Hickey And Wallace Had A Sit Down To Discuss Future

This may bring both of the above points home a bit better. Here is a list of selected, notable players who had smaller salary cap hits for their teams than Mike Wallace in 2014:

Calvin Johnson
AJ Green
Jordy Nelson
Jeremy Maclin
Julio Jones
Demaryius Thomas
Antonio Brown
DeSean Jackson
Sammy Watkins
Philip Rivers
Tom Brady
Aaron Rodgers (almost)
Joe Flacco
Tony Romo
Andrew Luck
Russell Wilson
Marshawn Lynch
Joe Thomas
Clay Matthews
LeSean McCoy
Jamaal Charles
Geno Atkins
Haloti Ngata
Patrick Peterson
Aqib Talib
Darrelle Revis
Brent Grimes
Cameron Wake

And of course the number of those players who quit during a game in 2014 is zero.

 

And of course Wallace had an abnormally high cap number in 2014 after his abnormally low cap number in 2013, but continue to push that agenda. It's entertaining.

 

Utterly irrelevant. 2014 is over. Who got paid what in 2014 will have less effect on the 2015 season than the signing bonus for rookie UDFAs

What we have to evaluate is what Wallace does for his money in 2015. If he is overpaid is there a way of replacing him and getting better production for less taking into account the cap hit?

 

Looks like this guy should spend less time on OTC and more in the miami herald...ya know, where your last sentence was proved wrong??

 

It isn't irrelevant to an evaluation of how the team functioned in 2014, and why it performed the way it did. There is a lesson to be learned in team economics that year.

That's another topic, and I think the answer is yes.

 

The title of the thread is "Hickey and Wallace had a sit down to discuss the future". Also some of the people on your list are on their rookie contracts, which means you just cannot compare the production/$ in any meaningful way with a FA.

Also many player's contracts get massaged to shift money from one year to another for cap purposes so again just looking at cash accounting is misleading.

I know many people get fixated on what we spent and what we got in the past, but 2014 is over and gone and it will not affect what will happen in 2015.
If we take the argument that Wallace should be sacked because he didn't perform up to his contract in 2013 and 2014 it doesn't answer the question of how we are going to replace his production in 2015.
Who is available who will be better and cheaper?
If they are available will we be able to sign them before another team does?
Do we want to take a risk on one of rookie receivers considering rookie WRs typically take 2-3 years to develop and allowing for the fact that high round rookies are 50-50 prospects of making the NFL transition in the first place?

 

You've pretty much summed up the difference between what an actual exec has to deal with and the whims of naive arm chair GMs.

 

You are aware his lowest cap hit for the duration of his contract is $12.1 million, right? You can very easily put together a list like that for every year left in his contract.

 

Isn't every draft high draft pick basically a shot in the dark? There are no guarantees. How many first round QBs haven't panned out? Yet, that doesn't stop a vocal minority on here from shouting about how we should replace Tannehill.

I think we should draft a rookie receiver in the first, and keep Wallace. See where we're at after next season.

 

I think all talk of getting rid of Wallace should cease until there are actual options to replace him. As it stands now, getting rid of him and the other WR casualties we'll have, would leave us at 2012 WR levels, which is catastrophic.

We get it, his production does not in anyway equal his cost. That sucks. That is bad for the team.

What's worse for the team, however, is not replacing his production at any cost high or low. You can massage the cap, what you can't do is squeeze 60 points out of any player. 60 point players do not grow on trees. We have struggled mightily for a number of years trying to find a 60 point WR.

Is Wallace the greatest ever? No. Is Wallace great? No. Is he the best we have? Absolutely, and until you have suitable replacements to actually target, talking of getting rid of him is insane.

Again, let's not forget 2012. We had all the players that many are *****ing that Philbin got rid of, and yet our team sucked out loud, because we had a WR corp worth a used tissue and an empty bag of Doritoes. That proves the savings used with dumping Wallace isn't gonna help this team, unless we can also replace his production as well.

So give us a list of actual available targets, then talk about Wallace meeting the Turk.

 

The comparison is made to illustrate that teams are getting a very good bang for their buck for very good players. That isn't happening with Mike Wallace.

A big part of winning in the NFL is drafting well and getting relatively good play from players during their rookie contracts (Russell Wilson's being the epitome of that right now). There is no reason why those sorts of players shouldn't be compared to Mike Wallace if the emphasis is on the bang for the buck teams are getting from players. Hell, you could even put Jarvis Landry on the list. The Dolphins are doing well with him in that regard right now, at the same position. 2nd-round rookie contract money for good production.

Wallace on the other hand is draining the team's salary cap allotment for relatively poor production, when the salary figure is considered.

 

IIRC it was 5 yrs/60 million. The base salary for year 1 was low, offset by the signing bonus. Again, year two was abnormally high & overall he got a market value contract based on his status as a dymanic player and the best available talent at his position in 2013. A lot of people say he's overpaid, which is fine but I haven't heard any credible arguments for how the team would be better off without him. Listing players from other teams who are/were not available to us is irrelevant to any reality based discussion IMO.

 

Torrey Smith + Draft pick (draft pick to replace Hartline)

 

Is Torrey Smith for sure available?

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/miami-dolphins/mike-wallace/

His cap hit over the remaining years of his contract is 6th, 4th, and 3rd highest among wide receivers.

Even if you account for like a 25% bonus in free agency he's never going to come close to that performance.

 

And there is also the opportunity cost associated with what the team could be getting from a wide receiver who was better matched with the QB's strengths.

You can pay an ill-suited receiver a boatload of money, thereby preventing you from having as much talent elsewhere on the team, or you could pay a better matched receiver far less, get better production out of him, and have more talent elsewhere with the salary cap savings. This is a no-brainer.

 

Hell look at the Cheatriots...they epitomize matching WRs to their QB.

 

And that's how you do it. The replacement for Hartline can even be a first-rounder.

You trot Demaryius Thomas, Jarvis Landry, and Kevin White out there and see how this team starts to function.

 

They also just beat the best defense in the league in the Super Bowl doing that, largely on YAC in the short passing game. And here we are fantasizing about some Tannehill-to-Wallace connection downfield, as if it's either 1) probable, or 2) necessary.

 

Make sure you remember to hit Save on your madden game.

Obviously Phin fans would be extremely happy to see that, but not very realistic when we have other issues on this team

 

Great Scott!

 

I think it will improve in 2015...not completely blow up...but improve. They we're going deep at a noticeable increased rate toward the end of 2014...gotta do it to improve it.

But I agree with ya.

 

The biggest issue on the team is the inefficiency of the pass offense, and that's the worst biggest issue a team can have in today's NFL. That should be fixed as a number-one priority.

Just because the team has "Mike Wallace" listed on its roster, and he was a great player between 2009 and 2011, doesn't mean the pass offense should be put on the backburner in terms of problems to be solved.

 

That's not the biggest issue at all, it needs and will get improved simply by Ryan being a year better, the OL getting healthier, Clay resigned, Landry and Wallace in 2nd year of system and ANYBODY but Hartline in the #2 WR slot....preferably a high draft pick who can eventually replace Wallace in 2016

 

All of that is belied by the stability of Tannehill's YPA during his three years in the league, across two systems and different personnel in the receiving corps.

What he hasn't had during that period is a corps of YAC receivers. That can now be accomplished by putting those alongside Jarvis Landry, similar to how New England fields LaFell, Amendola, and Edelman as a 1-2-3.

 

no Res, drafts picks are not shots in the dark, especially the first round kind.

 

YAC is created by...designed plays, QB ball placement before it ever reaches the hands of the WR. Putting the horse before the cart.

There is a reason NE thrives in doing that, and it isn't because Edleman Amendola and Lafell are world beaters with ball in hand, it's because they scheme that way and have a QB with incredible placement of the football.

 

lot of truth in this, but theres also truth in hardline and wallace to not have precision when it comes to run after catch..I agree with you though, using an example of lafell and amendola as to what we should be striving to be completely ignores the real reasons why the offense functions in that capacity..

I would love to see a slow motion breakdown of every throw in the Super Bowl by brady...it was a clinic in ball placement relative to yac..clinic.

 

Ive said this before, I like mike wallace, I've watched all interviews, all player interviews, i think he's a good teammate, players respect him and I think he genuinely cares about being a good teammate...I don't like that we have someone respected like Rush who has seen him dog it, but if we release the guy then I would chalk that up to a bad coaching decision..

 

Not sure that is even the focus in this offense, figure out a way to get Cobb.

 

We don't have Tom Brady.

 

tannephins argument is to capitalize on what ryan does do well which is throw short to intermediate routes, he's trying to capitalize and improve production while projecting the same level of play from the qb.

 

He isnt seeing the difference in QB play is the problem, just because RT is completing short passes doesn't mean he is going to thrive with RAC WRs, we seem to throw more ins, outs, comebacks then slants and crosses.

 

Really? I was pretty sure there have been plenty of guys drafted in the first round who busted..,.

 

Hard to throw intermediate slants to guys who aren't running good routes...that being said, didn't we throw lots of slants/crosses to Landry? Hartline lived off of comebacks, but didn't get a whole lot of those last year.

 

doesn't validate the phrase ''shot in the dark'' imo..

evaluating players on the field and psychologically is a skill, its not a perfect science by any means, but there are humans that are better than other humans at it.

 

Actually YAC are attributable far more to receivers than to quarterbacks or systems:

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2007/08/who-gets-credit-for-yac.html

 

The Dolphins have a QB whose strength is accuracy in the short and intermediate ranges. Whether he's Tom Brady is immaterial when it comes to what kinds of receivers would be the best match for him.

Surely you don't think that because he's not Tom Brady, the team shouldn't consider his strengths in determining what kinds of receivers would best suit him?

 

Sorry to mention anything negative about Ryan, but this has more to do with Brady being special at something than A slight at Ryan. Hopefully your feelings aren't nearly as hurt now that you know what I meant.

 

Ummm re read that article, he attributes YAC to accurate QBs who can lead the WRs.