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

Is that right?? A lot of impact OL going for about 2.5M these days??

 

LaFell is but one example. There are numerous receivers who produced as well as or better than Wallace and counted considerably less against their teams' salary caps in 2014.

We can start with Calvin Johnson, for example.

 

Oh, Mike Wallace is overpaid?? Groundbreaking stuff.

 

Overpaid (a great deal), miscast, and disruptive.

 

And? I'm not saying its not possible. I'm saying I want an actual plan.

Ireland got rid of BMarsh, which I was fine with, but he failed to secure his replacement, which I was not fine with and we had one of, if not the worst years ever for WRs. I don't want that to happen again. I want a WR that can score. We are better team with one than without one. Unless you got one lined up that has a similar chance to doing similar numbers that Wallace did then don't get rid of Wallace yet.

 

It won't be all that difficult to replace Wallace, and for less money. The undercurrent of these posts is that his contribution can be replicated by someone making far less money, and so I don't think the mere discussion of replacing him should be forestalled because there is a perception of some sort of massive roadblock in actually pulling it off.

 

So confused as what is your point. Mike like a lot of players are overpaid....the damage is done. It certainly doesn't justify cutting him to save such a small number against the cap.

You save more by cutting worse players at the position (Hartline/Gibson)

The desire for some of you to cut Mike Wallace now is personal, has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a good football move.

 

I'll ask you the same question...

Who can you get for 2.5 M that is saved from cutting Wallace? If you are telling me we can sign Randall Cobb for that then I'll help Mike pack.

 

Stop effing telling me it won't be difficult. Prove it some how, cause I'm not buying it. My whole argument is that it won't be easy to replace, so you telling me it will be easy to replace doesn't convince me of anything.

 

I'm all for cutting Wallace and Hartline, replacing one of them with a rookie, and spending the bulk of the savings from the both of them on a good free agent.

 

Here's an entire list of people:

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/wide-receiver/

There are several to choose from there who could replicate Wallace's numbers, or even better them, at a lower price in my opinion.

 

You are trying to deflect, Hartline being cut (along with Gibson) is a separate issue. You still can add a good FA and draft a WR, keeping Wallace doesn't prevent you from doing either.

 

Speak for yourself and the rest of the anti-Wallace faction only please.

 

It sure doesn't, but keeping Wallace also doesn't free up $2.5 million.

 

When we see if some of those guys actually hit the streets then you have an argument. Until then, you don't really.

 

This! So much this!!!

 

I'm certainly fine postponing the argument.

 

So in essence you want to create a hole at WR and deprive your young budding star QB of a player he had a 114 rating when throwing too, all to save 2.5M? Alrighty then

 

These threads kill me. Once a week at least. Yep, once a week I die because of these threads.


Seriously if you get rid of Wallace you better:

a) Get someone than can replace his production last year, at minimum.
b) Recoup some assets invested in him. (Some cap relief, get picks back, etc)
c) Don't invest current assets to do so. (Team has enough holes already without creating another and not getting much assets back to fill it again)

 

You're really going above and beyond in terms of being obtuse here.

Even if you accept the parameters you're suggesting here(which are falsely presented), you can most certainly fit a huge contract into that $2.5 m operating space you came up with. Back-loading contracts is far from rare. Antonio Brown and Victor Cruz have $40+ million dollar contracts whose first year cap hits well within that range. Hell, Mike Wallace's first year hit was $3.25 million.

You've got room to go hog ****ing wild within that $12 million a deal average if you want. Unless Calvin Johnson suddenly is on the market, it is most certainly doable. As long as you are offering the guaranteed money, you think the players will care?

 

All of those things are doable and you've pretty much got an obligation to try.

 

This team has about 10 other problems than Mike Wallace, maybe we need focus on those obligations than how to get rid of your best WR.

 

How do you explain the fact that Ryan Tannehill's QB rating when throwing to Mike Wallace in 2013 was a mere 59.6?

 

tannehill got better.
lazor removed the thing tannehill really sucks at.
mike wallace got better.

 

His overall QB rating didn't jump anywhere near the 55 points it did when throwing to Wallace. His improvement with Wallace was disproportionate to his overall improvement.

Tannehill didn't throw a significantly lower percentage of downfield passes in 2014, and Wallace's targets downfield weren't a significantly lower percentage of his overall targets in 2014.

And if that's true, how do we know he won't get "worse" in 2015? In his final year with Ben Roethlisberger, Roethlisberger's QB rating when throwing to Wallace was 83.2, and that was in their fourth year of playing together.

In other words, there is no indication that Wallace's 2014 partnership with Tannehill represents something that should be viewed as stable or predictable.

 

I have no reason to explain it....obviously with Lazor comin in, Ryan evolving, and Mike becoming more of a complete WR is why.

This is a great factor to my point.

So for a smidgen of cap space you want to cut a guy who your QB has obviously developed some chemistry with SIGNIFICANTLY? Especially when we may actually have some better blocking and another year together in Bill Lazor's system and the potential to do great things together in 2015. Just doesn't make sense.

 

His production fell off as did the entire offenses production that year due to a complete change in philosophy. How do you not know that?

 

Ben Roethlisberger's overall QB rating went up 7 points that year, from the year prior, yet his QB rating when throwing to Wallace fell considerably.

 

Their offense dropped from being ranked 12th to 21, their avg points PPG was the lowest it has been in 14 years...the whole offense tailed off significantly. The players didn't lose their talent they struggled with the transition to a different offense. Ben included.

 

I'd feel pretty crappy going into the offseason with a WR core of Jarvis Landry, Brian Hartline (who should be cut), Brandon Gibson (who should be cut/restructured), Rishard Matthews, and Matt Hazel just to save $2.5 million. Not to mention the fact that re-signing Big Play Clay is no guarantee. What can you do with that extra $2.5 million? Ride the ship, because whether you want to believe it or not, the Dolphins need Wallace at this point. Despite some low moments, he still finished with nearly 1,000 yards and 10 TDs. I don't know where you expect to find that production for an extra $2.5 million. If you're that concerned with his locker room antics, cut him next year where you can save a lot more money. I think you're putting Tannehill at a disadvantage, as well, if you get rid of Mike Wallace.

 

Just not true. He has offset language in his contract.

 

Again, I just need some evidence.

 

No, that really doesn't float.

You've got a talented young QB you want to take the training wheels off of. You really can't handcuff him to a guy who is mediocre and will block progress for the unit as a whole.

 

The point I'm making is that it's difficult to determine what a QB's rating when throwing to a specific receiver "means," and certainly difficult when we're talking about only one season. I don't think we know what it means enough to think there's any certainty associated with the idea that Ryan Tannehill's improvement was due largely to Wallace, that the trajectory of his improvement would change if Wallace wasn't present, or that he would regress without Wallace. The "QB rating when throwing to a receiver" statistic doesn't tell us any of that with any certainty.

 

No statistic tells us anything with certainty, this isn't baseball.

 

It should be widely known at this point that Miamis policy requires offset language.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-offset-battle-with-early-first-round-picks.html

 

Well, you brought it up. I'm perfectly comfortable settling on the idea that there is nothing objective that tells us Mike Wallace should be kept around.

 

But what exactly are the parameters of his deal individually? I get the basics.

 

What are you basing that off of? I don't know you well enough to lump you into the Im jealous Mike Wallace has a better life than me crew.

 

What do you mean? What information are you looking for exactly that would affect his dead money if we have established that he has offset language?