Stats: Year GP Rec Yds YPC TD 2005 RS - - - - 2006 13 45 694 15.4 5 2007 13 51 786 15.4 3 2008 12 42 609 14.5 5 Totals 38 138 2,089 15.1 13 Mike Wallace, 6'1", 199 40 time: 4.28 20 time: 2.45 10 time: 1.43 225 reps: 14 Vertical: 40" Broad jump: 10'9" 20 yd shuttle: 4.27 3-cone: 6.90 Year GP Rec Yds YPC TD 2005 10 0 0 0.0 0 2006 12 24 410 17.1 2 2007 12 38 716 18.8 6 2008 13 39 784 20.1 7 Totals 47 101 1,910 18.9 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Actually, that's kind of an interesting call. I saw one website that said Wallace was more polished than DHB and when you look at the stats and numbers, they aren't that much different as prospects: Darrius Heyward-Bey, 6'2", 210 40 time: 4.25 20 time: 2.50 10 time: 1.44 225 reps: 16 Vertical: 38 1/2" Broach Jump: 10'6" 20 yd Shuttle: 4.18 3-cone: 6.80 Stats: Year GP Rec Yds YPC TD 2005 RS - - - - 2006 13 45 694 15.4 5 2007 13 51 786 15.4 3 2008 12 42 609 14.5 5 Totals 38 138 2,089 15.1 13 Mike Wallace, 6'1", 199 40 time: 4.28 20 time: 2.45 10 time: 1.43 225 reps: 14 Vertical: 40" Broad jump: 10'9" 20 yd shuttle: 4.27 3-cone: 6.90 Year GP Rec Yds YPC TD 2005 10 0 0 0.0 0 2006 12 24 410 17.1 2 2007 12 38 716 18.8 6 2008 13 39 784 20.1 7 Totals 47 101 1,910 18.9 15 It would be nice if they thought he was the guy they wanted , they can get him with the 3rd or maybe 4th round pick. Then pick a defensive starter with the 2nd round pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 It would be nice if they thought he was the guy they wanted , they can get him with the 3rd or maybe 4th round pick. Then pick a defensive starter with the 2nd round pick. Angelo and Lovie both adhere to the you-can't-teach-speed school of drafting wideouts, and it appears to have worked out OK for them in the past. After he went to the Vikings, Berrian said that not only did he not really have any routes under his belt coming out of college, but he didn't even really have a handle on how to throttle down and get into a cut. He said he was just a run-fast guy, then Darryl Drake (the Bears WRs coach) taught him to be a real receiver. Maybe he can do the same with Wallace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 [i would not be opposed to this guy. They might have to take him here because he might not be there with the 3rd rounder. I do question the intelligence of the guy giving draft intel out. It might rub teams the wrong way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 It goes back to my belief that the Bears might trade down. I like this guys measurables and given that there really isn't a sure thing out there and that all of the guys available have potential flaws getting an extra pick plus a guy that has awesome measurables could be the right plan. Plus having a guy like Cutler can really help get the most out of someone with good measurables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoofHearted Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 It goes back to my belief that the Bears might trade down. I like this guys measurables and given that there really isn't a sure thing out there and that all of the guys available have potential flaws getting an extra pick plus a guy that has awesome measurables could be the right plan. Plus having a guy like Cutler can really help get the most out of someone with good measurables. I'd be all good with a trade down to the late second to pick up a late third. As for Wallace, sure, he'll do...in the fourth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 I'd be all good with a trade down to the late second to pick up a late third. As for Wallace, sure, he'll do...in the fourth. Yeah, I didn't see that he thinks they're targeting him at #49. That's way too early, unless there's an unprecedented run on wide receivers. If literally 10-12 wideouts are gone by the time we pick in the 2nd, maybe Wallace would be an OK pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoofHearted Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Yeah, I didn't see that he thinks they're targeting him at #49. That's way too early, unless there's an unprecedented run on wide receivers. If literally 10-12 wideouts are gone by the time we pick in the 2nd, maybe Wallace would be an OK pick. There's no scenario that would make it okay to pick him at 49, IMHO. For those assuming we are set on going WR at 49, perhaps you missed the column earlier in the week where JA said if there guy isn't there, it wouldn't be much a difference between the reaches there and the guy they could get at 99. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChileBear Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 There's no scenario that would make it okay to pick him at 49, IMHO. For those assuming we are set on going WR at 49, perhaps you missed the column earlier in the week where JA said if there guy isn't there, it wouldn't be much a difference between the reaches there and the guy they could get at 99. Agree. I also read that Lovie says the guy they get at #49 will be looked at as a solid contributor. I can't see us going after someone with our first pick that will need to be nursed along all that much. I'm hoping that Robiskie is there, but I can see us going S, DE or even OL if the right poayer is thre and the right WR is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 He seems more like a guy we have targeted at #99. I like him there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 I'd love a FS or DE and than Wallace at 99. This Wallace guy has the potential to be special. Sure he also has the potnetial to be a bust, but he could be one of those guys that turns into a hell of a player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted April 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Smoke screen. How's it a smoke screen when the player said it? What, did the Bears pay him 100 bucks to say that or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted April 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 There's no scenario that would make it okay to pick him at 49, IMHO. For those assuming we are set on going WR at 49, perhaps you missed the column earlier in the week where JA said if there guy isn't there, it wouldn't be much a difference between the reaches there and the guy they could get at 99. Perhaps you missed it where JA is the GM and Mike Wallace could very well be his guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoofHearted Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Perhaps you missed it where JA is the GM and Mike Wallace could very well be his guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.