Heath Evans thinks EVERY one of our draft picks will fail! What!?!

It's obvious to me that you are not researched on this topic from a steeler POV.

 

I absolutely have. I'm familiar with every contract they've given to players instead of Wallace.

 

Then please stop avoiding the questions

Did the Pittsburgh steeler organization offer Mike Wallace the largest contract to a player not named Ben, just last year?

Did mike Wallace turn down that offer and sign his restricted tender thus allowing him to become an unrestricted free agent the following year?

After being rejected by Wallace, did the steeler organization turn right around and sign Antonio brown a new contract for 40 million 2 years prior to the current contract he had signed expired?

 

If the answer is yes to all those (I'm not sure we have definitive evidence of what they offered him), it doesn't change the fact that they chose not to offer as much as Miami. They chose not to make the space available in lieu of signing other guys.

And this wasn't a one year thing, it was a process that lasted multiple years. They had every opportunity to give Wallace what Miami gave him. They chose not to.

 

On the OP, us Browns fans have our own "Heath Evans" in that turd Trent Dilfer. Never misses an opportunity to gleefully pronounce that the Browns stink or are doing something stupid.

Seriously... you're a millionaire. Get over it.

 

Nobody EVER theorized that Pittsburgh doesn't think Mike Wallace is a good player.

But you just said it yourself. They prioritized their other guys over Mike Wallace. Other guys like:

Antonio Brown - Who makes $7.2 million per year and was given his contract immediately after Mike Wallace rejected the deal they offered him, which from rumors was well below what Miami gave him.

Emmanuel Sanders - Who is a #3 receiver and will make $2.5 million this year after the Steelers chose to MATCH New England's offer sheet rather than accept 3rd round compensation.

Casey Hampton - Who at 36 years old, has played less than 1000 snaps the past two years, was graded by PFF the 9th-worst defensive tackle in football in 2012, and collected an additional $3 million from the Steelers in 2012 which could have gone toward Wallace's contract.

Heath Miller - Who is a 31 year old tight end that isn't all that athletic and from 2012 thru 2014 will have collected $23 million from the team that could've been used to pay Mike Wallace.


Others - They gave Lawrence Timmons a 6 year, $50 million contract in 2011 that could've gone a long way toward paying for Mike Wallace. Brett Keisel has collected and will collect about $6 million over 2012 and 2013 that could've been used on Mike Wallace. Ryan Clark has collected and will collect $8 million over 2012 and 2013 that could've been used on Mike Wallace. Jericho Cotchery has and will make $3 million in 2012 and 2013 that could've gone toward Mike Wallace. Kicker Sean Suisham will collect over $5 million over 2012 to 2014 that could've been spent on Mike Wallace.

By 2014 the Steelers are scheduled to be under the salary cap by about $10 million, and that's without even addressing some monstrous cap numbers going to guys in the 30's like Troy Polamalu ($11 million, 33 years old), Ike Taylor ($10.5 million, 34 years old), Heath Miller ($8.0 million, 32 years old).

And by 2015 the Steelers are scheduled to be under the salary cap by between $50 to $60 million.

The Steelers clearly had plenty of options for keeping Mike Wallace if they wanted to prioritize it. They chose not to prioritize it. Heath Evens is saying there's a reason for that.

 

You can scout what they do on the field. How exactly are you scouting what happens in practice or the locker room or meeting room?

This thread is alive because there is debate over whether Mike Wallace was overpaid. If you think I'm making these points just trying to keep a thread alive, then you don't pay attention to anything I say regarding free agent markets.

I will go out on a limb and say those that don't rely on ad hominem attacks are the ones that can't be argued with.

EDIT: and to be absolutely clear, the people running the Dolphins are very intelligent IMO. That doesn't mean they're immune from making bad moves. I was against the Brandon Marshall trade when it happened, and I'm not a fan of the Mike Wallace signing. That doesn't mean these moves negate the good things this front office has done. It doesn't mean those moves will preclude the Dolphins from winning.

 

Did the Steelers choose not to give Mike Wallace the contract offer that Miami gave him?

Did the Steelers decide that it would be more worth it to give $42 million to Antonio Brown?

 

Steelers chose not to pay him what the Dolphins paid.

That doesn't mean the Steelers did not value him. Steelers are notoriously cheap. Because they draft well. Teams that draft well are cheap. We can't draft a WR to save our lives. So we have to overpay.

 

If the Steelers are cheap, especially at the wide receiver position, why did they give Antonio Brown a $42 million contract about 2 years before it was necessary to do so? Why did they essentially pay a 3rd round pick in order to keep Emmanuel Sanders for one more year on a $2.5 million contract?

The Patriots signed Sanders to a 3rd round RFA offer sheet. Once they did that, the 3rd round pick was essentially in the Steelers' possession and they could make the choice to give that 3rd round pick back to the Patriots because they want to keep Sanders on that one year, $2.5 million deal...or they could just keep the 3rd round pick and lose Sanders. The choice they made essentially paid the Patriots a 3rd round pick for the right to sign Emmanuel Sanders to a one year, $2.5 million deal.

These are not the actions of a team that feels willy nilly about the wide receiver position as if they can just draft one at any time.

Similarly, I heavily doubt that Jeff Ireland thought he needed to pay up for Mike Wallace because he sucks at drafting wide receivers. Jeff Ireland believes in his ability to pick talented players. He's said a few times that he considers himself to be very good at it. That strikes me as something a fan would say that has no real bearing or place in a real NFL front office.

 

Just because they didn't want to pay him what we did means nothing. They had multiple other receiving options, much less cap space and they still offered him a good bit more than Brown.

 

On what basis does anyone conclude that it means "nothing"? Seriously. What is the logic behind that? Especially in light of Evans saying he's spoken with people in the Steelers organization who had concerns about Wallace's route running and ability to perform in the clutch.

I can see arguing that it doesn't mean MUCH...or that the implications are not significant...but to say it means "nothing"? That's not logical.

 

Well, there ya go. Wallace must suck then. We are doomed.

 

Hurray for all-or-nothing extremism and straw man arguments!

 

We will, most likely, never know the real reason for Pitt's decision. It's all just speculation. There's also been reports within the Pitt organization, such as from Tomlin and Big Ben, on Wallace's ability. Reports contrary to Heath and his Deep Throat like inside sources. Who knows? I guess we should just be happy that we have a WR who, last season, scored like twice as many TDs than all of our WRs combined.

 

If they had more available cash they might have offered more. You and Heath Evans think Wallace is a flawed player because Pitt would have had to not only pay what we did but cut someone else. There is no WR worth that.

That's the part you refuse to acknowledge. They couldn't offer more or the same money than we did, unless they cut someone else. So for all you know, the Steelers thought he was worth the money we paid just not the money we paid plus the player(s) they'd have had to cut.

Regardless, not one purposely obtuse point that you've made proves or even indicates that Wallace is less of a player because Pitt couldn't afford his cost.

You still have no leg to stand on.

 

I think you have the right of it here. We SHOULD be happy that we have a receiver that scores touchdowns. But at the same time, we should also not be all that surprised when/if his production-to-pay ratio becomes problematic down the road, and we need to jettison him. And when/if we're looking at a team that still isn't cutting the mustard as far as competing for division titles and playoffs and whatnot, I think it would be valid to question whether the team put too many eggs in one basket, and whether the Steelers' decision not to do so with a player they knew really well should have perhaps signaled to us that it might be a mistake. Or maybe he becomes the next Paul Warfield.

 

I think it was closer to 4 times as many.

 

No, they didn't have to cut anyone. They could have not given out big contracts to guys in past offseasons. They could have not given Ike Taylor or Lawrence Timmons or Heath Miller or a lot of other players contracts and instead given Wallace a long-term deal. They didn't do that. They let Wallace's contract expire. They knew Wallace's contract situation required action, and the action they took was to give money to other players.

 

Ha, you really are committed to this lie aren't you? You are approaching Shou levels of absurdity.

 

Are you saying they never gave Ike Taylor or Lawrence Timmons contracts? What exactly is the lie here?

And for the final time, you're free to discuss the topic, but you cannot make this about individual posters.

 

The evidence that we overpaid for Marshall is that the Steelers weren't willing to pay him the same amount of money we did AND lose out on an Ike Taylor or Lawrence Timmons. You're really going to stick with this? Really?

 

Exactly. They chose Taylor and Timmons over Wallace. Or Polamalu and Sanders over Wallace. Or a lot of other players or combination of players. Thats the point here. They had an opportunity to keep Wallace, and they chose to use their money on different guys.

 

Consider this.

1. They paid Mike Wallace about $2.7 million in 2012 on his RFA tender.
2. Antonio Brown's rookie contract would have paid him $490,000 base salary in 2012.
3. They could've given Brown an RFA tag in 2013 like they did Wallace in 2012.
4. They're paying $2.5 million and a 3rd round pick for Emmanuel Sanders in 2013.
5. The Steelers were set to expense Antonio Brown at $16.2 million from 2012 to 2014, prior to restructuring him.
6. The Steelers are scheduled to have about $10 million in cap space available in 2014.
7. That year, they have big cap figures tied up in 30+ year olds like Troy Polamalu ($11 mil), Ike Taylor ($10.5 mil) and Heath Miller ($8 mil).
6. The Steelers are scheduled to have $50-60 million in cap space available in 2015.

So essentially, to sign Mike Wallace, you have to make sure you can get him through 2012, 2013 and 2014. Once you get to 2015, you're basically in the clear. In the first three years of Wallace's contract, the Dolphins are expensing a total of $32.5 million, which goes to $35.6 million if you're figuring on keeping Antonio Brown in 2012 and 2013. If you don't give Antonio Brown an extension, you're down to $19.4 million right there. If you allow Emmanuel Sanders to leave on the RFA tender in 2013 you're down to $16.9 million PLUS you just picked up a 3rd round pick. And, you've still got Mike Wallace AND Antonio Brown through 2013. You only end up letting Brown walk in 2014.

This is unmanageable? Really? You've got $10 million available in 2014, plus a bunch of bloated cap figures for aging guys who aren't playing up to their worth anymore, and you can't scrape together the $17 million to get you trough to 2015?

The Steelers would've only really needed to find themselves a total of about $11 million worth of additional room and they'd have had THREE YEARS to find it (2012, 2013 and 2014).

The Steelers made a choice. It doesn't mean they were right. Plenty of teams have let GOOD players walk even though they shouldn't have. But let's not pretend the Steelers had no choice in this matter.

 

No they didn't. They chose the money we spent AND Timmons, Taylor, Pollamalu & Sanders instead of Wallace. The cost of Wallace for Pitt would be the money and the players they lost. Why are you ignoring that?

We only had to pay the money, they would have had to pay the money and lose someone. Notice we didn't try and trade for him last year. If they had the money free and clear they just may have paid him unless you can prove otherwise....which you can't.

Your whole argument is gone now.

 

What? They would spend the money regardless. They chose to spend it on Timmons, Taylor, Polamalu, instead of Wallace. Those guys aren't free.

 

When you consider how much cap space they make for 2014+, and how little he counts against Miami's cap this season, its easy to see how Pitt could have re-signed him.

 

The Steelers had a choice.

Keep Mike Wallace long term and lose Antonio Brown starting in 2014 and also trim about $11 million worth of salary cap expense over a three year period 2012 through 2014...or lose Mike Wallace after 2012, and keep Antonio Brown long term.

They chose the latter. The former was highly doable.

 

That's the other thing. It's a good point.

Miami's allocating $20.4 million in cap space to him in 2013 and 2014, only $3.2 million of which is in 2013. So they could have let Emmanuel Sanders walk ($2.5 million) and that's very close to a wash on his 2013 cap figure. Then they'd have to find $17.2 million of cap space in 2014, when they already have about $10 million scheduled, and they also have those bloated contracts I talked about for old guys that aren't performing like Polamalu and Taylor, and for Heath Evans who after all is just a tight end and not exactly a Rob Gronkowski, Tony Gonzales type. There's plenty of fat they could've trimmed to make those numbers work, and that even would've given them Antonio Brown and Mike Wallace long term.

 

Evans and your support of his theory insinuated that the steelers did not want him, offering a player last year the biggest contract ever tells me your both completely wrong.

Why they didn't match Miami's offer this year??, because when Wallace rejected their 10 mill a year offer, a lot of people close to that organization have speculated that the immediate signing of brown two years before his contract was up, was in retaliation..

The other reason why they could not match Miami offer THIS year, is because they were projected to be at 14 million over the cap..

This looks like miss management on a couple of different levels, the steelers not wanting Wallace for the reason Evans cited was false information, they wanted him bad, The 50 mill left on Rooneys table is enough evidence to squash him and your support of his opinion in this topic.

 

Wow this is a terrible thread, even for May.

 

How can you say they didn't prioritize him when they offered the guy the biggest contract ever, and he denied it..lol

Front offices don't make an offer like that for a player they think is good.

 

You've made waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many assumptions for your point to hold water anymore.

For example, you're assuming Pitt was properly managing their cap and planned correctly for the players they wanted. Considering they are over the cap, I'd say they didn't.

 

I've answered these questions clearly..

If they thought brown was more important why the hell did they offer Wallace over 50 mill before they offered brown?

 

Concerns couldn't of been to worrisome...." See biggest contract ever offered by organization post"

 

/Thread

 

So then you admit he's not worth what Miami paid?

 

Not the biggest contract ever offered by the organization, nor was it the money he got from Miami.

Ok so you're admitting he wasn't worth what Miami paid. Thanks.

 

If this is the case (I'm not sure they offered him $50M), then the Miami Dolphins offered Mike Wallace 20% more than the highest contract ever offered by the Pittsburgh Steelers. Just to put things in perspective regarding how expensive Mike Wallace is.

 

You know what is amazing is that we have these kind of discussions as fans about things like the salary cap. These discussions weren't very common years ago. It seems the business of the game has kind of transcended into fandom. One has to know the game and the specific details of how the game is played, be a scout, and an economist. Just being a fan just doesn't do it anymore. Am I being sarcastic? No, and that is what is really funny about this.