Mike Wallace Vs DeSean Jackson

[FantasyBandit]

I'll take Wallace.

I think he will still get even better where I think Djax has mostly topped out.

[BradyT]

Both very good WR2.. I wouldn´t mind and prefer either one!

[RobertBobson]

I'd rather own Wallace for a number of reasons. First, D.Jax has seen a decline in targets either due to the emergence of Maclin or the addition of Vick or both. While Wallace's targets and D.Jax's are the same the trajectories are opposite.

While I think that's true, making much of an assumption about Wallace's trajectory so far is premature, since he's had only one good season. Are you punishing DeSean because he had such a good rookie season? he'd be more impressive if he had only twenty catches his rookie year? that's something faulty about this logic, I think. also, Deseans target decline can be attributed largely (if not wholly) to missed games. If you extend his per game average, he's only down a few targets from the previous year. Finally, I find it strange that people never give Desean any benefit of the doubt at all that he will improve, but extend it to Wallace. It's true, DeSean might not improve, and might be a limited player. But he's the same age as wallace, 24 ( actually a half year younger). So I think it's too strong to say that Djax's trajectory is opposite Wallace's. It might not be as steep, but assuming it is going down.. I just don't see that.

Second, I think Maclin is far superior to anyone on PIT (outside of Wallace). Wallace is the clear WR1 in PIT and that improves his value for me. Third, I agree with the comment above that D. Jax disappears in the redzone. You aren't going to get any fade routes to the corner for cheap TDs with him.

Maclin is superior to anyone on the Steelers, that's true. But there seems to be an age old debate in fantasy, that I've never seen answered with statistics ( and would love to see it answered) on the effect that having 1 great target on a team has on the other great target. Does it free DeSean up into single coverage, getting more more or better looks, or does it limit his targets because there are not enough balls to go around? It seems to me people's answer on this depends on if they like a player or not. If you like Desean you say it will free him up. If you dislike him, you say it will limit his looks.

Unquestionably, DeSean is not ( as of yet ) a good redzone target. That's well known. but what's not known ( to me at least) is... is Wallace a good redzone target?

Finally, the raw scoring is important too. In a non-PPR, Wallace outscored D.Jax in 2010 by a wide margin:
Wallace: 1,257/10 for 194 points
D. Jax: 1,056/6 for 160 points (including his rushing TD)

Using gross numbers is convenient for your argument, but when you use points per games played, they are much closer. In my PPR league, Wallace's points per game was 15.3. DeSean's was 15. Wallace was better yes.. but the gap between them was much smaller than the gap between many people's perception of them.

[RobertBobson]

Both very good WR2.. I wouldn´t mind and prefer either one!

That's probably the realanswer, I think.

[skip]

Both very good WR2.. I wouldn´t mind and prefer either one!

That's probably the realanswer, I think.

While the two have been close, I will share why I lean strongly toward Wallace.

Desean Jackson is appropriately categorized as a "1 trick pony". His skill set and limited size do not make him a red zone target at all. His biggest benefit is the rushing skills of Vick who keeps defenses honest and prevents the from cheating a safety over to Desean which is what the Cowboys did successfully in both games at the end of 2009. If a defense is able to do that, they take him completely out of the game.

Thusfar, Wallace has been pretty much just a deep threat as well, however those couple extra inches make him a better red zone target. Although he hasn't yet demonstrated it, this is an area in which I believe he has the greater potential to contribute.

While the ppg numbers had the two very close in 2010, remember than Wallace also was without Roethlisberger for the first 4 games of the season. His totals were 9-211-2 and ppg was 10.55. Only twice the rest of the season did he post a game under that number. His ppg over the rest of the fantasy season was 17.1 with totals of 48-941-7 over the 11 game span (week 17 was 3-95-1 for 18.5 and not counted in these figures).

Moving forward, I simply feel more comfortable in what I see in Wallace's game. Desean is solidly in WR2 territory but Wallace has the WR1 potential.

[Misfit74]

I think both have WR2 upside and WR3-4 downside. While it's possible Wallace evolves his game into a more rounded wideout, I'm not yet convinced he has the body-type or route-running ability at this point to expect anything more than WR2 numbers long-term. I'm not closing the book on him - he's young and developing and I get that, but like Dan mentioned above, he's not my kind of player as well and I agree that his price is too high. I think it's possible he is vastly inconsistent season-to-season; week-to-week and will not catch enough balls to justify his lofty perceived value. I concede: he had a great 2010.

DeSean is similar in that if he doesn't catch a bomb he's not typically posting solid scoring numbers that week and is too inconsistent and reliant on the big-play for my preference. Both make great fantasy WR3s, IMO. I'd choose Wallace of the two due to a greater upside and potential for developing further. DeSean the book is mostly written and he's a great NFL player but not someone I'm drafting or building a team around - same as Wallace.

[bigcsr67]

I think both have WR2 upside and WR3-4 downside. While it's possible Wallace evolves his game into a more rounded wideout, I'm not yet convinced he has the body-type or route-running ability at this point to expect anything more than WR2 numbers long-term. I'm not closing the book on him - he's young and developing and I get that, but like Dan mentioned above, he's not my kind of player as well and I agree that his price is too high. I think it's possible he is vastly inconsistent season-to-season; week-to-week and will not catch enough balls to justify his lofty perceived value. I concede: he had a great 2010.

DeSean is similar in that if he doesn't catch a bomb he's not typically posting solid scoring numbers that week and is too inconsistent and reliant on the big-play for my preference. Both make great fantasy WR3s, IMO. I'd choose Wallace of the two due to a greater upside and potential for developing further. DeSean the book is mostly written and he's a great NFL player but not someone I'm drafting or building a team around - same as Wallace.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here. I am not a fan of either as fantasy players, but I do like watching these burners make plays.