It has nothing to do with other bad contracts. It is a good contract. Given how he is helping our team, we are paying him a reasonable price. I disagree in every way with your evaluation.
No, it's not really a "probably". You can very safely say Mike Wallace costs not just more than he should, but a lot more. And again, I'm not sure how you can praise Wallace for his effort when he very clearly wasn't putting it in last year. Him slacking off, rumors about him being traded in the off-season, then suddenly playing hard again isn't really a picture you can paint of someone who has done the correct thing.
I'm not sure what you're basing it on other than your emotions? Wallace is on pace for 80 receptions for 957 yards. We're nearly halfway through the season and he hasn't broke 100 yards. He's not producing big plays, and really the one singular noteworthy thing about his performance this year is that he's been a good red-zone target. Mike Wallace has the highest cap hit in the league for any wide receiver this year. Over the length of his contract, his least expensive year would currently be the 6th highest. Would you say Wallace has performed like the best receiver in the league here? Top 10? Top 15, even? I'd love to see the argument for that.
i take back every bad word i said about wallace the guy this year has been awesome and has developed into an all around receiver, he is becoming one of my top favorite players on the team.
First, his average salary of 12 million is a better measure of the contract. Second, 10 TDs places him in the top ten receivers for a team that has struggled to produce a top ten offense. Most importantly, the concept of value is overvalued. You are treating it like a religion. If we drafted Wallace, I would have expected to pay him at least $8 million to keep him on the roster when he hit free agency in 2012. Next, we were beggars when we acquired him, so you will pay a premium. That means we needed to pay him 10-12 million. This is not a "bad contract". It is the cost of acquiring him. You have to field a team with the appropriate pieces and strategy to win in this league. We had to have a number one receiver, and Wallace has proved he is one. Every week the opposing team lines up their best corner or doubles Wallace. He succeeds under these conditions. Besides treating value as a religion, I just do not see your argument.
This isn't a game of acquiring the most talent. It is a game of acquiring the most talent with limited resources. The reality is that if we are under the assumption that Ryan Tannehill will be the Dolphins QB going forward, then you are going to have to make tough choices and let some talented guys go. When it comes down to it, I would rather have permutations of multiple players than one very expensive one. To a certain degree we have become somewhat immune to the issues because Ryan Tannehill has been very cheap. Now, if Miami doesn't give Tannehill a big contract, then you certainly have a lot more flexibility. But if Ryan Tannehill isn't getting that type of money, this very likely is a moot point.
and why your scouting staff is so very important..and when you do have an expensive qb, fielding a team around him will come down to who has the best evaluators, not luck and acts of randomness, evaluating will be so very important.
That's an even harsher comparison. Calvin Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald are the only guys who have contracts that will earn them more than $12 million in any single year at any point out of all the receiver contracts that currently exist, and I guarantee you Fitzgerald ain't going to make it through 2016 on his current contract. So again, we're back to Wallace being paid like Calvin Johnson, and producing solid starting numbers. You're dismissing what are literally fundamental concepts in football personnel and hell, economics as a whole. Resources are scarce, maximizing them is the surest path to success. Wallace represents a massive, easily correctable step in that direction. Mike Wallace hasn't performed like a "#1" receiver this year, and really on a larger level since 2011. Also, the bit about opposing teams lining up their best corners or doubling Wallace is getting dangerously close to the foolishness that's been said about the magic of his deep abilities. Corners rarely follow receivers, they play sides or positions. No corner has followed Wallace this year. Nor has he been double teamed by design, or even been subject to bracket coverage. He's being treated like anyone else out there.
It's funny that people that people don't factor in the fact that this is the ultimate team game. They single out Wallace's numbers and act like like Wallace throws the ball to himself, that Tanne, last year, wasn't the most sacked QB in the league, that that the OL wasn't embarrassingly atrocious. What does an OL have to do with giving a QB ample time to go through his progressions and giving a play time to develop and just helping that QB develop? I guess none? I am not bashing Tanne. He played very good last week and I truly hope he continues to play good and continues to improve. It's amazing how much he's had to shoulder for such a young QB. Tanne himself said that he has to do a much better job with his deep ball and connecting with Wallace, but wtf does he know? He's just the guy throwing him the ball. Again, this isn't me bashing Tanne. Some QBs take time to develop all the aspects of being a good QB. A lot of very good QBs have taken a while to develop all of their great skills. That's completely understandable and Tanne, obviously, wasn't helped by being hamstrung by an atrocious OL. Given those circumstances, Wallace's numbers last year were actually pretty amazing. But....lets reduce this to just the contract. Cool. Wallace has been wide open many many a time. We see things are getting better. Lets just hope it continues to grow.
Grading Wallace on nothing other than on-target passes last season doesn't paint a particularly rosey picture either. You're not bashing Tannehill, but you've got an emotions-based opinion and where it really becomes weird is you've(and plenty of others) have aligned yourself with an unsympathetic character. I'm not sure why a free agent with no history of good performance here and a crappy attitude would inspire sympathy and apologetics. That deep ball issue is a dead letter. They're not throwing the deep ball significantly less than last season, they're just throwing it deep to Wallace less. Which is the right thing to do given the circumstances. I would agree that Wallace's play last year was pretty amazing with the caveat that "amazing" is not necessarily a positive adjective.
LOL. I'm glad the point didn't go completely over your head. Pheww. ?? Uh,,,what? Yes, that was clearly emotion based. LOL. Nice reading comprehension. Keep up the good work. You're doing great.
Just happy they've finally stopped trying to force the issue downfield and let him catch and run. He's having a very good season. Let's just leave it at that. Finally a Dolphins QB and his weapon are connecting. I don't care if it's for 50 yards or 8 and then he runs for 50. Just get him the ball and let it unfold from there.
Great cap management for a team that cannot win a football game means nothing. You keep ignoring simple concepts like you have to have a number one receiver. You have to have functional OTs or you cannot control the line of scrimmage.
No, I am not. You are treating it like it is the only criteria that is important. Each decision has multiple factors, and you have to balance those factors and make good decisions on a consistent basis to succeed as a NFL GM.
WADR, I don't think you're understanding what they are saying. They are not saying cap management is the only thing there is. They are saying talent acquisition must be balanced with the cap, since there is, you know, a cap. All they are saying is that for his output and impact on the offense, its probably possible to duplicate that for less money. For the money he is making, his impact and output would have to be the BEST in the league.
Yes, and what I'm arguing is that his cost easily outweighs those other factors. His performance has neither been particularly good nor irreplaceable. You're paying Calvin Johnson money for a poor man's Joey Galloway.
Of course it does, it dictates their future ability to improve (see: NYJ). Having a bad team isn't good, but having a bad team you're stuck with is even worse.
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2014/10/24/calvin-johnson-salary-cap/17821603/ There are questions if Calvin Johnson will make it through his contract. Yet somehow it's unconscionable that we're discussing Wallace being jettisoned.
What do you think he is worth against the cap then? Please put a dollar amount on it. While we are at it, I'd guess guys like Odrick, Clay and Jenkins are making less than their worth against the cap. How much are they worth? What it boils down to is the Dolphins, same as every other team, has some players making a lot against the cap who appear overpaid, and some players producing far greater than their cost and appear to be underpaid.
In the NFL, performance and pay can never, absolutely, coincide; there's simply no standard way to match them. It is impossible to put a $ value on any given statistic or combination of statistics. Economics is important; of course it is. However, economics in the NFL take place in a market that is constantly shifting and which exists not only in the macrocosm of the whole league, but also in the microcosm of the individual team, their cap, and even more particular, the specifics of any given positional need/gap, and the availability of players and assets for trade and signings. Because of this massively complex structure I think it is a mistake to try to compare contracts across the league. I think it's a false economy and I'm certain that it's ultimately irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether a team is getting whatever performance and success it desires out of their players and coaches, and that they have someone in management who is able to balance and adjust things as necessary in order to maintain flexibility and a reasonable performance-to-cost ratio across the board. It's better to pay twice as much for something that does the job you want it to than a quarter as much for something that doesn't function - assuming that a cheaper but functional equivalent isn't available. Almost every deal in the NFL is a gamble. Personal circumstances, team chemistry, coaching, injury, sickness, different schemes, can all affect individual and team performance. At the end of the day, you hope you have a wizard at GM, in cap management, scouting etc. and you pay whatever you have to (trying to keep it as low possible) in order to get what you want most. Then hope that it works. Are we happy with Wallace performance? Awesome! Might we think we can do better sometime in terms of performance to cost? Maybe - give it a shot - just make sure you remember that everything's a gamble. And personally, I'd say forget whatever anyone else is getting paid across the league, with all the dynamics involved every division and every team are, essentially, their own markets, and they change from year to year. And, what's certain, is that we will see even higher contracts every year.
I know, it was argued that a $12 million a year average was a more fair(and somehow less damning) context.
So what's wrong with discussing which ones are overpaid, and which ones are bargains? I like Wallace. I defend Wallace. I was optimistic about Wallace over the summer. Yet I can admit, he ain't playing what his contract is worth. The more players you have exceeding their pay grade, the better your team is. There are finite resources.
Because it is done ad nauseam. Same people railing on about how Wallace is overpaid. Yet most teams have a Wallace type of player, a priority free agent who was given a huge contract the first time he hits the open market. The constant whining about Wallace's salary is not going to change anything. I'd rather focus on the good things he has done on the field. At least at this point the anti-Wallace contingent can take the one trick pony nonsense off the table. Sensational catch he made today wasn't it?
Hartline is being misused(like virtually every target on the roster) and due to be overpaid but that doesn't give you grounds for comparison. It isn't remotely close. Hartline has multiple years of performing up to his contract. Wallace hasn't performed close to his and won't.
Where was this when Mike Wallace spent pretty much the entirely 2013 season where he'd have a drop, mental error, or ****-up of some type virtually every single game? At what, twice the cost?
The main problem I had with Wallace last season was his lack of effort. I just didn't see it out of him. This year is completely different. Yes, he isn't putting up $15 million dollars a year numbers, but at least he is playing well and is a big reason for Miami winning 4 games this year. IMO, Miami would have to need to make a lot of moves to give up on Mike Wallace at this point.
Where was your misuse explanation then? Might be more of an issue since Hartline is more of a one-trick pony w a limited route tree. I just really find it funny the lengths you'll go to to try to **** on Wallace.
Wallace wasn't misused last year, at least to not to a really meaningful degree. Especially not in comparison to this year. Hartline is unhappy and its clearly affecting his focus. But he's in the exact same boat as Rishard Matthews, Brandon Gibson, and Charles Clay. They all are a strange combination of under-utilized and mis-utilized. As is Wallace, but that's not mentioned because he's not ****ing up as badly as he was last year. I wouldn't be surprised if we fired the offensive coaching staff and suddenly found out Jarvis Landry could be a ROTY candidate if you stopped treating him like a YAC guy and let him work a deeper route tree.
The funniest thing ever posted on this forum was when some doofus referred to him as our Jordy Nelson a year or two ago. Other than being Anglo-Saxon adult men who play WR in the NFL there is no comparison.
Again, I love Wallace, but still recognize his contract was a bit much. There are 365 days, and most of us are on it for most of that and only 16 games before the playoffs. Everything will be discussed ad nauseam
We definitely need him, at present. Without his 5 TDs our passing offense would have 6 total TDs in 7 games. So, yeah. Keep him, but draft and develop a burner to replace him after next season.
