"" Mike Wallace BETTER stay in Miami, that's my guy." Guess who?

Clay was hurt but still dropped 600. All the more reason to keep him IMO. I'd drop Hartline just to resign Clay.

If Rishard can get his act together I think he'd make up Gibson's and part of Hartline's production. Plus a rookie.

Wallace, Landry, Clay, Sims, Matthews + Rookie wouldn't be too bad. Clay did 750 with a Tannehill that wasn't even as good as this year's Tanny. And this year hurt he still put up 600. I'd think he could do 800-900 easily if healthy all 16 games.

 

My ideal would be drafting Kevin White.

 

I'd rather draft defense early. The Packers and Steelers seem to always find good WRs from the 2nd round on. It would be nice if we could do the same.

 

I doubt Wallace plays for anyone else in 2015. He had a down year in 2013, but he's been fairly consistent the rest of his career. The only thing that isn't living up to his past hype is the YPC. part of that is his fault, part fault of the coaches and the QB. He's not an elite WR like CJ, AJG, JJ and the rest of the elite tier, but he is a #1 WR. He was overpaid in 2014, but his 2015 contract is only slightly overpaying him IMO. Like others have said, upgrade Hartline to give us Wallace-XX-Landry and we'll be fine.

As far as Suh, no way is he coming here. The guys only about the money. can't see him coming here, so not even going to daydream about it. We can still go out and get a good DT in FA or draft. Use the money that people are daydreaming about spending on Suh on a guard and CB.

 

Like any work place... Im sure some guys like Wallace, and some were tired of his act. We know some weren't happy with his temper tantrum against NY. I know Juice was close with him, but I could also see Landry not really being supportive of taking yourself out of the game. Alot of the players loved Richie Cogs as well... Doesn't mean it was best to have him on the team.

 

I can't see us going after Suh.. But he would have a crazy effect on the D

 

No one is arguing that Wallace didn't improve from 2013, but that's really neither here nor there. He still wasn't worthwhile or close to irreplaceable.

Further, I'm not sure why Hartline is being brought up, like at all? Him playing poorly isn't really a shield for Wallace playing poorly.

 

So what? That doesn't address my point. There are very few people that Branden Albert can financially identify with. Mike Wallace is one of those guys.

 

I'm not sure why you think the distinction matters outside of some exercise in semantics?

You're not dancing between raindrops here, the measure you came up with doesn't make a lot of sense and was poorly applied. Hartline has come much closer to playing up to his current contract over the history of his contract than Wallace, and one year of bad play from Hartline doesn't really make Wallace's pay vs. performance any less ****ty.

 

I think your perspective on that depends on whether you want to fish or cut bait with Ryan Tannehill. If you're ready to fish with Tannehill, you remodel the receiving corps more in line with his strengths. If you're not sold on Tannehill, then perhaps you try to continue to make things happen with Wallace and the current corps, thinking perhaps Tannehill is the issue and in need of further development in some areas.

I'm of the former camp. I say you settle on Tannehill, and begin to construct the necessary pieces around him, and the team appears to be following that line of thinking as well, as it's been recently reported that Tannehill will be offered a contract extension.

And if that's indeed where the team is, then it makes much more sense in my opinion to realize right now that Ryan Tannehill is much more effective in the short and intermediate area passing game, and work to assemble receivers who can catch those sorts of passes and make plays with the ball in their hands afterward. Neither Wallace nor Hartline fit that bill, and those are your current starters.

 

And we certainly can't act as if one quote from one player indicates that the entire team is teetering emotionally on the presence of absence of one player, ready to throw in the towel for the 2015 season if that player isn't there.

If the team is indeed teetering in such a manner, then the presence or absence of Mike Wallace, or anyone else, is the least of its problems.

 

I'm not sure why Brian Hartline is being discussed in this thread? The fact that he is overpaid shouldn't really have a bearing on identifying whether Mike Wallace is overpaid and the opportunity cost at replacing his salary.

 

Also consider that Brian Hartline would've once again been a thousand-yard receiver had he been targeted the same number of times he was in 2013. His production on a yards-per-target basis didn't decline at all.

 

It's because some people believe that when there are issues with a player's play, they're attributable to the weaknesses of players elsewhere. In other words, if Brian Hartline were a better #2 receiver and were drawing more coverages his way, then Mike Wallace would play better.

Of course, that perspective fails to recognize that Wallace is the much more highly-paid player, and his play should therefore depend far less on what's going on around him. At Wallace's salary, he should be not only producing individually exceptional numbers, but also contributing to the play of others in the way some appear to think he needs from others himself.

If and when a team is in a position in which it's highest-paid player is dependent on others around him to produce at anywhere near the level his salary dictates, there is a problem with either 1) the player, or 2) his salary.

 

I think pointing out how good his year was and how long its been since we had a receiver post those kinds of numbers speaks to his being worthwhile and being irreplaceable or not.

Wallace didn't play poorly. That's the point.

Only people using Hartline as a shield are the people downplaying Wallace's season.

The biggest problem spot in our WR corps is not Wallace its Hartline at the #2 position. His production even when he's playing at his best is horrible.

 

I'm not comparing Wallace to megatron, but the simple matter is that when CJ was healthy, he was getting double teamed, a lot. The difference is when their #1 option was shut down, they had a #2 in Golden Tate that could take over and help them win. I think Landry took quite a bit off Hartline's plate, and deservedly so, but if Hartline is getting paid that much and allows a rookie to take many of his catches, then he's not worth keeping, especially at that salary. It's time to move on from Hartline. cut him, draft someone, let them be our #3.

 

Red zone targets are frequently available and are inexpensive. The Dolphins history of not having one points more towards the impact a quarterback has on that statistic than anything. The fact that you're bringing up Chris Chambers should be a pretty clear indication that production isn't particularly correlative with production.

It's not really a point. The sole argument against the idea he was mediocre was his touchdown production, and that's not what you're representing it as.

Uh...how?

No one is suggesting Hartline be retained.

No one brought up Hartline as a method of being critical of Wallace. It was brought up in this thread, and regularly as an idea to defend Wallace.

See?

 

The 'biggest problem' is a misnomer IMO. Brian Hartline sucking doesn't mean Mike Wallace is worth his salary. Bringing Brian Hartline into this debate is really just a distraction from evaluating Mike Wallace. Just like Jimmy Wilson's play shouldn't affect a decision on Finnegan.

The question here is whether the Miami Dolphins could use the money for Mike Wallace better elsewhere. There are two components to making this decision:

1. How much you think he will be paid elsewhere. Because he has offset language in his contract, his compensation from a new team would affect how much dead money Miami carries.

2. What else you could spend that money on. This is largely going to be based on #1. It also depends on what type of FAs are available, and your plans for retaining your own guys.

None of the decision making should involve Brian Hartline.

 

Mike Wallace doesn't draw double teams in any meaningful sense. He didn't even really get the effect that people have blown wildly out of proportion in the past this year.

 

The other issue regarding touchdown production is that it's widely variable across seasons among receivers. For example, Mike Wallace caught only five touchdowns in 2013, despite that the quarterback he was receiving the ball from threw only three fewer that season than he did in 2014.

And when a statistic has that degree of variability associated with it, it's hard to argue that it represents some sort of ability on the part of the player.

When you're deciding how much to pay a player, obviously you want to base his salary on what you can reasonably expect to happen over the course of the contract. It's very difficult to project wide receivers' touchdowns from one year to the next, because they're so variable, and so one can hardly argue that Mike Wallace "earned" his 2015 salary by catching 10 touchdown passes in 2014. It's entirely possible, for example, that he reverts to his 2013 production in that area, and catches only five touchdowns in 2015.

And we still haven't touched the issue of his falling 28th in the league in expected points added per play, despite that the statistic awards six points for every touchdown a player scores.

So, we not only have issues regarding the future reliability of Mike Wallace's touchdown production, and therefore whether his play in that area represents some sort of "ability" on his part, but we also can't say it elevated him to a respectable level among his peers, even with regard to measures of play that incorporate touchdowns!

 

Its not a misnomer.

Yes Wallace is costing a lot of money. Yes, his production does not equal his cost. No one is arguing that.

What they are arguing, is that the WR corp as a whole has a major problem and its not Wallace or his cost. Its Hartline and his cost. And frankly, it will be easier to improve Hartline's production at less cost then it will be to improve Wallace's production at less cost.

 

I suspect that people are so hell bent on having Mike Wallace play for Miami like he did for Pittsburgh in 2011 that they're pulling out all the stops theoretically to make that happen. If "X." If "Y." If "Z."

Fans of teams want stars on their teams, and Mike Wallace was a star in 2011. When the Dolphins signed him, excitement abounded. We got us a star.

And by God, we're still gonna make him a star.

 

When you have multiple problems, you don't only try to solve one of them. You also can't look at these things in a vacuum. Mike Wallace's money may not necessarily go directly to another WR. It could go to a combination of different parts, which could improve the team. Personally, I feel a Wallace for Suh trade makes the Dolphins better overall. That is just one easy and obvious permutation for how that money could be used. There are dozens of other ways you could go about it.

 

Except that's not true.

The problem is one of resources, not just money.

We are talking about a WR that can post Wallaces numbers. You can't snap your fingers and find better WRs. They don't grow on trees. They are not easily found. They are not always available and if they are, it takes a pretty big money investment to get them here. Solving the problem of Wallace's contract and bettering his production is not guaranteed if you do X. In fact, its not likely.

Solving the Hartline problem is likely because WRs that can put up better numbers them him are not rare.

Also, removing Wallace for Suh creates another hole. That's Jeff Ireland's approach to team building, and he was poor at that. And its a significant hole considering how improved the passing game was this year.

 

Im sure if it were as simple as Wallace for Suh the whole board would be happy.

 

If the QB starts finding him on those plays he is blowing by the defense then you will see 2011 Mike Wallace. He is a better WR niw than he was then so whats the difference?

 

No, you're not. You're taking a wildly inefficient contract and replacing it with a contract that will almost certainly have a much better relationship between performance and pay.

Wasted cap space is a much bigger issue than having to fill a specific hole.

 

Love the size.

 

I love his size, speed, quickness, hands and blocking ability.

Yes, blocking ability. An amazing bonus, because it can help a 15 yard run turn into a 45 yard run or a long touchdown.

 

DT is already a hole. The Dolphins current DTs are Randy Starks and Earl Mitchell. That isn't good, particularly when you consider how bad Starks played toward the end of the year.

 

Right, and it isn't that simple because you don't' know if Suh is going to be available. But the simple choice is Mike Wallace or ~$10MM cap space (or however much you project he'll clear). Do you think the Dolphins could get better talent with that ~$10MM? That is what it boils down to.

 

Makes much more sense to jettison BH and BG that frees up 9M...if you get rid of all 3 you are putting your QB and offense in a ridiculously bad situation.

 

I'm not sure that freeing up $20M is a bad situation though? If you're not going to use that extra money, then yes. But that money is going to be invested in the team, so its not like they're just going to leave the roster empty.

 

Then what?? Try to compete with a new WR core?

 

Presumably, yes. What that WR corps will look like depends on who is available. The WRs may be a weakness next year. You need to make sure that you use the money wisely, so that if there is a weakness, you have a strength to offset. You could shift that money from WR to DT or CB or TE, etc. You could also find yourself in a strong FA market for WRs, and end up with a better group than this year. You shouldn't try to fill holes, you should try to get the money talent for the money IMO.

 

Draft big, strong, fast rookie WR. Keep Landry in the slot. Find a decent veteran to upgrade Hartline/Gibson.

Done.

Or, keep Wallace, draft big, strong, fast rookie WR, jettison Hartline and Gibson, replace with decent FA, keep Landry in the slot. Maybe Matthews steps up into Hartline's role, who knows.

I'd rather go with the second option of my two.

 

Simply unrealistic, you have a QB in an important year and you take away 3 players hes familair with and a WR he had a 117 rating throwing too.

Bad plan

 

Kevin White is exactly the kind of player the team should be looking for to replace Wallace. Someone who can go long with speed, but who can also catch short and intermediate range passes and do something with them after the catch.

 

"You have a QB in an important year" is not what you base your plan around. Your goal is to put out the best team, not make the QB look as best as you can make him look.

You're describing a potentially dire situation for a particular unit. That is going to be a reality for the Miami Dolphins in 2015. There will likely be multiple units that suck, unless we see some type of extraordinary draft class.