Too early to do that. We don't even know where we're picking let alone which players are going to slot where. Best I can do is just give you guys that I like. And honestly I've already done that in this thread. In answer to one of your questions no I do not buy that Devin Funchess is a WR and I don't know who would buy that. But I do buy him as a TE because he can really move and create space laterally and vertically in the compressed areas over the middle of the field, and he's a big strong guy...so what more could you want there? In answer to another question about Ty Montgomery, sometimes I really get the feeling he's not quite the explosive play-maker he's often purported to be. His speed isn't necessarily that 4.3/4.4 area. It's more 4.4/4.5 or so. His technical skills for the wide receiver position look almost nil, at times. It's like if he were a recruit, you'd still put him in the "ATH" category. You'd put him high in that category, but it's still "ATH". Quite frankly I'm tempted to just plug him in at running back and then be done with it. Like a slower version of Cordarrelle Patterson.
I mean, watch Ty Montgomery's game against Notre Dame and then tell me he's a wide receiver. You can't do it. You'd have to be basing it on other games. You wouldn't even draft him based on the Notre Dame tape unless it were as a running back. In fact you'd be asking, "Why the hell did Stanford try that running back out at wide receiver? Time to move on from that experiment, right?" He just doesn't do almost anything that a receiver finds comes to him naturally after a decade of playing the position. I'm pretty close to just putting Montgomery at RB and not wavering from that.
I kinda feel ya. I look at him and don't get as excited as others either. He reminds me of a poor man's Jeremy Maclin. I mean, that's still a good player to have.... but not at the cost of a top 50 pick. Too many other players or pieces to the puzzle I'd rather have for that high a pick. Personally, I'll be disappointed if our next receiver drafted isn't 6'2+..... unless he's meant to be Wallace's replacement for 2016 b/c in that case I'd be fine with Amari Cooper. I'd love to have Kevin White replace Hartline, but in this offense I'm thinking it might be better to lock down the ideal X receiver of the future if the opportunity presents itself since that's where the heavier load of targets will go.
I think it's a tad extreme.... but I do like Parker a lot. He's the kind of player we need to replace Hartline with.
You think of Amari Cooper as a replacement for Mike Wallace? I'm pretty sure Amari Cooper has 4.5/4.6 speed. I think he's the Reggie Wayne X that you're looking for, actually. Mike Evans type receivers don't come out every year. Boy would I love to have him right now though. The closest to that would be Dorial Green-Beckham and there's no running away from his problems. His past is going to bring hell down on whoever takes him, unless they do it with a low pick. That incident he had was not one you can sugarcoat. Kicked in a closed door, knocked a girl down the stairs, dragged his girlfriend out by the neck...it's awful. The man should be in jail. And that's the kind of stuff that DOES repeat itself in a guy's life. If you're the type of guy that does that, you're probably gonna do it again.
For the sake of offensive continuity and competitiveness, I disagree with cutting both starters in the same offseason considering we're not in the middle of a rebuild. It would make more sense to cut Hartline [or Hart & Gibson] in 2015, give their replacements a season to acclimate to the offense and develop rapport with Tannehill, and then cut Wallace in 2016. I understand the cost of his salary but I also understand the cost of wins and production. Besides, Wallace's own production might not be where we desire it while Tannehill has issues with the deep ball, but this is a YAC-oriented offense that's predicated on creating space from sideline to sideline over the first 10 or so yards of the field, and Wallace's speed and clear-out ability help create that space and prevents defenses from doing to us what they did in 2012, which is play us compressed like we're constantly inside the redzone, so I'd say he's fairly pivotal to our offensive success ATM.
I actually agree that Mike Wallace probably should not be cut...unless you have a line on a free agent that would be perfect to replace. And you'd have to have high conviction in that guy. Like a Golden Tate. Looking at the structure of Wallace's contract, 2015 is a year he was meant to play. It's meant to be a year where his salary expense is...well, it's not CHEAP by any means, but it's smaller than the other years. Similar to Philip Wheeler that way. The most relevant issue for deciding whether to keep or cut is always going to boil down to how much cash you're supposed to give the guy over the coming year and whether he's going to be worth it. Mike Wallace is scheduled to make $9.9 million next year cash on the table. Is that so much more than he's worth that you'll part with him? Maybe. But for the reasons Todd listed as far as offensive continuity, providing the space for the other receivers (especially Jarvis Landry whose area of specialty is less than 5 yards beyond the line of scrimmage)...maybe you decide he's worth $9.9 million in 2015. OTOH fast-forward to 2016 and he's owed $11.5 million cash on the barrelhead. At that point I'm cutting him. Interestingly enough, he could also be a trade candidate in 2015 specifically because his salary is only $9.9 million. It's small enough for a team to swallow. I would explore offers there.
My bad for the confusion. I didn't mean to replace Wallace's skill set but to rather replace his spot as the X b/c of Cooper's reliability, suddenness, crispness, and explosiveness over the first 20 yards. I think he could do an outstanding job of efficiently maximizing 8-10 targets per game as the X in Lazor's scheme. Would you want White as the future X or would you rather have him permanently replacing Hartline? I think I'm leaning more toward Hartline. I was thinking Cooper had like 4.45'ish speed, but if it's legitimately 4.5+ I'd be less You and me both. I think Sammy is the ultimate X for this offense though. I'm starting to come around on that with you. He could ultimately reform and become a great guy while still having underlying impulse control problems that rear its head up from time to time. I do like Davante Parker, and I'm hesitant about Jaleen Strong, Coats, and Montgomery.
I think you have the positions confused. Mike Wallace is the Z. Brian Hartline is the X. Jarvis Landry/Charles Clay are Y receivers.
It's funny, everything mentioned about Wallace is so much about cutting him that I needed your post to remind me that he could actually be tradable, especially now that Lazor's offense has slightly broadened his scope as a receiver.
The reason that kind of issue tends to rear its ugly head again is because it's about how you interact with someone you love, and how those people you love tend to interact with you. Not to pull a Stephen A. Smith or anything but I think guys who get into that situation not only put themselves there by being @ssholes, they also put themselves there by being attracted to women who are good at bringing out the guy's inner @sshole. And nothing obliterates whatever barriers and safeguards you THINK you've put up in terms of anger management quite like an argument with the woman you love. So it's just like I said if he's the type of guy that could find himself kicking in the door to his girlfriend's apartment after the roommate had told him to leave, knocking the roommate down the stairs, then dragging his girlfriend down the stairs and out of the apartment by the neck...this is the kind of stuff that's going to happen again unless he has a real medical issue and can seek real medical treatment a la Brandon Marshall. And even then.
Definitely. I was one who talked a lot about trading Wallace prior to 2014 because of all the bonuses and guarantees he was due. But all of that made him pretty much untradable. Now you're heading into a year where he's owed "only" $9.9 million cash and suddenly that's a real possibility again. You could actually get a pretty significant pick for him especially from a team that is convinced they have a QB who throws a great deep ball but nobody to catch it. The whole "Tannehill can't throw the deep ball to Wallace" thing isn't just a Miami phenomenon. It's spread everywhere. Teams look to trade for players that could be more valuable to them than he is to his current team so it's always important that they feel like they understand why the player isn't living up to his full potential with his current team.
LOL. You'll have to forget what I said about Evans then because he's your classic, dominating X. He's not a Z.
I don't want to rehash the whole Wallace deal here, but he's not going to be the kind of player this team needs and he's not going to tolerate someone else in that role. Miami needs a big play threat, and it isn't Mike Wallace. He hasn't been a "play maker" in the last three offenses he has played in. I don't think he's going to be a good citizen if the team drafts or signs someone who suddenly starts getting utilized or is successful in that capacity.
You're right that he's probably not going to deal well with someone eating up some of his snaps. Then again I happen to think you could put him in Hartline's spot in this offense on some snaps, or even Landry's spot on some snaps, and he'll produce. Moving him around has been a good thing. His yards per target is up almost a yard this year. He's creating more missed tackles. He's got more TDs in 10 games than he had in 16 games a year ago. And I think he's creating room for guys underneath him. I had big problems with his play last year. I have fewer problems with his play this year. That's just being fair. I still think he ought to go. But he's doing better this year.
which would you prefer, trading Wallace for a hypothetical 2nd/3rd rounder or for a similarly priced player of a different position that we could use an immediate impact from?
I'll take either provided I believe there's a good replacement for Wallace available in free agency. Whether I take one or the other probably depends on who we're talking about. We need receivers that are going to play in this system and with this quarterback. I'm not sure Wallace will, nor Hartline, nor Gibson.
Once you exclude the likes of Dez Bryant, Michael Crabtree, Randall Cobb, Torrey Smith and Demaryius Thomas (no way any of those guys escape) then the list of wide receivers available in 2015 free agency is kind of..."meh". We're talking like Eddie Royal, Wes Welker, Reggie Wayne (also won't escape, IMO), Jeremy Maclin, Hakeem Nicks, Cecil Shorts, Kenny Britt, Joe Morgan, Aldrick Robinson, Nate Washington, Dwayne Harris... Basically if none of the guys I mentioned up top escapes (and I don't think that likely) then I think we're looking at Cecil Shorts and Jeremy Maclin as the most intriguing options to look at and I'd have to do some serious workup on them to determine if they can replace one of our guys and/or work in our system. Hakeem Nicks' numbers look like absolute trash this year. Snakebit. He could be done, physically speaking. Some bad medical problems in his file if I'm not mistaken.
Jeremy Maclin has to be intriguing as he plays in a similar offense and it seems to be suiting him very well. Yet he may escape anyway. He'd probably be our #1 option.
He's certainly better this year, but I'm not sure it's good enough, or that you can bank on it going forward. I think there's a pretty big threat he'll lapse into **** work ethic like he did last year, and what he gave us last year was detrimental to the offense. Especially when the probable new blood at receiver is going to start encroaching into his perceived territory, if not usurping it.
I think it's worth looking into the Larry Fitzgerald situation. He's likely to under-perform his contract for the third year in a row, and it's a huge contract. I think he's a good gamble if you can pay him a more reasonable contract. Pair him with a draft pick, and have Landry/Matthews fill in the gap in immediate play time and I think you're looking good.
Ryan Tannehill and Mike Wallace are a bad match. - Ryan Tannehill's biggest WEAKNESS is arcing the deep ball in stride to a fast receiver. - Mike Wallace's biggest STRENGTH is burning the secondary with blazing speed, and catching the deep ball in stride. Where one is strongest, the other is weakest, and vice versa. One of them has to go.
I could certainly see Fitzgerald as a viable option. I think Section even intimated this as a scenario to keep an eye on. I do agree with Chris in that a new contract would have to be a necessity though.
I'd almost want to suggest a Wallace/Fitzgerald swap would be a pretty reasonable thing to pursue, but I think it's problematic from a PR standpoint. Arizona is one of the few places where Wallace is a danger to recreate the kind of play he had with the Steelers. Getting rid of him and having him turn around and be what he was supposed to be here is going to be ugly for a coaching staff and a GM both.
As far as the draft and where I think we will be picking…you have to think that Parker would be high on that list. I also really, really like Jalen Strong. That said I think if Gurley or Gordon is there I would run the card up.
I like Larry as an option. He still has it. No major injuries and when Palmer is in his numbers are still good. He's a short term guy and I wouldn't want to swap him for Wallace simply because in the right situation he could end up being worth something in a trade elsewhere. I think Larry could be had for a 3rd and Wallace could go for a 2nd. Philly, if willing to let Maclin walk, could be interested in Wallace. They're clearly suffering from the lack of Jackson creating space for the other receivers. Cooper's numbers are WAY down and after paying him well, they will want some production. With Jordan Matthews showing flashes of really good play, Maclin may be expendable. Matthews, Cooper, and Wallace is a solid trio with Ertz and Celek also working underneath.
In don't know if I would pay Fitzgerald what we pay Wallace. I don't want to pay Wallace what we pay Wallace.
Defense, Defense, Defense. Trade everyone you can on the defensive roster for picks, trade out of first round for picks, and replace as many defensive players with rookies. Time to start from scratch on defense.
Good thing Miami's defense didn't enter today's game ranked #4 in scoring, #1 yards/play, #2 yards, #3 Passer Rating, #1 1st Downs, #6 Turnovers, #3 Passing TDs, #2 Rushing TDs, #7 Rushing avg, #1 passing yards per attempt, and #4 completion %. Because if they did that it might make your post look really silly. #knowwhutImean
I'm not sure if you're replying to me but I wasn't suggesting that. Larry isn't Good Hands Larry that he used to be so I wouldn't want to either. Arizona is about to cause a $24 million cap hit so either he restructures, is traded contingent on a new contract, or he's outright cut.
Another guy who I think I would keep an eye on is Vernon Davis. His production has plummeted this year...but Im not so sure its due to him. I havent seen many SF games so any input would be great though. He will have 1 year and roughly 5 mil left on his deal so we would have to trade for him...but again if we could get him pretty cheap he is a guy I think could shine in an offense like ours, and give us a true RZ threat. With only 5 mil you could probably afford to still bring back Clay as well if you want to on a long term deal.
I suppose this all changes week to week and this week Miami's defense got roasted so now we're going to want to focus on defense. But I think a few positions on defense that have been begging for attention all along include: 1. Corner opposite Grimes 2. Slot/depth corner 3. Free safety You put that together with Randy Starks aging and having one year left on the contract, and I think those are your defensive priorities. But on offense I think they need another body at tight end. I don't care about type. I just want someone dynamic. I think the receivers unit (particularly Hartline/Gibson) begs for overhaul. I think if the Dolphins could add a special tailback then the offense could absolutely take off. I think obviously we have a problematic right guard position, and then I think we need to continue adding depth to the line. Putting it all together... 01. Starting Corner opposite Grimes (bonus if he can move inside in nickel) 02. Starting Free Safety (replacement for Delmas) 03. Dynamic Running Back 04. Replacement for Hartline 05. Competition for Billy Turner at Right Guard 06. Developmental Tight End 07. Developmental Defensive Tackle 08. Developmental Wide Receiver 09. Developmental Corner 10. Developmental OL
