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

If I'm reading this right that only applies to guaranteed money which is 3M. Maybe I'm wrong. Also does this apply for ANY year in the contract or just the final as mentioned as an example.

 

It applies to all monies they will owe. If they cut him they incur $9.2M of dead money. All of that money is eligible to be offset.

 

It says specifically that his guarantees come with an offset, his Guarentee this season is 3M. This is a fairly new entity in the league and it appears we ALL need some clarification.

 

What else would need an offset? What becomes dead money when you cut him? The guarantees are the $9.2M in dead money.

 

You are so out in Left field with your posts once again...I happen to know all you need to know about June 1 cuts, but hey..it's easier just to make up more ignorant bs. Par for the course.

Im sorry you are mad, they do have an ignore feature available if me proving you wrong is getting under your skin.

 

I'm not sure that is accurate.

 

What specifically isn't accurate?

 

I don't see an example of us being totally off the hook if Wallace was signed to a 9M dollar deal

 

I'm really proud of this. Which is sad. Offsets are really, potentially huge.

 

Absolutely, that's why I'm approaching this with a too good to be true mindset. If this is true they should've showcased Hartline like MOfO the last 2 games. May have found a team stupid enough to pay him 7.5M

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/dave-hyde-blog/sfl-hyde5-20150126-story.html

Holy ****! Even Dave Hyde is logical enough to know what to do.

 

A WR wants out of Miami?? All too familiar.

The guy came here when he had two better offers on the table, now can't wait to leave. Speaks volumes for our organization, asking myself if I would want to waste my prime years in Miami is a very fair question. Part of me hopes he does get out of this mess.

 

Potentially, yes. But it still comes down to how much they get elsewhere, and it also helps the player a lot. Mike Wallace may potentially take less because Miami is paying the difference.

 

The problem is that Wallace is all speed and no route-running, and so it isn't evident that he's open until he's near the top of his route and has broken free of coverage with speed. He doesn't have the route-running ability to achieve separation early in his routes, and so in a timing offense such as Miami's, he doesn't appear "open" until the quarterback's internal "clock" has already told him to move on to the second read in his progression.

Watch Wallace sometime early in his routes. He's almost always matched step for step by the opposing DB, and it's only when he's many yards downfield that he's achieved separation with his speed. That works in Scott Linehan-type offenses, or ones where QBs aren't beholden to timing (WCOs) and can move around more in the pocket and hit him downfield when he's broken free of coverage. It doesn't work in Miami's offense, and ones like it, however.

 

1. I was referring to those of us discussing jettisoning Wallace.

2. I've said it numerous times I was impressed with what Wallace was able to do last year. That still doesn't mean that I think he's worth what we're paying him.

People need to get over the idea that thinking that Wallace isn't worth what he's making is the same as "hating" on Wallace. Just because someone doesn't think that Wallace is worth #1 receiver money, does not mean that they think that Wallace is trash. I'd love to keep Wallace, IF Tannehill and him can get on the same page and start connecting deep. That is the only way that Wallace is worth the money he's getting. I understand that part of that is on Tannehill, however, part is also on Wallace, and part is on the oline. So, for Tannehill and Wallace to start meshing, it kind of requires to other entities, other than Tannehill, to up their games. I'm not convinced that is going to occur.

 

He knows he's ill-suited here. It's been two years.

 

Any fan of the Dolphins should have an interest in its players' maximization of their salaries in terms of production. That's the only way to succeed at a high level as a team in the presence of a salary cap.

 

I'll Venmo you a crisp $100 bill if you find someone who ever said Wallace wasnt overpaid. So not sure what folks talking.

 

So then why are people who suggest getting rid of Wallace due to his excessive pay looked at as unreasonable? While it's no secret that I feel that Wallace has a teensy-tiny catch radius, and doesn't present a good target downfield, those aren't the reasons why I would be in favor of getting rid of Wallace. However, if we got rid of Wallace, and didn't replace his production, I would agree that the situation would not have been handled correctly, and I wouldn't be in favor of it.

 

Wallace either needs a better system (a heavy play action system) or a QB that can drop a deep ball in there with ease or a team that has a solid #1 option.

Unfortunatley, Miami doesnt fit any of those criteria's right now. I would be upset if I was Wallace too, granted hes getting paid handsomely.

 

That'd the team is overpaid if you compare salary to production, you simply take advantage of the contract and cut him next year. It's stupid to do it this year for a lot of reasons. Why isn't their 25 threads of Hartline is overpaid and must go?? By comparison one is certainly MUCH more of an asset than the other. So it must be agenda based is the only conclusion I can come too....because from a football standpoint?? It's dumb.

That being said if he wants out like many think?? You have no choice but to find a way to make it happen.

 

There have been tons of posts referencing the fact that Hartline isn't worth his contract, going back at least a year, or whenever it was he got that new contract.

 

Lets be real here, the amount doesnt even compare. We have people here think Daniel Ellerby should stay before Mike Wallace that's the degree of hate this guy gets maybe not necessarily from you but it's out there.

 

Hartline is awful.

 

Man, do you remember the debates that raged when Hartline got that contract? It was every bit as bad as what Wallace is getting from people now. I think that Hartline just doesn't get as much heat now because:

1. He costs much less
2. People didn't have the high hopes for Hartline that they did for Wallace

But, agreed, Hartline needs to go. I really agree, that the place to start is to cut Hartline and Gibson, freeing up as much as you would by cutting Wallace. I still believe that if we had a big, strong, fast receiver to put opposite Wallace, with Landry in the slot, Wallace would be much more productive. If teams actually had to worry about our other receiver, it would do alot for Wallace.

 

I don't think Gibson needs to go. I think he has solid RAC ability, he's earning his (relatively low) salary, and the team needs some depth and stability at the position if it's going to cut or trade both Hartline and Wallace.

Next year I think Landry should move to the possession role, and the team should move forward with slot and downfield guys who have both speed and RAC ability on shorter routes. In that scenario, I'd want Gibson as a backup possession and slot guy. You need some depth at this all-important position.

 

Why move Landry from a role he is very good at? In most offenses yhe slot guy is featured every bit as much as the #2 WR if not more. Hes fine there

 

Because I think you can find a guy who's even better at getting open and being elusive in the short area, a Wes Welker type.

When your offense revolves around the short passing game, you need players that fit it optimally, with very fine-tuned skills for their positions. Your success is riding on it.

 

Gibson is worse

 

Gibson is not a good receiver and he is making too much money. He needs to be cut. He needed to be cut last year.

 

So keep Gibson, but cut Wallace and Hartline? I disagree. In fact, as much as I get labeled a Wallace hater, I don't really think we should get rid of him at all. I dislike what we're paying him, but I have high hopes that if we were to draft a big, strong, fast WR in the first this year, that Wallace could flourish in an offense featuring him, the rookie, and Landry.

If I'm cutting Hartline, I'm cutting Gibson too. He was highly disappointing. Hartline and Gibson together gone net you the what you'd get cutting Wallace. This way you at least keep a dynamic receiver, who at least last year showed that he could play without the deep ball, and free up a bunch of money.

 

The backups on your team aren't going to be world-beaters. You can always restructure his contract.

 

Sure, if he is willing to restructure and take a pay cut, then I'm open to keeping him. Ideally, I'd still keep Wallace to pair with a stud rookie WR.

 

Hartline makes double what Gibson makes and presents himself as a non-threat in every way to opposing defenses. Cornerbacks who line up against Hartline get an extra bye week. Gibson has to be cut too, but Hartline being a starter literally hurts the team.

 

I don't think you can keep Wallace. He's woefully miscast in this offense, with this quarterback. You just can't pay a player that much money who isn't a fit. You have to move on and get someone else in there who fits, and get him up and running in the offense and with the quarterback. Every snap Mike Wallace takes on this team is a detriment to that forward progression.

It's difficult to "see" this, because we don't currently have such a player who fits with the offense and with Tannehill, but I think the moment it happens people will realize what was missing. In fact we saw some of it already this year with Landry.

 

Tannehill has a 79 rating when throwing to Gibson. Gibson is paid WAY too much money for how bad he is.

 

I clearly said "Gibson has to be cut too" but Hartline shouldn't even be on the field let alone making 6 million a year, he is a joke of a WR.

 

Except for Mike made great progression in adjusting his style and putting more of an emphasis on his short game, and the results were pretty good. Also Ryan looked better and more confident throwing deep late in the year, it wouldn't be smart to rob him of an elite deep WR if he is starting to feel more comfortable on his deep passes.

It's their second year together under Lazor and both are improving under Bill, kind of silly to try to prevent that progression that has a ceiling of elite.