Sure, he probably called one team, but IIRC, wasn't the trade right after the domestic issue? Why not let the dust settle, test the market, maybe even wait until the draft? We didn't exactly get a lot for a premier WR that we had all leverage with. On a scale of what Loria & the Marlins did to this Percy Harvin trade, I'd put the Marshall one firmly in the middle; OK, but we could've gotten more. It's all semantics, though. My point it, there was a market for Harvin, enhanced by both Harvin's words and actions on the field. It didn't have anything to do with Spielman's "prowess".
Ravens have agreed to trade Anquan Boldin to the 49ers. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...an-boldin-to-be-traded-to-san-francisco-49ers That's another potential receiver candidate taken off the list.
Financial. You were talking about overpaying, so I'm assuming you meant financial. Market value is meaningless in terms of determining utility. I can make you a budget line and show you that we still have plenty of cap even if we were to invest above-market value in capital that would drastically enhance our teams performance. Again, if MB > MC, nothing else matters. ECON 2010.
Tannehill. Is he accurate on deep passes? I'm throwing it out there because its not been seen last season. I remember him overthrowing a wide open Hartline last season in the endzone (yes Hartline got open in the EZ)! Can Tanny utilize Wallace if we grab him?
Im not I agree with your characterization of the Steelers' situation. They're cutting and restructuring contracts like crazy, and the vast majority of their talent is past it's prime. They're defense is old as dirt, they've spent heavily on the OL with little to show for it. The Todd Haley experiment wasn't exactly a Broadway hit. Mendenhall and Lewis are following Wallace out the door. Heath Miller might be healthy, by December. Roethlisberger is always hurt, Batch and Leftwich are perfect examples of why it makes sense to over pay for a quality backup like Matt Moore. The Steelers are a sinking ship. With the amount of leaks theyve sprung I don't think they're in any position to set the market on Mike Wallace. They offered what they could, it wasn't enough. As for Jennings, I agree with you. They simply don't need him, and they probably couldn't afford him even if they did. I view him as a tactical, 2-3 year guy who can give us a quick jolt on offense. But he's 30. And injured. Probably in decline from a physical stand point. Why would we invest major money in a guy who is likely to give us diminishing returns over the life if his contract, instead of a guy just hitting his physical peak? He makes more sense for a team in win right now mode, like the Patriots.
**** you, dude. I had forgotten about that play. Thanks. I think MW will be able to get open deep enough times that it really won't matter. For every miss, there will be a 65 yd TD. It's also something the two will have about 5 months to perfect. I mean, how often DID Tannehill really throw deep compared to a guy like Roethlisberger? I agree that Tannehill hasn't shown the ability to pinpoint deep passes, but he also hasn't had a consistent opportunity to try. If he can't he can always improve. It's not unfixable.
This off season is so huge for us. Tomorrow is such a big day for our Dolphins...one of the biggest free agency periods of the past ten years for this franchise. Can jeffy make something happen? I really don't know, but at least people are talking about us and we are relevant.
In a vacuum, yes. In aggregate, no, not when a salary cap exists. Which would prove what exactly? You're not trying to derive the most utility from a single player. You're trying to derive the most utility from the aggregate of 53+ players. Again, if you're dealing in a vacuum. In this case, that is a false choice. The amount of resources spent on MB directly affects the amount of resources remaining for MD, ME, MF, etc.
He was very accurate in 2012. Among the 24 QBs who took at least 50% of snaps his accuracy percentage at 20+ yards was 7th best at 43%. Rodgers, Peyton, Newton, Brees and Wilson were clearly on another level, ranging 48 to 53%. There actually isn't very much separation between Matt Ryan, Ryan Tannehill, Matt Stafford, Andrew Luck, Eli Manning, Matt Schaub, Phil Rivers, Sam Bradford, Tom Brady and Joe Flacco. They all range tightly at 40 to 43%. Then you've got Jay Cutler (39%), Tony Romo (39%), Josh Freeman (37%) and Mark Sanchez (36%). Then Andy Dalton (33%), Carson Palmer (32%), Brandon Weeden (32%) and Ryan Fitzpatrick (28%). If you widen the participation pool, Colin Kaepernick becomes the new leader at 60% and RG3 comes in at 50%. However, coming out of TAMU he was less so. From among the group including Luck, Griffin, Tannehill and Weeden, he had the lowest completion percentage at 20+ yards downfield, at only 32%. Griffin had 60%, Weeden 52%, Luck 42%. When you adjust out drops that went to 62.5% for Griffin, 50.0% for Luck, 58% for Weeden...and still only 33% for Tannehill. Russell Wilson was at 35% completion though. Not sure what his adjusted completion was. He threw down field by far the most often of the group, though.
I'm sure this will open a new debate - but Hartline is normally open by 1-2 yards and the deep pass has to be nearly perfect to be completed. It seems in watching other QBs that a lot of deep balls aren't caught perfectly in stride, but completed either because the WR was able to get so much separation they could adjust to the ball, or because they went up and beat the DB for the ball. Watch RG3's top plays from last year. How often did Tannehill have guys that open / out jump a DB / turn a smaller gain into a larger one. I can't name ONE play like the ones his WR made. He has maybe 1-2 perfect throws, the rest are very much WR-aided. http://youtu.be/KCEs-6ZvQ2o (I don't know how to embed video - sorry)
I understand that, but economics doesn't directly win you a SB; the team does, especially the talented ones. We also have to look at our current window of opportunity for winning a SB, which is roughly 2-3 years while we still have Wake, Dansby, and possibly Starks & Soliai on defense and while also having Tannehill, Pouncey, Odrick, Lamar Miller, and Jon Martin working on inexpensive rookie contracts. IMO we're in go big or go home mode. We have a chance to become a contender this year and over the next few, and that doesn't happen if we worry more about economics than putting the best team on the field. If that's the route you wanna go then we might as well trade Wake, Dansby, and anyone else who will be past their prime by the time your economics route put us in SB contention mode, b/c you're basically saying it's better to delay making a run at a SB if it means not compromising ideal economics.
Marginal Cost factors in everything. If MB > MC, you buy. You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be, and there's no definitive answer because it's dependent on the perceived MB of Wallace to our front office. I'm telling you that market value should not be a factor. If it were, no beers would be sold at Sun Life, right?
Interesting. Did you guys realize Ryan Tannehill had the 4th best passer rating in the NFL last year off play-action? Yet, he had the 3rd WORST (among 25% participants) on non play-action passes. I don't know how to take that. It's anti-Henne.
And the team is built using economic principles. This is really a perversion of my argument. All I'm looking for is value-added.
There was really only one play there where the WR made the catch in traffic. The ones where the WRs were wide open deep were busted coverages just like Hartline's long one against Arizona. Being open by 1-2 yards is pretty good. Except when there is a busted coverage, you usually don't see much more than that in the NFL.
Sort of. I'm not going to pretend I'm smart enough to do that, because I'm not. 90% of the FA's could help us, and I wouldn't know where to begin. I WANT Wallace, Winston, Vollmer, Cook, etc, etc.... and while I believe any one of those guys could be had without economic repercussions, I wouldn't know where to go beyond that one investment. It's too involved, and why every team employs a guy full-time to figure it out. But, as it relates to the thread and discussion, if Ireland sees Wallace's MB > MC, we pounce.
By winning a SB. SB=value...... therefore, if overpaying a talented receiver to needfully boost the offense leads to a SB, then by default overpaying that WR essentially = value. What's the value in opting for the economics of it all if by doing so you're choosing to not be a contender? Again, Super Bowls aren't awarded to the team that economically sports the best contracts. There's no trophy for that. At some point you have to ask yourself how badly you want it and how close you think you are to it. If, as a GM, you feel you're a few offensive weapons away from making a SB run then you bring in those players, period. Honestly, how do you think it's supposed to be? Do you think an owner should be impressed hearing from his GM, "Well, we again obviously don't have the talent to compete this year but darn if we don't look great economically!"? Ireland has spent the past few years managing the cap and economics of it all in order TO allow a big contract like this b/c we're in a favorable cap situation this year and next.... and the only big contracts we have either aren't currently hurting us or can be dropped w/o hurting us.
I heard about that a few months ago. I wonder how much that had to do with the tipped passed. I believe that he had 4 or 5 tipped passes that resulted in interceptions, which seems abnormally high relative to other QB's. I don't believe any of those occurred on play-action passes though. There's usually a deeper drop, and a higher trajectory on PA pass attempts. I wonder how his YPA and completion percentage differentiate between PA and non-PA. Turnovers and TD's are usually more random from season to season
Watch a highlight video of Boldin's playoffs. He had more plays like that in 4 games than we had all year. And I'd argue that not all of those were busted coverage - having guys with speed gets you those types of situations. The fact that we can only name one instance of this last year seems telling.
I believe he connected on a very high rate of 20+ yard passes to Hartline who's not even a great vertical receiver, if that's any indication. a QB overthrew a receiver; let's now question his ability on vertical throws.
Tipped passes can't possibly make that big a difference. We're talking about 408 attempts on non play action passes.
Anyone who thinks this is an overreaction to the fan base??? Guess what, if they would've signed Jennings 75% of YOU would've been pleased. So to suggest that is ridiculous. This will be a deal that Ireland, Philbin and Sherman all see as a good fit. To those who claim Wallace is a bad fit for Philbins system, I apologize but I'm going to count on Joe knowing more about his system than you. Once this is official we can discuss all the options we have now created for RT and our offense in general.
Right, and we reach this conclusion in regards to Wallace how? No, its very complicated. You have to first determine the utility of every player, then you need to determine how to use your $120M to maximize the utility on the field. You also need to take it a step further and consider how the decisions of opposing teams affect the market, and in turn affect your cost.
Until I hear from the organization, I will continue to think Wallace is a poor fit. If we do sign him then I have no problem admitting I was wrong.
We had more than one play where a Dolphin caught the ball in traffic or made a great catch. Hartline had a few and so did Fasano. The Hartline TD against Arizona also wasn't the only time we got a WR wide open on a busted coverage. Marlon Moore's TD against St. Louis was another example that immediately comes to mind. [video=youtube;ceVF61zHMX8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceVF61zHMX8[/video]
If they resulted in interceptions, they can, which is what my post said. Not talking about incompletions. Do you have the full splits for non-PA and PA attempts?
I'm sorry but this just doesn't make sense. You're arguing that winning a Super Bowl is the best strategy to win the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl is the result, not the strategy. There is no differentiation between trying to win a Super Bowl and being economically sound. Economic principles are what leads to the SB.
Bess had one where if he continued jogging, he wouldn't had to jump and it would have been an easy touchdown.
Exactly. All of those guys provide utility. In a world of finite resources, you would sign them all. But the reality is that signing one affects your chances of signing others. Right, and this what is being debated, whether MB > MC, and to what degree.
"using economic principles" yes, but that doesn't mean those principles are set in stone for EVERY situation nor does it mean the economic principles supersede the overall goal of winning a SB. If economic principle interferes with SB hopes, then obviously there are times where economic principle can take a back seat. fair enough. Value-added comes in the form of winning a SB, not the player's contract. Show me a team full of 1 and 2 million dollar players performing at a 2 and 3 million dollar level and I'll show you a losing team. At some point the talent level has to be improved, and economics by itself does not do that.
It's simple. In this case we buy the value-added, b/c in this case the need for an offensive playmaker is the value-added. Wallace is the value-added, not his contract. Conversely, bringing in a lesser caliber receiver just b/c his contract looks better doesn't add any value b/c it doesn't address the current offensive problem; all it does is ties up a chunk of valuable cap space in 2 players who don't raise the talent level of the team high enough to be competitive. Average talent players lead to an average team; that truism matters more than adhering to strict economic principles.
If economic principle interferes with SB hopes? I'm not sure what this means. Economic principle can't take a backseat, its a constant. You have to determine which principles lead to winning. Value-added comes in the form of the player outperforming their compensation. Every team essentially has to spend the same amount, so the team with the most value-added will be the one with the most utility. Improving the talent level at one position but creating negative value-added means you're taking away talent overall, because you have less money to spend on finding players that add value.
This just doesn't make sense. The Miami Dolphins bringing in a lesser WR provides opportunity. You're completely overlooking the reality of opportunity cost. Signing Mike Wallace means you can't sign $12M worth of other players. Every single SB champion has been littered with average, even bad players.
I think $12 million per year is too much for Wallace, but I'd be comfortable with him at $9 million per. I have thought all along that we could be signed for less than $10 million per, but I have lost confidence in that belief after the Harvin trade which I assume makes Minny strong competition for Wallace. Anyhow, at what annual compensation value do you consider Wallace to be a fair value?
Hard to say at this point because I don't have insight into other FAs. How much is John Abraham going to cost, for example? Eric Winston? Jared Cook? Would Cook and Winston provide more utility than Wallace alone? By estimates, I'd say Wallace is worth around $7-8M. But really that can change if Greg Jennings only costs $5M, or something like that.
